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

[Gabriela Szlak <gabrielaszlak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry, I confused my signature in the last email send.
So just to clarify, my last email should have been signed as:

Gabriela Szlak
eInstituto

-- 

*Gabriela Szlak  *
Regional Director

RED/ODR & eGobernanza (IG)

*eInstituto <http://www.einstituto.org> *
25 de mayo 611 Piso 3º  - C1002ABM
Ciudad Autonoma Buenos Aires - Argentina
(+54 11) 4878-0179
*Twitte:* @gabiszlak

*Skype:* gabrielaszlak
odr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

egobernanza@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx







2013/3/22 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
>>
>
>
>