[bc-gnso] RE: Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal

[Phil Corwin]

To further elaborate, in reviewing the RAPWG Final report issued in May 2010 (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-29may10-en.htm ) I find the following-

Recommendation #2:
The RAPWG was evenly split regarding a second recommendation. The two opposing views are below.
Seven members supported View A: The RAPWG recommends the initiation of a Policy Development Process by requesting an Issues Report to investigate the appropriateness and effectiveness of how any Rights Protection Mechanisms that are developed elsewhere in the community (e.g. the New gTLD program) can be applied to the problem of cybersquatting in the current gTLD space.
In favour of View A (7): Cobb (CBUC), Felman (MarkMonitor), Queern (CBUC), Rasmussen (Internet Identity), Rodenbaugh (CBUC), Shah (MarkMonitor), Sutton (CBUC).
Seven members supported View B: The initiation of such a process is premature; the effectiveness and consequences of the Rights Protection Mechanisms proposed for the new TLDs is unknown. Discussion of RPMs should continue via the New TLD program. Experience with them should be gained before considering their appropriate relation (if any) to the existing TLD space.
In favour of View B (7): Aaron (RySG), Amadoz (RySG), Bladel (RrSG), Neuman (RySG), O'Connor (CBUC), Seltzer (NCSG), Young (RySG).

So, the WG's members split 7-7 on this, while CBUC participants (including MM)s split 6-1. However, the six who supported View A were in favor of initiating a PDP to investigate whether the new gTLD RPMs were appropriate and effective and could be applied to incumbent gTLDs - they did not favor immediate imposition of untested RPMs on incumbent registries without any further consideration, which is what the draft BC statement on .Net renewal would now advocate.

Registrants in new gTLDs will become so with fully informed notice that they may be subject to a URS proceeding. On the other hand, Registrants in .Net, the third largest registry (after .com and .de), have acquired portfolios and developed websites based on a belief that their domains were safe from cancelation or transfer unless they acted in violation of the UDRP. They control valuable domains,  and deserve a lot more in the way of due process and careful deliberation before the UDRP is altered or new expedited means of domain suspension are adopted for incumbent registries.


Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/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 Phil Corwin
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 2:15 PM
To: Steve DelBianco; 'bc-GNSO at icann.org GNSO list'
Cc: Elisa Cooper; Mike O'Connor
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal
Importance: High

Just to reiterate, ICA is unalterably opposed to imposing URS on .Net and we therefore strongly disagree and request that a voting period be initiated.

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/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 Steve DelBianco
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 5:12 PM
To: 'bc-GNSO at icann.org GNSO list'
Cc: Elisa Cooper; Mike O'Connor
Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal

ICANN is gathering responses to the proposed renewal of .NET registry contract.
Attached is a discussion draft for BC response prepared by Elisa Cooper  (with edits by Mikey O'Connor and Steve DelBianco)

On our 21-April BC member call, we discussed our approach for this comment, and there was universal support to request Verisign to have a "Thick WHOIS" service in .NET
Elise and Mikey added two additional requests based on new gTLD registry contract requirements:
 - Add TM Claims Service once the TM Clearinghouse is operating.
 - Add URS  (Uniform Rapid Suspension)
ICANN's Comment period closes 10-May.    Our member call on 21-Apr was 21 days before deadline, and today's draft is circulated 8 days before deadline.
We can submit this response later if members feel they need the entire 14-day review and discussion period.
Please review and post your suggestions/edits as soon as possible.   If there are no disagreements noted by 10-May, this response will be adopted without a voting period, and posted to ICANN.

For topic background, see http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#net-renewal
Thanks again to Elisa Cooper and Mikey O'Connor for drafting this comment.

Regards,
Steve DelBianco
Vice chair for policy coordination
________________________________

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3612 - Release Date: 05/03/11

________________________________

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3624 - Release Date: 05/08/11
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20110508/35d950fa/attachment.html>