FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider
ICANN has called for comments regarding ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm>). The comment period ends 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 and Nat Cohen volunteered as rapporteurs for these comments. We circulated Phil's initial draft on 20-Mar. The BC held a conference call on 28-March with ACDR representatives to discuss the first draft (transcript available on request). As a result of that discussion, the BC is now considering two alternative positions: Version 1: The existing BC position, with no comment on the merits of ACDR's proposal. This would maintain the present BC position that no new providers should be approved until ICANN has standards for UDRP administration. Version 2: Amend the present BC position and give "Qualified Endorsement" to ACDR's proposal. This alternative repeats the BC's prior rationale for ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration. It then modifies the prior position to acknowledge that ICANN may approve ACDR's proposal since they have acknowledged process concerns, answered questions, and agreed to adopt any standards ICANN develops. The endorsement is "qualified" in that the BC requests ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration, and suggests a staff-driven process with community input. Voting: BC members should vote for either Version 1 or Version 2. To vote, please reply to this email indicating your support for Version 1 or Version 2. Voting will close on 12-April so that we can submit the comment on 13-April. Per our charter, a simple majority prevails and the required quorum is 50 percent of paid BC members. As always, members can REPLY ALL at any time to share their views on this issue. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination
Two updates to the review/vote I circulated on 2-April (below): 1. Benedetta sent minutes & transcript of 28-March call among BC members and representatives of ACDR (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg03236.html>) 2. ACDR later circulated written answers to several of the questions discussed on the call (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg03237.html>) Remember: Please review and reply with your vote before 12-April. --Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 12:03 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider ICANN has called for comments regarding ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm>). The comment period ends 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 and Nat Cohen volunteered as rapporteurs for these comments. We circulated Phil's initial draft on 20-Mar. The BC held a conference call on 28-March with ACDR representatives to discuss the first draft (transcript available on request). As a result of that discussion, the BC is now considering two alternative positions: Version 1: The existing BC position, with no comment on the merits of ACDR's proposal. This would maintain the present BC position that no new providers should be approved until ICANN has standards for UDRP administration. Version 2: Amend the present BC position and give "Qualified Endorsement" to ACDR's proposal. This alternative repeats the BC's prior rationale for ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration. It then modifies the prior position to acknowledge that ICANN may approve ACDR's proposal since they have acknowledged process concerns, answered questions, and agreed to adopt any standards ICANN develops. The endorsement is "qualified" in that the BC requests ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration, and suggests a staff-driven process with community input. Voting: BC members should vote for either Version 1 or Version 2. To vote, please reply to this email indicating your support for Version 1 or Version 2. Voting will close on 12-April so that we can submit the comment on 13-April. Per our charter, a simple majority prevails and the required quorum is 50 percent of paid BC members. As always, members can REPLY ALL at any time to share their views on this issue. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination
I will vote for #2, but I'd like to add that the BC does it because of our studied view of the specific application. Berard Sent from my iPhone On Apr 4, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:
Two updates to the review/vote I circulated on 2-April (below):
1. Benedetta sent minutes & transcript of 28-March call among BC members and representatives of ACDR (link)
2. ACDR later circulated written answers to several of the questions discussed on the call (link)
Remember: Please review and reply with your vote before 12-April.
--Steve
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 12:03 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider
ICANN has called for comments regarding ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider (link). The comment period ends 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 and Nat Cohen volunteered as rapporteurs for these comments. We circulated Phil's initial draft on 20-Mar. The BC held a conference call on 28-March with ACDR representatives to discuss the first draft (transcript available on request).
As a result of that discussion, the BC is now considering two alternative positions:
Version 1: The existing BC position, with no comment on the merits of ACDR's proposal. This would maintain the present BC position that no new providers should be approved until ICANN has standards for UDRP administration.
Version 2: Amend the present BC position and give "Qualified Endorsement" to ACDR's proposal. This alternative repeats the BC's prior rationale for ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration. It then modifies the prior position to acknowledge that ICANN may approve ACDR's proposal since they have acknowledged process concerns, answered questions, and agreed to adopt any standards ICANN develops. The endorsement is "qualified" in that the BC requests ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration, and suggests a staff-driven process with community input.
Voting:
BC members should vote for either Version 1 or Version 2.
To vote, please reply to this email indicating your support for Version 1 or Version 2.
Voting will close on 12-April so that we can submit the comment on 13-April.
Per our charter, a simple majority prevails and the required quorum is 50 percent of paid BC members.
