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

[Andy Abrams <abrams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks to all for their work on this issue.  We support Version 2.

Best,

Andy


On Thu, 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<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
>



-- 
Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel
*Google* | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043
(650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>