<html 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" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[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 Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoBodyTextIndent2, li.MsoBodyTextIndent2, div.MsoBodyTextIndent2
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Body Text Indent 2 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.BodyTextIndent2Char
{mso-style-name:"Body Text Indent 2 Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Body Text Indent 2";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
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 lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple style='WORD-WRAP: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;-webkit-line-break: after-white-space'>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Dear All,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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;color:black;background:
yellow'>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;color:black;
background:yellow'>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-size:
7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;color:black'>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-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>[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-size:
7.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;color:black'>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-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Zahid Jamil<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Barrister-at-law<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Jamil & Jamil<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Barristers-at-law<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>219-221 Central Hotel Annexe<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Cell: +923008238230<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Fax: +92 21 35655026<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><a href="http://www.jamilandjamil.com/"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:9.0pt'>www.jamilandjamil.com</span></a></span><span
lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Notice / Disclaimer<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> 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-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>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-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>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-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>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-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>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-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>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-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Sarah</span><br>
<br>
<span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";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 style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><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 class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span lang=EN-US>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
</span></div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> 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-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>"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-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>"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-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><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-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Thanks!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>jon<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><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 class=MsoNormal><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Jon,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>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-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>*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-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'> </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-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>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-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Verdana","sans-serif";color:blue'>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-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoBodyTextIndent2><strong><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Verdana","sans-serif";color:blue'>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-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoBodyTextIndent2><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:blue'>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-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoBodyTextIndent2><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>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-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Sarah<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><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 class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span lang=EN-US>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
</span></div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> 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>