[bc-gnso] BC Reply Comment on Strawman proposal

[Steve DelBianco]

On 15-Jan, the BC filed substantive comments on the TM Clearinghouse Strawman solution. (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00070.html>)

We did not anticipate needing to also file a "Reply" comment.  But the ExCom now believes we should file, since we heard last week about the CEO's wavering support for the Strawman proposal.

Feb 5 is deadline for "Reply" comments on this topic. So we are proposing a brief Reply comment summarizing comments filed and re-emphasizing key parts of our initial Strawman comments.

Below are DRAFT Reply Comments from the Business Constituency, regarding TM Clearinghouse Strawman Solution (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-strawman-30nov12-en.htm>)

Of the 88 comments filed on the Strawman solution, 67 supported the Strawman solution and/or called for even stronger rights protection mechanisms, such as Limited Preventive Registrations (LPR).   In other words, 76 percent of commenters favor implementation changes such as advance Sunrise notice and enhanced TM claim notices.

Unsurprisingly, these supporting comments came from businesses that are negatively affected by having to purchase defensive registrations and engage in other expensive and often inadequate mechanisms to protect their consumers against confusion or outright fraud using second level domain names.

While the BC does not believe that new gTLD operators will proactively solicit fraudulent registrations, we believe the comments submitted show that present anti-abuse mechanisms are simply inadequate.  That is why commenters from around the world have endorsed the minimal implementation improvements proposed in the Strawman.

The additional Strawman suggestion for Limited Preventive Registrations (LPR) also found wide support in comments filed.  We believe that LPR could be done as a matter of implementation.   But if ICANN determines that LPR is new policy, we believe that GNSO Council should embark on a fast-track policy development process (PDP).  The gNSO Council has in the past done at least one fast-track PDP, which entailed face-to-face working sessions and significant time commitment from Councilors.   ICANN should also commit to provide support for a fast track PDP, such as consulting services and travel funding for PDP participants.


Unless we see objections from at least four BC members, we will file the above comment before end of day tomorrow, 5-Feb-2013.

--
Steve DelBianco
Vice chair for policy coordination
Business Constituency



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20130205/39a8e7f8/attachment.html>