<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<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><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=451211319-19072010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial>Jon,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=451211319-19072010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=451211319-19072010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=451211319-19072010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=451211319-19072010>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=453433012-19072010><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>As a practical matter, <SPAN class=451211319-19072010>I
don't see </SPAN>how any trademark owner will be able to prove anything more
than they already prove in filing a UDRP<SPAN
class=451211319-19072010> case</SPAN>. For example, in most cases, you'll
know the infringer took your domain name, which is identical or confusingly
similar<SPAN class=451211319-19072010> to your trademark</SPAN>. You may
or may not have screen shots of ads <SPAN class=451211319-19072010>on their
infringing webpages</SPAN>. <SPAN class=451211319-19072010>You may or
may not have accurate WHOIS information about the infringer. </SPAN>You
may or may not have evidence that the infringer <SPAN
class=451211319-19072010>stole other </SPAN>third party <SPAN
class=451211319-19072010>trademarks</SPAN>. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=453433012-19072010><BR><FONT
face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN class=451211319-19072010>There
is no certainty for trademark owners about </SPAN><SPAN
class=451211319-19072010>what is meant by "clear and convincing evidence" and
how to meet that standard over the evidence we typically submit
in the UDRP process. </SPAN>Obviously, there's no way to know
the subjective intent of the infringer without <SPAN
class=451211319-19072010>full blown litigation and
</SPAN>discovery. <SPAN class=451211319-19072010>At a
minimum,</SPAN><SPAN class=451211319-19072010> ICANN needs to give more
guidance on this issue.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=453433012-19072010><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=453433012-19072010><FONT face=Arial><FONT
color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN class=451211319-19072010>This burden of
evidence standard is just one more reason why brand owners will avoid
using t</SPAN>he URS<SPAN class=451211319-19072010>. </SPAN><SPAN
class=451211319-19072010> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=453433012-19072010><FONT face=Arial><FONT
color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=451211319-19072010></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left></SPAN><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT
size=2>S<SPAN
class=451211319-19072010>arah</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><BR><BR><FONT
face=Arial><FONT size=2><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></DIV></DIV></FONT></FONT>
<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> 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<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Sarah:</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Arial">"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)</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Arial"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Arial"><FONT class=Apple-style-span
face=Helvetica><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: medium" class=Apple-style-span><FONT
class=Apple-style-span face=Arial>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Arial">"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)</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Arial"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Arial"><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></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Arial"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Arial">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 :-).</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Arial"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Arial">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.</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Arial"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Arial">Thanks!</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Arial"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Arial">jon</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Arial"><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Arial"><BR></DIV></FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV></DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>On Jul 19, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Deutsch, Sarah B wrote:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV
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></FONT> </DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></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> </FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial><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><O:P></O:P><O:P></O:P><O:P></O:P><FONT
color=#000000 size=3 face=Verdana><STRONG>
</STRONG></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>
<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. </FONT></SPAN></SPAN></P><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>
<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></FONT>
<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'; <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<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></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BODY></HTML>