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

["Marie Pattullo" <marie.pattullo@xxxxxx>]

Version 2 for AIM as well, please.

Many thanks

Marie

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Anders Halvorsen
Sent: vendredi 5 avril 2013 22:02
To: 'Steve DelBianco'; 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] UPDATE: FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for 
ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider

 

We also support #2

 

Best regards,

Anders

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Jimson Olufuye
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 7:36 AM
To: Ron Andruff; 'Steve DelBianco'; 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] UPDATE: FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for 
ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider

 

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
 <http://www.aficta.org> www.aficta.org 
 <http://www.kontemporary.net.ng> 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 
@  <mailto:jolufuye@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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" < <mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, April 05, 2013 12:18 pm
To: "'Steve DelBianco'" < <mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'bc - GNSO
list'" < <mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>




I support #2.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

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


  _____  


From:  <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [ 
<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> mailto: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 ( <http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg03236.html> 
link)

 

2. ACDR later circulated written answers to several of the questions discussed 
on the call ( <http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg03237.html> link)

 

Remember: Please review and reply with your vote before 12-April.

 

--Steve

 

 

From: Steve DelBianco < <mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 12:03 AM
To: 'bc - GNSO list' < <mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 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 ( 
<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm> 
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