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

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

um…  actually, the conversation that started when Steve posted the draft **is** 
the solicitation of comments from the BC.  Elisa and i put together that draft 
and folks are commenting.  no dark conspiracy there.

it doesn't sound like we've got agreement on the URS stuff, so i'd suggest 
dropping it from the draft and pushing on.

mikey


On May 8, 2011, at 6:52 PM, Phil Corwin wrote:

> 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
> 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
> 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
> Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3624 - Release Date: 05/08/11
> 

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)