<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head><title>Re[4]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4</title>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-15">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">
<style type="text/css"><!--
body {
margin: 5px 5px 5px 5px;
background-color: #ffffff;
}
/* ========== Text Styles ========== */
hr { color: #000000}
body, table /* Normal text */
{
font-size: 9pt;
font-family: 'Courier New';
font-style: normal;
font-weight: normal;
color: #000000;
text-decoration: none;
}
span.rvts1 /* Heading */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
font-weight: bold;
color: #0000ff;
}
span.rvts2 /* Subheading */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
font-weight: bold;
color: #000080;
}
span.rvts3 /* Keywords */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
font-style: italic;
color: #800000;
}
a.rvts4, span.rvts4 /* Jump 1 */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
color: #008000;
text-decoration: underline;
}
a.rvts5, span.rvts5 /* Jump 2 */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
color: #008000;
text-decoration: underline;
}
a.rvts6, span.rvts6
{
color: #0000ff;
text-decoration: underline;
}
span.rvts7
{
font-size: 11pt;
font-family: 'calibri';
color: #1f497d;
}
span.rvts8
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'verdana';
font-weight: bold;
}
span.rvts9
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'verdana';
}
span.rvts10
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'times new roman';
font-style: italic;
}
span.rvts11
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'times new roman';
font-style: italic;
font-weight: bold;
}
span.rvts12
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'times new roman';
background-color: #ffff00;
}
span.rvts13
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'times new roman';
}
span.rvts14
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'times new roman';
font-weight: bold;
}
span.rvts15
{
font-size: 6pt;
font-family: 'times new roman';
}
span.rvts16
{
font-size: 15pt;
font-family: 'verdana';
font-weight: bold;
}
span.rvts17
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'times new roman';
font-weight: bold;
text-decoration: underline;
}
span.rvts18
{
font-size: 6pt;
font-family: 'times new roman';
font-weight: bold;
text-decoration: underline;
}
span.rvts19
{
font-family: 'calibri';
color: #1f497d;
}
a.rvts20, span.rvts20
{
font-family: 'calibri';
color: #0000ff;
text-decoration: underline;
}
span.rvts21
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'calibri';
color: #1f497d;
}
span.rvts22
{
font-size: 6pt;
font-family: 'calibri';
color: #1f497d;
}
span.rvts23
{
font-family: 'tahoma';
font-weight: bold;
}
span.rvts24
{
font-family: 'tahoma';
}
span.rvts25
{
font-family: 'arial';
color: #0000ff;
}
span.rvts26
{
font-family: 'arial';
color: #000080;
}
a.rvts27, span.rvts27
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'times new roman';
color: #0000ff;
text-decoration: underline;
}
span.rvts28
{
font-family: 'arial';
}
span.rvts29
{
font-family: 'arial';
font-weight: bold;
}
a.rvts30, span.rvts30
{
font-family: 'arial';
color: #0000ff;
text-decoration: underline;
}
span.rvts31
{
font-family: 'arial';
font-style: italic;
color: #0000ff;
}
span.rvts32
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'arial';
}
span.rvts33
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'verdana';
font-weight: bold;
text-decoration: underline;
}
span.rvts34
{
font-family: 'verdana';
font-weight: bold;
color: #0000ff;
}
span.rvts35
{
font-family: 'verdana';
color: #0000ff;
}
a.rvts36, span.rvts36
{
font-family: 'tahoma';
color: #0000ff;
text-decoration: underline;
}
/* ========== Para Styles ========== */
p,ul,ol /* Paragraph Style */
{
text-align: left;
text-indent: 0px;
padding: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
}
.rvps1 /* Centered */
{
text-align: center;
}
--></style>
</head>
<body>
<p>Hello Zahid,</p>
<p><br></p>
<p>Your Brussels email is smack on and clearly defined.</p>
<p><br></p>
<p>Michael Castello</p>
<p>CEO/President</p>
<p>Castello Cities Internet Network, Inc.</p>
<p><a class=rvts6 href="http://www.ccin.com">http://www.ccin.com</a></p>
<p><a class=rvts6 href="mailto:michael@ccin.com">michael@ccin.com</a></p>
<p><br></p>
<p>--</p>
<p>Monday, July 19, 2010, 2:00:15 PM, you wrote:</p>
<p><br></p>
<div><a name="1.3.1.1"></a>
<table border=0 cellpadding=1 cellspacing=2 style="background-color: #ffffff;">
<tr valign=top>
<td width=2 style="background-color: #0000ff;"><br>
</td>
<td width=1683>
<p><span class=rvts7>Dear All,</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>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.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>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. </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>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.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>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.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>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.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>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.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>Have pasted my Brussels email below:</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>My edits in [...]</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Economic Study:</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>In light of the newly released economic study what steps are envisioned by ICANN staff: including:</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>Survey (how)</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>Study (how)</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>Past introductions</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>Methodlogies</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>In particular re TM, user confusion (notwithstanding the current RPMs)</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>P – 16 – 17 :</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>Subsidies</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Adjust Fee vs. Favourable approval process</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>25 - </span><span class=rvts10>Potential consumer confusion or fragmentation of the Internet</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>26 - </span><span class=rvts10>Increased registration costs for companies that feel the need to be</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10>in multiple places on the Internet</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>28 - </span><span class=rvts10>Defensive registrations</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>29 - </span><span class=rvts10>Increased cost to companies to police new gTLD registrations that</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10>violate trademarks or copyrights [</span><span class=rvts11>VIGILANCE</span><span class=rvts10>]</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>44 - </span><span class=rvts12>74 percent of the registered domain names either were “under construction,” for</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts12>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></p>
