<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" http-equiv=Content-Type><BASE
href="x-msg://3855/">
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18928"></HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<DIV dir=ltr align=left>
<DIV><SPAN class=128531618-19072010></SPAN><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial>J<SPAN class=128531618-19072010>on,</SPAN></FONT></DIV><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=128531618-19072010></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=128531618-19072010></SPAN><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left>
<DIV><SPAN class=128531618-19072010></SPAN><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial>T<SPAN class=128531618-19072010>hank you for your many constructive
changes. I want to respond to one suggested edit you made
below:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=128531618-19072010></SPAN> </DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><EM>*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.</EM> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT><FONT
face=Arial><BR> </DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=128531618-19072010><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>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.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=128531618-19072010></SPAN><SPAN
class=128531618-19072010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=128531618-19072010><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial><A name=1.3.1.1><SPAN><SPAN><FONT color=#000000><FONT
size=3><FONT face=Verdana><STRONG><SPAN>Section 1.3.1.1 – Burden of Proof</SPAN>
(How much proof is
necessary?)</STRONG></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A><?XML:NAMESPACE
PREFIX = O /><O:P></O:P><O:P></O:P><O:P></O:P><FONT color=#000000 size=3
face=Verdana><STRONG> </STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<P dir=ltr class=MsoBodyTextIndent2 align=left><FONT face=Verdana><STRONG>In the
administrative proceeding, the Complainant must prove that each of the three
elements contained in Section 4(a) of the Policy are
present.</STRONG></FONT></P>
<P dir=ltr class=MsoBodyTextIndent2 align=left><FONT
face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><STRONG>Comment:<SPAN>
</SPAN>In general, the Panels recognize a preponderance of the evidence
standard.<SPAN> </SPAN>Preponderance of the evidence means that a fact is
proved when it is more likely than not that the fact is
true.</STRONG></FONT></P>
<P dir=ltr class=MsoBodyTextIndent2 align=left><SPAN
class=128531618-19072010><FONT face=Verdana>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."</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P dir=ltr class=MsoBodyTextIndent2 align=left><SPAN
class=128531618-19072010>3. I know that you were a valuable member of the
IRT and at that time you were <SPAN class=128531618-19072010><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>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. </P>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=128531618-19072010><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=128531618-19072010><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Sarah</FONT></SPAN></DIV></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
<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> 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'; 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>Folks:
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Here are some of the highlights:</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>*I deleted the GPML section.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>*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?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>*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.
</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>*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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>*I also deleted the paragraph about the Director of Compliance. I
don't think it appropriate to comment on those kinds of personnel
matters. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>*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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>*I didn't do much on the Market Differentiation section either other than
soften some of the language.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.
</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Thanks.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Jon</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>