As always, members can REPLY ALL at any time to share their views on this issue.
Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination <BC Comment on ACDR proposal as UDRP provider [v1].docx> <BC Comment on ACDR proposal as UDRP provider [v2].docx>
I support #2 Sincerely Tim Smith General Manager www.cipa.com On 2013-04-05, at 9:18 AM, John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com> wrote:
I will vote for #2, but I'd like to add that the BC does it because of our studied view of the specific application.
Berard
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 4, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:
Two updates to the review/vote I circulated on 2-April (below):
1. Benedetta sent minutes & transcript of 28-March call among BC members and representatives of ACDR (link)
2. ACDR later circulated written answers to several of the questions discussed on the call (link)
Remember: Please review and reply with your vote before 12-April.
--Steve
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 12:03 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider
ICANN has called for comments regarding ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider (link). The comment period ends 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 and Nat Cohen volunteered as rapporteurs for these comments. We circulated Phil's initial draft on 20-Mar. The BC held a conference call on 28-March with ACDR representatives to discuss the first draft (transcript available on request).
As a result of that discussion, the BC is now considering two alternative positions:
Version 1: The existing BC position, with no comment on the merits of ACDR's proposal. This would maintain the present BC position that no new providers should be approved until ICANN has standards for UDRP administration.
Version 2: Amend the present BC position and give "Qualified Endorsement" to ACDR's proposal. This alternative repeats the BC's prior rationale for ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration. It then modifies the prior position to acknowledge that ICANN may approve ACDR's proposal since they have acknowledged process concerns, answered questions, and agreed to adopt any standards ICANN develops. The endorsement is "qualified" in that the BC requests ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration, and suggests a staff-driven process with community input.
Voting:
BC members should vote for either Version 1 or Version 2.
To vote, please reply to this email indicating your support for Version 1 or Version 2.
Voting will close on 12-April so that we can submit the comment on 13-April.
Per our charter, a simple majority prevails and the required quorum is 50 percent of paid BC members.
As always, members can REPLY ALL at any time to share their views on this issue.
Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination <BC Comment on ACDR proposal as UDRP provider [v1].docx> <BC Comment on ACDR proposal as UDRP provider [v2].docx>
I support #2 as well Andrew A. Mack Principal AMGlobal Consulting +1-202-642-6429 amack@amglobal.com 2001 Massachusetts Avenue, NW First Floor Washington, DC 20036 www.amglobal.com ________________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] on behalf of Tim Smith [tim.smith@ciparx.ca] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 3:45 AM To: John Berard Cc: Steve DelBianco; bc - GNSO list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] UPDATE: FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider I support #2 Sincerely Tim Smith General Manager www.cipa.com<http://www.cipa.com> On 2013-04-05, at 9:18 AM, John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> wrote: I will vote for #2, but I'd like to add that the BC does it because of our studied view of the specific application. Berard Sent from my iPhone On Apr 4, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: Two updates to the review/vote I circulated on 2-April (below): 1. Benedetta sent minutes & transcript of 28-March call among BC members and representatives of ACDR (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg03236.html>) 2. ACDR later circulated written answers to several of the questions discussed on the call (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg03237.html>) Remember: Please review and reply with your vote before 12-April. --Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 12:03 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider ICANN has called for comments regarding ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm>). The comment period ends 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 and Nat Cohen volunteered as rapporteurs for these comments. We circulated Phil's initial draft on 20-Mar. The BC held a conference call on 28-March with ACDR representatives to discuss the first draft (transcript available on request). As a result of that discussion, the BC is now considering two alternative positions: Version 1: The existing BC position, with no comment on the merits of ACDR's proposal. This would maintain the present BC position that no new providers should be approved until ICANN has standards for UDRP administration. Version 2: Amend the present BC position and give "Qualified Endorsement" to ACDR's proposal. This alternative repeats the BC's prior rationale for ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration. It then modifies the prior position to acknowledge that ICANN may approve ACDR's proposal since they have acknowledged process concerns, answered questions, and agreed to adopt any standards ICANN develops. The endorsement is "qualified" in that the BC requests ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration, and suggests a staff-driven process with community input. Voting: BC members should vote for either Version 1 or Version 2. To vote, please reply to this email indicating your support for Version 1 or Version 2. Voting will close on 12-April so that we can submit the comment on 13-April. Per our charter, a simple majority prevails and the required quorum is 50 percent of paid BC members. As always, members can REPLY ALL at any time to share their views on this issue. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination <BC Comment on ACDR proposal as UDRP provider [v1].docx> <BC Comment on ACDR proposal as UDRP provider [v2].docx>