<p><span class=rvts9> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>59 – </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>105</span><span class=rvts14>. A survey of registrants would likely be needed to disentangle the extent to which</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts14>duplicate registrations are either purely defensive (and constitute external costs) or generate benefits to the registrants</span><span class=rvts13>. 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><span class=rvts10>e.g., </span><span class=rvts13>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 class=rvts15>115</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts16>[Zahid Note - SURVEY requested by IRT hasn’t been undertaken by Staff either] </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>61 - </span><span class=rvts13>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></p>
<p><span class=rvts9> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>62 - </span><span class=rvts13>This potential project would use case studies to examine the likely costs and benefits in broad categories of new gTLDs.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts17>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><span class=rvts18>117</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>para 117 – end:</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>117. First, it may be wise to continue ICANN’s practice of </span><span class=rvts14>introducing new gTLDs in discrete, limited rounds</span><span class=rvts13>. 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></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>118. Second, in order to derive the greatest informational benefits from the next round of</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>gTLD introductions, ICANN should </span><span class=rvts14>adopt practices that will facilitate the assessment of the net benefits from the initial rollout of additional gTLDs</span><span class=rvts13>. 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></p>
<p><span class=rvts7> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>Sincerely,</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>Zahid Jamil</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>Barrister-at-law</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>Jamil & Jamil</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>Barristers-at-law</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>219-221 Central Hotel Annexe</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>Cell: +923008238230</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>Fax: +92 21 35655026</span></p>
<p><a class=rvts20 href="http://www.jamilandjamil.com/">www.jamilandjamil.com</a></p>
<p><span class=rvts21> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts22>Notice / Disclaimer</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts22>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.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts23>From:</span><span class=rvts24> owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] </span><span class=rvts23>On Behalf Of </span><span class=rvts24>Deutsch, Sarah B</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts23>Sent:</span><span class=rvts24> 19 July 2010 15:26</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts23>To:</span><span class=rvts24> Jon Nevett</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts23>Cc:</span><span class=rvts24> Zahid Jamil; Phil Corwin; michaelc@traveler.com; mike@haven2.com; jb7454@att.com; randruff@rnapartners.com; ffelman@markmonitor.com; bc-GNSO@icann.org</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts23>Subject:</span><span class=rvts24> RE: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts25>Jon,</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts25>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></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts25>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></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts25>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></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts25>This burden of evidence standard is just one more reason why brand owners will avoid using the URS. </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts25>Sarah</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts26>Sarah B. Deutsch </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts26>Vice President & Associate General Counsel </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts26>Verizon Communications </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts26>Phone: 703-351-3044 </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts26>Fax: 703-351-3670 </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<hr noshade size=2>
