DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider
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<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm>). 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<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC_on_UDRP_Issues_Report_July_2...>) 2010: Business Constituency comment on recognizing new UDRP providers (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/acdr-proposal/msg00004.html>) 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
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
Dear BC members, Thank you very much for the work undertaken by the drafters of the comments. We wanted to express that we support Marilyn Cade´s comments and changes suggestions, which are in line with comments that we have been made in the past regarding the same issue. Thank you, Gabi 2013/3/22 Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com>
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<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm>). 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<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC_on_UDRP_Issues_Report_July_2...> )
2010: Business Constituency comment on recognizing new UDRP providers ( link <http://forum.icann.org/lists/acdr-proposal/msg00004.html>)
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
-- * * *Dra. Gabriela Szlak * Abogada & Mediadora Consultora en Derecho y Nuevas Tecnologías Estudio Rosz Avenida Roque Saenz Peña 943, Piso 6° 62, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina (005411) 4328-0231 / 4393-7508 www.estudiorosz.com.ar www.gabrielaszlak.com.ar <http://www.gabrielaszlak.com.ar/> *Skype:* gabrielaszlak *Twitter: @G*abiSzlak La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential.
Sorry, I confused my signature in the last email send. So just to clarify, my last email should have been signed as: Gabriela Szlak eInstituto -- *Gabriela Szlak * Regional Director RED/ODR & eGobernanza (IG) *eInstituto <http://www.einstituto.org> * 25 de mayo 611 Piso 3º - C1002ABM Ciudad Autonoma Buenos Aires - Argentina (+54 11) 4878-0179 *Twitte:* @gabiszlak *Skype:* gabrielaszlak odr@einstituto.org egobernanza@einstituto.org 2013/3/22 Gabriela Szlak <gabrielaszlak@gmail.com>
Dear BC members,
Thank you very much for the work undertaken by the drafters of the comments.
We wanted to express that we support Marilyn Cade´s comments and changes suggestions, which are in line with comments that we have been made in the past regarding the same issue. Thank you, Gabi
2013/3/22 Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com>
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<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm>). 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<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC_on_UDRP_Issues_Report_July_2...> )
2010: Business Constituency comment on recognizing new UDRP providers ( link <http://forum.icann.org/lists/acdr-proposal/msg00004.html>)
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
Dear All, We are a member of the BC and the IPC. Our application for a UDRP provider is of course, separate from that membership. However, we have been working in the ICANN processes for UDRP providers to fulfill all requirements, and perhaps that is not as visible to BC members as needed. The application process is a separate process, after all. and independent of any influence of any group. We support that independence of ICANN but also understand that users, such as the IPC and BC members have questions. As we are BC members, I would like to offer a discussion opportunity to answer any outstanding questions. We have indicated our support for a retroactive 'standard' and volunteered to collaborate with others toward that goal. I believe that another member of the BC from Latin America also supported that approach. We do not support the BC providing comments at this time, except for calling for a process to develop standards, which can be retroactively applied. We propose that the BC comments should be limited to calling for such a process. Shortly, over 100 IDN gTLDs will be introduced, including several in Arabic script. As an applicant for UDRP services, with a standing in both the BC and the IPC, we are fully committed to IP protection. It was disappointing to us to read the BC Draft statement that questioned the application statements. All UDRP providers are in fact limited in their ability to ignore IP case law. The BC document ignored the realities. The BC draft seemed not to fully appreciate UDRP requirements. I want to assure all BC members that the application and the intent of the ACDR is fully compliant with all UDRP aspects and requirements. The reality is that bringing in an Arab provider as several Arabic script gTLDs are introduced will ensure balanced UDRP decisions, with full respect for IP. As I saw from another BC member from Latin America, providers of such services are essential -- as new gTLDs enter the field. If the BC members are open, I am happy to organize a discussion conference call. In the meantime, I do not support the BC statement, which lacks full information and did not in fact, ask us for a discussion to clarify any concerns. Best Regards, Mahmoud A. Lattouf Executive Director - AGIP Offices Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual Property Member of Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Organization Tel.: +962 6 5100 900 ext. 1623 Fax: +962 6 5100 901 Email: mlattouf@agip.com<mailto:mlattouf@agip.com> URL: www.agip.com<http://www.agip.com/> TAGORG.com The Global organization for professional, business, intellectual property, education, culture and capacity building services. We work hard to stay first From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: 21 March, 2013 04:56 To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider 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<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm>). 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<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC_on_UDRP_Issues_Report_July_2...>) 2010: Business Constituency comment on recognizing new UDRP providers (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/acdr-proposal/msg00004.html>) 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