I support #2. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA <http://www.rnapartners.com> Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 7:52 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] UPDATE: FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider Two updates to the review/vote I circulated on 2-April (below): 1. Benedetta sent minutes & transcript of 28-March call among BC members and representatives of ACDR (link <http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg03236.html> ) 2. ACDR later circulated written answers to several of the questions discussed on the call (link <http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg03237.html> ) Remember: Please review and reply with your vote before 12-April. --Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 12:03 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider ICANN has called for comments regarding ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider (link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm> ). The comment period ends 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 and Nat Cohen volunteered as rapporteurs for these comments. We circulated Phil's initial draft on 20-Mar. The BC held a conference call on 28-March with ACDR representatives to discuss the first draft (transcript available on request). As a result of that discussion, the BC is now considering two alternative positions: Version 1: The existing BC position, with no comment on the merits of ACDR's proposal. This would maintain the present BC position that no new providers should be approved until ICANN has standards for UDRP administration. Version 2: Amend the present BC position and give "Qualified Endorsement" to ACDR's proposal. This alternative repeats the BC's prior rationale for ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration. It then modifies the prior position to acknowledge that ICANN may approve ACDR's proposal since they have acknowledged process concerns, answered questions, and agreed to adopt any standards ICANN develops. The endorsement is "qualified" in that the BC requests ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration, and suggests a staff-driven process with community input. Voting: BC members should vote for either Version 1 or Version 2. To vote, please reply to this email indicating your support for Version 1 or Version 2. Voting will close on 12-April so that we can submit the comment on 13-April. Per our charter, a simple majority prevails and the required quorum is 50 percent of paid BC members. As always, members can REPLY ALL at any time to share their views on this issue. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination
Thanks to all for their work on this issue. We support Version 2. Best, Andy On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>wrote:
Two updates to the review/vote I circulated on 2-April (below):
1. Benedetta sent minutes & transcript of 28-March call among BC members and representatives of ACDR (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg03236.html> )
2. ACDR later circulated written answers to several of the questions discussed on the call (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg03237.html> )
Remember: Please review and reply with your vote before 12-April.
--Steve
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 12:03 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider
ICANN has called for comments regarding ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm>). The comment period ends 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 and Nat Cohen volunteered as rapporteurs for these comments. We circulated Phil's initial draft on 20-Mar. The BC held a conference call on 28-March with ACDR representatives to discuss the first draft (transcript available on request).
As a result of that discussion, the BC is now considering two alternative positions:
Version 1: The existing BC position, with no comment on the merits of ACDR's proposal. This would maintain the present BC position that no new providers should be approved until ICANN has standards for UDRP administration.
Version 2: Amend the present BC position and give "Qualified Endorsement" to ACDR's proposal.
This alternative repeats the BC's prior rationale for ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration. It then modifies the prior position to acknowledge that ICANN may approve ACDR's proposal since they have acknowledged process concerns, answered questions, and agreed to adopt any standards ICANN develops. The endorsement is "qualified" in that the BC requests ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration, and suggests a staff-driven process with community input.
Voting:
BC members should vote for either Version 1 or Version 2.
To vote, please reply to this email indicating your support for Version 1 or Version 2.
Voting will close on 12-April so that we can submit the comment on 13-April.
Per our charter, a simple majority prevails and the required quorum is 50 percent of paid BC members.
As always, members can REPLY ALL at any time to share their views on this issue.
Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination
-- Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel *Google* | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 (650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>
As I'm sure everyone on this list fully realizes, accrediting a new UDRP provider is no trivial thing. Any panelist authorized by the ACDR will be empowered to order the transfer of any of over a hundred million gTLD domains. The UDRP is not only being used to go after cybersquatters. It is being successfully misused as a cheap alternative to acquire domain names held by small and medium businesses. Because the NAF decided to accredit Mr. Nelson Diaz, the owner of vanity.com was ordered to transfer its rights to the 17-year old domain despite holding a valid trademark on the term 'vanity.com' and operating a website at that address, and despite a strong defense by our own Mr. Rodenbaugh. http://www.thedomains.com/2012/06/20/vanity-com-lost-in-a-udrp-despite-pendi... Because the NAF decided to accredit Mr. Daniel Banks, the Korean dentist who owned opendental.com lost his domain to a company that wasn't even in existence at the time he registered the domain: http://domainnamewire.com/2009/08/10/open-season-on-opendental-com/ Because WIPO chose to accredit Mr. John Swinson, DKB Data Services lost the rights to its inactive domain dkb.com http://domainnamewire.com/2009/10/08/arbitrator-hands-dkb-com-to-deutsche-kr... Many members of this group own domains that would be subject to transfer using the same reasoning found in these decisions. ICANN is overseeing a fundamentally flawed UDRP system that encourages forum shopping and that does not standardize procedures among UDR providers. Lack of standardization would be a serious problem on its own, but it is compounded by forum shopping that leads to a pro-Complainant bias. If we had any confidence that ICANN staff would act on our recommendation to develop standards for UDRP administration, then I would be more likely to vote for version #2. In the absence of those standards being developed, our "qualified endorsement" becomes an "unqualified endorsement". Because ICANN has shown no inclination to develop standards for UDRP administration, I believe it is premature to accredit any new UDRP providers. I vote for version #1. Sincerely, Nat Cohen Riptide LLC On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Andy Abrams <abrams@google.com> wrote:
Thanks to all for their work on this issue. We support Version 2.
Best,
Andy
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>wrote:
Two updates to the review/vote I circulated on 2-April (below):
1. Benedetta sent minutes & transcript of 28-March call among BC members and representatives of ACDR (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg03236.html> )
2. ACDR later circulated written answers to several of the questions discussed on the call (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg03237.html> )
Remember: Please review and reply with your vote before 12-April.
--Steve
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 12:03 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider
ICANN has called for comments regarding ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm>). The comment period ends 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 and Nat Cohen volunteered as rapporteurs for these comments. We circulated Phil's initial draft on 20-Mar. The BC held a conference call on 28-March with ACDR representatives to discuss the first draft (transcript available on request).
As a result of that discussion, the BC is now considering two alternative positions:
Version 1: The existing BC position, with no comment on the merits of ACDR's proposal. This would maintain the present BC position that no new providers should be approved until ICANN has standards for UDRP administration.
Version 2: Amend the present BC position and give "Qualified Endorsement" to ACDR's proposal.
This alternative repeats the BC's prior rationale for ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration. It then modifies the prior position to acknowledge that ICANN may approve ACDR's proposal since they have acknowledged process concerns, answered questions, and agreed to adopt any standards ICANN develops. The endorsement is "qualified" in that the BC requests ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration, and suggests a staff-driven process with community input.
Voting:
BC members should vote for either Version 1 or Version 2.
To vote, please reply to this email indicating your support for Version 1 or Version 2.
Voting will close on 12-April so that we can submit the comment on 13-April.
Per our charter, a simple majority prevails and the required quorum is 50 percent of paid BC members.
As always, members can REPLY ALL at any time to share their views on this issue.
Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination
-- Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel *Google* | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 (650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>
#2 gets my vote. Many thanks, Martin Martin C SUTTON Group Risk Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence | HSBC HOLDINGS PLC HGHQ Group Security & Fraud Risk 8 Canada Square,Canary Wharf,London,E14 5HQ,United Kingdom ________________________________________________________________ Phone +44 (0)20 7991 8074 / 7991 8074 Mobile +44 (0) 7774556680 Email martinsutton@hsbc.com ________________________________________________________________ Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to! From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> To: "'bc - GNSO list'" <bc-gnso@icann.org> Date: 05/04/2013 00:53 Subject: [bc-gnso] UPDATE: FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider Sent by: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Two updates to the review/vote I circulated on 2-April (below): 1. Benedetta sent minutes & transcript of 28-March call among BC members and representatives of ACDR (link) 2. ACDR later circulated written answers to several of the questions discussed on the call (link) Remember: Please review and reply with your vote before 12-April. --Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 12:03 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider ICANN has called for comments regarding ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider (link). The comment period ends 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 and Nat Cohen volunteered as rapporteurs for these comments. We circulated Phil's initial draft on 20-Mar. The BC held a conference call on 28-March with ACDR representatives to discuss the first draft (transcript available on request). As a result of that discussion, the BC is now considering two alternative positions: Version 1: The existing BC position, with no comment on the merits of ACDR's proposal. This would maintain the present BC position that no new providers should be approved until ICANN has standards for UDRP administration. Version 2: Amend the present BC position and give "Qualified Endorsement" to ACDR's proposal. This alternative repeats the BC's prior rationale for ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration. It then modifies the prior position to acknowledge that ICANN may approve ACDR's proposal since they have acknowledged process concerns, answered questions, and agreed to adopt any standards ICANN develops. The endorsement is "qualified" in that the BC requests ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration, and suggests a staff-driven process with community input. Voting: BC members should vote for either Version 1 or Version 2. To vote, please reply to this email indicating your support for Version 1 or Version 2. Voting will close on 12-April so that we can submit the comment on 13-April. Per our charter, a simple majority prevails and the required quorum is 50 percent of paid BC members. As always, members can REPLY ALL at any time to share their views on this issue. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination[attachment "BC Comment on ACDR proposal as UDRP provider [v1].docx" deleted by Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC] [attachment "BC Comment on ACDR proposal as UDRP provider [v2].docx" deleted by Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC] ************************************************************ HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ************************************************************ ----------------------------------------- SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT! This E-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return E-mail. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.
