[bc-gnso] BC Reply Comment on Strawman proposal

[Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 15-Jan, the BC filed substantive comments on the TM Clearinghouse Strawman 
solution. (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00070.html>)

We did not anticipate needing to also file a "Reply" comment.  But the ExCom 
now believes we should file, since we heard last week about the CEO's wavering 
support for the Strawman proposal.

Feb 5 is deadline for "Reply" comments on this topic. So we are proposing a 
brief Reply comment summarizing comments filed and re-emphasizing key parts of 
our initial Strawman comments.

Below are DRAFT Reply Comments from the Business Constituency, regarding TM 
Clearinghouse Strawman Solution 
(link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-strawman-30nov12-en.htm>)

Of the 88 comments filed on the Strawman solution, 67 supported the Strawman 
solution and/or called for even stronger rights protection mechanisms, such as 
Limited Preventive Registrations (LPR).   In other words, 76 percent of 
commenters favor implementation changes such as advance Sunrise notice and 
enhanced TM claim notices.

Unsurprisingly, these supporting comments came from businesses that are 
negatively affected by having to purchase defensive registrations and engage in 
other expensive and often inadequate mechanisms to protect their consumers 
against confusion or outright fraud using second level domain names.

While the BC does not believe that new gTLD operators will proactively solicit 
fraudulent registrations, we believe the comments submitted show that present 
anti-abuse mechanisms are simply inadequate.  That is why commenters from 
around the world have endorsed the minimal implementation improvements proposed 
in the Strawman.

The additional Strawman suggestion for Limited Preventive Registrations (LPR) 
also found wide support in comments filed.  We believe that LPR could be done 
as a matter of implementation.   But if ICANN determines that LPR is new 
policy, we believe that GNSO Council should embark on a fast-track policy 
development process (PDP).  The gNSO Council has in the past done at least one 
fast-track PDP, which entailed face-to-face working sessions and significant 
time commitment from Councilors.   ICANN should also commit to provide support 
for a fast track PDP, such as consulting services and travel funding for PDP 
participants.


Unless we see objections from at least four BC members, we will file the above 
comment before end of day tomorrow, 5-Feb-2013.

--
Steve DelBianco
Vice chair for policy coordination
Business Constituency