Re: [bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4

[Phil Corwin <pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

ICA would object to endorsing that portion of the letter that seeks to reopen 
the URS debate and undo the remarkable consensus achieved by the STI at the 
direction of the GNSO.
Also, while I do not fully understand their last point, WIPO seems to regard 
the UDRP as something they control rather than an ICANN consensus policy they 
facilitate as arbitrator, and has opposed the community reexamining it after 10 
years of experience. The RAPWG, on the other hand, has recommended a balanced 
PDP focused on UDRP reform. ICA believes that placing all UDRP providers under 
standard contract should be a key component of such reform and that doing so 
would enhance uniform implementation that would benefit both complainants and 
registrants.
Philip S. Corwin
Partner, Butera & Andrews
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004
2026635347/Office
2022556172/Cell

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

________________________________
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Mon Jun 21 08:17:30 2010
Subject: [bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4

All,

I'm passing along WIPO's recent excellent and succint comments to ICANN on 
continuing problems in the DAG v. 4.  I would propose that the BC support these 
comments as they directly affect the availability of effective remedies for 
businesses to protect their brands and consumers from confusion after the 
rollout of new gTLDs.

See:  http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/docs/icann160610.pdf.

Sarah