Just a reminder for BC members who have not yet voted. This ballot closes 12-April. To cast your vote, you may REPLY privately, or REPLY ALL. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Friday, April 5, 2013 7:48 AM Two updates to the review/vote I circulated on 2-April (below): 1. Benedetta sent minutes & transcript of 28-March call among BC members and representatives of ACDR (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg03236.html>) 2. ACDR later circulated written answers to several of the questions discussed on the call (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg03237.html>) From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 12:03 AM ICANN has called for comments regarding ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm>). The comment period ends 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 and Nat Cohen volunteered as rapporteurs for these comments. We circulated Phil's initial draft on 20-Mar. The BC held a conference call on 28-March with ACDR representatives to discuss the first draft (transcript available on request). As a result of that discussion, the BC is now considering two alternative positions: Version 1: The existing BC position, with no comment on the merits of ACDR's proposal. This would maintain the present BC position that no new providers should be approved until ICANN has standards for UDRP administration. Version 2: Amend the present BC position and give "Qualified Endorsement" to ACDR's proposal. This alternative repeats the BC's prior rationale for ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration. It then modifies the prior position to acknowledge that ICANN may approve ACDR's proposal since they have acknowledged process concerns, answered questions, and agreed to adopt any standards ICANN develops. The endorsement is "qualified" in that the BC requests ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration, and suggests a staff-driven process with community input. Voting: BC members should vote for either Version 1 or Version 2. To vote, please reply to this email indicating your support for Version 1 or Version 2. Voting will close on 12-April so that we can submit the comment on 13-April. Per our charter, a simple majority prevails and the required quorum is 50 percent of paid BC members. As always, members can REPLY ALL at any time to share their views on this issue. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination
I vote for version 2. Camille A. Stewart, Esq. Legal Analyst, Security & Response Operations Cyveillance, Inc. (a QinetiQ company) "World Leader in Cyber Intelligence" www.cyveillance.com<http://www.cyveillance.com/> The content in the email is based on analysis for informational purposes only. Content is not offered as and does not constitute legal advice or legal opinion. Information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Please excuse any spelling errors this message was sent from a handheld device. On Apr 9, 2013, at 11:15 PM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: Just a reminder for BC members who have not yet voted. This ballot closes 12-April. To cast your vote, you may REPLY privately, or REPLY ALL. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Friday, April 5, 2013 7:48 AM Two updates to the review/vote I circulated on 2-April (below): 1. Benedetta sent minutes & transcript of 28-March call among BC members and representatives of ACDR (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg03236.html>) 2. ACDR later circulated written answers to several of the questions discussed on the call (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg03237.html>) From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 12:03 AM ICANN has called for comments regarding ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm>). The comment period ends 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 and Nat Cohen volunteered as rapporteurs for these comments. We circulated Phil's initial draft on 20-Mar. The BC held a conference call on 28-March with ACDR representatives to discuss the first draft (transcript available on request). As a result of that discussion, the BC is now considering two alternative positions: Version 1: The existing BC position, with no comment on the merits of ACDR's proposal. This would maintain the present BC position that no new providers should be approved until ICANN has standards for UDRP administration. Version 2: Amend the present BC position and give "Qualified Endorsement" to ACDR's proposal. This alternative repeats the BC's prior rationale for ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration. It then modifies the prior position to acknowledge that ICANN may approve ACDR's proposal since they have acknowledged process concerns, answered questions, and agreed to adopt any standards ICANN develops. The endorsement is "qualified" in that the BC requests ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration, and suggests a staff-driven process with community input. Voting: BC members should vote for either Version 1 or Version 2. To vote, please reply to this email indicating your support for Version 1 or Version 2. Voting will close on 12-April so that we can submit the comment on 13-April. Per our charter, a simple majority prevails and the required quorum is 50 percent of paid BC members. As always, members can REPLY ALL at any time to share their views on this issue. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination <BC Comment on ACDR proposal as UDRP provider [v1].docx> <BC Comment on ACDR proposal as UDRP provider [v2].docx>
