ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT

  • To: <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT
  • From: <jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:46:54 +0200


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.


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.
>----- 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.
>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 
>> "The BC recognizes the work and efforts of all those who 
>> 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 
>>> 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 
>>> 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 
>>> 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.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy