Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal
ICANN is gathering responses to the proposed renewal of .NET registry contract. Attached is a discussion draft for BC response prepared by Elisa Cooper (with edits by Mikey O'Connor and Steve DelBianco) On our 21-April BC member call, we discussed our approach for this comment, and there was universal support to request Verisign to have a "Thick WHOIS" service in .NET Elise and Mikey added two additional requests based on new gTLD registry contract requirements: - Add TM Claims Service once the TM Clearinghouse is operating. - Add URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) ICANN's Comment period closes 10-May. Our member call on 21-Apr was 21 days before deadline, and today's draft is circulated 8 days before deadline. We can submit this response later if members feel they need the entire 14-day review and discussion period. Please review and post your suggestions/edits as soon as possible. If there are no disagreements noted by 10-May, this response will be adopted without a voting period, and posted to ICANN. For topic background, see http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#net-renewal Thanks again to Elisa Cooper and Mikey O'Connor for drafting this comment. Regards, Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination
Steve, I think this reads well. I would strengthen our fundamental point about equal treatment in the opening paragraph. Philip ------------ OLD While the BC generally supports the renewal of the .NET registry agreement including Verisign's requested changes, the BC recommends that the .NET registry adhere to selected requirements mandated by the new gTLD Program. NEW The BC believes in the principle of equal treatment. Under this as ICANN's contracts evolve to suit changing market conditions, the ICANN contract renewal process should be the opportunity to upgrade older contracts to the new standards. This is fair both from a public interest perspective and from a competition law perspective. Under the ICANN process the contract parties are in the room when the conditions for new market entrants are being set. Under these unusual circumstances the contract parties cannot expect their older contracts to be immune from the changes they themselves are imposing on their future competitors. In the context of .NET therefore, ICANN should seek as a fundamental principle to amend this contract to equate with the requirements of the new gTLD program. Specific requirements of interest to the BC are the following ....
i like Philip's new draft. mikey On May 4, 2011, at 3:45 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Steve, I think this reads well. I would strengthen our fundamental point about equal treatment in the opening paragraph. Philip ------------ OLD While the BC generally supports the renewal of the .NET registry agreement including Verisign’s requested changes, the BC recommends that the .NET registry adhere to selected requirements mandated by the new gTLD Program.
NEW The BC believes in the principle of equal treatment. Under this as ICANN's contracts evolve to suit changing market conditions, the ICANN contract renewal process should be the opportunity to upgrade older contracts to the new standards. This is fair both from a public interest perspective and from a competition law perspective. Under the ICANN process the contract parties are in the room when the conditions for new market entrants are being set. Under these unusual circumstances the contract parties cannot expect their older contracts to be immune from the changes they themselves are imposing on their future competitors.
In the context of .NET therefore, ICANN should seek as a fundamental principle to amend this contract to equate with the requirements of the new gTLD program.
Specific requirements of interest to the BC are the following ....