Voting closes today 12-April-2013. Many BC members have not yet voted. To cast your vote, you may REPLY privately, or REPLY ALL. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 12:03 AM ICANN has called for comments regarding ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm>). The comment period ends 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 and Nat Cohen volunteered as rapporteurs for these comments. We circulated Phil's initial draft on 20-Mar. The BC held a conference call on 28-March with ACDR representatives to discuss the first draft (transcript available on request). As a result of that discussion, the BC is now considering two alternative positions: Version 1: The existing BC position, with no comment on the merits of ACDR's proposal. This would maintain the present BC position that no new providers should be approved until ICANN has standards for UDRP administration. Version 2: Amend the present BC position and give "Qualified Endorsement" to ACDR's proposal. This alternative repeats the BC's prior rationale for ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration. It then modifies the prior position to acknowledge that ICANN may approve ACDR's proposal since they have acknowledged process concerns, answered questions, and agreed to adopt any standards ICANN develops. The endorsement is "qualified" in that the BC requests ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration, and suggests a staff-driven process with community input. Voting: BC members should vote for either Version 1 or Version 2. To vote, please reply to this email indicating your support for Version 1 or Version 2. Voting will close on 12-April so that we can submit the comment on 13-April. Per our charter, a simple majority prevails and the required quorum is 50 percent of paid BC members. As always, members can REPLY ALL at any time to share their views on this issue. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination
Steve, thanks for sending this reminder. Marilyn Cade From: sdelbianco@netchoice.org To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] LAST CALL FOR VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 09:38:52 +0000 Voting closes today 12-April-2013. Many BC members have not yet voted. To cast your vote, you may REPLY privately, or REPLY ALL. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 12:03 AM ICANN has called for comments regarding ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider (link). The comment period ends 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 and Nat Cohen volunteered as rapporteurs for these comments. We circulated Phil's initial draft on 20-Mar. The BC held a conference call on 28-March with ACDR representatives to discuss the first draft (transcript available on request). As a result of that discussion, the BC is now considering two alternative positions: Version 1: The existing BC position, with no comment on the merits of ACDR's proposal. This would maintain the present BC position that no new providers should be approved until ICANN has standards for UDRP administration. Version 2: Amend the present BC position and give "Qualified Endorsement" to ACDR's proposal. This alternative repeats the BC's prior rationale for ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration. It then modifies the prior position to acknowledge that ICANN may approve ACDR's proposal since they have acknowledged process concerns, answered questions, and agreed to adopt any standards ICANN develops. The endorsement is "qualified" in that the BC requests ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration, and suggests a staff-driven process with community input. Voting: BC members should vote for either Version 1 or Version 2. To vote, please reply to this email indicating your support for Version 1 or Version 2. Voting will close on 12-April so that we can submit the comment on 13-April. Per our charter, a simple majority prevails and the required quorum is 50 percent of paid BC members. As always, members can REPLY ALL at any time to share their views on this issue. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination
28 BC members voted. (57% of current membership) 6 votes for Alternative 1 21 votes for Alternative 2 1 Abstention I will submit Alternative 2 to ICANN today. ICANN has called for comments regarding ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm>). The comment period ends 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 and Nat Cohen volunteered as rapporteurs for these comments. We circulated Phil's initial draft on 20-Mar. The BC held a conference call on 28-March with ACDR representatives to discuss the first draft (transcript available on request). As a result of that discussion, the BC is now considering two alternative positions: Version 1: The existing BC position, with no comment on the merits of ACDR's proposal. This would maintain the present BC position that no new providers should be approved until ICANN has standards for UDRP administration. Version 2: Amend the present BC position and give "Qualified Endorsement" to ACDR's proposal. This alternative repeats the BC's prior rationale for ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration. It then modifies the prior position to acknowledge that ICANN may approve ACDR's proposal since they have acknowledged process concerns, answered questions, and agreed to adopt any standards ICANN develops. The endorsement is "qualified" in that the BC requests ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration, and suggests a staff-driven process with community input. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination
participants (10)
-
amack -
Andy Abrams -
Camille Stewart -
John Berard -
Marilyn Cade -
martinsutton＠hsbc.com -
Nat Cohen -
Ron Andruff -
Steve DelBianco -
Tim Smith