- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

RE: ICANN accreditation of UDRP providers
by Mike Rodenbaugh Oct. 23, 2010

Oct. 23, 2010

Phil, I wanted to get your proposal onto the correct list, with a relevant title, and adding my support. The BC should make a statement on this, for the reasons you mention. I think your draft is a good first draft for further comment of members, as I've revised it below. If no members object, then it could be submitted by the comment deadline as a BC comment. Or it can be revised and submitted based upon any friendly amendments offered to it in the meanwhile. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: Phil Corwin [mailto:pcorwin@butera-andrews.com] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 7:55 AM To: Marilyn Cade; bcprivate Subject: RE: Informational: update from Oct. 12: Transcripts and MP3 recording update - 12 October /reminder that BC election for Councilor and V.Chair, Operations and Finance will open soon/ There is a pending request for comment regarding the application of the Arab Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution (ACDR) to become a certified UDRP arbitration provider. ACDR is located in Amman, Jordan; The comment period closes on October 28th. The BC opposes approval of this application at this time on the grounds that no new UDRP providers should be accredited until ICANN implements a standard contract with all accredited providers or finds some other mechanism for establishing uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of delineating and enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities. It makes no sense to require that domains be registered or renewed via ICANN-accredited registrars who are under a standard contract (the RAA) but then provide that registrants can have domains transferred away through a process administered by an organization that has been granted this power by ICANN -- yet is under no contract that defines its practices and procedures, is not subject to any regular or standardized review by ICANN, and for which ICANN's only disciplinary tool is accreditation revocation (so extreme a sanction that it is unlikely to ever be used). The Business Constituency suggests that ICANN implement a contractual relationship that defines and constrains this grant of power, and provides flexible and effective enforcement mechanisms, because that delegated power can extinguish substantial monetary investment and goodwill in a domain. Granting this kind of power absent any restraints is not an accountable practice. We appear to be transitioning from a DNS that featured an effective duopoly of UDRP providers (WIPO and NAF) and in which all significant gTLDs were based in the developed world -- to one in which the majority of gTLDs and UDRP providers may well be headquartered in nontraditional jurisdictions. Business interests may well be investing substantial amounts in these new gTLDs, for both defensive and new branding purposes. In this type of environment it is even more important that a proliferating cast of UDRP providers be subject to uniform and enforceable responsibilities, as that is the only means of furthering the goal that UDRP decisions are consistent within and among UDRP providers, and that the UDRP remains an expedited and lower cost means of addressing cybersquatting. In closing, we note that this issue of whether UDRP providers should be under standard contract with ICANN is almost entirely separable from the question of whether the UDRP evaluation standards for determining the existence of cybersquatting should be reformed. There is no need to debate the substantive elements of the UDRP in order to address the fundamental issue of whether UDRP providers should be under standardized contract. Regards to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey _____ From: Marilyn Cade [marilynscade(a)hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 9:07 AM To: bcprivate Subject: Informational: update from Oct. 12: Transcripts and MP3 recording update - 12 October /reminder that BC election for Councilor and V.Chair, Operations and Finance will open soon/ Thanks again to all BC members for your participation