Berard is right - the common ground for the BC can be a desire to protect consumer confidence in the Internet. As a coalition of brand owners, CADNA ultimately support Sarah's drafted comments. We feel that the draft speaks to the need for better protection of businesses and consumers in the DAG if the new gTLD process moves forward. CADNA hopes that the BC can reach a consensus on a new set of comments. Given that there is a range of perspectives among the members of the BC, submitting individual comments is going to be critical for voicing specific concerns - however, the BC position should focus on business and consumer protection. Yvette Miller Director, Communications The Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse (CADNA) 1632 Wisconsin Ave, NW Washington, D.C. 20007 Office: +1 202 223 9355 Mobile: +1 202 341 3799 yvette@cadna.org On 7/19/10 9:28 PM, "john@crediblecontext.com" <john@crediblecontext.com> wrote: I can lurk no longer! Setting aside the snark of Phil's email, he has a point. There is no apple so big that can accommodate the extra bites taken over the last few days. But rather than lay blame at the feet of the Business Constituency, I think we are falling into the trap set by ICANN's history of never making a decision today it can put off until tomorrow. It is why lawsuits are the real policy making processes. The ability to drive consensus is essential but, when one considers the breadth of membership (now and potential), it ain't easy. For me, the thing that ultimately gets us there is a shared commitment to building out and protecting consumer confidence in the Internet. At bottom, most of the dissonance in the BC merely is rooted in different appetites for arbitrage. We all have far more in common, reason to find consensus and to work together to get ICANN to live by its rules. Too preachy? Cheers, Berard -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4 From: Phil Corwin <pcorwin@butera-andrews.com <mailto://pcorwin@butera-andrews.com> > Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 3:22 pm To: "zahid@dndrc.com <mailto://zahid@dndrc.com> " <zahid@dndrc.com <mailto://zahid@dndrc.com> >, Jon Nevett <jon@nevett.net <mailto://jon@nevett.net> > Cc: Sarah B Deutsch <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto://sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> >, "michaelc@traveler.com <mailto://michaelc@traveler.com> " <michaelc@traveler.com <mailto://michaelc@traveler.com> >, "mike@haven2.com <mailto://mike@haven2.com> " <mike@haven2.com <mailto://mike@haven2.com> >, "jb7454@att.com <mailto://jb7454@att.com> " <jb7454@att.com <mailto://jb7454@att.com> >, "randruff@rnapartners.com <mailto://randruff@rnapartners.com> " <randruff@rnapartners.com <mailto://randruff@rnapartners.com> >, "ffelman@markmonitor.com <mailto://ffelman@markmonitor.com> " <ffelman@markmonitor.com <mailto://ffelman@markmonitor.com> >, BC Secretariat <bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto://bc-gnso@icann.org> > So we get a draft position less than a week before the filing deadline, multiple BC members raise concerns about it, and then we're told that for the sake of consistency it must be repeated because there is no time to formulate a new approach? Maybe the way we should operate is that without demonstration by member polling that consensus still exists for the prior unsuccessful arguments the Constituency should remain silent and we all go file our own statements? But then of course Jon did formulate revisions for which there appeared to be broader support, but I guess that's now rejected because only even stronger statements will be regarded as consistent with the prior position. Is that how this Constituency is now operating? Biased toward suppressing alternate views instead of seeking consensus? I would suggest that in regard to all future policy matters on which the BC leadership wishes to file a Constituency position that members be provided with a draft no less than two weeks before the deadline so that there is sufficinet time to formulate a new or revised position if there is significant internal disagreement -- and that all such BC positions require a formal vote to see if there is indeed consensus, regardless of past positions. 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@dndrc.com <mailto://zahid@dndrc.com> ] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 6:05 PM To: Jon Nevett Cc: Sarah B Deutsch; Phil Corwin; michaelc@traveler.com <mailto://michaelc@traveler.com> ; mike@haven2.com <mailto://mike@haven2.com> ; jb7454@att.com <mailto://jb7454@att.com> ; randruff@rnapartners.com <mailto://randruff@rnapartners.com> ; ffelman@markmonitor.com <mailto://ffelman@markmonitor.com> ; BC Secretariat Subject: Re: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4 I am sure there is some validity to much of your arguments. Be that as it may. There is little time to initiate a new approach and consensus within the BC for such a new approach. As such we need to stick to our current accepted positions and new comments consistent with these positions and comment before the deadline. 