June 2009 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

VeriSign to offer 2-factor security and better registry lock
by George Kirikos 29 Jun '09

29 Jun '09

Hi folks, VeriSign intends to offer 2-factor security and a better registry lock, see requests 200904 and 200905: http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/ http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/verisign-auth-request-25jun09.pdf http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/verisign-reglock-request-25jun09.pdf I've long been in favour of 2-factor security, so this might be very positive. However, it concerns me that VeriSign might be abusing its monopoly to overcharge for the services relative to what the price would be with competition. Indeed, for those who've cared about "tiered pricing" you'll note they even use the phrase in the section on pricing for the registry lock service (i.e. page 4, "VeriSign intends to charge registrars based on the market value of the Registry Lock Service. VeriSign expects to offer a tiered pricing model"). Furthermore, given the lawsuit out there attempting to break VeriSign's abusive monopoly, which would hopefully eventually lead to regular tender process for dot-com (and other gTLDs) it is important to ensure that these new services don't help VeriSign solidify vendor lock-in, and that they can be transitioned to a new registry operator should a competitor end up winning a future tender process. Also in general it's a good idea to raise security for *everyone* and not just those willing and able to pay a premium. One will note PayPal only charges a one-time fee of $5 for their security key (for their 2-factor security) or $0 for SMS, and then the ongoing costs are $0. https://www.paypal.com/securitykey That security key that PayPal uses comes from VeriSign: http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/paypal-ebay-offer-security-key-… VeriSign should not be able to abuse its monopoly by overcharging for long-needed security updates for registrants. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

2 1

BC statement and procedures
by Rick Anderson 26 Jun '09

26 Jun '09

I think the BC has more important things to do than descend into a prolonged argument over this, but it is time that the councillors understood that when there is a lack of consensus within the constituency it is not OK to simply proceed as if this were not true. If this were the first time something like this had occurred, it would hardly have rated comment. Let's hope it's the last and that we do not on the future have to go down the censure path as suggested. We all have better things to do - but the time we put into this constituency is also important and that input not to be simply ignored. cheers/Rick Rick Anderson EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd email: randerson(a)interborder.ca cell: (403) 830-1798 office: (403) 750-5535 ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; bc-gnso(a)icann.org <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Fri Jun 26 07:56:44 2009 Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC statement and procedures I echo Marilyn's analysis and hope that BC members can move on, put this dispute behind us, but also collectively be more sensitive to process going forward. Sarah -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 9:25 AM To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement and procedures For the past few days, after the BC meeting, I have been consumed with issues re the overarching issues re security, the economic analysis, and malicious conduct.... I only realized there were five posts objecting when a BC fellow member summarized. Checking the web site, I also see George is correct regarding the percentage needed to require a vote. I do understand George's concerns, and his point. While I was on the Council, we had an instance or two where the Council or Board was making a decision, and we, as officers, in our individual capacity, signed onto a letter or resolution. They were very "unusual". I think the unusualness of such action remains. And should. But in this instance, I do think we have harmed our own integrity by publishing a statement when there is such a high level of dissent. When there is this level of dissent, the BC, as a constituency, really hasn't published statements at ICANN meetings. I do not wish to have a big debate about this; the BC has to address such differences via a trusted, transparent set of procedures. That is important regardless of the size of the members. And we must have mutual respect and regard for not only similarities, but differences. It happens that I supported the version of a statement that one of the members offered as a substitute. However, I understand the serious concerns. Marilyn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: philip.sheppard(a)aim.be Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:14:37 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] BC statement and procedures Firstly, I must say that I am dismayed about so much chit chat between the choice of three dramactically anodyne statements! Secondly, on process, there is a difference between the lengthy process of BC written positions papers, and a BC statement made at an ICANN meeting on a topic of current relevance in time for the Board meeting at the end of the week. The mechanism for the latter is that the officers present make best endeavours to take the pulse of the members at the meeting, bearing in mind existing policy positions. In addition when we can we take the pulse of members not present. Our conclusion of both sets of members was that the text we issued was the one best supported. I was merely the officer who posted it. Any BC member who disagrees may post in their own name their own positions. Philip PS I am travelling shortly and will not be responsing to list mails. This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event this e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender’s company do not waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have been sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify sender at the above e-mail address. Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this e-mail message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender’s company accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent is assumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.

