<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18928"><!--[if !mso]>
<STYLE>v\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
o\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
w\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
.shape {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
</STYLE>
<![endif]-->
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: Cambria Math;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Calibri;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Tahoma;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Verdana;
}
@font-face {
font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;
}
@page Section1 {size: 612.0pt 792.0pt; margin: 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt; }
P.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
LI.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
P.MsoBodyTextIndent2 {
FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; MARGIN-LEFT: 0cm; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Body Text Indent 2 Char"; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto
}
LI.MsoBodyTextIndent2 {
FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; MARGIN-LEFT: 0cm; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Body Text Indent 2 Char"; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto
}
DIV.MsoBodyTextIndent2 {
FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; MARGIN-LEFT: 0cm; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Body Text Indent 2 Char"; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.BodyTextIndent2Char {
FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Body Text Indent 2"; mso-style-name: "Body Text Indent 2 Char"
}
SPAN.apple-style-span {
mso-style-name: apple-style-span
}
SPAN.EmailStyle20 {
FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d; mso-style-type: personal
}
SPAN.EmailStyle23 {
FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d; mso-style-type: personal-reply
}
.MsoChpDefault {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-style-type: export-only
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
</STYLE>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
lang=EN-GB link=blue vLink=purple>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=168574621-19072010><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>This makes a lot of sense. I do not believe
that the BC should somehow accept watered down variations of its existing
positions. I would support a quick review of our prior
positions, including the minority report, to ensure that the concerns
we express in the DAG 4 comments are at least
consistent. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=168574621-19072010><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial><BR>Sarah</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial><BR><BR><FONT color=#000080>Sarah B.
Deutsch <BR>Vice President & Associate General Counsel <BR>Verizon
Communications <BR>Phone: 703-351-3044 <BR>Fax: 703-351-3670
</FONT><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid@dndrc.com]
<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, July 19, 2010 5:18 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Deutsch, Sarah B;
'Jon Nevett'<BR><B>Cc:</B> 'Phil Corwin'; michaelc@traveler.com;
mike@haven2.com; jb7454@att.com; randruff@rnapartners.com;
ffelman@markmonitor.com; bc-GNSO@icann.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Re[2]:
[bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=Section1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">In
short there may be a simple solution to the deadlock.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">The
BC has existing positions (especially the BC minority report and I think also
with the comments Ron is working with-need to check). <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">In
such a case the current positions hold. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">If
members wish to water these positions down then it would be necessary for such
positions to be reach consensus – ie. the burden to change the positions would
be on those suggesting watering down. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Hence,
in my view if there is no consensus on any changes the default position or
positions consistent thereto would be repeated as BC comments.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-US>Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-US>Zahid Jamil<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"
lang=EN-US>Barrister-at-law<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-US>Jamil & Jamil<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-US>Barristers-at-law<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"
lang=EN-US>219-221 Central Hotel Annexe<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"
lang=EN-US>Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"
lang=EN-US>Cell: +923008238230<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"
lang=EN-US>Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"
lang=EN-US>Fax: +92 21 35655026<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><A
href="http://www.jamilandjamil.com/"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt"
lang=EN-US>www.jamilandjamil.com</SPAN></A></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"
lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 7pt"
lang=EN-US>Notice / Disclaimer<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 7pt"
lang=EN-US>This message contains confidential information and its contents are
being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the
intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this
e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have
received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents
above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil,
Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney
client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of
any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it
in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or
some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and
consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0cm; PADDING-LEFT: 0cm; PADDING-RIGHT: 0cm; 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"
lang=EN-US>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-US> Zahid
Jamil [mailto:zahid@dndrc.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> 19 July 2010 17:00<BR><B>To:</B>
'Deutsch, Sarah B'; 'Jon Nevett'<BR><B>Cc:</B> 'Phil Corwin';
michaelc@traveler.com; mike@haven2.com; jb7454@att.com;
randruff@rnapartners.com; ffelman@markmonitor.com;
bc-GNSO@icann.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public
Comments on DAGv4<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Dear
All,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Have
been following in this discussion intermittently. Here are some of my
quick thoughts. The IRT is not and has not been the yard stick by which BC
comments or views have been formed in the past. BC did support the IRT but
clearly stated that the IRT had not gone far enough. If we take the
argument that the IRT position should be followed solely then please keep the
GPML in.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">We
currently have no solutions for the defensive registration problem. The
URS is not Rapid. There is no transfer of the domain in a URS. The
Trademark Clearinghouse is not a Rights Protection Mechanism (admittedly).
