[bc-gnso] Chair's comment: Process for resolving BC comments: bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

thanks all.  Good work going on here in the discussions and exchanges of views. 
Steve and I will be discussing a process to get to a BC outcome. 
. 
Everyone's work and focus on this is much appreciated. 
I know this is busy times and our members have diverse views in some cases, but 
in others, I think we have common ground. I do want to make one comment.  The 
BC has a position of supporting managed, responsible introduction of gTLDs [and 
IDNs] that expand the names space in a differentiated manner.  We also have a 
position about ICANN acting responsibly. 
I have seen a few comments from BC members that seem to indicate a concern that 
the BC opposes the expansion of new gTLDs.  Our position is much more 
responsible than that, but it does include addressing the challenges of 
expansion of the gTLD space. 
So, just to assure members who thought that there was a rewrite of the BC 
position on expansion, I don't see that in the comments. However, I appreciate 
the concern about tone and I think that is being addressed. 
Stay tuned for a suggested approach after I talk with Steve, as V.Chair, Policy 
Coordination. 
Marilyn CadeBC Chair





From: cgmartin@xxxxxxxxx
To: jon@xxxxxxxxxx; zahid@xxxxxxxxx
CC: sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx; pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
michaelc@xxxxxxxxxxxx; mike@xxxxxxxxxx; jb7454@xxxxxxx; 
randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ffelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:57:57 -0400
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4

















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