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
I do as well. Best, Elisa Elisa Cooper Director of Product Marketing MarkMonitor 208 389-5779 PH ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 5:50 AM To: Philip Sheppard Cc: 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list' Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal i like Philip's new draft. mikey On May 4, 2011, at 3:45 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote: Steve, I think this reads well. I would strengthen our fundamental point about equal treatment in the opening paragraph. Philip ------------ OLD While the BC generally supports the renewal of the .NET registry agreement including Verisign's requested changes, the BC recommends that the .NET registry adhere to selected requirements mandated by the new gTLD Program. NEW The BC believes in the principle of equal treatment. Under this as ICANN's contracts evolve to suit changing market conditions, the ICANN contract renewal process should be the opportunity to upgrade older contracts to the new standards. This is fair both from a public interest perspective and from a competition law perspective. Under the ICANN process the contract parties are in the room when the conditions for new market entrants are being set. Under these unusual circumstances the contract parties cannot expect their older contracts to be immune from the changes they themselves are imposing on their future competitors. In the context of .NET therefore, ICANN should seek as a fundamental principle to amend this contract to equate with the requirements of the new gTLD program. Specific requirements of interest to the BC are the following .... - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
What specific requirements are we talking about? If it is rights protections mechanisms for new gTLDs then ICA would be opposed to applying them to .net at this time. As most of the TM protections for new gTLDs operate pre-launch, the principal one we are talking about would be URS. As there is no final Guidebook I don't know what its final criteria are or who he arbitration providers will be or whether the anti-complainant abuse provisions will be effective, all I know is that it's a $300, 500-word complaint with a 14-day registrant response time. I think before owners of valuable .net (and .com, assuming that what's done with .net sets precedent for .com) domains should be subject to URS before we have considerable experience with its operation. Besides, my recollection is that the RAPWG did not recommend that new gTLD rights protection mechanisms be applied to incumbents until we had some experience with them. And we may well embark on a UDRP reform effort in Singapore and should not prejudice what it comes up with my creating new facts before there's been some careful consideration. So again, what specific requirements are we talking about? 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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] on behalf of Philip Sheppard [philip.sheppard@aim.be] Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 4:45 AM To: 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal Steve, I think this reads well. I would strengthen our fundamental point about equal treatment in the opening paragraph. Philip ------------ OLD While the BC generally supports the renewal of the .NET registry agreement including Verisign’s requested changes, the BC recommends that the .NET registry adhere to selected requirements mandated by the new gTLD Program. NEW The BC believes in the principle of equal treatment. Under this as ICANN's contracts evolve to suit changing market conditions, the ICANN contract renewal process should be the opportunity to upgrade older contracts to the new standards. This is fair both from a public interest perspective and from a competition law perspective. Under the ICANN process the contract parties are in the room when the conditions for new market entrants are being set. Under these unusual circumstances the contract parties cannot expect their older contracts to be immune from the changes they themselves are imposing on their future competitors. In the context of .NET therefore, ICANN should seek as a fundamental principle to amend this contract to equate with the requirements of the new gTLD program. Specific requirements of interest to the BC are the following .... ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3613 - Release Date: 05/03/11
Just to reiterate, ICA is unalterably opposed to imposing URS on .Net and we therefore strongly disagree and request that a voting period be initiated. 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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 5:12 PM To: 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list' Cc: Elisa Cooper; Mike O'Connor Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal ICANN is gathering responses to the proposed renewal of .NET registry contract. Attached is a discussion draft for BC response prepared by Elisa Cooper (with edits by Mikey O'Connor and Steve DelBianco) On our 21-April BC member call, we discussed our approach for this comment, and there was universal support to request Verisign to have a "Thick WHOIS" service in .NET Elise and Mikey added two additional requests based on new gTLD registry contract requirements: - Add TM Claims Service once the TM Clearinghouse is operating. - Add URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) ICANN's Comment period closes 10-May. Our member call on 21-Apr was 21 days before deadline, and today's draft is circulated 8 days before deadline. We can submit this response later if members feel they need the entire 14-day review and discussion period. Please review and post your suggestions/edits as soon as possible. If there are no disagreements noted by 10-May, this response will be adopted without a voting period, and posted to ICANN. For topic background, see http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#net-renewal Thanks again to Elisa Cooper and Mikey O'Connor for drafting this comment. Regards, Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3612 - Release Date: 05/03/11
i'll support Philip on this one -- i'm mostly gunning for thick WHOIS. mikey On May 8, 2011, at 1:15 PM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Just to reiterate, ICA is unalterably opposed to imposing URS on .Net and we therefore strongly disagree and request that a voting period be initiated.
