- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

ICANN Names WIPO as Exclusive Arbitrator of Legal Rights Objections to New gTLDs – But When Will ICANN Begin Work on Implementation Details of the URS?
by Phil Corwin Feb. 17, 2012

Feb. 17, 2012

FYI -- http://internetcommerce.org/WIPO_LRO ICANN Names WIPO as Exclusive Arbitrator of Legal Rights Objections to New gTLDs – But When Will ICANN Begin Work on Implementation Details of the URS? Submitted by Philip Corwin on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 20:15 ICANN has designated the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) as the exclusive provider of arbitration services to resolve disputes when a Legal Rights Objection (LRO) is lodged against a proposed new gTLD. An LRO can be lodged by a trademark owner or intergovernmental organization when an applied-for gTLD would be likely to infringe the objector’s existing trademark, or IGO name or acronym. As noted in WIPO’s explanation of its LRO arbitration role (available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/) this is but one of several new objections that can be raised by various parties against a proposed new gTLD: To address potential disputes over new gTLD applications, ICANN offers three other types of pre-delegation objection-based dispute resolution procedures which are not administered by WIPO, namely, “String Confusion Objection,” “Limited Public Interest Objection,” and “Community Objection.” For the latter two types of objections, ICANN is also making available an “Independent Objector” by way of public service. ICANN has furthermore established a process for the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to provide “GAC Advice on New gTLDs” concerning applications identified by governments as problematic. LRO disputes will generally be decided by a single expert, unless the parties to the dispute agree on a 3-member panel. In either case, the panel will determine whether the potential use of the applied-for gTLD by the applicant: • takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of the objector’s registered or unregistered trademark or service mark (“mark”) or IGO name or acronym, • unjustifiably impairs the distinctive character or the reputation of the objector’s mark or IGO name or acronym, or • otherwise creates an impermissible likelihood of confusion between the applied-for gTLD and the objector’s mark or IGO name or acronym. In a single expert proceeding, each party will pay a $10,000 fee. Of that fee, $2,000 from each party will go to WIPO to cover administrative costs; the prevailing party will receive an $8,000 refund, with that amount being charged to the losing party for the expert’s fee. ICANN is obliged to accept WIPO’s LRO determinations. We believe it is reasonable for ICANN to select a single provider of LRO dispute resolution services as the likely number of cases should be limited. Notwithstanding the pre-launch concerns voiced by some trademark interests, it’s likely that the multiple types of objections that can be raised against new gTLDs, as well as the prospect of losing an $185,000 application fee and other considerable preparatory costs, will likely keep such disputes to a minimum. As noted, the LRO and other objection processes are pre-delegation remedies, and once a new gTLD actually launches it is subject to additional rights protection mechanisms. They are described by WIPO as follows: Beyond the above-described pre-delegation objection procedures (available prior to any new gTLD being approved and becoming operational), ICANN has established a range of “Rights Protection Mechanisms” (RPMs). These include a Trademark Clearinghouse (for use in connection with Sunrise periods and Trademark Claims services), a Uniform Rapid Suspension system (URS), and a Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP). In addition, the existing Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP<http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp.htm>) will be applicable to all new gTLDs. More information on these RPMs can be found in the WIPO Center’s overview of Trademark Rights Protection Mechanisms for New gTLDs<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/>. ICA has been participating in and monitoring the work of the Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMC), which has been dealing with technical and process issues arising from the creation of a large global database of protected marks. However, ICANN is woefully behind on developing the implementation details for Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS), the expedited supplement to the UDRP that is of most relevance and concern to domain registrants and portfolio owners. ICANN staff had indicated at the Dakar meeting that a URS IAG would be launched within a month after that October 2011 gathering, but more than a quarter year later we have yet to see any progress on this front. That unexplained delay may well be due to ICANN’s implausible promise to trademark owners that the URS would carry a fee of only $300 for objections to one or more domains held by the same registrant. ICA consistently questioned whether any credible due process could be provided at such a bargain basement price. Both WIPO and the National Arbitration Forum NAF have publicly stated that, with IP attorney arbitrator fees averaging $650 per hour, there is no way they can procure the services of credible experts at that price, much less cover their own administrative costs. In this regard we note that that Rapid Evaluation Service (RES), now available for suspension of infringing .xxx domains exclusively through NAF, carries the same price tag as a UDRP - $1200. If an implementation process for URS has not been announced by the time of the ICANN meeting in San Jose, Costa Rica next month, ICA will be asking ICANN’s Board and staff to explain the delay, and ask when steps will be taken to assure that the URS is a credible process affording adequate due process to domain registrants. We will also continue to insist that any URS provider be placed under a standard binding contract that sets forth the extent of its powers and provides ICANN with flexible and escalating enforcement tools, and that protections are included to prevent forum shopping if more than one URS provider is designated. And, needless to say, ICA will participate in the URS IAG once it is initiated to assure that this new process is fair to registrants and is truly a limited supplement to, and not a broad substitute for, the UDRP. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