2 1

Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement and procedures
by Marilyn Cade 26 Jun '09

26 Jun '09

For the past few days, after the BC meeting, I have been consumed with issues re the overarching issues re security, the economic analysis, and malicious conduct.... I only realized there were five posts objecting when a BC fellow member summarized. Checking the web site, I also see George is correct regarding the percentage needed to require a vote. I do understand George's concerns, and his point. While I was on the Council, we had an instance or two where the Council or Board was making a decision, and we, as officers, in our individual capacity, signed onto a letter or resolution. They were very "unusual". I think the unusualness of such action remains. And should. But in this instance, I do think we have harmed our own integrity by publishing a statement when there is such a high level of dissent. When there is this level of dissent, the BC, as a constituency, really hasn't published statements at ICANN meetings. I do not wish to have a big debate about this; the BC has to address such differences via a trusted, transparent set of procedures. That is important regardless of the size of the members. And we must have mutual respect and regard for not only similarities, but differences. It happens that I supported the version of a statement that one of the members offered as a substitute. However, I understand the serious concerns. Marilyn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: philip.sheppard(a)aim.be Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:14:37 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] BC statement and procedures Firstly, I must say that I am dismayed about so much chit chat between the choice of three dramactically anodyne statements! Secondly, on process, there is a difference between the lengthy process of BC written positions papers, and a BC statement made at an ICANN meeting on a topic of current relevance in time for the Board meeting at the end of the week. The mechanism for the latter is that the officers present make best endeavours to take the pulse of the members at the meeting, bearing in mind existing policy positions. In addition when we can we take the pulse of members not present. Our conclusion of both sets of members was that the text we issued was the one best supported. I was merely the officer who posted it. Any BC member who disagrees may post in their own name their own positions. Philip PS I am travelling shortly and will not be responsing to list mails.

2 1

Has Philip Sheppard violated the BC charter?
by George Kirikos 26 Jun '09

26 Jun '09

Hi folks, I am literally shocked to see that Philip has submitted a statement on behalf of the BC on the IRT, see: http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00087.html saying: "The BC recognizes the work and efforts of all those who participated in the IRT. The BC believes that this report is a productive step forward in addressing several issues with respect to new gTLDs." in particular given that 5 BC members (more than 10%) did not support that statement, and indeed supported my alternate proposal. Section 7.4 of our charter is explicit: http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm "Where the discussion mechanism indicates a split in the Constituency of more than 10% of the number of paid-up members, there will then be a vote (typically by e-mail) on the position." There has been no such vote. Philip needs to explain why he should not be disciplined under 3.6 of our charter, for making such a statement on behalf of the constituency. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

3 3

BC statement and procedures
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be 26 Jun '09

26 Jun '09

Firstly, I must say that I am dismayed about so much chit chat between the choice of three dramactically anodyne statements! Secondly, on process, there is a difference between the lengthy process of BC written positions papers, and a BC statement made at an ICANN meeting on a topic of current relevance in time for the Board meeting at the end of the week. The mechanism for the latter is that the officers present make best endeavours to take the pulse of the members at the meeting, bearing in mind existing policy positions. In addition when we can we take the pulse of members not present. Our conclusion of both sets of members was that the text we issued was the one best supported. I was merely the officer who posted it. Any BC member who disagrees may post in their own name their own positions. Philip PS I am travelling shortly and will not be responsing to list mails.

1 0

Transition
by Liz Williams 25 Jun '09

25 Jun '09

Hello everyone I wanted to follow up from our conversations in the meeting yesterday. I would like to propose that we hold a specific session on transition issues to deal with: 1. completion of our charter which will include the identification of all of the "positions" that require filling in the organisation 2. a timetable for transition which includes elections (refer back to my strawman proposal which I posted several months ago) I think we need at least a half day using the services of an objective facilitator -- the existing ExCom/Councillors should not be in the "chair" for this event. I volunteer to prepare a "background paper" and set of documents that will help us make those transition plans become reality. I would like other volunteers to help. I propose that we have this meeting very shortly -- whilst everything is still fresh from the Sydney meeting to give us enough time to make changes before the Seoul meeting. Liz Liz Williams +44 1963 364 380 +44 7824 877757

4 10

Former U.S. cybersecurity chief Rod Beckstrom is top candidate to head ICANN, sources say
by Rick Anderson 25 Jun '09

