ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

RE: [bc-gnso] BC Newsletter

  • To: George Kirikos <icann@xxxxxxxx>, BC gnso <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC Newsletter
  • From: Phil Corwin <pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:21:21 -0400

ICA takes strong exception to Mike's commentary (below). We believe that our 
opposition and that of many others to the URS has been well founded and that 
the use of the term "ridiculous" to characterize certain opposition to the URS 
and IP Clearinghouse (and we support the latter, in restricted form) is 
completely inappropriate. The comment fails to note that some opponents, like 
us, have called for expedited UDRP reform to put better and balanced 
protections in place for all parties at all gTLDs, including .com, and it also 
fails to mention that many parties -including the Chair of the GNSO- have taken 
the well justified position that the URS is a major policy change and not just 
an implementation detail that can only be put in place through a UDRP. Instead, 
the comment implies that ICANN staff and Board have the right to adopt it 
absent a PDP.

Updates on current issues should strive to be balanced and not biased to fairly 
represent the diversity of views within the BC and the overall ICANN community 
and not just the personal view of the individual writing them.

"Unfounded (and sometimes ridiculous) opposition has been raised as to the 
substance of the IP Clearinghouse and URS proposals -- the comment forum is 
here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/.  
But it is obvious that the UDRP has been entirely ineffective in deterring 
cybersquatting in the existing TLDs.  So, after ten years of the UDRP, it is 
clear that new methods are needed to deal with this rampant problem.  The IP 
Clearinghouse and URS proposals, in conjunction with one another, would strike 
a reasonable balance between trademark rights, protection of the public, and 
protection of domain name registrants.   
A series of global outreach events are currently discussing the IRT proposals 
and the ICANN Board is then expected to take action to incorporate some or all 
of the proposals into the application guidebook for new TLD applicants."

Philip S. Corwin
Butera & Andrews
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004
202-347-6875 (office)
202-347-6876 (fax)
202-255-6172 (cell)
"Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of George 
Kirikos [icann@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:42 AM
To: BC gnso
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC Newsletter


I was surprised to see that the newsletter appears to contain "opinion
pieces", for lack of a better term:


as opposed to strictly information. One-sided statements like:

"Unfounded (and sometimes ridiculous) opposition has been raised as to
the substance of the IP Clearinghouse and URS proposals..."

are inflammatory and one-sided, and should have no place in a
newsletter whose submission criteria was described (two weeks ago) as
being "intended to provide members with summary information on current

There's a large gap between providing "information" and some of the
statements of opinion which infect the newsletter. More care should be
given to edit the newsletter submissions to remove these biased
statements entirely, or to make it clear that they are only the
opinion of the author.

Much of the opposition to the IRT was on a solid foundation, and
indeed ICANN will face great challenges if they attempt to implement
those policies without modification to resolve the well reasoned
concerns of those who made thoughtful comments.


George Kirikos

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:19 AM, BC Secretariat<secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Members
> The latest edition of the BC newsletter is now available at the website:
> www.bizconst.org
> Best wishes
> Gary

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy