In any event, it would be helpful
if others from the BC could weigh in on whether the BC c an support WIPO's
comments.
Thanks,
Sarah
Sarah B.
Deutsch
Vice President & Associate General Counsel
Verizon
Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670
ICA would object to endorsing that
portion of the letter that seeks to reopen the URS debate and undo the
remarkable consensus achieved by the STI at the direction of the GNSO.
Also,
while I do not fully understand their last point, WIPO seems to regard the UDRP
as something they control rather than an ICANN consensus policy they facilitate
as arbitrator, and has opposed the community reexamining it after 10 years of
experience. The RAPWG, on the other hand, has recommended a balanced PDP focused
on UDRP reform. ICA believes that placing all UDRP providers under standard
contract should be a key component of such reform and that doing so would
enhance uniform implementation that would benefit both complainants and
registrants.
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@icann.org
<owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>
To: bc - GNSO list
<bc-gnso@icann.org>
Sent: Mon Jun 21 08:17:30
2010
Subject: [bc-gnso] WIPO Comments on ICANN DAG 4
All,
I'm passing along WIPO's recent excellent and
succint comments to ICANN on continuing problems in the DAG v.
4. I would propose that the BC support these comments as they
directly affect the availability of effective remedies for businesses to
protect their brands and consumers from confusion after the rollout of new
gTLDs.