With
all respect to Michael, I do not believe
this proposal should be accepted at this
time.
Questions
7 and 8 remain unanswered. These are
important threshold questions that the
proponent should complete prior to
submission. Otherwise the work group is
bogged down considering or perhaps even
assisting in the development of basic
rationale for the proposal. This should be
undertaken by the proponent.
Thus,
here we have a proposal to significantly
expand the scope of notification. It would,
for example, trigger a notice for Apple
Computers if I wanted to register Pineapple.
xyz or a trademark holder for “THE” if I
wanted to register Theater.club or for Nike
if I wanted to register Airplane.xyz
The
proposal provides no evidence that would
support the proposal (Question 7).
Nor
does it reference any data reviewed by the
Sub Team that show any need to address the
issue (Question 8).
With
a properly completed questionnaire this may
become a legitimate request but it currently
does not meet the requirements IMHO.
Paul
Keating
Unfortunately, I
will not be able to attend the call today
due to pressing business matters. Because
the schedule calls for discussion of
answers and proposals regarding Question 4
regarding whether the Exact Match standard
for sending Claims Notices should be
extended, and I wish to resubmit my “Exact
Match Plus” proposal for either the Sub
Team’s approval or approval for placing
before the community for Public Comment, I
am attaching my proposal – which I have
revised to the form for submission of
proposals. I have not completed the
references to Evidence, and had hoped to
do so in part today during our call. I
shall, however, complete this if granted
time to do so before our next call.
Thank you all for
your consideration and indulgence,
Michael R.
_______________________________________________
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg