Thank-you, Zahid, for your exhaustive efforts on the rights protection mechanisms. As you requested, here¹s one comment on the draft BC position on Post Delegation Dispute Mechanism (PDDM): Twice in your draft you express concern about Registry Operators turning a ³blind eye² to infringements. I¹m a fan of clever phrases such as ³turn a blind eye², but in this case I think the rhetoric may go too far. One of my registry members reminded me in Seoul that registry operations are highly automated processes. There is no human ³eye² looking at registration Add records as they come in from registrars. Accordingly, I suggest replacing the two ³blind eye² concerns in the BC comments with this statement:
Registry operations for adding new names should be a highly-automated function, and the failure of a registry to take affirmative steps to assess whether a domain name violates trademark laws should not in itself constitute bad faith or systemic infringement. However, a registry operator who fails to perform the specific rights protection mechanisms enumerated in its Registry Operator¹s Agreement should be subject to PDDM claims, as set forth in the IRT Final Report.
Again, thanks for working this on our behalf.
-- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482 On 11/4/09 12:37 PM, "Zahid Jamil" <zahid@dndrc.com> wrote:
Would like to ask members that if there are any comments on the draft BC position on RPMs that was sent out earlier? If I don¹t hear anything on whether there will be comments and that I should hold sending this out to the GNSO, I will send it out by tomorrow to both the GNSO and the STI.