in the full series of sessions and events October 12. Yesterday's meetings were a combination of CSG working session; informational roundtables with special guests, including ICANN, and a BC members policy forum/meeting. The purpose of this email is to provide a brief and very high level update from yesterday's meeting on a few of those items. A more detailed "next steps" summary is under development by the officers and others who took work item assignments and should be sent out by Monday. You should also expect to receive the PPs from the speakers as they are gathered. It will be a busy time between now and Cartegena. We will try to manage the email notices to you by having clear subject headings, so that you know whether an email requires action, or is for information/action, or is informational only. This email is informational. To recap: CSG Charter drafting will continue and draft will be circulated. A vote by members on a final draft will be scheduled for November, to meet a Board deadline. Sarah Deutsch is the lead as our CSG rep. A small drafting group supports her from BC: Marilyn Cade, Ron Andruff and Philip Sheppard. Other members are from the other two CSG constituencies. During the call, members did discuss other ways to improve communications [discussion of a more formalized 'newsletter style approach] and move to a more frequent members calls. Steve Delbianco, our V.Chair, Policy Coordination, will be advising on a priorty topical approach for the policy topics for monthly members calls. We also discussed launching a few 'working group' approaches on key issues, where the BC can provide strategic leadership. Stay tuned for more news on that front. We discussed a newsletter approach, and other changes in communications support tools; heard an update on finances, and membership; discussed other administrative functions updates, including announcing the Finance Committee members: Jon Nevett and Anders Halverson, and heard a report on options to manage the banking account and administrative support. Outcomes will be summarized in thee follow up report. Other actions that need your involvement will be announced shortly, including opening our elections for Councilor - 2 year term and V.Chair, Operations and Finance -- completion of term for this year. We will have separate working sessions on Charter development. The present small group of volunteers for working further on the BC Charter are Marilyn Cade, Chris Chaplow, Steve DelBianco, Sarah Deutsch, Philip Sheppard, Ron Andruff, and Mikey O'Connor. As we have worked with the Charter, we have identified some gaps that need addressing, along with changes coming from GNSO Improvements recommendations. A staff developed topical outline was presented on our call and we will continue to utilize staff support and consultation to advance further drafting/discussions re both the CSG charter and BC Charter. If anyone else wants to join this small working group, please so advise off list to Sarah Deutsch and myself by email. A couple of working calls will be scheduled over the next weeks to get a draft document with the proposed edits/clarifications. In the meantime, I will continue to provide the MP3 and transcripts from Oct. 12 as they arrive. there are three MP3s from yesterday's call. CSG charter discussion Roundtables/Dialogue with Kurt Pritz, ICANN BC Members Forum/Meeting Summary of distribution of MP3 and Transcripts: MP3 sent on Oct. 12. . This email includes the CSG Transcript. The Roundtables MP3 has not yet been received, however, I do have the BC call/MP3. Transcripts for both these sessions will be available much later today, or tomorrow and will be posted then. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-bc-20101012-en.mp3 Apologies for any gaps due to acoustical challenges in capturing particular speakers, but they are still a very good resource to all. The PowerPoints from the second Roundtable, Kurt Pritz discussion, and the BC officers and ICANN staff Charter overview will be posted separately. Special thanks to ICANN for supporting the remote participation and providing ICANN staff and the Chair of the SSAC [and ICANN Board member] Steve Crocker have been extended.

