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

[Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

By my count, there are 5 objections to the draft comment. (Cade, Szlak, 
Lattouf,  Halvorsen,  Andruff)

As I said when circulating the 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)
We have 46 members in good standing at this time, and 5 objections meets the 
10% threshold.  I will ask Bene's help to schedule a call to discuss amending 
the position.  We have until 13-Apr to submit.


From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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