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

["Fares, David" <DFares@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Steve.  We too support the reply but would like to add the following two 
sentences:

"While ICANN continues to consider the Strawman and LPR, they should recognize 
that being responsive to the concerns of the broader business community is also 
acting in the public interest to protect consumers.  It is essential that 
broader business community's views are heard and addressed to ensure their 
continued engagement in ICANN's work.

Thanks again,
David

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Steve DelBianco
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 3:22 AM
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





This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or
confidential information. It is intended solely for the named
addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message
(or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you
may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone.
Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its
attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any
content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to
the official business of News America Incorporated or its
subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any
of them. No representation is made that this email or its
attachments are without defect.