Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call

[John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Phil,

My view and recollection is as Phil describes.  An underlying principle of any 
business is clarity and contracts for these vendors would help do that.

I am in favor of sending this letter.

John Berard
Credible Context

Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

><!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face         {font-family:Calibri;   
>panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} @font-face      {font-family:Tahoma;    
>panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, 
>li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal        {margin:0in;    margin-bottom:.0001pt;  
>font-size:12.0pt;       font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";} a:link, 
>span.MsoHyperlink       {mso-style-priority:99;         color:blue;     
>text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed        
>{mso-style-priority:99;         color:purple;   text-decoration:underline;} 
>span.apple-style-span       {mso-style-name:apple-style-span;} 
>span.EmailStyle18    {mso-style-type:personal-reply;         
>font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";     color:#1F497D;} .MsoChpDefault  
>{mso-style-type:export-only;    font-size:10.0pt;} @page WordSection1   
>{size:8.5in 11.0in;     margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} div.WordSection1      
> {page:WordSection1;} --> 
>
>Fellow BC members:
>
> 
>
>On July 21st I sent an e-mail to the BC list expressing concerns about ICANN’s 
>July 19th document “UDRP Providers and Uniformity of Process – Status Report”. 
>In particular, the Report appears to conflict with the BC’s longstanding 
>position that UDRP providers should be subject to “a standard mechanism for 
>establishing uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of delineating 
>and enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities” .
>
> 
>
>The closing paragraph of that e-mail stated:
>
> 
>
>In conclusion, I hereby request that BC leadership and members consider 
>preparing and sending a communication to the CEO and the Board raising 
>concerns about the timing of the release of this document, the lack of public 
>comment or Board review prior to its release, and its potentially prejudicial 
>impact on future community discussion of the UDRP. I leave whether that 
>communication should also take issue with any of its substantive conclusions 
>up to the BC membership. 
>
> 
>
>Attached is a proposed draft letter for the BC to send to ICANN in regard to 
>this matter; this item is on the agenda provided by Steve DelBianco. The draft 
>letter does not take any substantive positions on the statements in the report 
>– it just states the BC’s long-held position on the need for a standard and 
>enforceable mechanism between ICANN and UDRP providers, and asks a series of 
>questions about some of the statements in the Report.
>
> 
>
>I realize that the limited time may prevent a decision on this matter during 
>the Thursday call and that we may need to follow up by e-mail, but I would be 
>happy to answer any questions during the call.
>
> 
>
>Thanks, and best regards,
>
>Philip
>
> 
>
> 
>
>Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
>
>Virtualaw LLC
>
>1155 F Street, NW
>
>Suite 1050
>
>Washington, DC 20004
>
>202-559-8597/Direct
>
>202-559-8750/Fax
>
>202-255-6172/cell
>
> 
>
>Twitter: @VlawDC
>
> 
>
>"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>
> 
>
>From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
>Steve DelBianco
>Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 11:03 PM
>To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx list
>Subject: [bc-gnso] Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call
>
> 
>
>Here's a Policy Calendar for Thursday's BC call.   Those of you volunteering 
>to collaborate on draft comments should feel free to circulate ideas and edits 
>before Thursday.  I found it helpful to consult Benedetta's meeting minutes 
>from 8-Aug (here).
>
> 
>
>Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process:  
>
> 
>
>ICANN Public Comment page is here.   Selected comment opportunities below:
>
> 
>
>1. Draft report of expert working group (EWG) on next generation directory 
>services (new WHOIS)    (comments close 6-Sep).     
>
>Initial drafting was done by Laura Covington, Susan, Elisa, Stephane, J Scott, 
>and Bill Smith (thru 5-Aug)
>
>Then some compromise paragraphs from Marie Pattullo on 6-Aug. 
>
>I added draft language on commercial use of privacy/proxy services.
>
>Then Marilyn, J. Scott, and David Fares added edits to the 9-Aug version (1st 
>attachment)
>