So what are we really left with. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Jon’s
discussions here in the BC are reminiscent of the arguments Jon made in the IRT
and the STI where, at the time, Jon was representing Registrar interests.
He has been a valuable member of both groups and I look forward to his arguing
in favour of BC positions now with the same, if not greater,
zeal.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Any
argument that amounts to –they didn’t listen to us in the past so let’s give up
and settle for what we can does not address the problem. There is much to
be said about consistency. I would encourage the BC to also take from the
existing BC minority position in the STI report. That is a BC position and
hence, it ought to be repeated where appropriate (have attached the STI report –
BC minority position is at page 31). We should be lobbying for better
protection, in my view, not less since ICANN staff proposals sideline and ignore
business and trademark interests.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Lets
also remember that the BC position has been vindicated in the Economic Analysis
which asks that limited rounds be undertaken and clearly underscores the
economic cost of the defensive registration problem. Just because we
haven’t worked on how limited rounds would be implemented it doesn’t mean that
the concept is flawed. The Economic study makes cogent arguments in its
favour. Its now up to ICANN staff and possibly community to come up with
mechanisms.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Also
the Economic Analysis clearly finds that there need to be surveys and studies
(details in the report) which should be conducted and then mechanisms developed
based on actual statistics. Clearly showing that ICANN staff has run away
with the new gTLD proposal without adequate study and analysis. Hence,
mention of the Analysis is quite pertinent and I support Jeff’s views in
this.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Have
pasted my Brussels email below:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black">My edits in
[...]</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"> </SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"> </SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"> </SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black">Economic
Study:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black">In light of the newly
released economic study what steps are envisioned by ICANN staff:
including:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black">Survey
(how)<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black">Study
(how)<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black">Past
introductions<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black">Methodlogies<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black">In particular re TM,
user confusion (notwithstanding the current RPMs)<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black">P – 16 – 17
:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black">Subsidies<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black">Adjust Fee vs.
Favourable approval process</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black">25 - </SPAN><I><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">Potential consumer confusion or fragmentation of the
Internet</SPAN></I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black">26 - </SPAN><I><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">Increased registration costs for companies that feel the
need to be</SPAN></I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><I><SPAN style="COLOR: black">in multiple places on the
Internet</SPAN></I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black">28 - </SPAN><I><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">Defensive registrations</SPAN></I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black">29 - </SPAN><I><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">Increased cost to companies to police new gTLD
registrations that</SPAN></I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><I><SPAN style="COLOR: black">violate trademarks or
copyrights [<B>VIGILANCE</B>]</SPAN></I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black">44 - </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRomanPSMT; BACKGROUND: yellow; COLOR: black">74
percent of the registered domain names either were “under construction,”
for</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRomanPSMT; BACKGROUND: yellow; COLOR: black">sale,
returned an error, or did not return a website at all. Thus, at
least in the early stages of .biz, the great majority of registered domain names
were not being used to provide content to users, again indicating that the
registrations may have been defensive.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black">59 –
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRomanPSMT; COLOR: black">105<B>. A survey of
registrants would likely be needed to disentangle the extent to
which</B></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRomanPSMT; COLOR: black">duplicate registrations are
either purely defensive (and constitute external costs) or generate benefits to
the registrants</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRomanPSMT; COLOR: black">. A survey of trademark
owners could provide information on the reasons for registration of domain names
in multiple gTLDs, such as how registrants use the additional gTLDs
(</SPAN><I><SPAN style="COLOR: black">e.g., </SPAN></I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRomanPSMT; COLOR: black">to provide new content or
purely to redirect to another site) and whether the registrants expect to reach
a new audience with the new gTLD.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRomanPSMT; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 7pt">115</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 15pt">[Zahid
Note - SURVEY requested by IRT hasn’t been undertaken by Staff either]
</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black">61 - </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRomanPSMT; COLOR: black">We recommend that ICANN
consider the potential for consumer confusion in deciding how quickly to proceed
