I agree. I don't think it's safe to assume there will be sunrise periods. We need to have more discussion about the drawbacks and costs of these provisions. NCUC generally does not support sunrise periods because they give unwarranted privileges to trademark holders, so we need to be shown how they will benefit the Internet community before we are prepared to move forward with them. Thanks, Robin Thomas Keller wrote:

This document seems very much to presuppose that there will be a Sunrise Peroid. From my understanding the TF should be discussing the merits and drawbacks of such an process. I do not think that we have an overall consensus right now that the Sunrise mechanism is the right way to move on.

As side note I would like to see the section "Suggested Working Group Membership" being held more what I would call "nationality neutral".

Best,

tom

Am 11.01.2007 schrieb Ross Rader:

...

I note that this focuses on process, whereas the GNSO is focused on policies. It might make some sense if this were redraft to focus on examining the appropriateness of sunrise policy vs. that of sunrise processes. The processes are typically implemented after the policies have been implemented via the various parties. The GNSO can only really contemplate changes and make recommendations at a policy level.

Rosette, Kristina wrote:

...

All,

Attached please find a draft statement of work for the Sunrise Working Group.

Please circulate online any questions, comments, and/or suggestions. We will try to answer, incorporate, and/or organize before the Council Meeting next week.

Kristina Rosette and Ute Decker, drafters

Gruss,

tom

(__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w