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

Comment period for Carlton reports on Competition/Pricing ends on Monday (July 20)
by George Kirikos July 17, 2009

July 17, 2009

Hi folks, The comment period for the final version of the Carlton reports on competition and pricing ends on Monday: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06jun09-en.htm My understand is most folks found the reports wanting, to be diplomatic. Only a handful of comments have been submitted so far to the final version of the report, as compared to the preliminary report comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/competition-pricing-prelim/ so one might want to take a few minutes to send in a comment, to have the views of your organization on the record. Have a great weekend. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

Fwd: [gnso-restruc-dt] Notification of results in GNSO Council vote on Recommended By Laws changes
by Liz Williams July 16, 2009

July 16, 2009

All How is it possible that all of our BC Councillors (and many others) were absent for this important vote and that this motion is able to go forward? Of course I understand weighted voting but this doesn't seem right? What are the implication of this? Liz ... Liz Williams +44 1963 364 380 +44 7824 877757 Begin forwarded message: > From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> > Date: 15 July 2009 05:27:13 BST > To: secretary(a)icann.org, Peter Dengate Thrush <barrister(a)chambers.gen.nz > >, Roberto Gaetano <roberto(a)icann.org>, gnso-council-draft(a)icann.org > Cc: gnso-restruc-dt(a)icann.org > Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Notification of results in GNSO Council > vote on Recommended By Laws changes > > > > To the Board; > > This constitutes formal notification to the Board, to the Structural > Improvements Committee of the Board and to the Public Comments area, > on the motion concerning the recommended By Laws changes in support > of GNSO restructuring as mandated by the Board. > > Avri Doria > Chair, GNSO Council > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > By-Law Changes Motion proposed by Avri Doria and seconded by Chuck > Gomes > > Whereas > > On 28 August 2008 the ICANN Board of Directors approved the BGC plan > to restructuring of the GNSO; and > http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-28aug08.htm > > On 27 March 2009 the ICANN Policy Staff introduced a draft of > proposed by-law changes related to the restructuring of the GNSO; and > http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-bylaws-changes-re-gnso-27mar09.pdf > > Subsequent to receiving the changes suggested by the ICANN Policy > Staff, the GNSO Council decided to create a Committee of the Whole > to work on a proposed set of changes to the By-laws which committee > was open to council members as well as substitutes from the > constituencies and to representatives of applicant constituencies; and > > On 8 June 2009 the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board > Directors gave a set of clarification to questions posed by the GNSO > Committee of the Whole; and > http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-restructure-08jun09.pdf > > On 12 June 2009, the ICANN legal counsel gave a set of recommend > edits to the GNSO Committee of the whole. > http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/by-laws-legal-12jun09.pdf > > Resolved > > The GNSO recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that the By-laws > related to the GNSO council be amended to read as documented in: http://www.icann.org/en/general/proposed-gnso-council-bylaws-amendment-clea… > > The Motion passed. > > 12 Votes in favour: > Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz (Registrar constituency), Jordi > Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes (gTLD Registries > constituency) (two votes each) > Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (Nominating Committee Appointees)(one vote > each) > > 3 Abstentions: William Drake, Carlos Souza (Non-Commercial Users > Constituency), Kristina Rosette (Intellectual Property Constituency). > > 1 Vote against: Cyril Chua (Intellectual Property Constituency). > > Absent Council members: Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid > Jamil (Commercial and Business Users Constituency), Ute Decker > (Intellectual Property Constituency), Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg > Ruth (Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency), > Mary Wong (Non-Commercial Users Constituency), Terry Davis > (Nominating Committee Appointees), Stéphane van Gelder (Registrar > constituency). > > Kristina Rosette: Reason for abstention: > It is inappropriate for there to be a vote on the by-laws until we > have a resolution of the allocation of Board seats 13 and 14 as well > as the absence of language pertaining to the temporary transitional > allocation of the six seats in the NCSG. > > Bill Drake: Reason for abstention: > Reason for abstention: > I abstain because the document is not done and we are waiting for > clarification of some closely linked issues that will affect our > participation in the new GNSO > > Carlos Souza: Reason for abstaining: > I understand that the wording regarding the NCSG seats have been > changed and we do not have the blank space at the end of the clause > as it was presented in Sydney. However, there are some issues that > require further input and the document as today is still incomplete > on that regard. > > > Posted by: > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > > ---------------------- > Additional notes: > > I. The vote was originally scheduled for 24 June 2009, but held over > at the request of several constituencies. It has been GNSO Council > practice to postpone a vote for one (1) meeting when a constituency > asks for more time for considering the motion within the constituency. > > II. The meeting for the vote was originally scheduled for 2 July > 2009, but was postposed until 9 July 2009 at a council meeting on 25 > June 2009. There were no recorded objections to the scheduling of > the meeting for that date. > > III. The decision described above, was made according to the ByLaws > currently in effect: > > X.3.9.b. Members entitled to cast a majority of the total number of > votes of GNSO Council members then in office shall constitute a > quorum for the transaction of business, and acts by a majority vote > of the GNSO Council members present at any meeting at which there > is a quorum shall be acts of the GNSO Council, unless otherwise > provided herein. > (See Section 5(2) of this Article concerning the number of votes > that GNSO Council members may cast.) > > IV. The absentee ballot rule was not put in to effect due to > consultation with Legal Counsel that indicated that this was > neither a Policy Process vote nor an Election, and those are the > only two occasions where the absentee ballot is approved. > > V. The Commercial and Business Users Constituency, endorsed by the > Intellectual Property Constituency and the Internet Service and > Connectivity Providers Constituency, formally requested that the > following information be included in the formal notification of the > vote: > >> >> 1. Of the 21 members of Council, 7 members voted in favour. >> 2. Of the 6 GNSO Constituencies, only 2 voted in favour. >> >> > > > > > > > > >