1 0

BC Outreach at Costa Press Club, Marbella, Spain
by Chris Chaplow Feb. 17, 2012

Feb. 17, 2012

Hi there Thanks to everybody for your trust in re-electing me, much appreciated. Here is a newspaper report of an outreach presentation I gave last week at a local press club. I placed a copy of the BC newsletter on every seat and all were taken away. This was REAL outreach to the 46 attendees most of who had never heard of ICANN before. Thanks to Marilyn for helping with the presentation and Cheryl for creating a super keynote presentation. Two photos attached for our next newsletter. One of the end of the presentations where I urge people to follow ICANN and BC, and another of my best shot at recruiting younger members to the BC. I am aware of one person who has signed up for the pre CR policy webinar. Local TV was also present for a documentary and I expect to be able to offer You Tube link for this. Happy to report that the event was better attended (40 according to Kevin Murphy) that the one that Burson Marsella organised in London and was presented by Kurt. <http://domainincite.com/icann-has-100-new-gtld-applicants/> http://domainincite.com/icann-has-100-new-gtld-applicants/ I will try and get a one page PDF but this report that appeared in page 29 of today edition of local weekly paper. <http://services.surinenglish.com/virtual/20120217/> http://services.surinenglish.com/virtual/20120217/ best Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.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.

1 0

Update to the BC Wiki
by Benedetta Rossi Feb. 17, 2012

Feb. 17, 2012

Dear BC Members, Please note that the BC Wiki has been updated and now also includes information on currently open public comments in ICANN, and upcoming public comments. This space will be updated regularly, for members to access up to date information. The public comment wiki page can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/ICANN%27s+Open+Public+Comments As a reminder, the BC wiki can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home Comments or suggestions about the BC Wiki are most welcome! Thank you, -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

Seven ICANN directors have new gTLD conflicts
by Phil Corwin Feb. 17, 2012

Feb. 17, 2012

http://domainincite.com/seven-icann-directors-have-new-gtld-conflicts/ Seven ICANN directors have new gTLD conflicts<http://domainincite.com/seven-icann-directors-have-new-gtld-conflicts/> Kevin Murphy<http://domainincite.com/about>, February 17, 2012, 14:41:33 (UTC), Domain Policy<http://domainincite.com/category/domain-policy/> Seven members of ICANN's board of directors have self-identified conflicts of interest when it comes to the new generic top-level domains program, according to a report from its last meeting. Chair Steve Crocker, CEO of the consulting firm Shinkuro, appears to be newly conflicted. He was among the directors to excuse themselves before the board discussed a resolution on new gTLDs<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-07feb12-en.htm#4> last week, but he did vote on a new gTLD resolution at its December meeting. Crocker has previously revealed that new gTLD applicant and registry services provider Afilias has an investment in Shinkuro. Vice-chair Bruce Tonkin is chief strategy officer at Melbourne IT, which is a registrar as well as a new gTLD consultancy, and he also excused himself. Ram Mohan and Suzanne Woolf, both non-voting directors, excused themselves because they work for registry service providers (Afilias and Internet Systems Consortium respectively). Non-voting liaison Thomas Narten also declared a conflict, which is a heavy hint that his employer, IBM, is poised to apply for a dot-brand gTLD. The other conflicted directors were Sébastien Bachollet, CEO of BBS International Consulting, and Bertrand de La Chapelle of the International Diplomatic Academy. Two directors appear to be newly unconflicted. Kuo-Wei Wu and Thomas Roessler declared new gTLD program conflicts at the board's December meeting<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-08dec11-en.htm#1> but did not excuse themselves last week. Erika Mann of Facebook missed the meeting (she also missed the December meeting) so it's not clear whether there's a ".facebook" conflict of interest yet. The board of directors has 16 voting members. Nine need to be present for its meetings to be quorate. ICANN introduced new conflict rules<http://www.icann.org/en/committees/board-governance/coi/> after former chair Peter Dengate Thrush took a job with new gTLD applicant/consultant Minds + Machines shortly after voting to approve the program last June. ________________________________ Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

1 0

FW: [bc-gnso] mCADE comments on the Improvements to new gTLD expansion plan
by mortenla＠wellsfargo.com Feb. 17, 2012

Feb. 17, 2012

Attached are my comments. Thanks. Lane Mortensen, CRC M SVP / Operational Risk Manager ISG Risk Management, Compliance & Web Governance Wells Fargo Internet Services Group | 333 Market Street, 27th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94105 MAC A0119-271 Tel 415-371-5884 Cell 925-642-8223 mortenla(a)wellsfargo.com From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:37 PM To: bc - GNSO list Cc: bc-secretariat @icann Subject: [bc-gnso] mCADE comments on the Improvements to new gTLD expansion plan Dear BC colleagues I am attaching my individual responses to the BC position on Implementation Improvements to ICANN's gTLD expansion plan. While it was not technically prohibited for me to participate actively in policy development in my personal and individual capacity, I limited my personal and individual participation during the voting period for officers. As that period is closed,even though the results will be confirmed by the Voting Officer and Returning Officers tomorrow, I feel comfortable in participating in the discussion in my individual capacity. I apologize, though, for the lateness of my response which thus resulted as it limited the opportunity for dialogue on the list. These are my personal and individual views, as a BC member. I hope other members will post their views using the excellent format that was designed by our Vice Chair, Policy Coordination. There was a lot of email on the list since mid December, and I did try to reread it all to inform my understanding of all postings that are related. While that documented input from a few posters, this format seems an excellent approach to documenting and being able to then see comments in a single standardized 'approach'. Kudos, Steve, for that 'improvement', which I personally, as a member found extremely helpful. I also wanted to thank you for the huge amount of work you did to document the existing positions! It was helpful to me in considering what the BC had previously confirmed as a position. BUT, I do recognize how much work it was for you, so wanted to say thanks. Marilyn Cade mCADE llc

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] mCADE comments on the Improvements to new gTLD expansion plan
by Marilyn Cade Feb. 17, 2012

Feb. 17, 2012

I want to remind members that we wanted to review comments as incoming Officers/ExComm, and we wanted to start today on that, per Steve DelBianco's memo of 2/03, providing the format for input. Thanks to those who had a chance to respond. If you haven't responded using format and intend to, you will need to do that today. If you have only a short statement about general support, or non support, we will accept that, but again today only. Please post to bc-gnso list, which is the public list. If there is a confidential aspect, you can post only to Steve and to me. But it is preferable to post to the BC members. We will assess the inputs and comments received by today, COB US PST, and the ExComm will determine next steps by Monday and announce them. Again, if you have told me, or Steve, or any other officer of your views,we cannot reflect those for you onto the list, but your discussions have been useful and informative. And you can send a SHORT email as to the overall view as noted above. If you or your members feel the need for more information overall on ICANN's program and offerings, you can also say that. Best regards Marilyn Cade For the ExComm Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

