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

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ron:

I just took a quick look at the document and unless I am mistaken, It looks 
like there was at least one material change to at least the first document.  
For example, I do not recall seeing the following sentence in any of the prior 
versions.  

"Therefore the BC recommends that ICANN continue its practice of introducing 
new gTLDs and IDNs in discrete, limited rounds."

I don't support this insertion.  It is unclear.  Does this mean the BC agrees 
or not with the implementation plan in DAGv4, which includes discrete rounds.  
Or does it mean that the BC supports some kind of rounds based on categories or 
applicants?  Such a model would take us back to days of ICANN staff and board 
conducting beauty contests either by application or by category.  We rejected 
this approach at the GNSO recommendation level and shouldn't go back to it.  

I haven't looked closely enough to see if there are other changes in this new 
document.  

Also, I don't support attaching the prior comments to these comments.  Our 
comments should be able to evolve with the passage of time.  If we just want to 
repeat ourselves, then it is appropriate to attach prior comments.  In this 
case, however, we shouldn't just support a position simply because we did so 
last year.  Indeed, why must the BC post comments "in line with past 
positions?"  Can't the BC change its mind on an issue?  We shouldn't just 
regurgitate old arguments simply because they were supported historically.  

My two cents.  

Thanks.

Jon
 

On Jul 19, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Ron Andruff wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>  
> Pursuant to the comments that have been sent in, as rapporteur for this 
> process, I have incorporated the amendments and prepared two final documents 
> for your review and comment.  Two documents, insomuch as I broke the original 
> comments into two separate postings so that the BC membership can work 
> through the issues accordingly.  As Philip Sheppard noted, the BC must post 
> its comments in line with past positions.  Splitting the documents hopefully 
> enables focused discussion on the RPM piece without impeding posting the 
> other comments.
>  
> The first document incorporates a slimmed down version of the original 
> comments I posted last week on the issues of ‘market differentiation’, 
> ‘translation of ASCII to other scripts’ and ‘revised community priority 
> evaluation scoring’, with the BC’s DAGv3 comments attached for reference.  It 
> should be noted that I have made no material changes in these comments; 
> rather I simply tightened up the arguments and cleaned up typos, etc.
>  
> The second document is effectively Jon’s edits on RPMs.  I have made no 
> changes to his edition other than made the correction (‘complainant’ vs. 
> ‘registrant’) that Phil Corwin noted in his recent posting to the list.
>  
> Once again, I welcome comments/amendments to finalize these two documents for 
> posting.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> RA
>  
> Ronald N. Andruff
> President
>  
> RNA Partners, Inc.
> 220 Fifth Avenue
> New York, New York 10001
> + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11
>  
> From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Phil Corwin
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 10:39 AM
> To: Jon Nevett; Zahid Jamil
> Cc: 'Deutsch, Sarah B'; 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
>  
> ICA believes that John's redraft is a significant improvement in many ways.
>  
> However, we do continue to have some concerns about the URS section, 
> specifically:
> We can't support the transfer option, as suspension versus transfer was one 
> of the major distinctions between URS and standard UDRP as originally 
> proposed by the IRT -- that is, URS was supposed to be for rapid, lower cost 
> blocking of a domain in slam dunk cases, with UDRP reserved for less clear 
> cut cases as well as instances where the complainant wished to permanently 
> acquire the domain. We think it's important to preserve that distinction and 
> that problems with the use of the UDRP for default cases should be addressed 
> by comprehensive UDRP reform.
> We don't agree that the language asserting that the "impact" test is too low 
> for a finding of abuse of process. The exact language now in the DAG is --
>             "An Examiner may find that Complaint contained a deliberate 
> material falsehood if it
>             contained an assertion of fact, which at the time it was made, 
> was made with the
>             knowledge that it was false and which, if true, would have an 
> impact on the outcome on
>             the URS proceeding."
>  
> What this says is that if a complainant deliberately lied about a material 
> fact in order to influence the outcome of a URS in its favor it will suffer a 
> penalty in order to protect the integrity of the overall process. The penalty 
> for one such deliberate lie is being suspended from using the URS for one 
> year; the penalty for two such lies is permanently barring it from use of the 
> process. Now, as a practical matter, it will be the rare case where the 
> examiner is able to conclude that the complainant deliberately misrepresented 
> material facts, so this isn't going to happen very often, plus there are no 
> monetary sanctions - including fines or a requirement that the complainant 
> pay the registrant's costs of defending the domain - so it isn't as severe a 
> pernalty as some called for it to be. If the BC is going to say that the 
> impact test is too low (with which we don't agree) then I think it has some 
> responsibility to propose an alternate tests that protects the integrity of 
> the URS against the (hopefully rare) complainant who deliberately seeks to 
> abuse it.
>  
>  
> As a typographical matter, the last portion of the last sentence of the first 
> URS paragraph should read "less certainty for the complainant using this 
> process", not "registrant". 
>  
> Finally, we appreciate the serious and civil debate that has been taking 
> place within the BC on this matter -- this is precisely what should occur 
> within a constituency to bridge differences in perspective.
>  
> Philip S. Corwin 
> Partner 
> 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: Jon Nevett [jon@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 9:39 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
>  
> <DRAFT BC Pub Comm 1-3 DAGv4 - (RA).doc><DRAFT BC Pub Comm 4  DAGv4 - 
> (SD-JN).doc>