>While the deadline is 6-Sep, we should finalize our comments ASAP since the 
>EWG may begin reviewing comments later this week.
>
>Note to Bill Smith: please share PayPal comments as soon as you are able.   
>
>    
>
>2. Postponement of GNSO review  (reply comments close 6-Sep)
>
> 
>
>3. Locking of domain name subject to UDRP proceeding (PDP), board 
>recommendation (reply comments by 13-Sep).   
>
>No comments have yet been filed on this.   
>
>Elisa Cooper drafted a brief comment for member consideration.  (2nd 
>attachment).
>
>Marilyn Cade expressed interest in this subject on 8-Aug call.
>
> 
>
>4. Proposal to mitigate name collision risks from new gTLD delegations 
>(initial comments by 27-Aug, reply closes 17-Sep)
>
>Elisa volunteered for first draft (3rd attachment).   
>
>Other volunteers included J Scott, Marilyn, and Steve D.   
>
> 
>
>5. Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) requirements     (initial comments by 
>27-Aug, reply closes 18-Sep)
>
>Elisa volunteered for first draft (4th attachment).   
>
>Other volunteers included J Scott, Marilyn, and Steve D.  
>
> 
>
>6. Charter amendment process for GNSO Structures  (initial comments by 28-Aug, 
>reply closes 18-Sep)
>
> 
>
>7. DNS Risk Management Framework Report (initial comments by 13-Sep)
>
>Board received a report from Westlake (link).  Lots of process discussion, but 
>at least they acknowledge that DNS is all about Availability, Consistency, and 
>Integrity. (page 8)
>
> 
>
>Note: BC members are encouraged to submit individual / company comments.  The 
>BC selects topics on which to submit official positions based on member 
>interest.
>
> 
>
>Geographic Indicator Debate
>
>On 1-Aug a discussion thread was begun by J Scott Evans regarding the 
>"Geographic Indicator Debate at Durban", including broader issue of GAC's 
>role. 
>
>There is no firm deadline for this issue and ICANN has not posted GAC Advice 
>for public comment.
>
>We have offers to draft from J Scott Evans, Stephane, and Sarah Deutsch
>
> 
>
>Standardized Contract for URS Providers
>
>Phil Corwin volunteered to draft a BC letter reiterating our position that URS 
>and UDRP providers have standardized contracts.  Phil contacted Mahmoud 
>Lattouf and they should have a draft letter for member review this week.
>
> 
>
>---
>
>Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO 
>Council
>
>John Berard and Zahid Jamil, BC Councilors
>
> 
>
>Next Council telecon meeting is 5-Sep-2013, 15:00 UTC 
>
>Agenda / motions not posted as of 26-Aug.
>
>GNSO Project list is here.
>
> 
>
>---
>
>Channel 3. Supporting discussion/voting on matters before the Commercial 
>Stakeholders Group (CSG)
>
>Marilyn Cade, CSG Liaison
>
> 
>
>---
>
>Channel 4. BC statements and responses during public meetings (outreach 
>events, public forum, etc.)
>
> 
>
>What shall we do to stop the madness of allowing both singular and plural 
>forms of the same TLD?
>
>This is an issue on which the BC has been vocal since Beijing, along with 
>advice from the GAC to "reconsider" the singular/plural decisions.
>
> 
>
>ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee "reconsidered" in its 25-Jun Resolution:  
>“NGPC has determined that no changes are needed to the existing mechanisms in 
>the Applicant Guidebook to address potential consumer confusion resulting from 
>allowing singular and plural versions of the same string.”
>
> 
>
>As many BC members have discussed on list, the Dispute Resolution panels are 
>generally upholding the originally flawed findings of the experts.   In one 
>case, Dispute Resolution providers disagreed on the exact same string. (link)
>
> 
>
>There's been an impressive discussion on BC list. Question is, What can the BC 
>do now?
>
> 
>
>This element of GAC Beijing advice was never posted for public comment, so we 
>could insist upon that as a matter of process.  Moreover, events indicate that 
>experts and dispute resolution panels are not uniformly interpreting the 
>Guidebook standard (“so nearly resembles another that it is likely to deceive 
>or cause confusion.”)  So it's time to clarify the guidebook and re-do the 
>string similarity evaluations.  There's a limited class of strings at issue, 
>and the same panels could act quickly once they receive clearer instructions. 
>
> 
>
>Also, we could enlist ALAC support to ask GAC to reiterate its concern over 
>user confusion among singular and plural forms of the same TLD.   It was 
>disappointing that GAC didn't mention singular/plural in its Durban Advice, 
>but events now vindicate the GAC's original concern about consumer confusion.
>
> 
>
> 
>
> 
>
> 
>
>No virus found in this message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6594 - Release Date: 08/20/13
>