<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4
- To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4
- From: Michael Castello <michaelc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 16:04:58 -0700
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head><title>Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4</title>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-15">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">
<style type="text/css"><!--
body {
margin: 5px 5px 5px 5px;
background-color: #ffffff;
}
/* ========== Text Styles ========== */
hr { color: #000000}
body, table /* Normal text */
{
font-size: 9pt;
font-family: 'Courier New';
font-style: normal;
font-weight: normal;
color: #000000;
text-decoration: none;
}
span.rvts1 /* Heading */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
font-weight: bold;
color: #0000ff;
}
span.rvts2 /* Subheading */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
font-weight: bold;
color: #000080;
}
span.rvts3 /* Keywords */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
font-style: italic;
color: #800000;
}
a.rvts4, span.rvts4 /* Jump 1 */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
color: #008000;
text-decoration: underline;
}
a.rvts5, span.rvts5 /* Jump 2 */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
color: #008000;
text-decoration: underline;
}
a.rvts6, span.rvts6
{
color: #0000ff;
text-decoration: underline;
}
span.rvts7
{
font-size: 8pt;
font-family: 'segoe ui';
}
span.rvts8
{
font-family: 'tahoma';
}
span.rvts9
{
font-family: 'arial black';
color: #000080;
}
span.rvts10
{
font-family: 'arial';
color: #000080;
}
span.rvts11
{
font-family: 'arial black';
font-style: italic;
color: #000080;
}
span.rvts12
{
font-family: 'tahoma';
font-weight: bold;
}
a.rvts13, span.rvts13
{
font-family: 'tahoma';
color: #0000ff;
text-decoration: underline;
}
span.rvts14
{
font-size: 11pt;
font-family: 'calibri';
color: #1f497d;
}
span.rvts15
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'times new roman';
}
span.rvts16
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'arial';
color: #0000ff;
}
span.rvts17
{
font-family: 'arial';
color: #0000ff;
}
span.rvts18
{
font-size: 11pt;
font-family: 'calibri';
}
a.rvts19, span.rvts19
{
font-size: 11pt;
font-family: 'calibri';
color: #0000ff;
text-decoration: underline;
}
span.rvts20
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'arial';
}
span.rvts21
{
font-family: 'arial';
}
span.rvts22
{
font-family: 'segoe ui';
}
a.rvts23, span.rvts23
{
font-family: 'segoe ui';
color: #0000ff;
text-decoration: underline;
}
/* ========== Para Styles ========== */
p,ul,ol /* Paragraph Style */
{
text-align: left;
text-indent: 0px;
padding: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
}
.rvps1 /* Centered */
{
text-align: center;
}
--></style>
</head>
<body>
<p><br></p>
<p>I agree with both Phil and Mikey. There was certainly a lot of freedom early
on with the internet and closing ranks on the concerns of trademark holders and
new entities were, over time, clearly needed. The name space was allowed to
flourish because it was so available to everyone. We need to make sure that
these regulations, while needed, do not become too cumbersome to new
participants. Everyone needs to be invited to the party. </p>
<p><br></p>
<p>Michael Castello</p>
<p>CEO/President</p>
<p>Castello Cities Internet Network, Inc.</p>
<p><a class=rvts6 href="http://www.ccin.com";>http://www.ccin.com</a></p>
<p><a class=rvts6 href="mailto:michael@xxxxxxxx";>michael@xxxxxxxx</a></p>
<p><br></p>
<p>--</p>
<p>Saturday, July 17, 2010, 5:39:34 AM, you wrote:</p>
<p><br></p>
<div><a name="divRpF20543"></a>
<table border=0 cellpadding=1 cellspacing=2 style="background-color: #ffffff;">
<tr valign=top>
<td width=2 style="background-color: #0000ff;"><br>
</td>
<td width=1683>
<p><span class=rvts7>i am in Phil's camp on this. several years ago i
started referring to myself as "a member of the business wing of the Business
Constituency" just to make it clear that i'm not keen on our strident views
with regard to rights protections and cyber-security. </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>of course cyber-crime is important, but folks like Bruce
Schneier make an extremely compelling case that there needs to be a culture of
security in which all participants are active and aware rather than creating a
culture of passive consumers being "protected" by ever-increasingly intrusive
"authorities" like governments and ICANN. </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>of course trademark violations are unacceptable -- but to
make this our signature issue, to take our position beyond even those of the
IPC, and leaving *small* business owners defenseless in the face of large
corporate brand-owners, leaves me continuing to feel disenfranchised (much the
way i feel disenfranchised by the extreme politics in my country -- where the
heck do moderates hang out??). </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>i would love to see the BC develop a positive message
(based on positive positions) that truly reflect the needs of businesses large
and small rather than recycling these views from our reactionary past.