with the introduction of gTLDs, possibly incorporating some methodology to
measure consume confusion as new gTLDs are rolled out over time.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black">62 - </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRomanPSMT; COLOR: black">This potential project
would use case studies to examine the likely costs and benefits in broad
categories of new gTLDs.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRomanPSMT; COLOR: black"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><U><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRomanPSMT; COLOR: black">Such studies would lead to
recommendations on how ICANN could craft its application process and ongoing
rules to lessen the likelihood of delegating gTLDs that will have negative net
social benefits and to enhance the net social benefits from gTLDs that are
designated.</SPAN></U></B><B><U><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRomanPSMT; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 7pt">117</SPAN></U></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black">para 117 –
end:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRomanPSMT; COLOR: black">117. First, it may be wise
to continue ICANN’s practice of <B>introducing new gTLDs in discrete, limited
rounds</B>. It is impossible to predict the costs and benefits of new gTLDs
accurately. By proceeding with multiple rounds, the biggest likely
costs—consumer confusion and trademark protection—can be evaluated in the
earlier rounds to make more accurate predictions about later rounds.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRomanPSMT; COLOR: black"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRomanPSMT; COLOR: black">118. Second, in order to
derive the greatest informational benefits from the next round of</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRomanPSMT; COLOR: black">gTLD introductions, ICANN
should <B>adopt practices that will facilitate the assessment of the net
benefits from the initial rollout of additional gTLDs</B>. Specifically, ICANN
should require registries, registrars, and domain names registrants to provide
information sufficient to allow the estimation of the costs and benefits of new
gTLDs. For example, there might be mandatory reporting of trademark
disputes.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-US>Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-US>Zahid Jamil<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"
lang=EN-US>Barrister-at-law<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-US>Jamil & Jamil<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-US>Barristers-at-law<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"
lang=EN-US>219-221 Central Hotel Annexe<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"
lang=EN-US>Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"
lang=EN-US>Cell: +923008238230<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"
lang=EN-US>Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"
lang=EN-US>Fax: +92 21 35655026<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><A
href="http://www.jamilandjamil.com/"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt"
lang=EN-US>www.jamilandjamil.com</SPAN></A></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"
lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 7pt"
lang=EN-US>Notice / Disclaimer<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 7pt"
lang=EN-US>This message contains confidential information and its contents are
being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the
intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this
e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have
received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents
above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil,
Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney
client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of
any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it
in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or
some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and
consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0cm; PADDING-LEFT: 0cm; PADDING-RIGHT: 0cm; 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"
lang=EN-US>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-US>
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] <B>On Behalf Of
</B>Deutsch, Sarah B<BR><B>Sent:</B> 19 July 2010 15:26<BR><B>To:</B> Jon
Nevett<BR><B>Cc:</B> Zahid Jamil; Phil Corwin; michaelc@traveler.com;
mike@haven2.com; jb7454@att.com; randruff@rnapartners.com;
ffelman@markmonitor.com; bc-GNSO@icann.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Re[2]:
[bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Jon,</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Thanks
for clarifying. If this is the case, then it looks like ICANN kept
the high burden of proof for trademark owners on the one hand and ditched
other parts of the deal, including that it be in exchange for a rapid
(hence the "R" in the name URS) process.</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">As a
practical matter, I don't see how any trademark owner will be able to prove
anything more than they already prove in filing a UDRP case. For
example, in most cases, you'll know the infringer took your domain name, which
is identical or confusingly similar to your trademark. You may or may not
have screen shots of ads on their infringing webpages. You may
or may not have accurate WHOIS information about the infringer. You may or
may not have evidence that the infringer stole other third
party trademarks. </SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">There is
no certainty for trademark owners about what is meant by "clear and convincing
evidence" and how to meet that standard over the evidence we typically
submit in the UDRP process. Obviously, there's no way to know
the subjective intent of the infringer without full blown litigation and
discovery. At a minimum, ICANN needs to give more guidance on
this issue.</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">This
burden of evidence standard is just one more reason why brand owners will avoid
using the URS. </SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Sarah</SPAN><BR><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Sarah B.
