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

[John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

No objection.

Berard

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 4, 2013, at 7:21 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 15-Jan, the BC filed substantive comments on the TM Clearinghouse Strawman 
> solution. (link)
> 
> 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)
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>