</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>i would also love to get out of the continuing role of
being an apologist for our somewhat quirky positions. haarrrumph!
:-)</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>so, just to be on record, i do not support these comments
on DAGv4.</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>sorry about the rant. thanks for taking the time to
craft these notes Phil,</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>mikey</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>On Jul 16, 2010, at 7:11 PM, Phil Corwin wrote:</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Ron (and other BC members who contacted me to ask that I
provide alternative URS language):</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>I appreciate the request, as I appreciate the hard work
put in by Ron and Sarah on the draft.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>That said, a few word changes will not suffice to alter
ICA's dissent, as we have an entirely different perspective. We represent
individuals and companies with substantial investments in domain portfolios.
They view domains in the same way that most of you (and we) view trademarks --
as an intangible asset with substantial value. When a trademark rights
protection is proposed it might be useful to ask whether you would be
willing to have one of your trademarks suspended, or forfeited, on the basis of
what is on the table. If not, then don't expect registrants to embrace it. In
no way do we condone trademark infringement, but proposed responses to it
need to assure basic due process.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>If a majority wills it then the BC is within its
rights to proffer a reworking of the same positions it has articulated on
prior occasions, and it should expect essentially the same results --
especially after BC members participated in an STI process that reworked
the IRTrecommendations, and the STI's work was embraced by the
GNSO and approved by the Board. If ICANN staff have significantly
altered the STI's consensus recommendations then that certainly should be
raised, but otherwise the rights protections for new gTLDs have been
pretty much baked into the DAG. Does anyone really think they will be reopened
in any significant way?</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>As regards the specifics of the URS provision, we cannot
agree that the URS should have the same substantive standard as the UDRP. The
URS was proposed by the IRT as reserved for "obvious", "no brainer"
rights disputes, and was originally proposed with a higher evidentiary standard
to distinguish URS cases from UDRPs. We don't think the BC's
credibility on trademark matters is enhanced when it consistently
articulates a harder line than that of the IPC, which conceived of and oversaw
the IRT. As for urging that the URS lead to a domain transfer and not just a
suspension -- again, this goes beyond the IRT recommendation and
would likewise blur the distinction between the URS and UDRP.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Finally, we find the discussion of the "impact" test for a
finding of RDNH in the URS to be confusing -- but we do believe that if a
complainant advances deliberate falsehoods with the intent of having a
favorable impact on its complaint then it is clearly guilty of attempting
to abuse the available system.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Beyond the URS, our only other comment on the rights
protection language is to note our strong questioning of a TM Clearinghouse
regime in which an "identical match" is defined as "typographical variations".
Identical means identical, not variations. Variations to what degree? Having a
trademark in one word doesn't provide a right to fire warning shots at tens of
thousands of possible variants of that word, multiple degrees of
separation away from it. If you're going to propose that variations be
encompassed then it really is incumbent to articulate some defining limits on
that notion - "we know it when we see it" is really not adequate assurance for
registrants. And, of course, these issues become even more problematic for
dictionary words that are trademarked for various purposes. Please let's
remember that in most instances infringement can't just be determined by
the name of a domain but requires a look at how it is being used.</sp
an></p>
<p><span class=rvts8> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Finally, to note an area of agreement -- we share the
concern that ICANN devotes inadequate resources to compliance, and
indeed in Brussels we suggested publicly that it earmark a meaningful
portion of revenues from new gTLD applications to that end.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Summing up, we would have to oppose the URS regime that
the majority of the BC seems to favor as providing inadequate assurance of
due process to registrants, and we think the overall position on rights
protection is backwards looking given that the STI train has left the
station. Again, this does not mean we are unsympathetic to the concerns of
rights holders. Throughout the past 18 months we have advocated comprehensive
UDRP reform that would address the concerns of all parties across the
entire gTLD space, and we continue to believe that a good faith
collaboration could produce positive changes that could be put in place in
tandem with the opening of new gTLDs.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Regards to all,</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Philip</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>Philip S. Corwin </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>Partner </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>Butera & Andrews </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>Suite 500 </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>Washington, DC 20004</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>202-347-6875 (office) </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>202-347-6876 (fax</span><span class=rvts10>)</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>202-255-6172 (cell)</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts11>"Luck is the residue of design."</span><span
class=rvts9> -- Branch Rickey</span></p>
<hr noshade size=2>
<p><span class=rvts12>From:</span><span class=rvts8> </span><a
class=rvts13
href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a><span
class=rvts8> [owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] on behalf of BRUEGGEMAN, JEFF
(ATTSI) [jb7454@xxxxxxx]</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts12>Sent:</span><span class=rvts8> Friday, July 16, 2010
3:36 PM</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts12>To:</span><span class=rvts8> Ron Andruff; frederick
felman; </span><a class=rvts13
href="mailto:bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx";>bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx</a></p>