25 Jun '09

This may be of interest to those who have not seen it already. cheers/Rick Rick Anderson EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd. randerson(a)interborder.ca cell: (403) 830-1798 ------ Former U.S. cybersecurity chief is top candidate to head Internet oversight agency, sources say Wed Jun 24 2009 Byline: BY ANICK JESDANUN NEW YORK - Rod Beckstrom, the former U.S. cybersecurity chief who resigned in March amid persistent turf battles, is the leading candidate to run an international organization with oversight of the monikers behind every website and email address, The Associated Press has learned. Beckstrom's approval as chief executive of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers could come with a board vote Friday as ICANN caps weeklong meetings in Sydney, Australia, according to two people with knowledge of the discussions. They spoke on condition of anonymity because an official announcement has yet to be made, and negotiations could still fall through. Beckstrom has been attending some public sessions and meeting privately with board members this week. If approved, he would replace Paul Twomey, ICANN's third and longest-serving chief executive. Twomey, an Australian who became CEO in March 2003, plans to stay with the organization until the end of the year to help with the transition. The U.S. government, which funded much of the Internet's early development, selected ICANN in 1998 to oversee policies on domain names _ the ``.com'' and other suffixes that define zones on the Internet. The organization is in the midst of revamping procedures for adding domain name suffixes, a move likely to spawn hundreds or thousands of new Internet addresses in the coming years. ICANN had wanted to start taking applications for new names early this year, but that timetable proved too ambitious as objections were raised over such issues as whether trademark owners could wind up having to buy thousands of new domain names simply to protect their intellectual-property rights. A launch next year is more likely, under the new chief's tenure. ICANN also is close to allowing entire Internet addresses to be in languages besides English for the first time. That could begin as early as year's end. In recent years, ICANN also has expanded its role to tackle security issues, given the importance of domain names in allowing computers to find websites and route email. Minute changes in the directories of domain names could lead users to a fake Facebook site or even make all websites under country-specific domain name unreachable. ICANN has been working with other technology groups to promote ways to authenticate entries. Beckstrom brings security experience, having served as the first director of the Department of Homeland Security's National Cybersecurity Center, which was formed in 2008. This past March, less than a year after taking the job, Beckstrom complained in a blunt resignation letter about a shortage of money for the centre and a clash over whether the National Security Agency should control Internet-security efforts. The role of the NSA in protecting domestic computer networks has triggered debate, particularly among privacy and civil-liberties groups that oppose giving such control to U.S. spy agencies. Previously, Beckstrom served as chairman of Privada Inc., a company that developed Internet privacy technology. He also co-founded software companies and has co-authored four books. Beckstrom's service with the U.S. government could help him navigate upcoming negotiations with the Department of Commerce over the future role of ICANN. Commerce retains oversight of ICANN under an agreement that expires Sept. 30; some parties, including governments abroad, have pushed for independence. An executive search firm hired by ICANN, Egon Zehnder International, had received more than 100 applications and approached hundreds of others. ICANN's board interviewed eight finalists before settling on Beckstrom, according to the people with knowledge of the talks. This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event this e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender’s company do not waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have been sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify sender at the above e-mail address. Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this e-mail message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender’s company accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent is assumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.

1 0

BC statement on IRT
by Rick Anderson 25 Jun '09

25 Jun '09

George, I'm with you on the need for the approach to be one which is well-balanced between trademark protection on the one hand, and on the entrepreneurship, innovation and creativity which fuel the blossoming of the web on the other. But I do not find it either surprising nor sinister that whatever good thinking may advance in the IRT world re new gTLDs could have both roots and eventual bearing on the world of existing TLDs. In fact, I would find it surprising were these two be divorced universes.... cheers/Rick Rick Anderson EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd email: randerson(a)interborder.ca cell: (403) 830-1798 office: (403) 750-5535 ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: BC gnso <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Thu Jun 25 07:10:35 2009 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT Hello, Just in case anyone had any doubts that the IRT is ultimately intended for existing gTLDs too, see the article at Computerworld: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&tax… "Unfortunately, the proposal applies only to new GTLDs when it's the existing ones that cause the biggest problems, Metalitz says. Even if every recommendation is adopted for the new GTLDs, getting the same rules applied to existing domains like .com will be tough, he adds. "The problem is, you have entrenched interests that are resistant to change," he says. However, ICANN may be able to apply the new rules as existing registrar contracts expire, Levins says. "We may be able to retrofit the features that are in the new GTLD agreements to address abuse." (that's from page 5 of the article) I disagree with Steve Metalitz that people are resistant to change. The key is that the change must be for the better, a "win-win", and that's currently not on the table via the IP Constituency's one-sided and unbalanced proposals. Lynn Goodendorf (mentioned in the article) was in the live chatroom yesterday during the public session (well, yesterday in my timezone), and she was responsive to the suggestions folks like myself were making (e.g. limiting the URS to only newer domains below a certain age, as that's where most of the abuse was for her company). I think there's a disconnect between the members of the IRT, who took on very extreme positions, and the "average Joe Markholder", who would have been just as happy with a more reasonable and balanced proposal, one that responsible registrants would have supported. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event this e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender’s company do not waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have been sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify sender at the above e-mail address. Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this e-mail message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender’s company accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent is assumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT
by Phil Corwin 25 Jun '09