Deutsch <BR>Vice President & Associate General Counsel <BR>Verizon
Communications <BR>Phone: 703-351-3044 <BR>Fax: 703-351-3670 </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" class=MsoNormal align=center><SPAN lang=EN-US>
<HR align=center SIZE=2 width="100%">
</SPAN></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-US>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-US> Jon
Nevett [mailto:jon@nevett.net] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, July 19, 2010 3:10
PM<BR><B>To:</B> Deutsch, Sarah B<BR><B>Cc:</B> Zahid Jamil; Phil Corwin;
michaelc@traveler.com; mike@haven2.com; jb7454@att.com;
randruff@rnapartners.com; ffelman@markmonitor.com;
bc-GNSO@icann.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public
Comments on DAGv4</SPAN><SPAN lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Sarah:<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Sorry if I was unclear. The intent of the IRT was to
have the same legal standard for the UDRP and URS (the same elements --
registration with bad fait intent, etc.), but having a higher burden of proof
(clear and convincing vs. preponderance.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Here are the relevant quotes from the IRT report -- <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><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">"The Final Evaluation
analysis involves consideration of three basic issues, similar to the standards
for a UDRP decision, but requires a<B> much higher burden of proof</B>."
(emphasis added)<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">"If the Examiner finds
that all of these elements are satisfied by <B>clear and convincing evidence</B>
and that there is no genuine contestable issue, then the Examiner shall issue a
decision in favor of the Complainant." (emphasis
added)<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><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><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">These positions had a
unanimous consensus of the IRT. Not sure the relevance of my status on the
IRT, but for the record I was told by the IPC that I wasn't representing
registrars on the IRT. If you had heard the crap that I got from my former
registrar colleagues, you would understand that I definitely wasn't representing
them on the IRT :-).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">As I don't believe
that the BC complained about this burden of proof in the past on the IRT, on the
STI, or any public comments thereafter, I don't think that we should raise it
here. If we think that the URS was changed in a way that is problematic,
let's focus on those changes instead of trying to go back on issues that had
complete consensus and haven't changed at all.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">Thanks!<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">jon<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>On Jul 19, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Deutsch, Sarah B
wrote:<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt" class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Jon,</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Thank
you for your many constructive changes. I want to respond to one suggested
edit you made below:</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><EM><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">*I
deleted the clear and convincing evidence issue with regard to the URS. As
a member of the IRT, I can say that it clearly was our intent for the URS to
have a higher burden of proof than the UDRP -- the legal standard is
exactly the same. We wanted the URS to be for "slam dunk" cases. The
URS was to be a less expensive alternative to the UDRP cognizant of the fact
that 70% of UDRPs go unanswered.</SPAN></EM><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"><BR> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">1.
I don't disagree that the URS, like the UDRP, should be used for slam dunk
cases. I'm glad you confirmed that the legal standard was supposed to
be exactly the same. It's my understanding that proof under the UDRP is in
fact based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, not a clear and
convincing evidence standard. See below. </SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><A name=1.3.1.1><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black">Section 1.3.1.1 –
Burden of Proof (How much proof is necessary?)</SPAN></STRONG></A><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black">
</SPAN></STRONG><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoBodyTextIndent2><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">In the
administrative proceeding, the Complainant must prove that each of the three
elements contained in Section 4(a) of the Policy are
present.</SPAN></STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoBodyTextIndent2><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Comment:
In general, the Panels recognize a preponderance of the evidence standard.