5 6

Re: [bc-gnso] Financial Times article on new TLDs and IRT
by Phil Corwin July 16, 2009

July 16, 2009

For what it's worth, I am the lawyer who alerted Sarah Deutsch to Verizon-related names being offered on eBay after reading about it on thedomains.com, a blog written by Michael Berkens. Mike is a very successful domainer who abhors cybersquatters. Domainers are not cybersquatters, and it was good to read Rod Beckstrom's remark indicating that he understands that. 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 ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: 'BC gnso' <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Thu Jul 16 11:01:14 2009 Subject: [bc-gnso] Financial Times article on new TLDs and IRT See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ce57c854-7170-11de-a821-00144feabdc0.html Note this link may expire. Philip

1 0

Financial Times article on new TLDs and IRT
by Philip Sheppard July 16, 2009

July 16, 2009

See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ce57c854-7170-11de-a821-00144feabdc0.html Note this link may expire. Philip

1 0

Public Comment: WIPO Proposal for Modification of UDRP Rules to Allow "Paperless" UDRP Proceedings
by BC Secretariat July 15, 2009

July 15, 2009

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13jul09-en.htm Public Comment: WIPO Proposal for Modification of UDRP Rules to Allow "Paperless" UDRP Proceedings 13 July 2009 The implementation rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) document the procedures for the implementation of UDRP proceedings (http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-rules-24oct99.htm) ICANN has received a proposal from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) regarding suggested changes to the implementation rules to allow for a paperless UDRP proceeding, or "eUDRP." WIPO does not propose any changes to the UDRP itself. The WIPO proposal [PDF, 13K] includes an explanation for WIPO's proposal, as well as a redline of the proposed rule changes. WIPO's proposal is being posted for public comment for 30 days to ensure broad community input. Feedback received will be considered in the evaluation of the need to modify the implementation rules to give effect to the specific purpose proposed. Note: The proposal also includes sections relating to proposed changes to WIPO's supplemental rules for the administration of UDRP proceedings. The public comment forum is not intended to address the supplemental rules change issues. Comments regarding WIPO's proposed amendments to the implementation rules maybe submitted by email to: eudrp(a)icann.org through 12 August 2009. Comments may be viewed at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/eudrp/ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat

1 0

UDRP (and URS) might one day be deemed invalid and unenforceable
by George Kirikos July 15, 2009

