[bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4

[Phil Corwin]

Once again the ICA must dissent in regard to that portion of the proposed comment dealing with the URS. Without getting into great detail - other than noting that the domain transfer option, which was not even suggested by the IRT, would further blur the distinction between URS and UDRP - we would observe that to a large extent the details of the URS now in DAGv4 are based largely on an STI process in which the BC participated, and which reached consensus positions that were unanimously adopted by the GNSO and subsequently accepted by the ICANN Board.

That does not mean we are insensitive to the desire of rights holders to have a faster and less expensive process for the 70% of UDRP filings that result in a default judgment. However, our position remains that such objective can be best achieved through balanced and comprehensive UDRP reform that addresses the current UDRP concerns of both rights holders and registrants, that places UDRP providers under binding and enforceable agreements, and that applies to both incumbent and new gTLDs (which is the only path to having a UDRP that is truly Uniform).

We do believe that any BC comment proposed to be submitted, given the passage of time and events since BC positions were originally set, should be subject to a vote of the Constituency membership.

Thank you for considering our views.


Philip S. Corwin
Partner
Butera & Andrews
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004

202-347-6875 (office)

202-347-6876 (fax)

202-255-6172 (cell)

"Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey

________________________________
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 10:21 AM
To: bc-GNSO at icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4
Importance: High

Dear Members,

Further to my reminder earlier this week regarding the need for a BC public comment on DAGv4, Sarah Deutsch and I have developed a draft for member review and comment.  Effectively, we have taken the BC's DAGv3 comments and added/amended based on (1) staff having largely ignored our comments in DAGv2 and v3; and (2) utilized subsequent information that has come available in the interim (e.g., the latest economic study). FYI, Sarah drafted the RPM material and I took responsibility for the other elements.

We ask that members review and comment on the document at your earliest convenience, so that we can meet the submission deadline of Wednesday, July 21st.  Sorry for the late posting, but unfortunately with summer holidays and all, a few things are slipping between the cracks...

Thanks in advance for your soonest input.

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
President

RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10001
+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20100715/c5d3c504/attachment.html>