Re: [bc-gnso] UPDATE: FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider

[John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I will vote for #2, but I'd like to add that the BC does it because of our 
studied view of the specific application.

Berard

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 4, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Two updates to the review/vote I circulated on 2-April (below):
> 
> 1. Benedetta sent minutes & transcript of 28-March call among BC members and 
> representatives of ACDR (link)
> 
> 2. ACDR later circulated written answers to several of the questions 
> discussed on the call (link)
> 
> Remember: Please review and reply with your vote before 12-April.
> 
> --Steve
> 
> 
> From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 12:03 AM
> To: 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR 
> proposal as UDRP Provider
> 
> ICANN has called for comments regarding ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP 
> provider (link).  The comment period ends 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 and Nat Cohen volunteered as rapporteurs for these comments.  We 
> circulated Phil's initial draft on 20-Mar.  The BC held a conference call on 
> 28-March with ACDR representatives to discuss the first draft (transcript 
> available on request).   
> 
> As a result of that discussion, the BC is now considering two alternative 
> positions:
> 
> Version 1:  The existing BC position, with no comment on the merits of ACDR's 
> proposal.  This would maintain the present BC position that no new providers 
> should be approved until ICANN has standards for UDRP administration.
> 
> Version 2: Amend the present BC position and give "Qualified Endorsement" to 
> ACDR's proposal. 
> This alternative repeats the BC's prior rationale for ICANN to develop 
> standards for UDRP administration.  It then modifies the prior position to 
> acknowledge that ICANN may approve ACDR's proposal since they have 
> acknowledged process concerns, answered questions, and agreed to adopt any 
> standards ICANN develops.  The endorsement is "qualified" in that the BC 
> requests ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration, and suggests a 
> staff-driven process with community input.
> 
> Voting:
> 
> BC members should vote for either Version 1 or Version 2.  
> 
> To vote, please reply to this email indicating your support for Version 1 or 
> Version 2. 
> 
> Voting will close on 12-April so that we can submit the comment on 13-April.
> 
> Per our charter, a simple majority prevails and the required quorum is 50 
> percent of paid BC members.
> 
> As always, members can REPLY ALL at any time to share their views on this 
> issue.
> 
> Steve DelBianco
> Vice chair for policy coordination
> <BC Comment on ACDR proposal as UDRP provider [v1].docx>
> <BC Comment on ACDR proposal as UDRP provider [v2].docx>