<p><span class=rvts23>From:</span><span class=rvts24> Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@nevett.net] </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts23>Sent:</span><span class=rvts24> Monday, July 19, 2010 3:10 PM</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts23>To:</span><span class=rvts24> Deutsch, Sarah B</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts23>Cc:</span><span class=rvts24> Zahid Jamil; Phil Corwin; michaelc@traveler.com; mike@haven2.com; jb7454@att.com; randruff@rnapartners.com; ffelman@markmonitor.com; bc-GNSO@icann.org</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts23>Subject:</span><span class=rvts24> Re: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>Sarah:</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>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.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>Here are the relevant quotes from the IRT report -- </span><a class=rvts27 href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm">http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm</a></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts28>"The Final Evaluation analysis involves consideration of three basic issues, similar to the standards for a UDRP decision, but requires a</span><span class=rvts29> much higher burden of proof</span><span class=rvts28>." (emphasis added)</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts28> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts28>"If the Examiner finds that all of these elements are satisfied by </span><span class=rvts29>clear and convincing evidence</span><span class=rvts28> and that there is no genuine contestable issue, then the Examiner shall issue a decision in favor of the Complainant." (emphasis added)</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts28> </span></p>
<p><a class=rvts30 href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm">http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm</a></p>
<p><span class=rvts28> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts28>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 :-).</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts28> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts28>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.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts28> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts28>Thanks!</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts28> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts28>jon</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts28> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts28> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>On Jul 19, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Deutsch, Sarah B wrote:</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts25>Jon,</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts25>Thank you for your many constructive changes. I want to respond to one suggested edit you made below:</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts31>*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><span class=rvts25> </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts32> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts25>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></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts33>Section 1.3.1.1 – Burden of Proof (How much proof is necessary?)</span><span class=rvts8> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts34>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></p>
<p><span class=rvts34>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></p>
<p><span class=rvts35>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></p>
<p><span class=rvts25>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. </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts25> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts25>Sarah</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts26>Sarah B. Deutsch </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts26>Vice President & Associate General Counsel </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts26>Verizon Communications </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts26>Phone: 703-351-3044 </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts26>Fax: 703-351-3670 </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<hr noshade size=2>
<p><span class=rvts23>From:</span><span class=rvts24> Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@nevett.net] </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts23>Sent:</span><span class=rvts24> Sunday, July 18, 2010 9:40 PM</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts23>To:</span><span class=rvts24> Zahid Jamil</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts23>Cc:</span><span class=rvts24> Deutsch, Sarah B; 'Phil Corwin'; </span><a class=rvts36 href="mailto:michaelc@traveler.com">michaelc@traveler.com</a><span class=rvts24>; </span><a class=rvts36 href="mailto:mike@haven2.com">mike@haven2.com</a><span class=rvts24>; </span><a class=rvts36 href="mailto:jb7454@att.com">jb7454@att.com</a><span class=rvts24>; </span><a class=rvts36 href="mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com">randruff@rnapartners.com</a><span class=rvts24>; </span><a class=rvts36 href="mailto:ffelman@markmonitor.com">ffelman@markmonitor.com</a><span class=rvts24>; </span><a class=rvts36 href="mailto:bc-GNSO@icann.org">bc-GNSO@icann.org</a></p>
<p><span class=rvts23>Subject:</span><span class=rvts24> Re: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>Folks: </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>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.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>Here are some of the highlights:</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>*I deleted the GPML section.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>*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?</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>*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. </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>*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.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>*I also deleted the paragraph about the Director of Compliance. I don't think it appropriate to comment on those kinds of personnel matters. </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>*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.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>*I didn't do much on the Market Differentiation section either other than soften some of the language.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>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. </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>Thanks.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>Jon</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13> </span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
</body></html>