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

[Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mikey:

Never meant to suggest any conspiracy, dark or otherwise, just that it might 
have been advisable to let BC members know that suggesting that new RPMs be 
imposed on .Net was being considered before the draft was finalized.

Needless to say, I support dropping URS from the draft. For consistency's stake 
I also have to urge dropping Trademark Claims Service as well - it doesn't 
raise anywhere near the same level of concern but it is a new RPM and the 
overall issue is whether any RPMs created for new gTLDs should be imposed on 
.Net alone through this contract renewal process rather than through a PDP, be 
it on UDRP reform or just this issue, especially as I don't know of any policy 
previously adopted by the BC that can serve as a foundation for the position 
advocated in the draft statement.

To close the loop, I have no problem with the thick WHOIS position as it is 
undisputedly relevant to the proposed new .Net registry agreement and there is 
substantial basis in prior ICANN PDPs for the position advocated.

--Philip

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: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 7:54 AM
To: Phil Corwin
Cc: Steve DelBianco; 'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx GNSO list'; Elisa Cooper
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal

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<mailto:'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> 
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 2:15 PM
To: Steve DelBianco; 'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:'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> 
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 5:12 PM
To: 'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:'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

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

________________________________

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3625 - Release Date: 05/08/11