[bc-gnso] RE: Draft v1 of BC comments on latest gTLD Guidebook
- To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx GNSO list'" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: Draft v1 of BC comments on latest gTLD Guidebook
- From: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:46:42 +0000
Good work as usual.
But this legacy statement on the URS (p.14) is very much outdated--
The URS is not a rapid process and takes nearly as long as using the UDRP with
a higher burden of proof. The URS provides little certainty: Even if the
trademark owner wins by default, Registrant can seek de novo review up to 2
years after suspension. The suspension is temporary and only takes place for
“balance of registration” period with option to extend for one year at
commercial rates. The URS places brand owners in a perpetual monitoring
situation with no permanent ability to transfer the domain name. With a 5,000
word limit, the URS winds up being a lengthy process with little certainty for
In fact, I think the URS process is now substantially shorter than a UDRP, as
are its costs. The standard registrant response time is now 14 days; review
(time for filing an appeal) has been shortened to six months. The projected
filing fee will be about $300 and the complainant word limit has been cut to
500. On behalf of ICA I am not pleased with all these changes, but the BC
statement should be accurate and reflect the present Guidebook. ICANN has even
adopted a form of "loser pays" targeted at mass cybersquatters.
As for this statement on p.1 -- RPMs are still substantially weaker than those
recommended by the IRT. --
I would suggest actually going back to review what the IRT recommended and then
measuring what's in the Guidebook now. Anyway, if the BC is going to cite the
IRT it also should be candid that some of what it is advocating goes beyond the
For example, the IRT never recommended a domain transfer option through URS in
order to preserve a fundamental distinction with the UDRP (as well as to avoid
the possibility of reverse domain hijacking through a low-cost, expedited
process). Now the Board said in Brussels that it would acquiesce to the GAC
request for a transfer option -- but that is not reflected in the new Guidebook
language, and the request disappeared from the GAC's recent response on rights
protection issues. Perhaps that's because many individuals (including me) spoke
out in SF against departing from the IRT position and fudging that fundamental
distinction between the UDRP and URS.
Before reflexively reasserting a demand for a transfer option I hope BC members
would seriously consider the alternative that I advocated in SF (which I did
after speaking with a large number of IP advocates, all of whom reacted
favorably) -- which would be to have a domain on the losing end of a URS
action placed on a permanent "do not re-register" list. That would relieve
complainants of both continuing monitoring burdens and registration costs for
unwanted domains, while preserving a critical distinction with the UDRP and
assuring registrants that the URS could not be abused for domain hijacking. I
thought it was a win-win when I voiced it in SF and still do now.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
1155 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Steve
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 2:57 PM
To: 'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft v1 of BC comments on latest gTLD Guidebook
Per discussion on our 21-Apr member call, here is a draft framework for BC
comments on the 15-Apr-2011 Guidebook.
This comment period and docs are described at
These comments are due 15-May, giving us 18 days for edits, review, and
For this initial draft, I updated our Dec-2010 Guidebook comments in several
- Acknowledged areas where ICANN made changes consistent with BC
- Moved all our RPM concerns to Module 5
- Asked several questions for BC members (in red)
- Added a proposed definition for "Single-Registrant TLD". We may hold a
separate call on this.
All BC members are invited to suggest edits. Please use track changes and
circulate to BC list.
I will assemble another draft version with all changes received as of May 1.
Below are the primary contributors from our Dec-2011 comments, organized by
Module 1: Introduction to New gTLD Application Process and Fees. (Berry Cobb,
Ron Andruff )
Module 2: Evaluation Procedures. (Philip Sheppard, Jon Nevett, Adam Palmer,
Zahid Jamil, Sarah Deutsch )
Module 3: Dispute Resolution. ( John Berard, Ron Andruff )
Module 4: String Contention. ( Ron Andruff )
Module 5: Transition to Delegation; Registry Agreement, Code of Conduct, RPMs
( Philip Sheppard, Fred Fellman, Berry Cobb, Jon Nevett, Sarah Deutsch )
In our SFO comments, the BC said the new gTLD communications plan should help
the world's businesses and users understand changes coming in the DNS. But I
didn't see anything in the latest Guidebook about the Communications Plan. So
that comment was not reflected in the attached draft.
vice chair for policy coordination
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3600 - Release Date: 04/27/11