Dear All, WITSA prefers that the draft comments not be issued today as we feel they are unnecessarily negative. Talal Abu-Ghazaleh is very well respected in the region and even globally, and it seem clear that ACDR is fully compliant with all UDRP aspects and requirements. As referenced in Mr. Lattouf's message below, over 100 IDN gTLDs will be introduced shortly (including several in Arabic script), so we feel this application is timely. Rather than holding back this application, we would prefer to take Mr. Lattouf's suggestion to hold a conference call to discuss any outstanding questions - if there are sufficient concerns. We would also like to express our support for Marilyn's draft, which calls for a future process for standards without blocking the approval of this provider. Best regards, Anders Anders Halvorsen Vice President, Administration World Information Technology and Services Alliance (WITSA) "Fulfilling the Promise of the Digital Age" [cid:image001.jpg@01CE2724.07D21F00] WITSA 8300 Boone Boulevard Suite 450 Vienna, VA 22182 United States of America Tel: +1 571 265-5964 Fax: +1 703 893-1269 Mobile: +1 571 265-5964 Email: ahalvorsen@witsa.org<mailto:ahalvorsen@witsa.org> URL: www.witsa.org<http://www.witsa.org/> The contents of this electronic mail are solely intended for the person(s) or organisation to whom it was addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are not permitted to copy, distribute or take any action in reference to its contents. If you have received this electronic mail in error please notify the sender and copy the message to webmaster@witsa.org<mailto:webmaster@witsa.org>. Thank you. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mahmoud Lattouf Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 4:32 PM To: bc - GNSO list Cc: Steve DelBianco Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider Dear All, We are a member of the BC and the IPC. Our application for a UDRP provider is of course, separate from that membership. However, we have been working in the ICANN processes for UDRP providers to fulfill all requirements, and perhaps that is not as visible to BC members as needed. The application process is a separate process, after all. and independent of any influence of any group. We support that independence of ICANN but also understand that users, such as the IPC and BC members have questions. As we are BC members, I would like to offer a discussion opportunity to answer any outstanding questions. We have indicated our support for a retroactive 'standard' and volunteered to collaborate with others toward that goal. I believe that another member of the BC from Latin America also supported that approach. We do not support the BC providing comments at this time, except for calling for a process to develop standards, which can be retroactively applied. We propose that the BC comments should be limited to calling for such a process. Shortly, over 100 IDN gTLDs will be introduced, including several in Arabic script. As an applicant for UDRP services, with a standing in both the BC and the IPC, we are fully committed to IP protection. It was disappointing to us to read the BC Draft statement that questioned the application statements. All UDRP providers are in fact limited in their ability to ignore IP case law. The BC document ignored the realities. The BC draft seemed not to fully appreciate UDRP requirements. I want to assure all BC members that the application and the intent of the ACDR is fully compliant with all UDRP aspects and requirements. The reality is that bringing in an Arab provider as several Arabic script gTLDs are introduced will ensure balanced UDRP decisions, with full respect for IP. As I saw from another BC member from Latin America, providers of such services are essential -- as new gTLDs enter the field. If the BC members are open, I am happy to organize a discussion conference call. In the meantime, I do not support the BC statement, which lacks full information and did not in fact, ask us for a discussion to clarify any concerns. Best Regards, Mahmoud A. Lattouf Executive Director - AGIP Offices Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual Property Member of Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Organization Tel.: +962 6 5100 900 ext. 1623 Fax: +962 6 5100 901 Email: mlattouf@agip.com<mailto:mlattouf@agip.com> URL: www.agip.com<http://www.agip.com/> TAGORG.com The Global organization for professional, business, intellectual property, education, culture and capacity building services. We work hard to stay first From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: 21 March, 2013 04:56 To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider 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<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm>). 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<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC_on_UDRP_Issues_Report_July_2...>) 2010: Business Constituency comment on recognizing new UDRP providers (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/acdr-proposal/msg00004.html>) 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
