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: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:44:22 -0700

What strikes me is that we are rehashing, to some extent, arguments that the
BC resolved long ago.  A vocal minority is loudly shouting about the Uniform
Rapid Suspension system and other IRT proposals.  But in concept the URS is
a consensus BC position since April 2007, reiterated less than six months
ago after a vote of the membership.  Same with standardized sunrise.

Those members in the minority should make their own comments, but I strongly
believe the BC should reiterate its support for those concepts, in addition
to thanking the IRT for its very hard work.  I would like to go further, but
will accept we cannot reach new consensus now.  That does not mean we should
lessen the impact of our prior consensus positions, by ignoring that they
have been considered and adopted by the IRT.

So, I would suggest the following, based on Ayesha's text:

The BC appreciates the considerable work and efforts of all those who
participated in the IRT.  The BC believes that this report is productive
step forward in addressing several consumer and IP protection issues with
respect to new gTLDs.  In particular, the BC appreciates that the IRT has
adopted the essence of the BC's recommendations from April 2007 and January
2009 with respect to the Uniform Rapid Suspension program and the
standardized sunrise recommendations.

The BC expects its members will post their individual comments on the
detailed substance of the report, including those URS and sunrise
recommendations, at the Public comment space


Mike Rodenbaugh
Rodenbaugh Law
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Ron Andruff
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:21 PM
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT

I think it is important for BC members, both here in Sydney and those not,
to take a step back and reflect on what the IRT is and what it is tasked to
do.  To say it is a shame that all of our members are not here to be able to
share in the on-going discussion and dialogue with the IRT work team and the
larger ICANN community on this topic is an understatement.  I can appreciate
that, without the larger context which we here in Sydney can gain a better
understand of (as a result of the "local" discourse), some members might
view the IRT report as being considerably too little or too much vis-à-vis
their expectations.  However, at the B.C. meeting yesterday it was agreed by
those present and on the call in line that, as it would be futile to try to
reach constituency consensus on this topic, it would be better to simply
note that the BC is pleased that "this work has been undertaken" and ask
each member to make their individual comments in the public comments space.

Clearly, IP issues MUST be addressed AND the pressures to roll out new gTLDs
is not decreasing (ergo the IRT -- in some watered down form, I suspect --
WILL be adopted and included in the 3rd DAG).  

Therefore, RNA Partners supports Ayesha's recommendation and urges all
members to note their corporate positions on the public comment list.



Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor
New York, New York 10001
V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11
F:  +1 212 481 2859 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Sent: 2009-06-23 21:28
To: Rick Anderson; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT

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


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Rick Anderson
Sent: mercredi 24 juin 2009 03:01
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT

Interborder agrees with George's improved draft.


Rick Anderson
EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd
email: randerson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cell: (403) 830-1798
office: (403) 750-5535

----- Original Message -----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
To: 'mike@xxxxxxxxxx' <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>; 'icann@xxxxxxxx'
Cc: 'bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx' <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue Jun 23 18:43:48 2009
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT

ICA supports George's alternative and dissents on the original text.
Philip S. Corwin
Partner, Butera & Andrews
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004

"Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey 

----- Original Message -----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
To: George Kirikos <icann@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: BC gnso <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue Jun 23 20:30:43 2009
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT

i stand with George on this one.


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

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109
fax             866-280-2356
web     www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,  
Google, etc.)

This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or
privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event
this e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender's company do not
waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any
dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance
on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the intended
recipient is prohibited. If you have been sent this e-mail in error,
please destroy all copies and notify sender at the above e-mail address.
Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this
e-mail message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender's
company accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus
transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of communication, e-mail
communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized
parties. If you do not wish to communicate by e-mail, please notify
sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent is assumed.
Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as
encryption) unless specifically requested.

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy