[bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: BC Letter on July UDRP Status Report

Steve DelBianco sdelbianco at netchoice.org
Thu Sep 5 00:31:44 UTC 2013

As noted on our last 2 member calls, ICANN recently decided it didn't need uniform contracts for its UDRP/URS providers. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/providers/uniformity-process-19jul13-en.pdf>)  Uniform contracts were a core issue for us on our comments regarding new URS providers. (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-acdr-proposal-01mar13/msg00007.html> to BC comment)

Phil Corwin has drafted a letter raising BC concerns and questions for ICANN leadership about this decision.  (below and attached).

There is no public comment deadline on this decision, since ICANN didn't allow for public comment at all.   So we will take the full 14-day review period as our charter requires.  (link<http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm>)

So before 17-Sep-2013, please REPLY ALL with comments regarding the attached text.  If 10% of members object to the letter after Phil has replied to suggestions, we'll have a poll and/or discussion to determine whether there is majority support.

Once approved, our Chair Elisa Cooper would send this letter to ICANN CEO and Board Chair, where it would show as Correspondence. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence>)

Thanks to Phil Corwin for taking the initiative, and for being ready to handle member questions and suggestions.

Vice chair for policy coordination

From: Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>
Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:04 PM
To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>>
Subject: Draft BC Letter on July UDRP Status Report


I have finally completed a draft letter for BC member consideration. This follows up on my July 21st e-mail in which I closed as follows:

In conclusion, I hereby request that BC leadership and members consider preparing and sending a communication to the CEO and the Board raising concerns about the timing of the release of this document, the lack of public comment or Board review prior to its release, and its potentially prejudicial impact on future community discussion of the UDRP. I leave whether that communication should also take issue with any of its substantive conclusions up to the BC membership.

The draft letter does not take any substantive positions on the statements in the report – it just states the BC’s long-held position on the need for a standard and enforceable mechanism between ICANN and UDRP providers, and asks a series of questions about some of the statements in the Report.

I certainly appreciate any feedback on the form and substance of the letter, as well as the proper way to proceed.

Best regards,

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20130905/5bc45afb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICANN-UDRP Uniformity of process-BC_response-Draft[3].docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 24951 bytes
Desc: ICANN-UDRP Uniformity of process-BC_response-Draft[3].docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20130905/5bc45afb/ICANN-UDRPUniformityofprocess-BC_response-Draft3.docx>

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list