RE: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT

[<jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx>]

 Hello,

Nokia supports Ayesha's statement. IRT work is a step forward which we really 
need before going forward in the gTLD process. 
However, we also understand that further development is needed to address all 
of the issues.

BR,

Jarkko Ruuska 


>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] 
>On Behalf Of ext Fares, David
>Sent: 24 June, 2009 12:05
>To: 'sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx'
>Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT
>
>
>Unfortunately, I do not have the benefit of being in Sydney 
>but I support a statement noting that the IRT Report is an 
>important step forward.
>
>Thank you to those carrying the workload.
>
>David 
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
>To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Tue Jun 23 21:49:52 2009
>Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT
>
>
>NetChoice would support Ayesha's version of the BC consensus: 
>that the IRT report is a positive step forward.
>
>Specific concerns (e.g., due process)  ought to be submitted 
>individually, as George has done so elegantly.  Others 
>agreeing with George can support/expand on that in their own 
>individual submissions.
>--Steve 
>
>
>On 6/24/09 11:28 AM, "Ayesha Hassan" <ayesha.hassan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> 
>> I thought the original brief statement reflected the discussion 
>> yesterday in the BC and the key is for members to submit their own 
>> comments to the consultation. My sense is the statement 
>should be very 
>> brief so that members can express their own perspectives directly to 
>> the consultation process.
>> 
>> To help reach a statement we can all support, I propose the 
>following:
>> 
>> "The BC recognizes the work and efforts of all those who 
>participated 
>> in the IRT. The BC believes that this report is productive step 
>> forward in addressing several issues with respect to new gTLDs.
>> 
>> The BC urges its members to post their individual comments on the 
>> substance of the report at Public comment space 
>> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm";
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Ayesha
>> 
>
>> On Jun 23, 2009, at 7:24 PM, George Kirikos wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> We do not support that proposed BC statement on the IRT. We propose 
>>> an alternative and balanced statement as follows:
>>> 
>>> ----- start proposed statement ------ "The BC appreciates 
>the effort 
>>> of the IP constituency's work in creating a proposal that would 
>>> protect trademark holders interests.
>>> However, much work remains to be done to ensure that the needs of 
>>> trademark holders are balanced against the needs of domain 
>>> registrants for certainty, predictability and due process. The BC 
>>> looks forward to working with the IP constituency, and other 
>>> constituencies within the GNSO on an improved version of the IRT's 
>>> report, one that can achieve consensus support of all stakeholders."
>>> ----- end proposed statement ------
>>> 
>>> As we have stated previously, we have grave concerns about the IRT, 
>>> and the "answers" provided by the members of the IRT team have been 
>>> spurious. To give just two concrete examples (there are 
>many more if 
>>> one reads our prior comments submitted in the official comment
>>> periods):
>>> 
>>> a) No good reason has been provided as to why the IRT proposes that
>>> *all* domain names, irregardless of age, should be subject to the 
>>> URS, especially given that markholders ultimately would 
>want the URS 
>>> to apply to legacy TLDs such as com/net/org. The URS is an 
>>> extraordinary procedure that would take down a domain name 
>with short 
>>> notice (so short that a registrant on vacation may not 
>receive actual 
>>> notice of a complaint). Such an extraordinary procedure should be 
>>> targeted only towards the most abusive domain names, one 
>where "time 
>>> is of the essence." Time is not of the essence if a domain 
>name is 10 years old!
>>> The onus should be on markholders to not delay in bringing 
>complaints 
>>> if there is truly a matter that is "urgent" and requires 
>the URS. We 
>>> proposed that the URS either apply only to domains younger than a 
>>> certain age (e.g. 6 months), or that the time to respond to 
>>> complaints be a function of the age of the domain (e.g. 15 
>days + the 
>>> age of the domain in months). Businesses and consumers require 
>>> certainty and due process, and a system like the URS as 
>proposed that 
>>> would threaten their legitimate domain name, one that they've owned 
>>> for years, denies them both certainty and due process.
>>> 
>>> b) No good reason has been provided as to why the IRT proposes to 
>>> limit notification to registrants to only 2 emails and 1 letter by 
>>> post for the URS. Email is unreliable given the amount of spam that 
>>> exists, and international mail might not be received in time to 
>>> respond to a complaint, given the slow delivery times of the 
>>> international postal system. We specifically pointed to 
>opt-in fax as 
>>> a highly reliable system to notify registrants of 
>complaints, and the 
>>> IRT provides excuses that leave objective people incredulous. 
>>> Footnote 30 of the report stated:
>>> 
>>> "The IRT decided that such requirements would add significant 
>>> complexity and cost to the system due to time zones and 
>national and 
>>> local laws regarding faxing and calling."
>>> 
>>> This is simply astonishing for the IRT to say, given that (a) the 
>>> faxes are 100% opt-in, and (b) the UDRP has been providing fax 
>>> notification for over 10 years without issues. The cost to send a 
>>> 1-page fax notification of a complaint (using email to fax 
>gateways) 
>>> is on the order of 10 cents, far below the postal delivery 
>stamp fees.
>>> 
>>> A legitimate URS complaint by a markholder will not be impacted if 
>>> the registrant receives proper and timely notification (actual 
>>> notice) by fax. The URS was supposedly intended for "clear cut" 
>>> cases, and notification shouldn't impact the registrant's 
>ability to 
>>> defend a "clear cut" case of abuse.
>>> 
>>> However, illegitimate and frivolous URS complaints with weak claims 
>>> that hope to win by default due to lack of registrant notification 
>>> will greatly benefit by lack of fax notification, lack of actual 
>>> notice. A legitimate registrant will strongly defend their domain 
>>> name and is hurt by lack of the ability to respond and 
>prepare a defence.
>>> 
>>> The only logical conclusion is that the IRT has intentionally acted 
>>> to put the rights of illegitimate and frivolous URS 
>complainants with 
>>> weak claims ahead of legitimate domain registrants with strong 
>>> defences, by putting up spurious obstacles to the domain 
>registrants 
>>> receiving actual notice and due process. This is no surprise given 
>>> the IP's pro-complainant dominance of the IRT process.
>>> 
>>> While the IRT members posture in public that their report was a 
>>> "compromise" I hope it is clear from just the above two cases (and 
>>> there are more) that it truly was not any compromise, but was an 
>>> extreme and unbalanced report.
>>> 
>>> Legitimate domain registrants like my company and others in the BC 
>>> and other constituencies are prepared to work with the IP 
>>> constituency to come up with a balanced solution within the GNSO 
>>> process. But, until such time, the IRT report should 
>continue to draw 
>>> skepticism within the ICANN community, and be rejected.
>>> 
>>> Sincerely,
>>> 
>>> George Kirikos
>>> 416-588-0269
>>> http://www.leap.com/
>>> 
>>> P.S. One can read our early substantial comments on the IRT, indeed 
>>> with novel approaches (such as the concept of easements), that were 
>>> ignored by the IRT:
>>> 
>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00000.html
>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00015.html
>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00016.html
>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00000.html
>
>
>
>This message and its attachments may contain legally 
>privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely 
>for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee 
>indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the 
>message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this 
>message or its attachments to anyone.
>Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its 
>attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any 
>content of this message and its attachments that does not 
>relate to the official business of News America Incorporated 
>or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or 
>endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this 
>email or its attachments are without defect.
>
>
>