1 0

mCADE comments on the Improvements to new gTLD expansion plan
by Marilyn Cade Feb. 17, 2012

Feb. 17, 2012

Dear BC colleagues I am attaching my individual responses to the BC position on Implementation Improvements to ICANN's gTLD expansion plan.While it was not technically prohibited for me to participate actively in policy development in my personal and individual capacity, I limited my personal and individual participation during the voting period for officers. As that period is closed,even though the results will be confirmed by the Voting Officer and Returning Officers tomorrow, I feel comfortable in participating in the discussion in my individual capacity. I apologize, though, for the lateness of my response which thus resulted as it limited the opportunity for dialogue on the list. These are my personal and individual views, as a BC member. I hope other members will post their views using the excellent format that was designed by our Vice Chair, Policy Coordination. There was a lot of email on the list since mid December, and I did try to reread it all to inform my understanding of all postings that are related. While that documented input from a few posters, this format seems an excellent approach to documenting and being able to then see comments in a single standardized 'approach'. Kudos, Steve, for that 'improvement', which I personally, as a member found extremely helpful. I also wanted to thank you for the huge amount of work you did to document the existing positions! It was helpful to me in considering what the BC had previously confirmed as a position. BUT, I do recognize how much work it was for you, so wanted to say thanks. Marilyn CademCADE llc

4 4

BC Officer Elections 2012: Results
by Marilyn Cade Feb. 17, 2012

Feb. 17, 2012

Thanks to the Voting Officer and Verifying Officer/GNSO Secretariat for concluding the counting and publication of the outcome of the election so promptly. Let me thank all BC members for voting. I realize it is a busy time, and we have asked you to multi task within the BC during a busy early 2012. I appreciate the support to my role as chair, but also to the full set of Officers. As members know, we operate as a team, and I look forward to the continuation of other officers, and welcome Elisa Cooper as the incoming CSG rep. Looking ahead to Costa Rica, we have much to focus on before then, and right now, we are discussing several vitally interesting and impactful topics ranging from improvements to the new gTLD program, where members were asked to submit a further response to email exchanges on the BC list; to thick WHOIS; to planning for the Costa Rica meeting, and our input for various other workshops that we expect the staff to announce before C.R., as well as distributing our updated input into the ICANN budget, It will be a busy and important year, and I count on the involvement and participation of all of our members, and on our continuing expansion of the BC's role, and its membership. Thank you. Marilyn CadeBC Chair

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] Council call today
by Baskin, James F (Jim) Feb. 16, 2012

