Dear All, WITSA prefers that the draft comments not be issued today as we feel they are unnecessarily negative. Talal Abu-Ghazaleh is very well respected in the region and even globally, and it seem clear that ACDR is fully compliant with all UDRP aspects and requirements. As referenced in Mr. Lattouf's message below, over 100 IDN gTLDs will be introduced shortly (including several in Arabic script), so we feel this application is timely. Rather than holding back this application, we would prefer to take Mr. Lattouf's suggestion to hold a conference call to discuss any outstanding questions - if there are sufficient concerns. We would also like to express our support for Marilyn's draft, which calls for a future process for standards without blocking the approval of this provider. Best regards, Anders Anders Halvorsen Vice President, Administration World Information Technology and Services Alliance (WITSA) "Fulfilling the Promise of the Digital Age" [cid:image001.jpg@01CE2724.07D21F00] WITSA 8300 Boone Boulevard Suite 450 Vienna, VA 22182 United States of America Tel: +1 571 265-5964 Fax: +1 703 893-1269 Mobile: +1 571 265-5964 Email: ahalvorsen@witsa.org<mailto:ahalvorsen@witsa.org> URL: www.witsa.org<http://www.witsa.org/> The contents of this electronic mail are solely intended for the person(s) or organisation to whom it was addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are not permitted to copy, distribute or take any action in reference to its contents. If you have received this electronic mail in error please notify the sender and copy the message to webmaster@witsa.org<mailto:webmaster@witsa.org>. Thank you. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mahmoud Lattouf Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 4:32 PM To: bc - GNSO list Cc: Steve DelBianco Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider Dear All, We are a member of the BC and the IPC. Our application for a UDRP provider is of course, separate from that membership. However, we have been working in the ICANN processes for UDRP providers to fulfill all requirements, and perhaps that is not as visible to BC members as needed. The application process is a separate process, after all. and independent of any influence of any group. We support that independence of ICANN but also understand that users, such as the IPC and BC members have questions. As we are BC members, I would like to offer a discussion opportunity to answer any outstanding questions. We have indicated our support for a retroactive 'standard' and volunteered to collaborate with others toward that goal. I believe that another member of the BC from Latin America also supported that approach. We do not support the BC providing comments at this time, except for calling for a process to develop standards, which can be retroactively applied. We propose that the BC comments should be limited to calling for such a process. Shortly, over 100 IDN gTLDs will be introduced, including several in Arabic script. As an applicant for UDRP services, with a standing in both the BC and the IPC, we are fully committed to IP protection. It was disappointing to us to read the BC Draft statement that questioned the application statements. All UDRP providers are in fact limited in their ability to ignore IP case law. The BC document ignored the realities. The BC draft seemed not to fully appreciate UDRP requirements. I want to assure all BC members that the application and the intent of the ACDR is fully compliant with all UDRP aspects and requirements. The reality is that bringing in an Arab provider as several Arabic script gTLDs are introduced will ensure balanced UDRP decisions, with full respect for IP. As I saw from another BC member from Latin America, providers of such services are essential -- as new gTLDs enter the field. If the BC members are open, I am happy to organize a discussion conference call. In the meantime, I do not support the BC statement, which lacks full information and did not in fact, ask us for a discussion to clarify any concerns. Best Regards, Mahmoud A. Lattouf Executive Director - AGIP Offices Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual Property Member of Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Organization Tel.: +962 6 5100 900 ext. 1623 Fax: +962 6 5100 901 Email: mlattouf@agip.com<mailto:mlattouf@agip.com> URL: www.agip.com<http://www.agip.com/> TAGORG.com The Global organization for professional, business, intellectual property, education, culture and capacity building services. We work hard to stay first From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: 21 March, 2013 04:56 To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider Attached is a draft comment from the BC regarding ICANN's call for comments on ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm>). The initial comment period ends 22-Mar and reply comments close 13-Apr. (UDRP is the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) Note: ACDR is the Arab Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution, and is affiliated with BC Member Talal Abu-Ghazaleh. Phil Corwin volunteered as rapporteur for these comments. As mentioned on our member call last week, this draft does not propose any changes to previous BC positions. Instead, the attached comment repeats the BC position expressed twice before: 2011: BC comments on Preliminary Issue Report on current state of the UDRP (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC_on_UDRP_Issues_Report_July_2...>) 2010: Business Constituency comment on recognizing new UDRP providers (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/acdr-proposal/msg00004.html>) The 2010 BC position on ACDR's initial application was that the BC could not support any accreditation of additional UDRP providers until ICANN developed a standard and enforceable mechanism to assure uniformity in UDRP administration. BC members should note that non-support is distinct from outright opposition. We are taking comments on this draft until midnight 21-Mar with plan to submit on 22-Mar. In my view, there is no requirement for formal voting since the BC is not taking any new positions in this draft. However, if 10% of BC membership objects or proposes changes to the prior positions expressed here, we'll hold a call to consider changing the present BC position. We have until 13-Apr to debate and develop a new position, if it comes to that. Keep in mind that any vote to change positions would require a majority vote of BC members. (per Charter section 7.3) -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency
