I do not support this approach. I propose a dfferent approach. First, the BC did no due diligence/discussion on the improvements that the ADCR has made, since the last public comment period. I understand that a few did, but let's be frank: most of our BC members did not. I see that many of the questions asked to the applicant were addressed, but I suspect that many BC members didn't have a chance to read the materials. A responsible approach from us would be to invite the applicant to speak to us and answer our questions. Let's still do that. I ask that the draft be changed significantly and edited down to a simple few paragraphs, without the rhetoric that is in the first few pages. I fully agree that applications for 1400 new gTLDS calls for an acceleration for a mechanism for uniform implementation for UDRP standards. However, ACDR, and another BC member also offering UDRP services both supported this, and called for retroactive application to all UDRP providers. The analysis of the BC as drafted is not based in detailed analysis and is highly subjective. Most BC members have not reviewed this draft, or the revised submission of the applicant. And I find our BC comments highly negative and critical toward providers from other regions other than N.Am and Europe. With new gTLDs, we need reliable and stable providers from other regions of the world. I propose that the BC comments say simply: The BC asks that ICANN establish a process, involving all existing providers, and representatives from users of the UDRPs, drawn from the Constituencies and ALAC and other relevant parties, to undertake development of a uniform set of standards for approval of UDRP providers. This should include a public comment process. Finally, I am not at all supportive of any BC statements that uses language like "We implore ICANN to expeditiously address this matter". i do not support or agree with the BC opposing the ACDR as it has fulfilled the requirements from ICANN. I do support asking for a mechanism for establishing standards, and asking ACDR and others to accept that requirements will be retroactive. BUT, I also ask that we be professional and business like in our language. As such, the BC could say: The BC proposes that the Board direct staff to undertake a process, supported by the community of stakeholders and all UDRP providers, to establish uniform rules and procedures an flexible means to delineating and enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities. Marilyn Cade From: sdelbianco@netchoice.org To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 01:56:15 +0000 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). 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) 2010: Business Constituency comment on recognizing new UDRP providers (link) 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