25 Jun '09

I cannot comment on what the BC did in 2007 as I have only been active within it since early this year. However I strongly question how any general statement of the past can be viewed as implying endorsement of a URS proposal the details of which were just finalized last month. Therefore I shall firmly object to any BC statement that implies such endorsement. I would also note that Bruce Tonkin observed that the majority of those polled on the URS in today's session were opposed to its adoption - and the majority of commenters either opposed it or suggested substantial modification. While dissent on this proposal may be a minority position within the BC that does not appear to be true in the wider ICANN community - and that inaccurate characterizations such as "loudly shouting" do not promote constructive dialogue on matters on which reasonable and well-meaning individuals can legitimately disagree. Philip S. Corwin Partner, Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 2026635347/Office 2022556172/Cell "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Wed Jun 24 02:44:22 2009 Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT What strikes me is that we are rehashing, to some extent, arguments that the BC resolved long ago. A vocal minority is loudly shouting about the Uniform Rapid Suspension system and other IRT proposals. But in concept the URS is a consensus BC position since April 2007, reiterated less than six months ago after a vote of the membership. Same with standardized sunrise. Those members in the minority should make their own comments, but I strongly believe the BC should reiterate its support for those concepts, in addition to thanking the IRT for its very hard work. I would like to go further, but will accept we cannot reach new consensus now. That does not mean we should lessen the impact of our prior consensus positions, by ignoring that they have been considered and adopted by the IRT. So, I would suggest the following, based on Ayesha's text: The BC appreciates the considerable work and efforts of all those who participated in the IRT. The BC believes that this report is productive step forward in addressing several consumer and IP protection issues with respect to new gTLDs. In particular, the BC appreciates that the IRT has adopted the essence of the BC's recommendations from April 2007 and January 2009 with respect to the Uniform Rapid Suspension program and the standardized sunrise recommendations. The BC expects its members will post their individual comments on the detailed substance of the report, including those URS and sunrise recommendations, at the Public comment space http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm. ------ Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:21 PM To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT I think it is important for BC members, both here in Sydney and those not, to take a step back and reflect on what the IRT is and what it is tasked to do. To say it is a shame that all of our members are not here to be able to share in the on-going discussion and dialogue with the IRT work team and the larger ICANN community on this topic is an understatement. I can appreciate that, without the larger context which we here in Sydney can gain a better understand of (as a result of the "local" discourse), some members might view the IRT report as being considerably too little or too much vis-à-vis their expectations. However, at the B.C. meeting yesterday it was agreed by those present and on the call in line that, as it would be futile to try to reach constituency consensus on this topic, it would be better to simply note that the BC is pleased that "this work has been undertaken" and ask each member to make their individual comments in the public comments space. Clearly, IP issues MUST be addressed AND the pressures to roll out new gTLDs is not decreasing (ergo the IRT -- in some watered down form, I suspect -- WILL be adopted and included in the 3rd DAG). Therefore, RNA Partners supports Ayesha's recommendation and urges all members to note their corporate positions on the public comment list. Respectfully, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859 -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of HASSAN Ayesha Sent: 2009-06-23 21:28 To: Rick Anderson; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT I thought the original brief statement reflected the discussion yesterday in the BC and the key is for members to submit their own comments to the consultation. My sense is the statement should be very brief so that members can express their own perspectives directly to the consultation process. To help reach a statement we can all support, I propose the following: "The BC recognizes the work and efforts of all those who participated in the IRT. The BC believes that this report is productive step forward in addressing several issues with respect to new gTLDs. The BC urges its members to post their individual comments on the substance of the report at Public comment space http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm" Regards, Ayesha -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rick Anderson Sent: mercredi 24 juin 2009 03:01 To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT Interborder agrees with George's improved draft. cheers/Rick Rick Anderson EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd email: randerson(a)interborder.ca cell: (403) 830-1798 office: (403) 750-5535 ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: 'mike(a)haven2.com' <mike(a)haven2.com>; 'icann(a)leap.com' <icann(a)leap.com> Cc: 'bc-gnso(a)icann.org' <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Tue Jun 23 18:43:48 2009 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT ICA supports George's alternative and dissents on the original text. Philip S. Corwin Partner, Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 2026635347/Office 2022556172/Cell "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> Cc: BC gnso <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Tue Jun 23 20:30:43 2009 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT i stand with George on this one. mikey On Jun 23, 2009, at 7:24 PM, George Kirikos wrote: > > Hello, > > We do not support that proposed BC statement on the IRT. We propose an > alternative and balanced statement as follows: > > ----- start proposed statement ------ > "The BC appreciates the effort of the IP constituency's work in > creating a proposal that would protect trademark holders interests. > However, much work remains to be done to ensure that the needs of > trademark holders are balanced against the needs of domain registrants > for certainty, predictability and due process. The BC looks forward to > working with the IP constituency, and other constituencies within the > GNSO on an improved version of the IRT's report, one that can achieve > consensus support of all stakeholders." > ----- end proposed statement ------ > > As we have stated previously, we have grave concerns about the IRT, > and the "answers" provided by the members of the IRT team have been > spurious. To give just two concrete examples (there are many more if > one reads our prior comments submitted in the official comment > periods): > > a) No good reason has been provided as to why the IRT proposes that > *all* domain names, irregardless of age, should be subject to the URS, > especially given that markholders ultimately would want the URS to > apply to legacy TLDs such as com/net/org. The URS is an extraordinary > procedure that would take down a domain name with short notice (so > short that a registrant on vacation may not receive actual notice of a > complaint). Such an extraordinary procedure should be targeted only > towards the most abusive domain names, one where "time is of the > essence." Time is not of the essence if a domain name is 10 years old! > The onus should be on markholders to not delay in bringing complaints > if there is truly a matter that is "urgent" and requires the URS. We > proposed that the URS either apply only to domains younger than a > certain age (e.g. 6 months), or that the time to respond to complaints > be a function of the age of the domain (e.g. 15 days + the age of the > domain in months). Businesses and consumers require certainty and due > process, and a system like the URS as proposed that would threaten > their legitimate domain name, one that they've owned for years, denies > them both certainty and due process. > > b) No good reason has been provided as to why the IRT proposes to > limit notification to registrants to only 2 emails and 1 letter by > post for the URS. Email is unreliable given the amount of spam that > exists, and international mail might not be received in time to > respond to a complaint, given the slow delivery times of the > international postal system. We specifically pointed to opt-in fax as > a highly reliable system to notify registrants of complaints, and the > IRT provides excuses that leave objective people incredulous. Footnote > 30 of the report stated: > > "The IRT decided that such requirements would add significant > complexity and cost to the system due to time zones and national and > local laws regarding faxing and calling." > > This is simply astonishing for the IRT to say, given that (a) the > faxes are 100% opt-in, and (b) the UDRP has been providing fax > notification for over 10 years without issues. The cost to send a > 1-page fax notification of a complaint (using email to fax gateways) > is on the order of 10 cents, far below the postal delivery stamp fees. > > A legitimate URS complaint by a markholder will not be impacted if the > registrant receives proper and timely notification (actual notice) by > fax. The URS was supposedly intended for "clear cut" cases, and > notification shouldn't impact the registrant's ability to defend a > "clear cut" case of abuse. > > However, illegitimate and frivolous URS complaints with weak claims > that hope to win by default due to lack of registrant notification > will greatly benefit by lack of fax notification, lack of actual > notice. A legitimate registrant will strongly defend their domain name > and is hurt by lack of the ability to respond and prepare a defence. > > The only logical conclusion is that the IRT has intentionally acted to > put the rights of illegitimate and frivolous URS complainants with > weak claims ahead of legitimate domain registrants with strong > defences, by putting up spurious obstacles to the domain registrants > receiving actual notice and due process. This is no surprise given the > IP's pro-complainant dominance of the IRT process. > > While the IRT members posture in public that their report was a > "compromise" I hope it is clear from just the above two cases (and > there are more) that it truly was not any compromise, but was an > extreme and unbalanced report. > > Legitimate domain registrants like my company and others in the BC and > other constituencies are prepared to work with the IP constituency to > come up with a balanced solution within the GNSO process. But, until > such time, the IRT report should continue to draw skepticism within > the ICANN community, and be rejected. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > http://www.leap.com/ > > P.S. One can read our early substantial comments on the IRT, indeed > with novel approaches (such as the concept of easements), that were > ignored by the IRT: > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00000.html > http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00015.html > http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00016.html > http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00000.html - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event this e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender's company do not waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have been sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify sender at the above e-mail address. Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this e-mail message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender's company accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent is assumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.

3 3

BC statement on IRT
by Chris Chaplow 24 Jun '09

24 Jun '09

Dear All, Although I would personally like to have a stronger support statement of the IRT report, I support Ayesha's statement. Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucía.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain. Please think of the Environment before you print this email

1 0