<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>We support Ayesha’s proposed statement.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: <a href="owner-bc-gnso@icann.org">owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</a> <<a href="owner-bc-gnso@icann.org">owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</a>><BR>
To: Rick Anderson <<a href="RAnderson@interborder.ca">RAnderson@interborder.ca</a>>; <a href="bc-gnso@icann.org">bc-gnso@icann.org</a> <<a href="bc-gnso@icann.org">bc-gnso@icann.org</a>><BR>
Sent: Tue Jun 23 21:28:29 2009<BR>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I thought the original brief statement reflected the discussion<BR>
yesterday in the BC and the key is for members to submit their own<BR>
comments to the consultation. My sense is the statement should be very<BR>
brief so that members can express their own perspectives directly to the<BR>
consultation process.<BR>
<BR>
To help reach a statement we can all support, I propose the following:<BR>
<BR>
"The BC recognizes the work and efforts of all those who participated in<BR>
the IRT. The BC believes that this report is productive step forward in<BR>
addressing several issues with respect to new gTLDs.<BR>
<BR>
The BC urges its members to post their individual comments on the<BR>
substance of the report at Public comment space<BR>
<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm">http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm</a>"<BR>
<BR>
Regards,<BR>
Ayesha<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: <a href="owner-bc-gnso@icann.org">owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org">mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</a>] On Behalf<BR>
Of Rick Anderson<BR>
Sent: mercredi 24 juin 2009 03:01<BR>
To: <a href="bc-gnso@icann.org">bc-gnso@icann.org</a><BR>
Subject: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Interborder agrees with George's improved draft.<BR>
<BR>
cheers/Rick<BR>
<BR>
Rick Anderson<BR>
EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd<BR>
email: <a href="randerson@interborder.ca">randerson@interborder.ca</a><BR>
cell: (403) 830-1798<BR>
office: (403) 750-5535<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: <a href="owner-bc-gnso@icann.org">owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</a> <<a href="owner-bc-gnso@icann.org">owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</a>><BR>
To: <a href="'mike@haven2.com">'mike@haven2.com</a>' <<a href="mike@haven2.com">mike@haven2.com</a>>; <a href="'icann@leap.com">'icann@leap.com</a>'<BR>
<<a href="icann@leap.com">icann@leap.com</a>><BR>
Cc: <a href="'bc-gnso@icann.org">'bc-gnso@icann.org</a>' <<a href="bc-gnso@icann.org">bc-gnso@icann.org</a>><BR>
Sent: Tue Jun 23 18:43:48 2009<BR>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
ICA supports George's alternative and dissents on the original text.<BR>
Philip S. Corwin<BR>
Partner, Butera & Andrews<BR>
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW<BR>
Suite 500<BR>
Washington, DC 20004<BR>
2026635347/Office<BR>
2022556172/Cell<BR>
<BR>
"Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey<BR>
<BR>
----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: <a href="owner-bc-gnso@icann.org">owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</a> <<a href="owner-bc-gnso@icann.org">owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</a>><BR>
To: George Kirikos <<a href="icann@leap.com">icann@leap.com</a>><BR>
Cc: BC gnso <<a href="bc-gnso@icann.org">bc-gnso@icann.org</a>><BR>
Sent: Tue Jun 23 20:30:43 2009<BR>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
i stand with George on this one.<BR>
<BR>
mikey<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On Jun 23, 2009, at 7:24 PM, George Kirikos wrote:<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
> Hello,<BR>
><BR>
> We do not support that proposed BC statement on the IRT. We propose an<BR>
> alternative and balanced statement as follows:<BR>
><BR>
> ----- start proposed statement ------<BR>
> "The BC appreciates the effort of the IP constituency's work in<BR>
> creating a proposal that would protect trademark holders interests.<BR>
> However, much work remains to be done to ensure that the needs of<BR>
> trademark holders are balanced against the needs of domain registrants<BR>
> for certainty, predictability and due process. The BC looks forward to<BR>
> working with the IP constituency, and other constituencies within the<BR>
> GNSO on an improved version of the IRT's report, one that can achieve<BR>
> consensus support of all stakeholders."<BR>
> ----- end proposed statement ------<BR>
><BR>
> As we have stated previously, we have grave concerns about the IRT,<BR>
> and the "answers" provided by the members of the IRT team have been<BR>
> spurious. To give just two concrete examples (there are many more if<BR>
> one reads our prior comments submitted in the official comment<BR>
> periods):<BR>
><BR>
> a) No good reason has been provided as to why the IRT proposes that<BR>
> *all* domain names, irregardless of age, should be subject to the URS,<BR>
> especially given that markholders ultimately would want the URS to<BR>
> apply to legacy TLDs such as com/net/org. The URS is an extraordinary<BR>
> procedure that would take down a domain name with short notice (so<BR>
> short that a registrant on vacation may not receive actual notice of a<BR>
> complaint). Such an extraordinary procedure should be targeted only<BR>
> towards the most abusive domain names, one where "time is of the<BR>
> essence." Time is not of the essence if a domain name is 10 years old!<BR>
> The onus should be on markholders to not delay in bringing complaints<BR>