5 6

BC Elections for two positions/public posting/Alert to Members re deadlines
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 22, 2010

Oct. 22, 2010

BC Members: in order to ensure that we are complying with all responsibility to post public notices of our activities,I am posting a notice to the BC archived list: Please also consider this a reminder of the deadlines for nominations, consultations and when ballots will be distributed. Marilyn CadeBC Chair On Oct. 17, the BC opened an election process for two positions via an internal announcement to all BC members:1) GNSO Councilor: term annual meeting 2010 to annual meeting 2012. 2) Vice Chair, Finance and Operations - 3 month term completing 2010 term which ends in January 2011 The process for the election was described in a notice provided to all BC members, including time frames.Due to questions, the BC ExComm undertook an examination of eligibility for standing for Councilor and the outcome of thatconsultation was posted to the BC members on October 22. Any member in good standing [paid up dues] is eligible to stand as councilor. Officer positions must have been a member for 12 months before standing for office. Two positions are open, as noted above. Election Time table:1) Nomination period of two weeks: 10/17-10/30 [the process of submitting nominations is limited to BC members and is provided on the private distribution. 2) Discussion with Candidates: 10/31 - 11/3 - Members will be notified separately of conference call schedule3) Vote - 11/4 - 11/10 - via e -ballot 4) Voting count /publication of results: 11/15 to BC Members, and then to the BC archive list. The details for candidates and acknowledgement for those who are nominating them will be provided separately to BC Members. This notice to the BC GNSO list provides notice of the election process of the BC and its date of announcement of results.

