RE: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4

[Christopher Martin <cgmartin@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all.  USCIB is currently in the process of drafting our own DAG4 input, and 
so we cannot comment directly on substantive language at this time.  However, 
on RPMs, USCIB generally supported the IRT's recommendations.  Many of the BC's 
comments in the current draft(s) reflect the fact that the current DAG does not 
contain the thrust of those recommendations and thus we support language 
drawing attention to those failings and many of the suggested remedies, 
including much of what is said on mechanisms like URS and the Trademark 
Clearinghouse.  We stand by the incorporation of these items and language 
supporting the general thrust of the IRT recommendations in the BC comments.

On tone of the document, I agree that some language from the original draft 
could be shifted to more positively construe our input.  I think Jon's edits do 
a pretty good job in terms of changing the tone (again, no comment directly on 
the substantive language used except for above).

Cheers,
Chris


From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jon 
Nevett
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 9:40 PM
To: Zahid Jamil
Cc: 'Deutsch, Sarah B'; 'Phil Corwin'; michaelc@xxxxxxxxxxxx; mike@xxxxxxxxxx; 
jb7454@xxxxxxx; randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ffelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4

Folks:

Attached is a suggested redraft to bridge the gap.  I personally don't agree 
with some of the arguments I left in the attached, but I tried to keep the 
longstanding BC positions while toning down the anti-TLD language.  I also 
deleted a couple of the arguments that were objected to in some of the notes I 
reviewed.

Here are some of the highlights:

*I deleted the GPML section.

*I deleted the clear and convincing evidence issue with regard to the URS.  As 
a member of the IRT, I can say that it clearly was our intent for the URS to 
have a higher burden of proof  than the UDRP -- the legal standard is exactly 
the same.  We wanted the URS to be for "slam dunk" cases.  The URS was to be a 
less expensive alternative to the UDRP cognizant of the fact that 70% of UDRPs 
go unanswered.  Has this issue even been raised before by the BC?

*Based on Sarah's helpful e-mail, I left alone the complaint about transferring 
names after a successful URS as that has been an issue that Zahid, Mike and 
others in the BC have argued consistently.  I do note, however, that transfer 
was not in the IRT recommendation and the STI agreed to add a year to the 
registration at the request of the complainant as a compromise.

*Again based on Sarah's e-mail, I left the PDDRP section pretty much alone 
except for an argument about registries warehousing names, but not using them, 
as that argument didn't make much sense to me.  That's exactly the function of 
a registry to warehouse names until they are sold by registrars.  If a registry 
"reserves" a name and it is not in use at all, the mark holder should be 
thrilled that it can't be registered by a squatter.

*I also deleted the paragraph about the Director of Compliance.  I don't think 
it appropriate to comment on those kinds of personnel matters.

*I didn't touch the arguments related to community and 13 points (though I 
personally favor 14 points to avoid gaming -- sorry Ron), as that seems to be 
longstanding BC position.

*I didn't do much on the Market Differentiation section either other than 
soften some of the language.

I have no idea if my attempt will get consensus or not, but I thought it 
worthwhile to offer alternative language and I tried hard to find a balance.

Thanks.

Jon