<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style>@font-face {
font-family: Calibri;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Tahoma;
}
@page WordSection1 {margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; }
P.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
LI.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
A:visited {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.EmailStyle17 {
FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: "Arial","sans-serif"; COLOR: blue; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
SPAN.EmailStyle18 {
FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d
}
SPAN.msoIns {
COLOR: teal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
.MsoChpDefault {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt
}
</style><style id="owaParaStyle">P {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px
}
</style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="blue" fPStyle="1" ocsi="0">
<div style="FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; DIRECTION: ltr; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 13px">
<div>Ron (and other BC members who contacted me to ask that I provide alternative URS language):</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I appreciate the request, as I appreciate the hard work put in by Ron and Sarah on the draft.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That said, a few word changes will not suffice to alter ICA's<a></a> dissent, as we have an entirely different perspective. We represent individuals and companies with substantial investments in domain portfolios. They view domains in the same way that
most of you (and we) view trademarks -- as an intangible asset with substantial value. When a trademark rights protection is proposed it might be useful to ask whether<a></a> you would be willing to have one of your trademarks suspended, or forfeited, on the
basis of what is on the table. If not, then don't expect registrants to embrace it. In no way do we condone<a></a> trademark infringement, but proposed responses to it need to assure basic due process.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If a majority<a></a> wills it then the BC is within its rights to proffer a reworking of the same positions it has articulated<a></a> on prior occasions, and it should expect essentially the same results -- especially after BC members participated in an STI<a></a>
process that reworked the IRT<a></a> recommendations, and the STI's<a></a> work was embraced by the GNSO<a></a> and approved by the Board. If ICANN<a></a> staff have significantly altered the STI<a></a>'s consensus recommendations then that certainly should
be raised, but otherwise the rights protections for new gTLDs<a></a> have been pretty much baked into the DAG. Does anyone really think they will be reopened in any significant way?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As regards the specifics of the URS provision, we cannot agree that the URS should have the same substantive standard as the UDRP<a></a>. The URS was proposed by the IRT<a></a> as reserved<a></a> for "obvious", "no brainer" rights disputes, and was originally
proposed with a higher evidentiary standard to<a></a> distinguish<a></a> URS cases from UDRPs<a></a>. We don't think the BC's credibility on trademark matters is enhanced<a></a> when it consistently articulates a harder line than that of the IPC<a></a>, which
conceived of and oversaw the IRT<a></a>. As for urging that the URS lead to a domain transfer and not just a suspension -- again, this goes beyond<a></a> the IRT<a></a> recommendation and would likewise blur the distinction between the URS and UDRP<a></a>.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Finally, we find the discussion of the "impact" test for a finding of RDNH<a></a> in the URS to be confusing -- but we do believe that if a complainant advances deliberate falsehoods with the intent of having a favorable<a></a> impact on its complaint
then it is clearly guilty of attempting to abuse the available system.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Beyond the URS, our only other comment on the rights protection language is to note our strong questioning of a TM Clearinghouse regime in which an "identical match" is defined as "typographical variations". Identical means identical, not variations. Variations
to what degree? Having a trademark in one word doesn't provide a right to fire warning shots at tens of thousands<a></a> of possible variants of that word, multiple<a></a> degrees of separation away from it. If you're going to propose that variations be encompassed
then it really is incumbent to articulate some defining limits on that notion - "we know it when we see it" is really not adequate assurance for registrants. And, of course, these issues become even more problematic for dictionary words that are trademarked<a></a>
for various purposes. Please let's remember<a></a> that in most instances infringement can't just be determined by the name of a domain but requires a look at how it is being used.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Finally, to note an area of agreement<a></a> -- we share the concern that ICANN<a></a> devotes<a></a> inadequate resources to compliance, and indeed in Brussels we suggested publicly that it earmark a meaningful portion<a></a> of revenues from new gTLD<a></a>
applications to that end.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Summing up, we would have to oppose the URS regime that the majority of the BC seems to favor<a></a> as providing inadequate assurance of due process to registrants, and we think the overall position on rights protection is backwards looking given that
the STI<a></a> train has left the station. Again, this does not mean we are unsympathetic to the concerns of rights holders. Throughout the past 18 months we have advocated comprehensive UDRP<a></a> reform that would address the concerns of all parties across
the entire gTLD<a></a> space, and we continue to believe that a good faith collaboration could produce positive changes that could be put in place in tandem with the opening of new gTLDs<a></a>.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Regards to all,</div>
<div>Philip</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div><font size="2" face="Tahoma">
<p style="MARGIN: 4.8pt 0in; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><font color="navy" size="2" face="Arial Black"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><font face="Arial Black">Philip S. Corwin<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
Partner<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
Butera<a></a> & Andrews<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
Suite 500<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