1 0

FW: Audiocast details and Agenda for 28 October GNSO Council Meeting
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 22, 2010

Oct. 22, 2010

Dear BC members: Here's the link to the audiocast for the next Council meeting. /along with agenda. As committed some time ago, I will forward notices of relevance that are forwarded to me, as chair, to the BC members, since many of you may wish to particpate by listening to the audiocast for particular subject areas. Some on this list are a high priority to the BC. Regards Marilyn Cade BC Chair http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Meeting Time 20:00 UTC; 13:00 PDT; 15:00 CDT; 16:00 EST; 17:00 Buenos Aires; 17:00 Brazil; 22:00 CET; 24:00 Moscow Here's the meeting agenda. (I would expect discussion of items 1-2 and 4-6 to be particularly esoteric.) Item 1: Administrative matters (15 minutes) 1.1 Roll call of Council members and polling for Disclosures of Interest • Per the GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 5.4, we are required to poll Councilors regarding “any direct or indirect interests that may affect a Relevant Party’s judgment on an issue that is under review, consideration, or discussion” in this meeting. Here is the definition provided in the procedures: “Disclosure of Interest: Relevant to a specific issue at a specific time. A written statement made by a Relevant Party of direct and indirect interests that may be commercial (e.g. monetary payment) or non-commercial (e.g. non-tangible benefit such as publicity, political or academic visibility) and may affect, or be perceived to affect, the Relevant Party's judgment on a specific issue.” The main issues for this meeting are GNSO Prioritization Whois Study #3 - WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Abuse Voting Procedures when Councilors are absent &/or must abstain Disclosure of Interest Procedures 1.2 Update any statements of interest Note that a revised SoI was received from Terry Davis. 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: • 7 October 2010 meeting minutes – Scheduled for approval on 28 October 2010. Item 2: GNSO Project Prioritization (20 minutes) 2.1 Refer to posted project ratings: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-work-prioritization-project-list-value-r… 2.2 Key points made in the 15 July Council meeting (from meeting minutes): • “. . . not a useful exercise, not much was learnt, should not proceed further with the prioritization exercise.” • “. . . spending more time on the exercise will not accomplish useful results.” • “It was a difficult exercise, policy matters were not prioritized and the core issue, management of the workload, still has not been resolved.” • “The exercise was intended as a first step and not intended to solve the workload management; other steps are needed. The exercise contributed an important degree of common awareness and dissent to the group.” • “The prioritization process could be improved with further input from the Councilors and stakeholder groups.” • “The exercise is important and informative from a staff perspective and the Council needs to look at a two-step process going forward: step one - form a small team to improve the process used to date drawing on input received; step two - develop a process to manage the workload with input from staff of the resources being used to support each of the working groups, which will reflect both staff and community efforts.” • “Support was expressed for continuing the prioritization work, but linking it to the overall ICANN Staff and Community workload and to the Budget process.” • “The question of available resources should be looked at in context. The Vertical Integration working group as an example of one that would not normally have commenced with all the work before Council, yet it did and the community resources were available.” • “Some believe that work should be prioritized but the methodology chosen is not the most appropriate or efficient.” 2.3 Next Steps • Staff Utilization Analysis (Liz Gasster) Refer to: http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-council-resource-management-polic… • Results of Adobe Connect Poll regarding possible next steps: o Option 1: Spend no more time on prioritization - 5 votes (33%) o Option 2: Develop a plan for using the results to manage the workload in the near term - 2 votes (13%) o Option 3: Form a drafting team with the task of developing a new process - 0 votes (0%) o Option 4: Form a drafting team with the task of improving the process - 1 vote (7%) o Option 5: Other? (including combinations of options 2, 3, and or 4) - 7 votes (47%) • Discussion? • Action Items Item 3: Whois Study #3 - WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Abuse (15 minutes) Refer to: The Abuse Study Staff Analysis http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/gnso-whois-pp-abuse-studies-report-05oct… 3.1 Status Report (Liz Gasster) http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/gnso-whois-pp-abuse-studies-report-05oct… 3.2 Discussion 3.3 Next steps? Item 4: Voting Procedures when Councilors are absent &/or must abstain (25 minutes) Refer to: 1) Abstention Notification Form (online): http://gnso.icann.org/node/14119 2) Voting Remedies Procedural Map: http://gnso.icann.org/council/visual-procedures-map-en.htm 4.1 Overview (Ken Bour, Staff; Ray Fassett, GNSO Council Operations Work Team (GCOT) Chair) 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Report from Operations Steering Committee/ GNSO Council Operations Work Team (OSC/GCOT) (Philip Sheppard, OSC Chair; Ray Fassett) 4.4 Next steps? Item 5: Disclosure of Interest Procedures (15 minutes) 5.1 Report from OSC/GCOT (Philip Sheppard, Ray Fassett) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Next steps? Item 6: Planning for Cartagena Meetings (15 minutes) 6.1 Overview of plans/schedule (Stéphane Van Gelder, Glen de Saint Géry) 6.2 Next steps? Item 7: Status of Continued Action Items (10 Minutes) 7.1 Drafting team for draft DNS-CERT/SSR WG charter (Chuck Gomes) 7.2 Standing committee to monitor GNSO Improvements implementation (Glen de Saint Géry) • Volunteers to date: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISCPC), Tatyana Khramtsova (RrSG), Ray Fassett (RySG), Avri Doria (NCSG), Rudi Vansnick (NCSG), Philip Sheppard (CBUC) • Feedback from Steering Committees (Rob Hoggarth) • Question raised regarding GNSO Operating Procedures: Should the concerns about the newly approved disclosure of interest requirements be dealt with by the OSC & GCOT or by the standing committee? • Next steps? Charter? 7.3 Progress of House/SG Elections • Councilors • Chair & Vice Chair Nominations • NCA Assignments 7.4 Whois Studies • Refer to redline version of Proxy/Privacy Reveal study (Study 4) RFP at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-29sep10-en.htm • Status of Whois Studies (Liz Gasster) /correspondence/presentation-whois-studies-oct10-en.pdfFinal Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement http://gnso.icann.org/issues/raa/raa-improvements-proposal-final-report-18o…

