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

[Tim Smith <tim.smith@xxxxxxxxx>]

I support #2

Sincerely
Tim Smith
General Manager 
www.cipa.com

On 2013-04-05, at 9:18 AM, John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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>