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 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com> Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device ________________________________ From: Jon Nevett <jon@nevett.net <mailto://jon@nevett.net> > Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 18:01:04 -0400 To: Zahid Jamil<zahid@dndrc.com <mailto://zahid@dndrc.com> > Cc: 'Deutsch, Sarah B'<sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto://sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> >; 'Phil Corwin'<pcorwin@butera-andrews.com <mailto://pcorwin@butera-andrews.com> >; <michaelc@traveler.com <mailto://michaelc@traveler.com> >; <mike@haven2.com <mailto://mike@haven2.com> >; <jb7454@att.com <mailto://jb7454@att.com> >; <randruff@rnapartners.com <mailto://randruff@rnapartners.com> >; <ffelman@markmonitor.com <mailto://ffelman@markmonitor.com> >; <bc-GNSO@icann.org <mailto://bc-GNSO@icann.org> > Subject: Re: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4 Zahid: The timely introduction of new TLDs is not a registrar issue or BC issue, it is a community issue. I am told that the registrars are not commenting on the DAGv4 because they do not agree on the issues sufficiently to have a uniform position. On the RPMs some probably think they go too far and others might think that they don't go far enough. I don't know. Some BC members think enough is enough and let's get on with it. The New TLDs will be much safer from a TM standpoint than .com and the other existing gTLDs, the vast majority of ccTLDs, and the newly approved IDN ccTLDs. I have corporate clients that have been waiting years to apply for their TLD. They are getting increasingly frustrated with the same arguments being made. Just because some arguments weren't accepted does not mean that they were ignored. Others obviously disagree with that position. The BC is a big tent and we will have a diversity of viewpoints, especially on this issue. Based on the comments I have seen thus far on this list and in private e-mails of support, it is clear that there is a division in the BC on the outstanding New TLD issues. Some want the application process to open forthwith others don't want to see it open at all or not for a long time. Big tent. Per your last note. if you don't think that it requires a consensus of the membership to reissue the DAGv3 comments in response to DAGv4, then go ahead. Ron, I and others could have saved a great deal of time working on redlines of the drafts. Thanks. Jon On Jul 19, 2010, at 5:00 PM, Zahid Jamil wrote: Dear All, Have been following in this discussion intermittently. Here are some of my quick thoughts. The IRT is not and has not been the yard stick by which BC comments or views have been formed in the past. BC did support the IRT but clearly stated that the IRT had not gone far enough. If we take the argument that the IRT position should be followed solely then please keep the GPML in. We currently have no solutions for the defensive registration problem. The URS is not Rapid. There is no transfer of the domain in a URS. The Trademark Clearinghouse is not a Rights Protection Mechanism (admittedly). So what are we really left with. Jon's discussions here in the BC are reminiscent of the arguments Jon made in the IRT and the STI where, at the time, Jon was representing Registrar interests. He has been a valuable member of both groups and I look forward to his arguing in favour of BC positions now with the same, if not greater, zeal. Any argument that amounts to -they didn't listen to us in the past so let's give up and settle for what we can does not address the problem. There is much to be said about consistency. I would encourage the BC to also take from the existing BC minority position in the STI report. That is a BC position and hence, it ought to be repeated where appropriate (have attached the STI report - BC minority position is at page 31). We should be lobbying for better protection, in my view, not less since ICANN staff proposals sideline and ignore business and trademark interests. Lets also remember that the BC position has been vindicated in the Economic Analysis which asks that limited rounds be undertaken and clearly underscores the economic cost of the defensive registration problem. Just because we haven't worked on how limited rounds would be implemented it doesn't mean that the concept is flawed. The Economic study makes cogent arguments in its favour. Its now up to ICANN staff and possibly community to come up with mechanisms. Also the Economic Analysis clearly finds that there need to be surveys and studies (details in the report) which should be conducted and then mechanisms developed based on actual statistics. Clearly showing that ICANN staff has run away with the new gTLD proposal without adequate study and analysis. Hence, mention of the Analysis is quite pertinent and I support Jeff's views in this. Have pasted my Brussels email below: My edits in [...] Economic Study: In light of the newly released economic study what steps are envisioned by ICANN staff: including: Survey (how) Study (how) Past introductions Methodlogies In particular re TM, user confusion (notwithstanding the current RPMs) P - 16 - 17 : Subsidies Adjust Fee vs. Favourable approval process 25 - Potential consumer confusion or fragmentation of the Internet 26 - Increased registration costs for companies that feel the need to be in multiple places on the Internet 28 - Defensive registrations 29 - Increased cost to companies to police new gTLD registrations that violate trademarks or copyrights [VIGILANCE] 44 - 74 percent of the registered domain names either were "under construction," for sale, returned an error, or did not return a website at all. Thus, at least in the early stages of .biz, the great majority of registered domain names were not being used to provide content to users, again indicating that the registrations may have been defensive. 