2 1

RE: Revised Draft -- RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft BC Position on EstablishingStandard Contract for UDRP Providers
by john＠crediblecontext.com Oct. 22, 2010

Oct. 22, 2010

2 1

Revised Draft -- RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft BC Position on EstablishingStandard Contract for UDRP Providers
by Phil Corwin Oct. 22, 2010

Oct. 22, 2010

Thanks Zahid, much appreciated. A fourth (and I hope final) draft is attached which drops the "duopoly" reference and replaces it with "vast majority", and which deletes the redundant sentence on flexible and effective means of enforcement. Any further comments or suggestions? Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: Zahid Jamil [zahid(a)dndrc.com] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 1:04 PM To: Sarah B Deutsch; owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org; Phil Corwin; 'michael(a)palage.com'; Philip Sheppard; BC Secretariat Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft BC Position on EstablishingStandard Contract for UDRP Providers Though late just wanted to support the view that a contract should not be mandatory and accreditation or some other method of accountability be adopted. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink *** ________________________________ From: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> Sender: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:41:13 -0400 To: 'Phil Corwin'<pcorwin(a)butera-andrews.com>; 'michael(a)palage.com'<michael(a)palage.com>; 'philip.sheppard(a)aim.be'<philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>; 'bc-gnso(a)icann.org'<bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft BC Position on Establishing Standard Contract for UDRP Providers Great -- thanks. Phil -I would also urge removal of the language in your text calling for ICANN to sanction dispute providers. Let's focus on uniform rules governing their qualifications and responsibilities. The contract/sanctions model would not only run into problems with IGOs as Mike notes, but would also undermine the whole nature of independent third party dispute resolution providers. People use these providers exactly because they are independent and trusted third party not affiliated with ICANN. But that's not to say that they shouldn't be subject to high standards and uniform qualifications. If an entity fails to meet the standards, then they should be deaccredited. Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 ________________________________ From: Phil Corwin [mailto:pcorwin@butera-andrews.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 9:31 AM To: 'michael(a)palage.com'; Deutsch, Sarah B; 'philip.sheppard(a)aim.be'; 'bc-gnso(a)icann.org' Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft BC Position on Establishing Standard Contract for UDRP Providers Consensus understood/I'm working on a revised draft and will circulate it later today. Philip S. Corwin Partner, Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875/Office 202-255-6172/Cell "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 09:28 AM To: 'Deutsch, Sarah B' <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>; 'Philip Sheppard' <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>; Phil Corwin; bc-gnso(a)icann.org <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft BC Position on Establishing Standard Contract for UDRP Providers Sarah, I share your concerns. In fact this type of rigid “contract” language is what stalled individual ccTLD participation within the ICANN process for so long. It was only after ICANN adopted an accountability framework document that more participation/recognition occurred. I think Phil’s concerns can be address without the hard coded “contract” language. Having dealt with IGOs over the past several years I can tell you that getting them to sign “contracts” can be a complicated process. Therefore making WIPO sign a UDRP provider contract is likely to run into some complications that would likely draw the support/empathy of the GAC. Do we really want to pick that fight? Having dealt with WIPO during the past 11 years ago (remember that first UDRP meeting at Georgetown Sarah/Marilyn – seems almost like yesterday) I think as a trustee of this process WIPO would be in agreement about ensuring some uniformity of the rules. So let’s figure how to make them part of the solution, instead of making them part of the problem. Just my two cents. Best regards, Michael From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 8:50 AM To: 'Philip Sheppard'; 'Phil Corwin'; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft BC Position on Establishing Standard Contract for UDRP Providers My concern is that by includng the words "contract" this will be misread by ICANN as a green light to go forward with regulation having nothing to do with these parties' qualifications even if the idea of an "other mechanism" is also included as an option. The following language addresses my concern but keeps the same meaning Phil originally intended: The Business Constituency (BC) cannot support approval of this or any other UDRP accreditation application at this time on the grounds that no new UDRP providers should be accredited until ICANN implements with all accredited providers a standard mechanism for establishing uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of delineating and enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities. In the rest of the document, I'd recommend replacing "contact" with "standard mechanism." Thanks, Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 ________________________________ From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 3:29 AM To: 'Phil Corwin'; Deutsch, Sarah B; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft BC Position on Establishing Standard Contract for UDRP Providers I share Sarah's concern but agree with Phil that our current language is flexible: The Business Constituency (BC) cannot support approval of this or any other UDRP accreditation application at this time on the grounds that no new UDRP providers should be accredited until ICANN implements a standard contract with all accredited providers or develops some other mechanism for establishing uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of delineating and enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities. (emphasis added) Philip

2 1

RE: Revised Draft #3 of UDRP Provider Standard Mechanisms Position Paper
by Kladouras Konstantinos Oct. 21, 2010

