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

Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT
by Ruff, Jacquelynn June 24, 2009

June 24, 2009

We support this approach suggested by Ayesha. Jackie Ruff Verizon ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: Rick Anderson <RAnderson(a)interborder.ca>; bc-gnso(a)icann.org <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Tue Jun 23 21:28:29 2009 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.

2 1

BC statement on IRT
by Rick Anderson June 24, 2009

June 24, 2009

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.

7 6

Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT
by martinsutton＠hsbc.com June 24, 2009

June 24, 2009

I support Ayesha's statement. Regards, Martin Martin Sutton Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 Sent from my BlackBerry ********************************* HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ********************************* ----- Original Message ----- From: "HASSAN Ayesha" [ayesha.hassan(a)iccwbo.org] Sent: 24/06/2009 03:28 ZE2 To: "Rick Anderson" <RAnderson(a)interborder.ca>; <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. ----------------------------------------- SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT! This E-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return E-mail. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.

1 0

BC statement on IRT
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be June 24, 2009

June 24, 2009

AIM supports the compromise draft proposed by ICC. Lets not forget the consumer protection intent of this report. Philip pp AIM

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT
by Fares, David June 24, 2009

June 24, 2009

Unfortunately, I do not have the benefit of being in Sydney but I support a statement noting that the IRT Report is an important step forward. Thank you to those carrying the workload. David ----- 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: Tue Jun 23 21:49:52 2009 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT NetChoice would support Ayesha's version of the BC consensus: that the IRT report is a positive step forward. Specific concerns (e.g., due process) ought to be submitted individually, as George has done so elegantly. Others agreeing with George can support/expand on that in their own individual submissions. --Steve On 6/24/09 11:28 AM, "Ayesha Hassan" <ayesha.hassan(a)iccwbo.org> wrote: > > 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 > > 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 This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of News America Incorporated or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.

3 2

BC statement on IRT
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be June 24, 2009

June 24, 2009

Further to yesterdays BC meeting this is the proposed BC statement. --------------------- The BC recognizes the work and efforts of all those who participated in the IRT. The BC believes that this report is a huge step forward in recognizing the importance of consumer protection 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 ----------------------

5 4

BC statement on IRT
by Rick Anderson June 24, 2009

June 24, 2009

Our firm has dozens of trademarks, which means hundreds of domain name registrations to manage (one of them wildly (and not truthfully) now "for sale" by an unknown seller on Afternic, so I have come to have a better appreciation of IP protection..... Just the same, as George points out, it is important to find the right balance, so that a fair degree of well-justified protection does not strangle the equally-vital innovation and creativity which are fuelling the Internet as a global resource. 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: 'icann(a)leap.com' <icann(a)leap.com>; 'bc-gnso(a)icann.org' <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Tue Jun 23 20:42:34 2009 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT Again, apologies for not being in Sydney, but we do not support the statement put forward by George. ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: BC gnso <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Tue Jun 23 20:24:15 2009 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT 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 This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of News America Incorporated or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect. 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 Fares, David June 24, 2009

June 24, 2009

Again, apologies for not being in Sydney, but we do not support the statement put forward by George. ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: BC gnso <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Tue Jun 23 20:24:15 2009 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT 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 This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of News America Incorporated or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.

1 0

Treasurer / Treasury group for accountable and transparent budgeting
by George Kirikos June 24, 2009

June 24, 2009

Hi folks, To followup on Liz's suggestion, here's a direct proposal: 1) that a small committee of three people (perhaps volunteers or elected) who are NOT councillors be either be responsible for the annual budget 2) aligned with #1, and to ensure accountability, the annual budget be voted upon, and thereby require a majority vote to be passed. We also believe the Secretary should be an elected position, but that should be a separate discussion. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

2 1

Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT
by Phil Corwin June 24, 2009

June 24, 2009

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.)

1 0