[bc-gnso] UPDATE: FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider

[John Berard]

I will vote for #2, but I'd like to add that the BC does it because of our studied view of the specific application.

Berard

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 4, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org> wrote:

> Two updates to the review/vote I circulated on 2-April (below):
> 
> 1. Benedetta sent minutes & transcript of 28-March call among BC members and representatives of ACDR (link)
> 
> 2. ACDR later circulated written answers to several of the questions discussed on the call (link)
> 
> Remember: Please review and reply with your vote before 12-April.
> 
> --Steve
> 
> 
> From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
> Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 12:03 AM
> To: 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso at icann.org>
> Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider
> 
> ICANN has called for comments regarding ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider (link).  The comment period ends 13-Apr.  (UDRP is the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy)
> 
> Note: ACDR is the Arab Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution, and is affiliated with BC Member Talal Abu-Ghazaleh. 
>  
> Phil Corwin and Nat Cohen volunteered as rapporteurs for these comments.  We circulated Phil's initial draft on 20-Mar.  The BC held a conference call on 28-March with ACDR representatives to discuss the first draft (transcript available on request).   
> 
> As a result of that discussion, the BC is now considering two alternative positions:
> 
> Version 1:  The existing BC position, with no comment on the merits of ACDR's proposal.  This would maintain the present BC position that no new providers should be approved until ICANN has standards for UDRP administration.
> 
> Version 2: Amend the present BC position and give "Qualified Endorsement" to ACDR's proposal. 
> This alternative repeats the BC's prior rationale for ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration.  It then modifies the prior position to acknowledge that ICANN may approve ACDR's proposal since they have acknowledged process concerns, answered questions, and agreed to adopt any standards ICANN develops.  The endorsement is "qualified" in that the BC requests ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration, and suggests a staff-driven process with community input.
> 
> Voting:
> 
> BC members should vote for either Version 1 or Version 2.  
> 
> To vote, please reply to this email indicating your support for Version 1 or Version 2. 
> 
> Voting will close on 12-April so that we can submit the comment on 13-April.
> 
> Per our charter, a simple majority prevails and the required quorum is 50 percent of paid BC members.
> 
> As always, members can REPLY ALL at any time to share their views on this issue.
> 
> Steve DelBianco
> Vice chair for policy coordination
> <BC Comment on ACDR proposal as UDRP provider [v1].docx>
> <BC Comment on ACDR proposal as UDRP provider [v2].docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20130404/013cf034/attachment.html>