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

[Ron Andruff]

I support #2.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA <http://www.rnapartners.com>  Partners, Inc.

  _____  

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Steve DelBianco
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 7:52 PM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] UPDATE: FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for
ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider

 

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
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg03236.html> )

 

2. ACDR later circulated written answers to several of the questions
discussed on the call (link
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg03237.html> )

 

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
<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm>
).  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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20130405/c8d47b31/attachment.html>