<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [bc-gnso] LAST CALL FOR VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider
- To: Steve Delbianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] LAST CALL FOR VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider
- From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 06:04:10 -0400
Steve, thanks for sending this reminder.
Marilyn Cade
From: sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bc-gnso] LAST CALL FOR VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal
as UDRP Provider
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 09:38:52 +0000
Voting closes today 12-April-2013.
Many BC members have not yet voted.
To cast your vote, you may REPLY privately, or REPLY ALL.
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 12:03 AM
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|