Oct. 21, 2010

Dear BC members, We are carefully monitoring on-line discussions regarding the draft BC position on UDRP arbitration providers and we thank the drafters and contributors. We are not experts on this issue, but while searching the ICANN site for relevant official information we found that: 1) The approved dispute resolution service providers are 4 and not 2 (see http://www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/approved-providers.htm) The draft BC position speaks about "... an effective duopoly of UDRP providers (WIPO and NAF)...." Therefore, the draft needs to be corrected. In addition, without taking a positive or negative position as regards the BC draft, but in order to better understand the issue, what do we answer to those who may ask, but what about the approval of the Chinese Centre or of the Czech Centre? 2) In page http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/#proceedings, under "Approval Process for Dispute Resolution Service Providers" it is stated that: "ICANN is not currently soliciting additional dispute resolution service providers; however, interested parties may contact ICANN on an individual basis to express their interest. The procedures used for approving providers in the past are provided for reference below." Does anybody know if there is such a "decision" and what it says? If there is such a 'decision" (and a reasoning), perhaps the BC could use in the arguing. We understand that time is limited, but we would appreciate if anyone can provide clarifications on the above, in order to understand the issue and to shape a view. Best regards, Konstantin Konstantin KLADOURAS Chairman ETNO IGV-WG OTE S.A. Directorate General for Regulatory Affairs 99 Kifissias Ave., GR-151 24 Maroussi GREECE

3 2

Revised Draft BC Position on Establishing Standard Contract for UDRP Providers
by Phil Corwin Oct. 21, 2010

Oct. 21, 2010

Last week our Chair, Marilyn Cade, circulated a marked up version of the draft position statement on this issue that was originally drafted by me and subsequently edited by Mike Rodenbaugh. This morning, Berry Cobb suggested that the position statement should be cross-reference one of the pending recommendations of the RAPWG. I regards these suggestions as "friendly amendments" and have revised the draft statement to take account of them. Two versions of an updated draft are attached -- one is a redline markup of what Marilyn forwarded, and the other is a clean version of same. Marilyn also inquired whether there would be a cut off date at which the draft would be locked down for final consideration by BC members. As the comment must be filed by Thursday, October 28, iI would suggest that we lock down the draft no later than this Thursday or Friday, if that is in compliance with BC administrative rules. Thanks again to all who have voiced support for this position staement and have suggested improvements. Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey

6 11

Draft CSG Charter for Review
by Deutsch, Sarah B Oct. 21, 2010

Oct. 21, 2010

All, I'm attaching for review and comment a draft of our Commercial Stakeholders Group Charter. We prepared this draft with active participation from volunteers from all three constituencies, including the CSG Executive Committee and with the help of two of our BC members who volunteered for the drafting team, Philip Shepherd and Ron Andruff as well as several other BC members who attended and contributed to our drafting session in DC last week. As you'll see from the attached, the CSG Charter builds upon the framework Philip drafted for our interim charter. It keeps all substantitve decision making within each Constituency, but outlines those areas where the CSG can work together on issues of common interest. ICANN staff also contributed various standard provisions that are required in all charter drafting. If you have edits or suggestions, please email them to directly so as not to burden the list. The deadline is one week from today -- Thursday October 28. All three Constituencies will be collecting comments during the next week with the goal of finalizing this shortly thereafter. Thanks again, Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670

1 0

Revised Draft #3 of UDRP Provider Standard Mechanisms Position Paper
by Phil Corwin Oct. 21, 2010

Oct. 21, 2010

Attached is a 3rd draft of the BC position paper, in both redline and clean form. This draft incorporates recent input from Sarah, Philip, and others. It excises all reference to "contract" or "sanctions" in the UDRP context. The basic message is that no new UDRP providers should be accredited until ICANN establishes a "standard mechanism" for their oversight that includes "flexible and effective means of enforcement". It leaves the details of what that mechanism and means should be to future consideration. The current draft reflects suggested textual changes and comments from more than half a dozen members of the BC. As the internal comment process has now lasted almost one week, and as the comment filing date is one week from tomorrow, I would suggest that we leave the current draft open for further comments until the end of tomorrow (other than formatting and other typographical alterations) and then lock it down and use the appropriate process to assure that there is a consensus within the BC for filing it. I defer to Marilyn, Steve and others on the approval procedure. Thanks again to all who have provided input on this matter. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey

4 3

RE: [bc-gnso] For review / approval by 28-Oct: BC Comment on Accreditation of UDRP providers
by berrycobb＠infinityportals.com Oct. 18, 2010

