<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[bc-gnso] RE: Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal
- To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx GNSO list'" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal
- From: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 23:52:15 +0000
I have been advised that the BC Charter requires 10% of members (5 members at
present) to disagree with the proposed BC statement. I am hereby asking for
other BC members to register disagreement with the draft BC comment.
However, I have to ask about the process that created the draft before us. I
have reviewed the e-mail thread at http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/ and it
is very sparse on this subject. On April 13th Marilyn posted ICANN's request
for comment. On May 3rd Steve posted the draft BC comment with this note:
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)
But of course Mikey indicated today that he disagrees with imposing URS on .Net
at this time. With all respect, it appears that these provisions came solely
from Elisa and that they were not discussed on the 4/21 BC member call (I was
on that call and have no recollection of any such discussion).
The imposition of new gTLD RPMs on incumbent gTLDs is, in my opinion, a matter
that is completely extraneous to commenting on the provisions of the proposed
.Net contract renewal. In addition, it is not a minor technical matter but a
substantive issue of great import, with clear implications for the .Com renewal
coming up in 2012 as well as for any UDRP reform effort undertaken by ICANN.
I know of no previous BC discussion of whether the new RPMs should be imposed
on incumbent gTLDs at this time, much less the reaching of any consensus on
that issue. I know of no support for that position in any of ICANN's broader
policy efforts - in fact, as I noted earlier today, the majority of BC members
active in the RAPWG took the position one year ago that this should only be
considered after a PDP, and in no way supported imposition of URS on .Net as of
July 11, 2011 absent such a policy process. So what is the basis for putting
this position in a draft BC comment, and why was there no effort made to give
notice to Constituency members and ask their views on its inclusion?
So, while requesting objections from other BC members on both substantive and
procedural grounds, I have to ask why the onus is on objectors to seek a vote
on this matter and was not on the authors of the draft statement to seek
feedback from BC members on such an important matter.
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: Phil Corwin
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 4:38 PM
To: Phil Corwin; Steve DelBianco; 'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx GNSO list'
Cc: Elisa Cooper; Mike O'Connor
Subject: RE: Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal
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
________________________________
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|