[bc-gnso] RE: Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal

[Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

To further elaborate, in reviewing the RAPWG Final report issued in May 2010 
(see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-29may10-en.htm ) I find 
the following-

Recommendation #2:
The RAPWG was evenly split regarding a second recommendation. The two opposing 
views are below.
Seven members supported View A: The RAPWG recommends the initiation of a Policy 
Development Process by requesting an Issues Report to investigate the 
appropriateness and effectiveness of how any Rights Protection Mechanisms that 
are developed elsewhere in the community (e.g. the New gTLD program) can be 
applied to the problem of cybersquatting in the current gTLD space.
In favour of View A (7): Cobb (CBUC), Felman (MarkMonitor), Queern (CBUC), 
Rasmussen (Internet Identity), Rodenbaugh (CBUC), Shah (MarkMonitor), Sutton 
(CBUC).
Seven members supported View B: The initiation of such a process is premature; 
the effectiveness and consequences of the Rights Protection Mechanisms proposed 
for the new TLDs is unknown. Discussion of RPMs should continue via the New TLD 
program. Experience with them should be gained before considering their 
appropriate relation (if any) to the existing TLD space.
In favour of View B (7): Aaron (RySG), Amadoz (RySG), Bladel (RrSG), Neuman 
(RySG), O'Connor (CBUC), Seltzer (NCSG), Young (RySG).

So, the WG's members split 7-7 on this, while CBUC participants (including MM)s 
split 6-1. However, the six who supported View A were in favor of initiating a 
PDP to investigate whether the new gTLD RPMs were appropriate and effective and 
could be applied to incumbent gTLDs - they did not favor immediate imposition 
of untested RPMs on incumbent registries without any further consideration, 
which is what the draft BC statement on .Net renewal would now advocate.

Registrants in new gTLDs will become so with fully informed notice that they 
may be subject to a URS proceeding. On the other hand, Registrants in .Net, the 
third largest registry (after .com and .de), have acquired portfolios and 
developed websites based on a belief that their domains were safe from 
cancelation or transfer unless they acted in violation of the UDRP. They 
control valuable domains,  and deserve a lot more in the way of due process and 
careful deliberation before the UDRP is altered or new expedited means of 
domain suspension are adopted for incumbent registries.


Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Phil Corwin
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 2:15 PM
To: Steve DelBianco; 'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx GNSO list'
Cc: Elisa Cooper; Mike O'Connor
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal
Importance: High

Just to reiterate, ICA is unalterably opposed to imposing URS on .Net and we 
therefore strongly disagree and request that a voting period be initiated.

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Steve DelBianco
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 5:12 PM
To: 'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx GNSO list'
Cc: Elisa Cooper; Mike O'Connor
Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal

ICANN is gathering responses to the proposed renewal of .NET registry contract.
Attached is a discussion draft for BC response prepared by Elisa Cooper  (with 
edits by Mikey O'Connor and Steve DelBianco)

On our 21-April BC member call, we discussed our approach for this comment, and 
there was universal support to request Verisign to have a "Thick WHOIS" service 
in .NET
Elise and Mikey added two additional requests based on new gTLD registry 
contract requirements:
 - Add TM Claims Service once the TM Clearinghouse is operating.
 - Add URS  (Uniform Rapid Suspension)
ICANN's Comment period closes 10-May.    Our member call on 21-Apr was 21 days 
before deadline, and today's draft is circulated 8 days before deadline.
We can submit this response later if members feel they need the entire 14-day 
review and discussion period.
Please review and post your suggestions/edits as soon as possible.   If there 
are no disagreements noted by 10-May, this response will be adopted without a 
voting period, and posted to ICANN.

For topic background, see http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#net-renewal
Thanks again to Elisa Cooper and Mikey O'Connor for drafting this comment.

Regards,
Steve DelBianco
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: 1500/3612 - Release Date: 05/03/11

________________________________

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3624 - Release Date: 05/08/11