Oct. 18, 2010

First let me begin by supporting the position started here. I also agree with Phils statement that this issue is separate from the issue of UDRP evaluation standards, etc. But, while separate issues, perhaps the issue of accreditation and/or standard UDRP Provider based contracts can be reviewed via the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group recommendation of a UDRP review. Presently, there is a RAP Implementation team reviewing each of the RAP recommendations, one of which where the RAP WG reached unanimous consensus in review of UDRP. That recommendation requests for an Issues Report to initiate and launch the PDP process. The RAP IMP team will prioritize the recommendations for implementation and hopes to submit its efforts back to the GNSO council by close of October. At this time, we have not agreed on recommendation prioritization, but there does seem to be agreement that any UDRP Review PDP may require multiple PDPs, similar deployment to IRTP. Secondly, I attached an updated version of the BC Position Statement, per Marilyns comment to use a style template on a previous position statement. I took the liberty to update the template using the BCs latest logo and style created by Chris Chaplow. I did not have the soft files of the images, so this template could be improved some. Let me know your thoughts. I DID NOT include Marilyns edits in this version of the draft. Steve, can you ensure they are incorporated? Thank you. B Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com http://infinityportals.com 720.839.5735 From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:10 PM To: Steve Delbianco; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] For review / approval by 28-Oct: BC Comment on Accreditation of UDRP providers These comments are offered as a member of the BC, in my private capacity. First, I think that we need to continue to develop our BC comments in a positive tone, with a consistent 'look and feel', and with a view to leadership. Secondly, I provided some suggestions to the authors. However, I am not wedded to my language, but I am wedded to supporting that the BC's comments should show leadership. I know that was the intent, and hope that my suggestions might contribute to that approach. It is great to see such rapid turn around to get something out to members for consideration. Thanks, Phil, and Steve. I do have a question. Would you expect to freeze the document at some point, so that mmbers can respond to a final version? Marilyn Cade ________________________________________ From: sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] For review / approval by 28-Oct: BC Comment on Accreditation of UDRP providers Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 02:03:00 +0000 This draft comment is being circulated today (14-Oct) so that BC members will have 14 days to review, revise, and consider approval before the ICANN deadline of 28-Oct-2010. The attached comment was drafted by Phil Corwin and was polished for submission by Mike Rodenbaugh. Phils original note is shown at the bottom of this email, and contains some contextual material that may be helpful in your consideration of this draft. This draft comment is in response to ICANNs proposal to recognize a new domain name dispute provider. For background on this proposal, see below, or at http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#acdr-proposal Explanation/Background: ICANN has received a proposal from the Arab Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution (ACDR) to be recognized as one of the official dispute resolution providers under the UDRP. The proposal was submitted pursuant to the process specified at http://www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/provider-approval-process.htm. The ACDR is jointly established by the Arab Intellectual Property Mediation and Arbitration Society (AIPMAS) and the Arab Society for Intellectual Property (ASIP), with headquarters in Amman, Jordan and additional offices in other Arab Countries. Both the AIPMAS (established in 1987) and ASIP promote the activities of the Arab Center of Mediation and Arbitration, established in 2003, active in resolving conflicts related to intellectual property through international arbitrators. If approved, the ACDR would be the first Approved UDRP Dispute Resolution Service Provider headquartered in an Arab state. At its 5 August 2010 meeting, the Board approved staffs recommendation to publish the ACDR proposal for a public comment for a period of not less than 30 days. Upon completion of the public comment period, ICANN staff will analyze the comments received and evaluate further recommendations to the Board on proceeding with the ACDR proposal. The proposal and relevant annexures are at: ACDR Proposal [PDF, 156 KB] Annex 1 ACDR Initial List of Panelists [PDF, 176 KB] Annex 2 ACDR Screening Process [PDF, 8 KB] Annex 3 ACDR Supplemental Rules [PDF, 100 KB] ----- Forwarded Message From: Phil Corwin <pcorwin(a)butera-andrews.com> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:54:47 +0000 To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>, bcprivate <bcprivate(a)bizconst.org> Thanks to you, Steve, Sarah, Ron, Mikey, Chris and everyone else who put in place and