<p><span class=rvts12>Subject:</span><span class=rvts8> RE: [bc-gnso]
DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts14>Thanks Ron and Sarah. AT&T supports filing
comments and I like how you’ve updated them. While I was not
involved in the original BC comments, I would note that you could add a
reference to the recommendation in the Economic Study that it may be wise for
ICANC to continue its practice of introducing new gTLDs in discrete, limited
rounds. </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts15> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts14>Jeff Brueggeman</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts14>AT&T Public Policy</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts14>(202) 457-2064</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts15> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts15> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts15> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts12>From:</span><span class=rvts8> </span><a
class=rvts13
href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a><span
class=rvts8> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] </span><span
class=rvts12>On Behalf Of </span><span class=rvts8>Ron Andruff</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts12>Sent:</span><span class=rvts8> Friday, July 16, 2010
12:34 PM</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts12>To:</span><span class=rvts8> 'frederick
felman'; </span><a class=rvts13
href="mailto:bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx";>bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx</a></p>
<p><span class=rvts12>Subject:</span><span class=rvts8> RE: [bc-gnso]
DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts15> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts16>Thanks to Mark Monitor and AIM for your notes of support
for the circulated draft.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts15> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts16>I encourage other members to give the doc a quick read.
While it is several pages long, please note that it is the same document
we submitted for DAGv3 so what we are asking is for you to review the redlines
and give your comments/amendments. To that end, Phil Corwin, can you
send your suggested URS text asap?</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts15> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts16>Thanks again everyone for taking a moment to review the
DAGv4 draft comments.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts15> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts16>RA</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts15> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts17>Ronald N. Andruff</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts17>President</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts17>RNA Partners, Inc.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts17>220 Fifth Avenue</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts17>New York, New York 10001</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts17>+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts15> </span></p>
<hr noshade size=2>
<p><span class=rvts12>From:</span><span class=rvts8> frederick felman
[mailto:ffelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts12>Sent:</span><span class=rvts8> Friday, July 16, 2010
12:21 PM</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts12>To:</span><span class=rvts8> Ron
Andruff; </span><a class=rvts13
href="mailto:bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx";>bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx</a></p>
<p><span class=rvts12>Subject:</span><span class=rvts8> Re: [bc-gnso]
DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts12>Importance:</span><span class=rvts8> High</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts15> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts18>MarkMonitor support the BC comments to DAGv4.</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts18>On 7/15/10 7:20 AM, "Ron Andruff" <</span><a
class=rvts19
href="https://exchange.sierracorporation.com/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx";>randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a><span
class=rvts18>> wrote:</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts20>Dear Members,</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts20> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts20>Further to my reminder earlier this week regarding the
need for a BC public comment on DAGv4, Sarah Deutsch and I have developed a
draft for member review and comment. Effectively, we have taken the
BC’s DAGv3 comments and added/amended based on (1) staff having largely
ignored our comments in DAGv2 and v3; and (2) utilized subsequent information
that has come available in the interim (e.g., the latest economic study). FYI,
Sarah drafted the RPM material and I took responsibility for the other
elements.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts20> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts20>We ask that members review and comment on the document at
your earliest convenience, so that we can meet the submission deadline of
Wednesday, July 21st. Sorry for the late posting, but unfortunately with
summer holidays and all, a few things are slipping between the
cracks...</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts20> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts20>Thanks in advance for your soonest input.
</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts20> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts20>Kind regards,</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts20> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts20>RA</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts20> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts21>Ronald N. Andruff</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts21>President</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts21>RNA Partners, Inc.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts21>220 Fifth Avenue</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts21>New York, New York 10001</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts21>+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts15> </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts22>- - - - - - - - -</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts22>phone 651-647-6109 </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts22>fax 866-280-2356 </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts22>web </span><a class=rvts23
href="http://www.haven2.com";>http://www.haven2.com</a></p>
<p><span class=rvts22>handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like
Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
</body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|