RE: [bc-gnso] BC Reply Comment on Strawman proposal

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for putting this together Steve.  I note that you will be posting if
there is no significant opposition, but wanted to add my support to pushing
the Strawman proposals through.  I agree that Fadi appears to be waivering
on what we all agree are still not-yet-strong-enough measures, so it is
important for the BC to stay on the fore front of this matter.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA <http://www.rnapartners.com>  Partners, Inc.

  _____  

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Steve DelBianco
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 10:22 PM
To: bc - GNSO list
Subject: [bc-gnso] BC Reply Comment on Strawman proposal

 

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