Washington, DC 20004</font></span></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN: 4.8pt 0in; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><font color="navy" size="2" face="Arial Black"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><font face="Arial Black"><font face="arial black">202-347-6875 (office)</font><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font></span></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN: 4.8pt 0in; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><font color="navy" size="2" face="Arial Black"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><font face="Arial Black">202-347-6876 (fax</font>)</span></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN: 4.8pt 0in; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><font color="navy" size="2" face="Arial Black"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><font face="Arial Black">202-255-6172 (cell)</font></span></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN: 4.8pt 0in; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><font face="Arial"><font face="Arial Black"><em><i><font color="navy" size="2"><span style="COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">"Luck is the residue of design."</span></font></i></em><font color="navy" size="2"><span style="COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>--
Branch Rickey</span></font></font><font color="navy" size="2"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></span></font></font></p>
</font></div>
</div>
<div style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="DIRECTION: ltr" id="divRpF20543"><font color="#000000" size="2" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] on behalf of BRUEGGEMAN, JEFF (ATTSI) [jb7454@att.com]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 16, 2010 3:36 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Ron Andruff; frederick felman; bc-GNSO@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Thanks Ron and Sarah. AT&T supports filing comments and I like how you’ve updated them. While I was not involved in the original BC comments, I would note
that you could add a reference to the recommendation in the Economic Study that it may be wise for ICANC to continue its practice of introducing new gTLDs in discrete, limited rounds.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Jeff Brueggeman</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">AT&T Public Policy</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">(202) 457-2064</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></span> </p>
<div>
<div style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">From:</span></b><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Ron Andruff<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 16, 2010 12:34 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'frederick felman'; bc-GNSO@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue">Thanks to Mark Monitor and AIM for your notes of support for the circulated draft.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue">I encourage other members to give the doc a quick read. While it is several pages long, please note that it is the same document we submitted for DAGv3 so what we are asking
is for you to review the redlines and give your comments/amendments. To that end, Phil Corwin, can you send your suggested URS text asap?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue">Thanks again everyone for taking a moment to review the DAGv4 draft comments.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue">RA</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue"></span> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Ronald N. Andruff</span><span style="COLOR: blue"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">President</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">RNA Partners, Inc.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">220
</span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue">Fifth Avenue</span><span class="msoIns"><ins datetime="2010-07-16T12:30"></ins></span></span><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue">New York</span><span class="msoIns"><ins datetime="2010-07-16T12:30"></ins></span><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue">,
</span><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue">New York</span><span class="msoIns"><ins datetime="2010-07-16T12:30"></ins></span><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue">
</span><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue">10001</span><span class="msoIns"><ins datetime="2010-07-16T12:30"></ins></span></span><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR: blue"></span> </p>
</div>
<div>
<div style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" class="MsoNormal" align="center">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">From:</span></b><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> frederick felman [mailto:ffelman@markmonitor.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 16, 2010 12:21 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Ron Andruff; bc-GNSO@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4<br>
<b>Importance:</b> High</span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">MarkMonitor support the BC comments to DAGv4.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 7/15/10 7:20 AM, "Ron Andruff" <<a href="https://exchange.sierracorporation.com/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">randruff@rnapartners.com</a>> wrote:</span></p>
<p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Dear Members,<br>
<br>
Further to my reminder earlier this week regarding the need for a BC public comment on DAGv4, Sarah Deutsch and I have developed a draft for member review and comment. Effectively, we have taken the BC’s DAGv3 comments and added/amended based on (1) staff
having largely ignored our comments in DAGv2 and v3; and (2) utilized subsequent information that has come available in the interim (e.g., the latest economic study). FYI, Sarah drafted the RPM material and I took responsibility for the other elements.<br>
<br>
We ask that members review and comment on the document at your earliest convenience, so that we can meet the submission deadline of Wednesday, July 21st. Sorry for the late posting, but unfortunately with summer holidays and all, a few things are slipping
between the cracks...<br>
<br>
Thanks in advance for your soonest input. <br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
RA<br>
<br>
</span><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Ronald N. Andruff<br>
President<br>
</span><br>
<span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">RNA Partners, Inc.<br>
220 Fifth Avenue<br>
New York, New York 10001<br>
+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11<br>
</span><br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>