July 15, 2009

Hi folks, I was doing some research on NAF bias, and came across an interesting section of text in their Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Arbitration_Forum (I know, I know, Wikipedia isn't always reliable for information) However, the section on the "Proposed Arbitration Legislation" was educational. The relevant bill working its way through the government can be seen at: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1020 One should read the "Findings" section very carefully, especially as extremists on the pro-complainant sides of the UDRP (and IRT) try to tilt things even further against due process. Almost every point can be seen when one thinks about the UDRP: e.g. ".....was intended to apply to disputes between commercial entities of generally similar sophistication and bargaining power." "a large and rapidly growing number of corporations are requiring millions of consumers and employees to give up their right to have disputes resolved by a judge or jury, and instead submit their claims to binding arbitration." "Few people realize, or understand the importance of the deliberately fine print that strips them of rights; and because entire industries are adopting these clauses, people increasingly have no choice but to accept them. They must often give up their rights as a condition of having a job, getting necessary medical care, buying a car, opening a bank account, getting a credit card, and the like. Often times, they are not even aware that they have given up their rights." "Private arbitration companies are sometimes under great pressure to devise systems that favor the corporate repeat players who decide whether those companies will receive their lucrative business." "Mandatory arbitration undermines the development of public law for civil rights and consumer rights, because there is no meaningful judicial review of arbitrators’ decisions. With the knowledge that their rulings will not be seriously examined by a court applying current law, arbitrators enjoy near complete freedom to ignore the law and even their own rules." "Mandatory arbitration is a poor system for protecting civil rights and consumer rights because it is not transparent. While the American civil justice system features publicly accountable decision makers who generally issue written decisions that are widely available to the public, arbitration offers none of these features." " Many corporations add to their arbitration clauses unfair provisions that deliberately tilt the systems against individuals, including provisions that strip individuals of substantive statutory rights, ban class actions, and force people to arbitrate their claims hundreds of miles from their homes. While some courts have been protective of individuals, too many courts have upheld even egregiously unfair mandatory arbitration clauses in deference to a supposed Federal policy favoring arbitration over the constitutional rights of individuals." Of course, there are appeals procedures for the UDRP (and URS) so there's not a 100% match (although there are clearly many parallel themes we've seen), but the "Findings" above demonstrate that there needs to be fairness, and lawmakers (and presumably courts) are sympathetic to cases where rights to due process are being abused. The more some people try to tilt the UDRP (or IRT) so that it favours extremists that will abuse it, the more likely it will one day be deemed invalid and unenforceable. The moderates on both side would be able to come up with fair rules for clearcut cases of cybersquatting. But, that can't happen when some folks are trying for "win-lose" scenarios, instead of "win-win" ones. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

Next Newsletter
by BC Secretariat July 14, 2009

July 14, 2009

Dear Members I am about to start preparing the next issue of the BC newsletter. If any members have news updates they would like to contribute please send to me at the secretariat address by Wednesday 22 July. The newsletter is intended to provide members with summary information on current issues, so any contributions from members involved with working groups, meetings in Sydney and the outreach events would be welcome. Best wishes Gary

1 0

CSG Charter
by Philip Sheppard July 14, 2009

July 14, 2009

BC members should be aware that the article 1.3 on openness, standards and behaviour was inserted by the Board into our earlier draft Charter. The same phrasing more or less appears in all the other three SG Charters. It may be a difficult road to argue that it should not apply to us. On article 4.2 this phrasing has been approved by the Board and was intentionally introduced into our transitional Charter because of the current uncertainty of where new Constituencies for groups such as Registry Operators, Applicant City TLDs, Applicant Registries, Resellers should sit. The Contracted Parties are adamant they belong in the Commercial Stakeholders Group because all of these groups do not have an ICANN Contract. Having the ability in our Charter to argue such groups do not sit well in our SG seemed a wise precaution in this transitional stage. Philip

1 0

Paperless UDRP proposal
by George Kirikos July 13, 2009

July 13, 2009

Hi folks, ICANN announced a public comment period for a paperless UDRP: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13jul09-en.htm Our own comments are at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/eudrp/msg00001.html NAF's comment included an interesting tidbit: http://forum.icann.org/lists/eudrp/msg00000.html "The UDRP requires a “formalities” or “deficiency” check before a Complaint can be accepted by the Provider and served on the Respondent (UDRP Rule 4). In over 90% of cases (anectodally), the Complaint has at least one “deficiency” that needs to be corrected." (from bottom of page 1 of the PDF) 90% is a shocking statistic, given that complainants have unlimited time to prepare their complaints. This highlights the lack of fairness and lack of due process in the short time period for domain name registrants to respond to UDRP complaints (and potentially to URS complaints). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

Revised CSG Charter
by Philip Sheppard July 13, 2009

July 13, 2009

Dear Colleagues, During the Sydney meeting, we were advised that the Board had reviewed the Transitional Charter for the Commercial Stakeholders Group ("CSG") that we submitted early this year and that the Board was recommending changes to our draft. The changes were minimal (a useful new article 1.3). Accordingly, the drafting committee that put together the original Transitional Charter met and decided to accept the Board's suggested revisions. In addition, we have adjusted the dates found in the document to reflect the shifting of the seating of the new GNSO Council from June to October. Our newly revised draft is attached. For your convenience, all changes are highlighted in red text. To expedite matters, we ask that only objections to this draft be voiced on or before COB, EDT Friday, July 17, 2009. If no objections are voiced, we will jointly submit this along with the other members of the CSG. Philip Sheppard for the BC J Scott Evans for IPC Tony Holmes for ISP

3 4