Feb. 16, 2012

Marilyn, This is a great start. There are likely a few more aspects that would need to be covered - like registration info changes without a registrant change - but this is going in the right direction. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Marilyn Cade [marilynscade(a)hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 01:21 PM Eastern Standard Time To: John Berard; Bill Smith Cc: Lynn Goodendorf; owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org; Steve Delbianco; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Council call today A centralized WHOIS database, operated by ICANN, and outsourced, could benefit business [and govt's and NGOs] tremendously. NO names go live until verified payment received -- no future kiting and tasting opportunities supported by registries, registrars, and resellers Standards for WHOIS Single cost for entry to registrant and single cost to anyone accessing ISO certified This is not a discussion on who gets access, or what is displayed -- but a discussion on benefits of standards, and a single validated database. In my view, high benefit to business users. And, registrants like companies, can more easily look for cybersquatted names. ________________________________ From: john(a)crediblecontext.com To: bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com; marilynscade(a)hotmail.com CC: lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com; owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Council call today Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:37:25 -0700 Bill, Here is the pertinent line from the final report: From a technical perspective, a thick Whois model provides a central repository for a given registry. Historically, centralized databases are operated under a single administrator that sets conventions and standards for submission and display, archival/restoration and security have proven easier to manage. Not so much a call but a possibility. The report notes that some comments, like that coming from the IPC, did call for a centralized database. Berard -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Council call today From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>> Date: Thu, February 16, 2012 8:30 am To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: Lynn Goodendorf <lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>>, "<owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>>" <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>>, Steve Delbianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> To be clear, I am not questioning the BC position. Rather, I was pointing out that the characterization of the WHOIS RT recommendation as a call for a centralized database was perhaps incorrect. On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:19 AM, Marilyn Cade wrote: I understand that the WG may have made a distinction. However, the BC has supported thick WHOIS. It is helpful to have the clarification from the independent experts on that subject. Marilyn Cade > Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Council call today > To: bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com><mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>; owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org><mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org><mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> > CC: bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org><mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > From: lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com><mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com> > Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:15:31 +0000 > > > Yes Bill- our RT made a deliberate distinction between a centralized web interface rather than a database. > We believe this approach is feasible and would provide consumers with a single URL for whois lookups. > Lynn > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>><mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>> > Sender: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org><mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> > Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:07:06 > To: Steve DelBianco<sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>><mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> > Cc: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>><mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Council call today > > > A clarification. > > I don't think the WHOIS RT recommendations include "a call for centralized database of WHOIS data". If it does, it's an error. What we are recommending is that there be a centralized point of *access* to WHOIS data. > > The data could reside anywhere. > > If our report says otherwise, or projects that perception, please let us know. > > On Feb 16, 2012, at 6:30 AM, Steve DelBianco wrote: > > Resending this to BC List (since I was rejected when sending to BC-Private) > > From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)actonline.org<mailto:sdelbianco@actonline.org>><mailto:sdelbianco@actonline.org><mailto:sdelbianco@actonline.org>> > Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:03:22 -0500 > To: Zahid Jamil <zahid(a)dndrc.com<mailto:zahid@dndrc.com>><mailto:zahid@dndrc.com><mailto:zahid@dndrc.com>>, John Berard <john(a)crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>><mailto:john@crediblecontext.com><mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> > Cc: <bc-private(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-private@icann.org>><mailto:bc-private@icann.org><mailto:bc-private@icann.org>> > Subject: Council call today > > John & Zahid — just a follow-up on last week's member call, where we discussed the motions you have today in Council. > > Motion to start a PDP on Thick WHOIS: > > This one is complicated. > > BC wants accessible and accurate WHOIS, and thick WHOIS is part of the solution. But another part of the solution is amending the RAA to require verification of WHOIS data. And the WHOIS review Team draft report includes many recommendations on WHOIS, including a call for centralized database of WHOIS data. > > We also understand that registrars are not willing to share their WHOIS data with a thick .com whois or a a central database — unless ICANN adopts a new "consensus policy" requiring data sharing. And we know that it takes a PDP to create such a new consensus policy. > > However, we don't want to do anything that removes pressure on the current process to amend the RAA. And we are concerned that launching a new PDP could create an excuse for the RAA negotiators to avoid making any changes on WHOIS. > > John Berard was going to ask Stephane about deferring his PDP motion until after the RAA amendments are done. > > If John's outreach effort wasn't successful, I think the BC members would want you to ask for a deferral of the PDP motion, for reasons stated above. > > > Motion for implementation of IRTP Recommendation 8: > Support. The BC had several members on the IRTP-B working group, and we support implementation of the working group's recommendation. > > > Motion to send letter to Board asking to allow single-letter IDN gTLDs: > Support. The BC supports the expansion of gTLDs to IDN users, and wants TLDs to be able to use a single-character IDN if that's most appropriate for the linguistic community being served. > > > Hope that's helpful. Let me know if there's any other info I can provide for today's call. > > -- > Steve DelBianco > Vice chair for policy coordination > > >

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] Council call today
by john＠crediblecontext.com Feb. 16, 2012

Feb. 16, 2012

2 1