Re: [bc-gnso] DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider

[Gabriela Szlak <gabrielaszlak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear BC members,

Thank you very much for the work undertaken by the drafters of the comments.

We wanted to express that we support Marilyn Cade´s comments and changes
suggestions, which are in line with comments that we have been made in the
past regarding the same issue.
Thank you,
Gabi

2013/3/22 Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>

>  I do not support this approach.
> I propose a dfferent approach.
>
> First, the BC did no due diligence/discussion on the improvements that the
> ADCR has made, since the last public comment period. I understand that a
> few did, but let's be frank: most of our BC members did not.
>
>
> I see that many of the questions asked to the applicant were addressed,
> but I suspect that many BC members didn't have a chance to read the
> materials. A responsible approach from us would be to invite the applicant
> to speak to us and answer our questions. Let's still do that.
>
> I ask that the draft be changed significantly and edited down to a simple
> few paragraphs, without the rhetoric that is in the first few pages.
>
> I fully agree that applications for 1400 new gTLDS calls for an
> acceleration for a mechanism for uniform implementation for UDRP standards.
> However, ACDR, and another BC member also offering UDRP services both
> supported this, and called for retroactive application to all UDRP
> providers.
>
> The analysis of the BC as drafted is not based in detailed analysis and is
> highly subjective.  Most BC members  have not reviewed this draft, or the
> revised submission of the applicant.  And I find our BC comments highly
> negative and critical toward providers from other regions other than N.Am
> and Europe. With new gTLDs, we need reliable and stable providers from
> other regions of the world.
>
>
> I propose that the BC comments say simply:
>
> *The BC asks that ICANN establish a process, involving all existing
> providers, and representatives from users of the UDRPs, drawn from the
> Constituencies and ALAC and other relevant parties, to undertake
> development of a uniform set of standards for approval of UDRP providers.
>  This should include a public comment process. *
> *
> *
> *Finally, I am not at all supportive of any BC statements that uses
> language like "We implore ICANN to expeditiously address this matter". *
> *
> *
> *i do not support or agree with the BC opposing the ACDR as it has
> fulfilled the requirements from ICANN. I do support asking for a mechanism
> for establishing standards, and asking ACDR and others to accept that
> requirements will be retroactive. BUT, I also ask that we be professional
> and business like in our language.  As such, the BC could say: The BC
> proposes that the Board direct staff to undertake a process, supported by
> the community of stakeholders and all UDRP providers, to establish uniform
> rules and procedures an flexible means to delineating and enforcing
> arbitration provider responsibilities. *
>
> Marilyn Cade
>
>
> ------------------------------
> From: sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [bc-gnso] DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on ACDR's proposal to
> serve as a UDRP provider
> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 01:56:15 +0000
>
>
>     Attached is a draft comment from the BC regarding ICANN's call for
> comments on ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider 
> (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm>).
>   The initial comment period ends 22-Mar and reply comments close 13-Apr.
>  (UDRP is the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy)
>
>
>   Note: ACDR is the Arab Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution, and
> is affiliated with BC Member Talal Abu-Ghazaleh.
>
>
>
> Phil Corwin volunteered as rapporteur for these comments.
>
>
>
> As mentioned on our member call last week, this draft does *not* propose
> any changes to previous BC positions.   Instead, the attached comment
> repeats the BC position expressed twice before:
>
>
>
>  2011:  BC comments on Preliminary Issue Report on current state of the
> UDRP 
> (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC_on_UDRP_Issues_Report_July_2011.pdf>
> )
>
>
>
> 2010:  Business Constituency comment on recognizing new UDRP providers (
> link <http://forum.icann.org/lists/acdr-proposal/msg00004.html>)
>
>       The 2010 BC position on ACDR’s initial application was that the BC
> could not support any accreditation of additional UDRP providers until
> ICANN developed a standard and enforceable mechanism to assure  uniformity
> in UDRP administration. BC members should note that non-support is distinct
> from outright opposition.
>
>
>
> We are taking comments on this draft until midnight 21-Mar with plan to
> submit on 22-Mar.  In my view, there is no requirement for formal voting
> since the BC is not taking any *new* positions in this draft.
>
>
>
> However, if 10% of BC membership objects or proposes changes to the prior
> positions expressed here, we'll hold a call to consider changing the
> present BC position.  We have until 13-Apr to debate and develop a new
> position, if it comes to that.  Keep in mind that any vote to change
> positions would require a majority vote of BC members.   (per Charter
> section 7.3)
>
>
>
> --
>
> Steve DelBianco
>
> Vice chair for policy coordination
>
> Business Constituency
>



-- 
*
*
*Dra. Gabriela Szlak *

Abogada & Mediadora

Consultora en Derecho y Nuevas Tecnologías


Estudio Rosz

Avenida Roque Saenz Peña 943, Piso 6° 62,

Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina

(005411) 4328-0231 / 4393-7508

www.estudiorosz.com.ar

www.gabrielaszlak.com.ar  <http://www.gabrielaszlak.com.ar/>

*Skype:* gabrielaszlak

*Twitter: @G*abiSzlak

La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial.
The information in this e-mail is confidential.