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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank Mahmoud for offering this opportunity to look at this matter more
closely.  It is a shame that the BC was not aware that this application is
in fact coming from one of our own.  I agree with Gabi and Marilyn's
comments and would very much support a call with those that are interested
in this matter within the Business Constituency.  Thank you for your offer
to inform us of ACDR's commitments to IP protection.  Indeed with so many
IDNs coming out first, it is important that ICANN has structures in place to
address UDRP, should it arise.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA <http://www.rnapartners.com>  Partners, Inc.

  _____  

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Mahmoud Lattouf
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 4:32 PM
To: bc - GNSO list
Cc: Steve DelBianco
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on ACDR's proposal to
serve as a UDRP provider

 

 

Dear All,

 

We are a member of the BC and the IPC.

 

Our  application for a UDRP provider is of course, separate from that
membership.

However, we have been working in the ICANN processes for UDRP providers to
fulfill all requirements, and perhaps that is not as visible to BC members
as needed. The application process is a separate process, after all. and
independent of any influence of any group. We support that independence of
ICANN but also understand that users, such as the IPC and BC members have
questions.

 

As we are BC members, I would like to offer a discussion opportunity to
answer any outstanding questions. We have indicated our support for a
retroactive 'standard' and volunteered to collaborate with others toward
that goal. I believe that another member of the BC from Latin America also
supported that approach.

 

We do not support the BC providing comments at this time, except for calling
for a process to develop standards, which can be retroactively applied.

We propose that the BC comments should be limited to calling for such a
process.

 

Shortly, over 100 IDN gTLDs will be introduced, including several in Arabic
script. As an applicant for UDRP services, with a standing in both the BC
and the IPC, we are fully committed to IP protection.   It was disappointing
to us to read the BC Draft statement that questioned the application
statements.  All UDRP providers are in fact limited in their ability to
ignore IP case law.  The BC document ignored the realities.

 

The BC draft seemed not to fully appreciate UDRP requirements. I want to
assure all BC members that the application and the intent of the ACDR is
fully compliant with all UDRP aspects and requirements. The reality is that
bringing in an Arab provider as several Arabic script gTLDs are introduced
will ensure balanced UDRP decisions, with full respect for IP.

 

As I saw from another BC member from Latin America, providers of such
services are essential -- as new gTLDs enter the field.

 

If the BC members are open, I am happy to organize a discussion conference
call.

 

In the meantime, I do not support the BC statement, which lacks full
information  and did  not in fact, ask us for a discussion to clarify any
concerns.

 

Best Regards,
Mahmoud A. Lattouf
Executive Director - AGIP Offices 

Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual Property
Member of Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Organization
Tel.: +962 6 5100 900 ext. 1623
Fax: +962 6 5100 901
Email:  <mailto:mlattouf@xxxxxxxx> mlattouf@xxxxxxxx
URL:  <http://www.agip.com/> www.agip.com 

TAGORG.com The Global organization for professional, business, intellectual
property, education, culture and capacity building services.

We work hard to stay first

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Steve DelBianco
Sent: 21 March, 2013 04:56
To: bc - GNSO list
Subject: [bc-gnso] DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on ACDR's proposal to serve
as a UDRP provider

 

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