Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the URS?

[Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Sarah, and you do a diligent and effective job for Verizon.
My main points are that if URS and aspects of related RPMs are to be reopened 
let's do it regular order, not same novel 'summit' approach. And let's 
recognize that reopening this could delay ability of new gTLDs to launch since 
ICANN has committed that all RPMs will be in place.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
2025598597/Direct
2025598750/Fax
2022556172/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

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

From: Deutsch, Sarah B [mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 11:40 AM
To: Phil Corwin; 'marie.pattullo@xxxxxx' <marie.pattullo@xxxxxx>; 
'Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' <Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
'marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx' <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>; 'johnberard@xxxxxxx' 
<johnberard@xxxxxxx>; 'sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx' <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
'chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx' <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx' 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 'zahid@xxxxxxxxx' <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the 
URS?

I respect Phil and his diligent representation of his domainer clients on this 
issue but I disagree. The UDRP's preponderance of evidence standard combined 
with establishing the already high bar of bad faith registration, use or 
trafficking in domain names has worked well. As someone with experience suing 
cybersquatters, we can obtain "clear and convincing" evidence usually only 
after months and sometimes years of litigation through discovery.

I agree with Anjali that business owners need to have a real remedy like the do 
not sell list that prevents registrations of brands at the second level along 
with a workable URS. The URS problems go way beyond the price. As currently 
drafted, the process is fatally flawed at $300 and certainly will not get 
better at a higher price. The issue goes needs a better and fuller reevaluation 
process with broader participation, including from BC members.


Sarah


Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Associate General Counsel
Verizon Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670
sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx

From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 09:33 AM
To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@xxxxxx>; 'Elisa Cooper' 
<Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'Marilyn Cade' <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>; 
'John Berard' <johnberard@xxxxxxx>; 'Steve Delbianco' 
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'Chris at Andalucia' <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'bc - 
GNSO list' <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 'Zahid Jamil' <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the 
URS?

Lowering the current burden of proof from “clear and convincing evidence” 
(strong case) to the same as the UDRP, which is “preponderance of the evidence” 
(which could be as low as 51/49) is not consistent with targeting  “clear cut 
cases of trade mark infringement”. That would bring in “shades of grey” cases 
that are not suitable for URS (intended for slam dunk, black and white cases) 
and belong in UDRP. It would also convert URS from a supplement to a substitute 
vis-à-vis UDRP.

No competent examiner can properly weigh the evidence and provide adequate due 
process in such a case for a fee in the $300 to $500 range, which includes not 
just their compensation but the administrative costs of the accredited provider.



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

Twitter: @VlawDC

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

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Marie Pattullo
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 6:55 AM
To: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Marilyn Cade'; 'John Berard'; 'Steve Delbianco'; 'Chris at 
Andalucia'; 'bc - GNSO list'
Cc: 'Zahid Jamil'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the 
URS?

Dear all,

AIM’s members believe that we definitely need the URS, and as soon as possible. 
We need it to be a faster and cheaper solution than the UDRP, as the URS was 
originally meant to be. We also very much support the lowering of the burden of 
proof to deal with clear cut cases of trade mark infringement.

Kind regards

Marie


From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx]> On 
Behalf Of Elisa Cooper
Sent: lundi 7 mai 2012 4:59
To: Marilyn Cade; John Berard; Steve Delbianco; Chris at Andalucia; bc - GNSO 
list
Cc: Zahid Jamil
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the URS?

I agree - I think without really understanding what it is that they plan to 
“reconfigure”, it’s difficult to know whether it’s policy or implementation.

If we wait and see, will it be too late?

What kind of preemptive action could we take here?

Best,
Elisa

From: Marilyn Cade 
[mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx]>
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 9:26 AM
To: John Berard; Steve Delbianco; Chris at Andalucia; Elisa Cooper; bc - GNSO 
list
Cc: Zahid Jamil
Subject: Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the URS?

Thanks, John, the discussion about URS needs to include the full BC.

Many members have concerns, and I will note that that in the IRT last approach, 
some BC members were excluded from participation, in favor of others in the 
community, so we were not balanced in our BC participants. That was a serious 
challenge within the BC.

Whether a URS; WHAT URS, and HOW URS is a serious topic to more than a few BC 
members.

As to whether it is implementation/ and  how that discussion progresses, versus 
if it is policy, is not clear, right now.

What was the policy recommendation that created it?
Should that policy recommendation be revised?
Is this a change in how to implement a policy recommendation or a proposal to 
change/modify a policy recommendation?

Finally, Summit? What is that? What are the parameters? Did the 
SO/AC/SG/Constituencies support such a budget proposal, and how and who would 
be funded to participate?

The IPC may love this; the BC and ISPCP need to study it.

As to what is 'returned' to Council to provide policy advice on, this is a 
seriously challenging area for us, I fully agree.
We  do want to hear from our broader membership on first this particular issue, 
and then we will talk further in the BC, probably in Prague, on 'what is policy 
and what is implementation'. I think that we all need to develop clarity on 
that for future.

Whether the BC would take up a further policy clarity discussion on that latter 
topic would then come from Steve after the BC members offer views.

Short term: My view on this for now: I want to see a staff discussion doc that 
explains the problems. Curtailing the URS and making it less useful doesn't 
excite me. paying a bit more an having useful option -- willing to discuss and 
understand. ICANN staff seem headed in a direction against that. Personal view: 
pay more/have a viable option. IF not, then no use, so don't proceed with URS.

PERSONAL views only in that view. Discussion from informed members critical for 
next 36 hours.



Marilyn Cade, BC Chair

________________________________
Subject: Fwd: [council] Reconfiguring the URS?
From: johnberard@xxxxxxx<mailto:johnberard@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 16:09:38 -0400
CC: zahid@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxx>
To: marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>; 
sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
elisa.cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:elisa.cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Do we agree with Phil that this is a policy matter?  My instinct is to say it 
is not, but...

Berard

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: May 3, 2012 2:09:09 PM EDT
To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [council] Reconfiguring the URS?
All,

Thanks to Phil Corwin for catching this, but buried in the new budget document 
(http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm) 
just put out for comment is a note on “reconfiguring” the URS.  Excerpt 
provided below.   I guess they could not find any URS providers that could do 
it for the costs that they had projected, so ICANN is holding 2 summits to work 
on a new model.  My question for the Council, is whether this is really a 
policy issue that should be referred back to the GNSO Community as opposed to 
having  ICANN on its own resolving after holding 2 summits.  Given the 
controversy around this over the past few years, any tweaks to the URS should 
probably go back to the community in my opinion.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) – $175K
At present there is a significant gap between the features specified for the 
URS procedure and the desired cost. In order to bridge this gap we will: hold 
two summit sessions to reconfigure the URS to arrive at a lower cost model (one 
session in FY12 budget and another in this FY13 plan), conduct a process to 
develop and finalize URS Model in consultation with current UDRP providers and 
community members; and conduct RFP based on URS Model and select URS providers. 
The goal is have a URS program in place and providers contracted and onboard by 
June 2013.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / 
jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>  / 
www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>

________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2012.0.2171 / Virus Database: 2425/4981 - Release Date: 05/06/12
________________________________

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2012.0.2171 / Virus Database: 2425/4983 - Release Date: 05/07/12