participated in Tuesday's meeting of the Business Constituency. It was very worthwhile and hopefully will be an annual event. During the policy portion of the meeting I noted that there is a pending request for comment regarding the application of the Arab Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution (ACDR) to become a certified UDRP arbitration provider. ACDR is located in Amman, Jordan; The comment period closes on October 28th. Steve invited me to provide further details, and this e-mail takes up that offer. I don't yet have an ICA comment letter to share that has been approved by the ICA Board, but I can provide this background -- I noted that the ICA intended to oppose approval of this application at this time on the grounds that no new UDRP providers should be accredited until ICANN implements a standard contract with all accredited providers or finds some other mechanism for establishing uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of delineating and enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities. Let me make clear that ICA's opposition will not be based in any way on the fact that this particular applicant is "Arab" and is located in the developing world. There were recent reports that an Indian organization is contemplating a similar application, and it may yet do so -- and ICA would take the same position in regard to them -- as we would in regard to any applicant from the US, EU, or any other part of the developed world. Nor are we necessarily alleging that ACDR or its proposed panelists are lacking adequate professional credentials (we are still reviewing all of their supporting documents). That said, future UDRP providers are likely to be located in jurisdictions that have different local legal cultures, and this make it even more important to have a standardized governing document to keep the "uniform" in UDRP. The problem is this -- it makes absolutely no sense to require that domains be registered or renewed via ICANN-accredited registrars who are under a standard contract (the RAA) but then provide that you can have your domain transferred away through a process administered by an organization that has been granted this power by ICANN -- yet is under no contract that defines its practices and procedures, is not subject to any regular or standardized review by ICANN, and for which ICANN's only disciplinary tool is accreditation revocation (so extreme a sanction that it is unlikely to ever be used). I would think that everyone in the Business Constituency would understand the importance of a contractual relationship that defines and constrains this grant of power, and provides flexible and effective enforcement mechanisms, because that delegated power can extinguish substantial monetary investment and goodwill in a domain. Granting this kind of power absent any restraints is not an accountable practice. As I noted yesterday, this is not just a domain investor/developer issue. We appear to be transitioning from a DNS that featured an effective duopoly of UDRP providers (WIPO and NAF) and in which all significant gTLDs were based in the developed world -- to one in which the majority of gTLDs may well be headquartered in nontraditional jurisdictions. Business interests may well be investing substantial amounts in these new gTLDs, for both defensive and new branding purposes. In this type of environment it is even more important that a proliferating cast of UDRP providers be subject to uniform and enforceable responsibilities, as that is the only means of assuring that UDRP decisions are consistent within and among UDRP providers, and that the UDRP remains an expedited and lower cost means of addressing cybersquatting. Let me conclude by noting that this issue of whether UDRP providers should be under standard contract with ICANN is almost entirely separable from the question of whether the UDRP evaluation standards for determining the existence of cybersquatting should be reformed. That latter issue is a more complicated matter, and ICA recently suggested to ICANN that it should undertake an expert and impartial study contrasting trends in Internet trademark law decisions in major jurisdictions with trends in UDRP practice in order to provide a common foundation of information to inform any broader UDRP reform effort. There is no need to debate the substantive elements of the UDRP in order to address the fundamental issue of whether UDRP providers should be under standardized contract. I realize that it is difficult for the BC to reach consensus or act quickly. But I would ask fellow members to start thinking about this issue of whether you want expanded ranks of UDRP providers to be able to decide disputes involving your domains registered in hundreds of new gTLDs located in multiple national jurisdictions without being under contract in that role. If the BC is unable to oppose this particular application I would at least hope we could achieve a consensus statement expressing concern about the lack of a contractual relationship between these providers and ICANN. Thanks to my fellow members for taking this under advisement -- and thanks again to all who contributed to yesterday's event. Regards to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell)

2 1