59 - 105. A survey of registrants would likely be needed to disentangle the extent to which duplicate registrations are either purely defensive (and constitute external costs) or generate benefits to the registrants. A survey of trademark owners could provide information on the reasons for registration of domain names in multiple gTLDs, such as how registrants use the additional gTLDs (e.g., to provide new content or purely to redirect to another site) and whether the registrants expect to reach a new audience with the new gTLD.115 [Zahid Note - SURVEY requested by IRT hasn't been undertaken by Staff either] 61 - We recommend that ICANN consider the potential for consumer confusion in deciding how quickly to proceed with the introduction of gTLDs, possibly incorporating some methodology to measure consume confusion as new gTLDs are rolled out over time. 62 - This potential project would use case studies to examine the likely costs and benefits in broad categories of new gTLDs. Such studies would lead to recommendations on how ICANN could craft its application process and ongoing rules to lessen the likelihood of delegating gTLDs that will have negative net social benefits and to enhance the net social benefits from gTLDs that are designated.117 para 117 - end: 117. First, it may be wise to continue ICANN's practice of introducing new gTLDs in discrete, limited rounds. It is impossible to predict the costs and benefits of new gTLDs accurately. By proceeding with multiple rounds, the biggest likely costs-consumer confusion and trademark protection-can be evaluated in the earlier rounds to make more accurate predictions about later rounds. 118. Second, in order to derive the greatest informational benefits from the next round of gTLD introductions, ICANN should adopt practices that will facilitate the assessment of the net benefits from the initial rollout of additional gTLDs. Specifically, ICANN should require registries, registrars, and domain names registrants to provide information sufficient to allow the estimation of the costs and benefits of new gTLDs. For example, there might be mandatory reporting of trademark disputes. 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 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 www.jamilandjamil.com <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: 19 July 2010 15:26 To: Jon Nevett Cc: Zahid Jamil; Phil Corwin; michaelc@traveler.com; mike@haven2.com; jb7454@att.com; randruff@rnapartners.com; ffelman@markmonitor.com; bc-GNSO@icann.org Subject: RE: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4 Jon, Thanks for clarifying. If this is the case, then it looks like ICANN kept the high burden of proof for trademark owners on the one hand and ditched other parts of the deal, including that it be in exchange for a rapid (hence the "R" in the name URS) process. As a practical matter, I don't see how any trademark owner will be able to prove anything more than they already prove in filing a UDRP case. For example, in most cases, you'll know the infringer took your domain name, which is identical or confusingly similar to your trademark. You may or may not have screen shots of ads on their infringing webpages. You may or may not have accurate WHOIS information about the infringer. You may or may not have evidence that the infringer stole other third party trademarks. There is no certainty for trademark owners about what is meant by "clear and convincing evidence" and how to meet that standard over the evidence we typically submit in the UDRP process. Obviously, there's no way to know the subjective intent of the infringer without full blown litigation and discovery. At a minimum, ICANN needs to give more guidance on this issue. This burden of evidence standard is just one more reason why brand owners will avoid using the URS. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 ________________________________ From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@nevett.net] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 3:10 PM To: Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Zahid Jamil; Phil Corwin; michaelc@traveler.com; mike@haven2.com; jb7454@att.com; randruff@rnapartners.com; ffelman@markmonitor.com; bc-GNSO@icann.org Subject: Re: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4 Sarah: Sorry if I was unclear. The intent of the IRT was to have the same legal standard for the UDRP and URS (the same elements -- registration with bad fait intent, etc.), but having a higher burden of proof (clear and convincing vs. preponderance. Here are the relevant quotes from the IRT report -- http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm "The Final Evaluation analysis involves consideration of three basic issues, similar to the standards for a UDRP decision, but requires a much higher burden of proof." (emphasis added) "If the Examiner finds that all of these elements are satisfied by clear and convincing evidence and that there is no genuine contestable issue, then the Examiner shall issue a decision in favor of the Complainant." (emphasis added) http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm These positions had a unanimous consensus of the IRT. Not sure the relevance of my status on the IRT, but for the record I was told by the IPC that I wasn't representing registrars on the IRT. If you had heard the crap that I got from my former registrar colleagues, you would understand that I definitely wasn't representing them on the IRT :-). As I don't believe that the BC complained about this burden of proof in the past on the IRT, on the STI, or any public comments thereafter, I don't think that we should raise it here. If we think that the URS was changed in a way that is problematic, let's focus on those changes instead of trying to go back on issues that had complete consensus and haven't changed at all. Thanks! jon On Jul 19, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Deutsch, Sarah B wrote: Jon, Thank you for your many constructive changes. I want to respond to one suggested edit you made below: *I deleted the clear and convincing evidence issue with regard to the URS. As a member of the IRT, I can say that it clearly was our intent for the URS to have a higher burden of proof than the UDRP -- the legal standard is exactly the same. We wanted the URS to be for "slam dunk" cases. The URS was to be a less expensive alternative to the UDRP cognizant of the fact that 70% of UDRPs go unanswered. 