Preponderance of the evidence means that a fact is proved when it is more likely
than not that the fact is true.</SPAN></STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoBodyTextIndent2><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">2. Rather
than delete this sentence in its entirety, I would recommend inserting back
in the following single sentence: "The BC recommends that while the
URS is intended to deal with "slam dunk," cases, we ask ICANN to clarify that
the legal standard remain the exactly the same as that found in the UDRP.
ICANN should clarify that while proof of bad faith must be clear, the evidence
generally can be established by a proponderance of evidence
standard."</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoBodyTextIndent2><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">3.
I know that you were a valuable member of the IRT and at that time you
were representing registrars' views. Other IRT members point out to
me one additional point. The "slam dunk" aspect of the URS was in exchange
for a quick and cheap process. No one knows how cheap this will
wind up being, but there is no question that the "quick" part of this trade
off has disappeared. Many IRT participants confirm that the
DAG4 doesn't represent anything akin to the deal they thought they had
struck. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Sarah<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><BR><BR><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy">Sarah B. Deutsch <BR>Vice President & Associate General
Counsel <BR>Verizon Communications <BR>Phone: 703-351-3044 <BR>Fax: 703-351-3670
</SPAN></SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" class=MsoNormal align=center><SPAN lang=EN-US>
<HR align=center SIZE=2 width="100%">
</SPAN></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-US>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-US> Jon
Nevett [mailto:jon@nevett.net] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, July 18, 2010 9:40
PM<BR><B>To:</B> Zahid Jamil<BR><B>Cc:</B> Deutsch, Sarah B; 'Phil Corwin'; <A
href="mailto:michaelc@traveler.com">michaelc@traveler.com</A>; <A
href="mailto:mike@haven2.com">mike@haven2.com</A>; <A
href="mailto:jb7454@att.com">jb7454@att.com</A>; <A
href="mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com">randruff@rnapartners.com</A>; <A
href="mailto:ffelman@markmonitor.com">ffelman@markmonitor.com</A>; <A
href="mailto:bc-GNSO@icann.org">bc-GNSO@icann.org</A><BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4</SPAN><SPAN
lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Folks: <o:p></o:p></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Attached is a suggested redraft to bridge the gap. I
personally don't agree with some of the arguments I left in the attached, but I
tried to keep the longstanding BC positions while toning down the anti-TLD
language. I also deleted a couple of the arguments that were objected to
in some of the notes I reviewed.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Here are some of the highlights:<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>*I deleted the GPML section.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>*I deleted the clear and convincing evidence issue with
regard to the URS. As a member of the IRT, I can say that it clearly was
our intent for the URS to have a higher burden of proof than the UDRP --
the legal standard is exactly the same. We wanted the URS to be for "slam
dunk" cases. The URS was to be a less expensive alternative to the UDRP
cognizant of the fact that 70% of UDRPs go unanswered. Has this issue even
been raised before by the BC?<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>*Based on Sarah's helpful e-mail, I left alone the complaint
about transferring names after a successful URS as that has been an issue that
Zahid, Mike and others in the BC have argued consistently. I do note,
however, that transfer was not in the IRT recommendation and the STI agreed to
add a year to the registration at the request of the complainant as a
compromise. <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>*Again based on Sarah's e-mail, I left the PDDRP section
pretty much alone except for an argument about registries warehousing names, but
not using them, as that argument didn't make much sense to me. That's
exactly the function of a registry to warehouse names until they are sold by
registrars. If a registry "reserves" a name and it is not in use at all,
the mark holder should be thrilled that it can't be registered by a
squatter.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>*I also deleted the paragraph about the Director of
Compliance. I don't think it appropriate to comment on those kinds of
personnel matters. <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>*I didn't touch the arguments related to community and 13
points (though I personally favor 14 points to avoid gaming -- sorry Ron), as
that seems to be longstanding BC position.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>*I didn't do much on the Market Differentiation section
either other than soften some of the language.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>I have no idea if my attempt will get consensus or not, but I
thought it worthwhile to offer alternative language and I tried hard to find a
balance. <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Thanks.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Jon<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>