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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.


 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Mike Roberts
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 1:51 PM
To: Marilyn Cade
Cc: Sarah Deutsch ; psc@xxxxxxxxxxx ; Mari Pattullo ; Elisa Cooper ; John
Berard ; sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Chris Chaplow ; Bc GNSO list ; Zahid
Jamil 
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the
URS?


Marilyn -

If the Board uses a "summit" to bypass the policy procedures detailed in the
Bylaws, it risks being sued, etc., as it was in ICM case.

There are lots of things could stand improvement in the GNSO, but going
around the Bylaws helps no one.

My recommendation is to take fairly strong stand asking for clear statement
on how any summit would relate to policy making rules contained in By Laws.

- Mike



On May 7, 2012, at 9:35 AM, Marilyn Cade wrote:

> 
> Folks, give us some additional advice: Chris and I will be on budget calls
Tues and Wed. 
> 
> If NOT a Summit, or IF a Summit, what? 
> 
> We can't do much on substance on a budget camm, BUT we can say: high
concern. Didn't get it right on any front. NOT representative of parties
most affected. 
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Deutsch  Sarah B <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 15:40:50 
> To: <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <marie.pattullo@xxxxxx>;
<Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
<johnberard@xxxxxxx>; <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <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