1. I don't disagree that the URS, like the UDRP, should be used for slam dunk cases. I'm glad you confirmed that the legal standard was supposed to be exactly the same. It's my understanding that proof under the UDRP is in fact based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, not a clear and convincing evidence standard. See below. Section 1.3.1.1 - Burden of Proof (How much proof is necessary?) In the administrative proceeding, the Complainant must prove that each of the three elements contained in Section 4(a) of the Policy are present. Comment: In general, the Panels recognize a preponderance of the evidence standard. Preponderance of the evidence means that a fact is proved when it is more likely than not that the fact is true. 2. Rather than delete this sentence in its entirety, I would recommend inserting back in the following single sentence: "The BC recommends that while the URS is intended to deal with "slam dunk," cases, we ask ICANN to clarify that the legal standard remain the exactly the same as that found in the UDRP. ICANN should clarify that while proof of bad faith must be clear, the evidence generally can be established by a proponderance of evidence standard." 3. I know that you were a valuable member of the IRT and at that time you were representing registrars' views. Other IRT members point out to me one additional point. The "slam dunk" aspect of the URS was in exchange for a quick and cheap process. No one knows how cheap this will wind up being, but there is no question that the "quick" part of this trade off has disappeared. Many IRT participants confirm that the DAG4 doesn't represent anything akin to the deal they thought they had struck. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 ________________________________ From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@nevett.net] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 9:40 PM To: Zahid Jamil Cc: Deutsch, Sarah B; 'Phil Corwin'; michaelc@traveler.com; mike@haven2.com; jb7454@att.com; randruff@rnapartners.com; ffelman@markmonitor.com; bc-GNSO@icann.org Subject: Re: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4 Folks: Attached is a suggested redraft to bridge the gap. I personally don't agree with some of the arguments I left in the attached, but I tried to keep the longstanding BC positions while toning down the anti-TLD language. I also deleted a couple of the arguments that were objected to in some of the notes I reviewed. Here are some of the highlights: *I deleted the GPML section. *I deleted the clear and convincing evidence issue with regard to the URS. As a member of the IRT, I can say that it clearly was our intent for the URS to have a higher burden of proof than the UDRP -- the legal standard is exactly the same. We wanted the URS to be for "slam dunk" cases. The URS was to be a less expensive alternative to the UDRP cognizant of the fact that 70% of UDRPs go unanswered. Has this issue even been raised before by the BC? *Based on Sarah's helpful e-mail, I left alone the complaint about transferring names after a successful URS as that has been an issue that Zahid, Mike and others in the BC have argued consistently. I do note, however, that transfer was not in the IRT recommendation and the STI agreed to add a year to the registration at the request of the complainant as a compromise. *Again based on Sarah's e-mail, I left the PDDRP section pretty much alone except for an argument about registries warehousing names, but not using them, as that argument didn't make much sense to me. That's exactly the function of a registry to warehouse names until they are sold by registrars. If a registry "reserves" a name and it is not in use at all, the mark holder should be thrilled that it can't be registered by a squatter. *I also deleted the paragraph about the Director of Compliance. I don't think it appropriate to comment on those kinds of personnel matters. *I didn't touch the arguments related to community and 13 points (though I personally favor 14 points to avoid gaming -- sorry Ron), as that seems to be longstanding BC position. *I didn't do much on the Market Differentiation section either other than soften some of the language. I have no idea if my attempt will get consensus or not, but I thought it worthwhile to offer alternative language and I tried hard to find a balance. Thanks. Jon <sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en-Final.pdf> -- Yvette Miller Director, Communications The Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse (CADNA) 1632 Wisconsin Ave, NW Washington, D.C. 20007 Office: +1 202 223 9355 Mobile: +1 202 341 3799 yvette@cadna.org CADNA: http://www.cadna.org This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete this e-mail and all attachments from your system.