Thank Mahmoud for offering this opportunity to look at this matter more closely. It is a shame that the BC was not aware that this application is in fact coming from one of our own. I agree with Gabi and Marilyn's comments and would very much support a call with those that are interested in this matter within the Business Constituency. Thank you for your offer to inform us of ACDR's commitments to IP protection. Indeed with so many IDNs coming out first, it is important that ICANN has structures in place to address UDRP, should it arise. 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 Mahmoud Lattouf Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 4:32 PM To: bc - GNSO list Cc: Steve DelBianco Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider Dear All, We are a member of the BC and the IPC. Our application for a UDRP provider is of course, separate from that membership. However, we have been working in the ICANN processes for UDRP providers to fulfill all requirements, and perhaps that is not as visible to BC members as needed. The application process is a separate process, after all. and independent of any influence of any group. We support that independence of ICANN but also understand that users, such as the IPC and BC members have questions. As we are BC members, I would like to offer a discussion opportunity to answer any outstanding questions. We have indicated our support for a retroactive 'standard' and volunteered to collaborate with others toward that goal. I believe that another member of the BC from Latin America also supported that approach. We do not support the BC providing comments at this time, except for calling for a process to develop standards, which can be retroactively applied. We propose that the BC comments should be limited to calling for such a process. Shortly, over 100 IDN gTLDs will be introduced, including several in Arabic script. As an applicant for UDRP services, with a standing in both the BC and the IPC, we are fully committed to IP protection. It was disappointing to us to read the BC Draft statement that questioned the application statements. All UDRP providers are in fact limited in their ability to ignore IP case law. The BC document ignored the realities. The BC draft seemed not to fully appreciate UDRP requirements. I want to assure all BC members that the application and the intent of the ACDR is fully compliant with all UDRP aspects and requirements. The reality is that bringing in an Arab provider as several Arabic script gTLDs are introduced will ensure balanced UDRP decisions, with full respect for IP. As I saw from another BC member from Latin America, providers of such services are essential -- as new gTLDs enter the field. If the BC members are open, I am happy to organize a discussion conference call. In the meantime, I do not support the BC statement, which lacks full information and did not in fact, ask us for a discussion to clarify any concerns. Best Regards, Mahmoud A. Lattouf Executive Director - AGIP Offices Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual Property Member of Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Organization Tel.: +962 6 5100 900 ext. 1623 Fax: +962 6 5100 901 Email: <mailto:mlattouf@agip.com> mlattouf@agip.com URL: <http://www.agip.com/> www.agip.com TAGORG.com The Global organization for professional, business, intellectual property, education, culture and capacity building services. We work hard to stay first From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: 21 March, 2013 04:56 To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider 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 <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm> ). 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 <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC_on_UDRP_Issues_Report_July_ 2011.pdf> ) 2010: Business Constituency comment on recognizing new UDRP providers (link <http://forum.icann.org/lists/acdr-proposal/msg00004.html> ) 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
By my count, there are 5 objections to the draft comment. (Cade, Szlak, Lattouf, Halvorsen, Andruff) As I said when circulating the 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) We have 46 members in good standing at this time, and 5 objections meets the 10% threshold. I will ask Bene's help to schedule a call to discuss amending the position. We have until 13-Apr to submit. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: 21 March, 2013 04:56 To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider 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<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm>). 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<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC_on_UDRP_Issues_Report_July_2...>) 2010: Business Constituency comment on recognizing new UDRP providers (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/acdr-proposal/msg00004.html>) 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
Steve, thanks. I read the offer of a call to discuss and answer questions from BC members regarding the actual application with great interest. Can we prioritize that so that we are informed before a revised position? I know that time is short before China, but perhaps this can be a priority? Also, as Gabi and Mahmoud both suggested a discussion on what the standards should be, shouldn't we include that in our discussion? I should note that I just traveled to Dubai to the ICANN MIG WORKS - Multistakeholder Works/Arab IGF Consultation and went onto MENA ICT Week. The interest in the region for .arab in both Arabic and ASCII is high. I understand ICANN also just held meetings in Africa, Latin America, Singapore, S.Korea. The BC should expect a high interest in LATIM, Africa, and MENA and Asia for IDN registrations. Having qualified UDRP providers from the regions that are committed to IP rules is a critical part of protecting the Security, stability and reliability of the DNS. I see this as an opportunity for the BC, and was impressed that both Gabi and Mahmoud welcomed the BC discussion on retroactive standards. Clearly, we cannot do that alone as the BC, but we could be a catalyst. Could this be a joint activity with the NPOC and IPC, for instance? But first, of course, we should have our own discussions about what kinds of requirements are needed and can be enforced. I look forward to joining a call with the applicant to clarify and discuss outstanding issues, and further discussion on this matter. Marilyn Cade From: sdelbianco@netchoice.org To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 21:52:34 +0000 By my count, there are 5 objections to the draft comment. (Cade, Szlak, Lattouf, Halvorsen, Andruff) As I said when circulating the 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) We have 46 members in good standing at this time, and 5 objections meets the 10% threshold. I will ask Bene's help to schedule a call to discuss amending the position. We have until 13-Apr to submit. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: 21 March, 2013 04:56 To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider 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
