[bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4

[Deutsch, Sarah B]

Given the strong levels of concerns raised about the DAG from many
parties, I don't think we can characterize the current remedies as
having consensus, much less remarkable consensus.  Re-opening the UDRP
is a dangerous exercise that could wind up being a double edge sword..
Without a workable UDRP, IP owners will by default turn to suing
registrars.

In any event, it would be helpful if others from the BC could weigh in
on whether  the BC   c an support WIPO's comments.

Thanks,

Sarah


Sarah B. Deutsch 
Vice President & Associate General Counsel 
Verizon Communications 
Phone: 703-351-3044 
Fax: 703-351-3670 

 

________________________________

From: Phil Corwin [mailto:pcorwin at butera-andrews.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 10:57 AM
To: Deutsch, Sarah B; 'bc-gnso at icann.org'
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4


ICA would object to endorsing that portion of the letter that seeks to
reopen the URS debate and undo the remarkable consensus achieved by the
STI at the direction of the GNSO. 
Also, while I do not fully understand their last point, WIPO seems to
regard the UDRP as something they control rather than an ICANN consensus
policy they facilitate as arbitrator, and has opposed the community
reexamining it after 10 years of experience. The RAPWG, on the other
hand, has recommended a balanced PDP focused on UDRP reform. ICA
believes that placing all UDRP providers under standard contract should
be a key component of such reform and that doing so would enhance
uniform implementation that would benefit both complainants and
registrants. 
Philip S. Corwin 
Partner, Butera & Andrews 
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 
Suite 500 
Washington, DC 20004 
2026635347/Office 
2022556172/Cell 

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

________________________________

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org <owner-bc-gnso at icann.org> 
To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso at icann.org> 
Sent: Mon Jun 21 08:17:30 2010
Subject: [bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4 


All,
 
I'm passing along WIPO's recent excellent and succint comments to ICANN
on continuing problems in the DAG v. 4.  I would propose that the BC
support these comments as they directly affect the availability of
effective remedies for businesses to protect their brands and consumers
from confusion after the rollout of new gTLDs.
 

See:  http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/docs/icann160610.pdf.   

 

Sarah

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20100621/edde118f/attachment.html>