[bc-gnso] Reply Comment of Business Constituency on Strawman Solution

[Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The Business Constituency filed extensive initial comments regarding the 
Strawman on 15-Jan-2013 
(link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00070.html>).
Below are our Reply comments.

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.

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.

--

These comments were compiled based on previous positions and comments from BC 
members.  This version was authorized by BC membership on 5-Feb-2013.

Steve DelBianco
Vice chair for policy coordination
Business Constituency