[bc-gnso] RE: DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider

[Marilyn Cade]

Steve, thanks.  
I read the offer of a call to discuss and answer questions from BC members regarding the actual application with great interest. Can we prioritize that so that we are informed before a revised position?  I know that time is short before China, but perhaps this can be a priority? 
Also, as Gabi and Mahmoud both suggested a discussion on what the standards should be, shouldn't we include that in our discussion? 
I should note that I just traveled to Dubai to the ICANN MIG WORKS - Multistakeholder Works/Arab IGF Consultation and went onto MENA ICT Week. The interest in the region for  .arab in both Arabic and ASCII is high. I understand ICANN also just held meetings in Africa, Latin America, Singapore, S.Korea.  
The BC should expect a high interest in LATIM, Africa, and MENA and Asia for IDN registrations. 
Having qualified UDRP providers from the regions that are committed to IP rules is a critical part of protecting the Security, stability and reliability of the DNS. 
I see this as an opportunity for the BC, and was impressed that both Gabi and Mahmoud welcomed the BC discussion on retroactive standards. Clearly, we cannot do that alone as the BC, but we could be a catalyst.  Could this be a joint activity with the NPOC and IPC, for instance? 
But first, of course, we should have our own discussions about what kinds of requirements are needed and can be enforced.
I look forward to joining a call with the applicant to clarify and discuss outstanding issues, and further discussion on this matter. 
Marilyn Cade

From: sdelbianco at netchoice.org
To: bc-gnso at icann.org
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 21:52:34 +0000








By my count, there are 5 objections to the draft comment. (Cade, Szlak, Lattouf,  Halvorsen,  Andruff)



As I said when circulating the draft:



However, if 10% of BC membership objects or proposes changes to the prior positions expressed here, we'll hold a call to consider
 changing the present BC position.  We have until 13-Apr to debate and develop a new position, if it comes to that.  Keep in mind that any vote to change positions would require a majority vote of BC members.   (per Charter section 7.3)  














We have 46 members in good standing at this time, and 5 objections meets the 10% threshold.  I will ask Bene's help to schedule a call to discuss amending the position.  We have until 13-Apr to submit.
















From:
owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco

Sent: 21 March, 2013 04:56

To: bc - GNSO list

Subject: [bc-gnso] DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider



 






Attached is a draft comment from the BC regarding ICANN's call for comments on ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider (link).
   The initial comment period ends 22-Mar and reply comments close 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 volunteered as rapporteur for these comments.   


As mentioned on our member call last week, this draft does not propose any changes to previous BC positions.   Instead, the
 attached comment repeats the BC position expressed twice before: 



2011:  BC comments on Preliminary Issue Report on current state of the UDRP (link)


2010:  Business Constituency comment on recognizing new UDRP providers (link)












The 2010 BC position on ACDR’s initial application was that the BC could not support any accreditation of additional UDRP providers
 until ICANN developed a standard and enforceable mechanism to assure  uniformity in UDRP administration. BC members should note that non-support is distinct from outright opposition.


We are taking comments on this draft until midnight 21-Mar with plan to submit on 22-Mar.  In my view, there is no requirement for formal voting since
 the BC is not taking any new positions in this draft.






However, if 10% of BC membership objects or proposes changes to the prior positions expressed here, we'll hold a call to consider
 changing the present BC position.  We have until 13-Apr to debate and develop a new position, if it comes to that.  Keep in mind that any vote to change positions would require a majority vote of BC members.   (per Charter section 7.3)  






--



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/20130322/1a0decbc/attachment.html>