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

[Gabriela Szlak <gabrielaszlak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Steve and everyone for the efforts on this issue.
We (eInstituto) vote for #2 as well.

Thank you!

*Dra. Gabriela Szlak *

Abogada & Mediadora en Estudio ROSZ

Directora Regional en eInstituto

Consultora en Derecho y Nuevas Tecnologías
www.estudiorosz.com.ar
www.einstituto.org <http://www.einstituto.com.ar/>
www.gabrielaszlak.com.ar  <http://www.gabrielaszlak.com.ar/>

*Skype:* gabrielaszlak

*Twitter: @*GabiSzlak

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



2013/4/5 Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Thanks Steve for your efforts.
>
> I vote for #2.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> JO
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Jimson Olufuye, fncs, ficma, PhD
> CEO Kontemporary®
> Chairman, Africa ICT Alliance - AfICTA
> - AfICTA...Fulfilling the Promise of the Digital Age for everyone in Africa
> www.aficta.org
> www.kontemporary.net.ng
> M: +234 802 3183252
> Skype: jolufuye
>
> This email is for the exclusive recipient/s and it may contain
> confidential materials. If you have received it and it is not meant for
> you, please alert me @ jolufuye@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx or discard at once.
> Thank you.
>
>
>  -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] UPDATE: FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative
> positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider
> From: "Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, April 05, 2013 12:18 pm
> To: "'Steve DelBianco'" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'bc - GNSO
> list'" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> ** ** **
> I support #2.****
> ** **
> Kind regards,****
> ** **
> RA****
> ** **
>  Ronald N. Andruff****
> RNA Partners, Inc. <http://www.rnapartners.com>**
>   ------------------------------
>  *From:* owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>]
> *On Behalf Of *Steve DelBianco
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 04, 2013 7:52 PM
> *To:* 'bc - GNSO list'
> *Subject:* [bc-gnso] UPDATE: FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions
> for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider****
>  ** **
>   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<http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg03236.html>
> )****
>  ** **
>  2. ACDR later circulated written answers to several of the questions
> discussed on the call 
> (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg03237.html>
> )****
>  ** **
>
>  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<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm>).
>  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****
>       ******
>
>