> if there is truly a matter that is "urgent" and requires the URS. We<BR>
> proposed that the URS either apply only to domains younger than a<BR>
> certain age (e.g. 6 months), or that the time to respond to complaints<BR>
> be a function of the age of the domain (e.g. 15 days + the age of the<BR>
> domain in months). Businesses and consumers require certainty and due<BR>
> process, and a system like the URS as proposed that would threaten<BR>
> their legitimate domain name, one that they've owned for years, denies<BR>
> them both certainty and due process.<BR>
><BR>
> b) No good reason has been provided as to why the IRT proposes to<BR>
> limit notification to registrants to only 2 emails and 1 letter by<BR>
> post for the URS. Email is unreliable given the amount of spam that<BR>
> exists, and international mail might not be received in time to<BR>
> respond to a complaint, given the slow delivery times of the<BR>
> international postal system. We specifically pointed to opt-in fax as<BR>
> a highly reliable system to notify registrants of complaints, and the<BR>
> IRT provides excuses that leave objective people incredulous. Footnote<BR>
> 30 of the report stated:<BR>
><BR>
> "The IRT decided that such requirements would add significant<BR>
> complexity and cost to the system due to time zones and national and<BR>
> local laws regarding faxing and calling."<BR>
><BR>
> This is simply astonishing for the IRT to say, given that (a) the<BR>
> faxes are 100% opt-in, and (b) the UDRP has been providing fax<BR>
> notification for over 10 years without issues. The cost to send a<BR>
> 1-page fax notification of a complaint (using email to fax gateways)<BR>
> is on the order of 10 cents, far below the postal delivery stamp fees.<BR>
><BR>
> A legitimate URS complaint by a markholder will not be impacted if the<BR>
> registrant receives proper and timely notification (actual notice) by<BR>
> fax. The URS was supposedly intended for "clear cut" cases, and<BR>
> notification shouldn't impact the registrant's ability to defend a<BR>
> "clear cut" case of abuse.<BR>
><BR>
> However, illegitimate and frivolous URS complaints with weak claims<BR>
> that hope to win by default due to lack of registrant notification<BR>
> will greatly benefit by lack of fax notification, lack of actual<BR>
> notice. A legitimate registrant will strongly defend their domain name<BR>
> and is hurt by lack of the ability to respond and prepare a defence.<BR>
><BR>
> The only logical conclusion is that the IRT has intentionally acted to<BR>
> put the rights of illegitimate and frivolous URS complainants with<BR>
> weak claims ahead of legitimate domain registrants with strong<BR>
> defences, by putting up spurious obstacles to the domain registrants<BR>
> receiving actual notice and due process. This is no surprise given the<BR>
> IP's pro-complainant dominance of the IRT process.<BR>
><BR>
> While the IRT members posture in public that their report was a<BR>
> "compromise" I hope it is clear from just the above two cases (and<BR>
> there are more) that it truly was not any compromise, but was an<BR>
> extreme and unbalanced report.<BR>
><BR>
> Legitimate domain registrants like my company and others in the BC and<BR>
> other constituencies are prepared to work with the IP constituency to<BR>
> come up with a balanced solution within the GNSO process. But, until<BR>
> such time, the IRT report should continue to draw skepticism within<BR>
> the ICANN community, and be rejected.<BR>
><BR>
> Sincerely,<BR>
><BR>
> George Kirikos<BR>
> 416-588-0269<BR>
> <a href="http://www.leap.com/">http://www.leap.com/</a><BR>
><BR>
> P.S. One can read our early substantial comments on the IRT, indeed<BR>
> with novel approaches (such as the concept of easements), that were<BR>
> ignored by the IRT:<BR>
><BR>
> <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00000.html">http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00000.html</a><BR>
> <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00015.html">http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00015.html</a><BR>
> <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00016.html">http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00016.html</a><BR>
> <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00000.html">http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00000.html</a><BR>
<BR>
- - - - - - - - -<BR>
phone 651-647-6109<BR>
fax 866-280-2356<BR>
web www.haven2.com<BR>
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, <BR>
Google, etc.)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or<BR>
privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event<BR>
this e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender's company do not<BR>
waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any<BR>
dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance<BR>
on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the intended<BR>
recipient is prohibited. If you have been sent this e-mail in error,<BR>
please destroy all copies and notify sender at the above e-mail address.<BR>
<BR>
Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this<BR>
e-mail message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender's<BR>
company accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus<BR>
transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of communication, e-mail<BR>
communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized<BR>
parties. If you do not wish to communicate by e-mail, please notify<BR>
sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent is assumed.<BR>
Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as<BR>
encryption) unless specifically requested.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>