As the author of the draft statement that has now received some objections, let me say that I appreciate and respect the viewpoints and concerns that have been expressed by BC members, and also very much appreciate the offer by Mahmoud to participate in a call with BC members. I viewed my role as deviating as little as possible from the BC's prior position in preparing a draft, which would then be subject to comment from BC members. Indeed it has, and it's clear that a somewhat different approach may be the preference of BC members. It seems to me that there are two separate issues before us: 1. The application of ACDR to provide UDRP arbitration services. 2. The need for some enforceable mechanism by which ICANN assures - as we witness inevitable applications from additional organizations to provide UDRP arbitration services, in an altered gTLD universe of more than 1,000 new extensions as well as IDNs - that the UDRP is administered in a UNIFORM manner by all providers and that we do not witness divergent approaches to UDRP jurisprudence from different providers in different regions. This is important not just for registrants but for trademark holders who want assurance that their IP rights will receive equivalent treatment by all providers. While the ACDR is seeking accreditation in part due to the advent of Arabic gTLDs they will in no way be limited to adjudicating cases involving IDNs - indeed, their projection of 600 cases annually during their start-up period would indicate that they could well decide more than one-tenth of all UDRP cases at current filing levels. Setting aside my rapporteur hat, issues that the entities I represent on the BC would seek to have addressed as we engage in dialogue with ACDR would include the means by which the 15 listed panelists who have no prior UDRP adjudication will receive training in contemporary UDRP practice (focused on the WIPO 2.0 guidelines, which are the only authoritative source of case precedents that I am aware of), and how ACDR will assure that cases are randomly assigned amongst all its panelists (to avoid a situation like the NAF's continued assignment of about half its caseload to just five percent of its listed panelists). I look forward to that discussion and expect it to be quite constructive. Finally, I greatly appreciate Marilyn's suggestion that the BC advocate "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." -- as well as her suggestion for this language - 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 and flexible means to delineating and enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities. An approach like that would decouple and continue to pursue the need for ICANN to adopt a mechanism to assure uniform UDRP administration from the immediate question of the ACDR application to provide UDRP services. Best regards to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 6:07 PM To: Steve Delbianco; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider Steve, thanks. I read the offer of a call to discuss and answer questions from BC members regarding the actual application with great interest. Can we prioritize that so that we are informed before a revised position? I know that time is short before China, but perhaps this can be a priority? Also, as Gabi and Mahmoud both suggested a discussion on what the standards should be, shouldn't we include that in our discussion? I should note that I just traveled to Dubai to the ICANN MIG WORKS - Multistakeholder Works/Arab IGF Consultation and went onto MENA ICT Week. The interest in the region for .arab in both Arabic and ASCII is high. I understand ICANN also just held meetings in Africa, Latin America, Singapore, S.Korea. The BC should expect a high interest in LATIM, Africa, and MENA and Asia for IDN registrations. Having qualified UDRP providers from the regions that are committed to IP rules is a critical part of protecting the Security, stability and reliability of the DNS. I see this as an opportunity for the BC, and was impressed that both Gabi and Mahmoud welcomed the BC discussion on retroactive standards. Clearly, we cannot do that alone as the BC, but we could be a catalyst. Could this be a joint activity with the NPOC and IPC, for instance? But first, of course, we should have our own discussions about what kinds of requirements are needed and can be enforced. I look forward to joining a call with the applicant to clarify and discuss outstanding issues, and further discussion on this matter. Marilyn Cade ________________________________ From: sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> To: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 21:52:34 +0000 By my count, there are 5 objections to the draft comment. (Cade, Szlak, Lattouf, Halvorsen, Andruff) As I said when circulating the 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) We have 46 members in good standing at this time, and 5 objections meets the 10% threshold. I will ask Bene's help to schedule a call to discuss amending the position. We have until 13-Apr to submit. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: 21 March, 2013 04:56 To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider 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<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm>). 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<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC_on_UDRP_Issues_Report_July_2...>) 2010: Business Constituency comment on recognizing new UDRP providers (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/acdr-proposal/msg00004.html>) 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6177 - Release Date: 03/15/13 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
participants (7)
-
Anders Halvorsen -
Gabriela Szlak -
Mahmoud Lattouf -
Marilyn Cade -
Phil Corwin -
Ron Andruff -
Steve DelBianco