Reply Comment: Against special rights for IGOs/INGOs and reopening "and" vs "or"

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Reply Comment
Submitted by: George Kirikos
Company: Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.
Website: http://www.leap.com/

First, I'd like to note that the "reply comment" submitted by the Intellectual 
Property Constituency was late, i.e.  Tue, 6 May 2014 20:11:48 -0400 is 
equivalent to Wednesday May 7, 2014 00:11:48 UTC, which is 11 minutes and 48 
seconds past the deadline.

Their comments should *not* be considered (if their comment is considered by 
ICANN, so should other "late" comments, including this one). In particular, the 
IPC's longstanding desire to change the UDRP and URS from one designed for the 
"clear cut cases of abuse" by changing the "and" requirement to a lesser "or" 
standard is obviously unacceptable, and against the public interest. The cases 
of "or" are best left to the national court system, where full due process 
exists (including cross-examination, discovery, etc.), not the UDRP/URS where 
very limited evidence is presented under extreme time constraints.

It's inconsistent for the IPC to simultaneously argue for a "narrow" focus of 
any PDP (no PDP at all should take place, as we've argued in prior comments), 
but then try to broaden that focus by reopening the "and" vs "or" debate. 
Clearly they have an ulterior motive at work, namely trying to reopening the 
"and" vs "or" requirement for non-IGO/INGO complainants, using the cases of 
IGOs/INGOs as a "foot in the door" if that policy was developed in a haphazard 
process focused on "speed" rather than a process focused on careful and 
thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.leap.com/