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
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 5:12 PM To: 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list' Cc: Elisa Cooper; Mike O'Connor Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal
ICANN is gathering responses to the proposed renewal of .NET registry contract. Attached is a discussion draft for BC response prepared by Elisa Cooper (with edits by Mikey O'Connor and Steve DelBianco)
On our 21-April BC member call, we discussed our approach for this comment, and there was universal support to request Verisign to have a "Thick WHOIS" service in .NET Elise and Mikey added two additional requests based on new gTLD registry contract requirements: - Add TM Claims Service once the TM Clearinghouse is operating. - Add URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) ICANN's Comment period closes 10-May. Our member call on 21-Apr was 21 days before deadline, and today's draft is circulated 8 days before deadline. We can submit this response later if members feel they need the entire 14-day review and discussion period. Please review and post your suggestions/edits as soon as possible. If there are no disagreements noted by 10-May, this response will be adopted without a voting period, and posted to ICANN.
For topic background, see http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#net-renewal Thanks again to Elisa Cooper and Mikey O'Connor for drafting this comment.
Regards, Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3612 - Release Date: 05/03/11
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
To further elaborate, in reviewing the RAPWG Final report issued in May 2010 (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-29may10-en.htm ) I find the following- Recommendation #2: The RAPWG was evenly split regarding a second recommendation. The two opposing views are below. Seven members supported View A: The RAPWG recommends the initiation of a Policy Development Process by requesting an Issues Report to investigate the appropriateness and effectiveness of how any Rights Protection Mechanisms that are developed elsewhere in the community (e.g. the New gTLD program) can be applied to the problem of cybersquatting in the current gTLD space. In favour of View A (7): Cobb (CBUC), Felman (MarkMonitor), Queern (CBUC), Rasmussen (Internet Identity), Rodenbaugh (CBUC), Shah (MarkMonitor), Sutton (CBUC). Seven members supported View B: The initiation of such a process is premature; the effectiveness and consequences of the Rights Protection Mechanisms proposed for the new TLDs is unknown. Discussion of RPMs should continue via the New TLD program. Experience with them should be gained before considering their appropriate relation (if any) to the existing TLD space. In favour of View B (7): Aaron (RySG), Amadoz (RySG), Bladel (RrSG), Neuman (RySG), O'Connor (CBUC), Seltzer (NCSG), Young (RySG). So, the WG's members split 7-7 on this, while CBUC participants (including MM)s split 6-1. However, the six who supported View A were in favor of initiating a PDP to investigate whether the new gTLD RPMs were appropriate and effective and could be applied to incumbent gTLDs - they did not favor immediate imposition of untested RPMs on incumbent registries without any further consideration, which is what the draft BC statement on .Net renewal would now advocate. Registrants in new gTLDs will become so with fully informed notice that they may be subject to a URS proceeding. On the other hand, Registrants in .Net, the third largest registry (after .com and .de), have acquired portfolios and developed websites based on a belief that their domains were safe from cancelation or transfer unless they acted in violation of the UDRP. They control valuable domains, and deserve a lot more in the way of due process and careful deliberation before the UDRP is altered or new expedited means of domain suspension are adopted for incumbent registries. 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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 2:15 PM To: Steve DelBianco; 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list' Cc: Elisa Cooper; Mike O'Connor Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal Importance: High Just to reiterate, ICA is unalterably opposed to imposing URS on .Net and we therefore strongly disagree and request that a voting period be initiated. 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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 5:12 PM To: 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list' Cc: Elisa Cooper; Mike O'Connor Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal ICANN is gathering responses to the proposed renewal of .NET registry contract. Attached is a discussion draft for BC response prepared by Elisa Cooper (with edits by Mikey O'Connor and Steve DelBianco) On our 21-April BC member call, we discussed our approach for this comment, and there was universal support to request Verisign to have a "Thick WHOIS" service in .NET Elise and Mikey added two additional requests based on new gTLD registry contract requirements: - Add TM Claims Service once the TM Clearinghouse is operating. - Add URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) ICANN's Comment period closes 10-May. Our member call on 21-Apr was 21 days before deadline, and today's draft is circulated 8 days before deadline. We can submit this response later if members feel they need the entire 14-day review and discussion period. Please review and post your suggestions/edits as soon as possible. If there are no disagreements noted by 10-May, this response will be adopted without a voting period, and posted to ICANN. For topic background, see http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#net-renewal Thanks again to Elisa Cooper and Mikey O'Connor for drafting this comment. Regards, Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3612 - Release Date: 05/03/11 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3624 - Release Date: 05/08/11
I have been advised that the BC Charter requires 10% of members (5 members at present) to disagree with the proposed BC statement. I am hereby asking for other BC members to register disagreement with the draft BC comment. However, I have to ask about the process that created the draft before us. I have reviewed the e-mail thread at http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/ and it is very sparse on this subject. On April 13th Marilyn posted ICANN's request for comment. On May 3rd Steve posted the draft BC comment with this note: Attached is a discussion draft for BC response prepared by Elisa Cooper (with edits by Mikey O'Connor and Steve DelBianco) On our 21-April BC member call, we discussed our approach for this comment, and there was universal support to request Verisign to have a "Thick WHOIS" service in .NET Elise and Mikey added two additional requests based on new gTLD registry contract requirements: - Add TM Claims Service once the TM Clearinghouse is operating. - Add URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) But of course Mikey indicated today that he disagrees with imposing URS on .Net at this time. With all respect, it appears that these provisions came solely from Elisa and that they were not discussed on the 4/21 BC member call (I was on that call and have no recollection of any such discussion). The imposition of new gTLD RPMs on incumbent gTLDs is, in my opinion, a matter that is completely extraneous to commenting on the provisions of the proposed .Net contract renewal. In addition, it is not a minor technical matter but a substantive issue of great import, with clear implications for the .Com renewal coming up in 2012 as well as for any UDRP reform effort undertaken by ICANN. I know of no previous BC discussion of whether the new RPMs should be imposed on incumbent gTLDs at this time, much less the reaching of any consensus on that issue. I know of no support for that position in any of ICANN's broader policy efforts - in fact, as I noted earlier today, the majority of BC members active in the RAPWG took the position one year ago that this should only be considered after a PDP, and in no way supported imposition of URS on .Net as of July 11, 2011 absent such a policy process. So what is the basis for putting this position in a draft BC comment, and why was there no effort made to give notice to Constituency members and ask their views on its inclusion? So, while requesting objections from other BC members on both substantive and procedural grounds, I have to ask why the onus is on objectors to seek a vote on this matter and was not on the authors of the draft statement to seek feedback from BC members on such an important matter. 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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Phil Corwin Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 4:38 PM To: Phil Corwin; Steve DelBianco; 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list' Cc: Elisa Cooper; Mike O'Connor Subject: RE: Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal To further elaborate, in reviewing the RAPWG Final report issued in May 2010 (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-29may10-en.htm ) I find the following- Recommendation #2: The RAPWG was evenly split regarding a second recommendation. The two opposing views are below. Seven members supported View A: The RAPWG recommends the initiation of a Policy Development Process by requesting an Issues Report to investigate the appropriateness and effectiveness of how any Rights Protection Mechanisms that are developed elsewhere in the community (e.g. the New gTLD program) can be applied to the problem of cybersquatting in the current gTLD space. In favour of View A (7): Cobb (CBUC), Felman (MarkMonitor), Queern (CBUC), Rasmussen (Internet Identity), Rodenbaugh (CBUC), Shah (MarkMonitor), Sutton (CBUC). Seven members supported View B: The initiation of such a process is premature; the effectiveness and consequences of the Rights Protection Mechanisms proposed for the new TLDs is unknown. Discussion of RPMs should continue via the New TLD program. Experience with them should be gained before considering their appropriate relation (if any) to the existing TLD space. In favour of View B (7): Aaron (RySG), Amadoz (RySG), Bladel (RrSG), Neuman (RySG), O'Connor (CBUC), Seltzer (NCSG), Young (RySG). So, the WG's members split 7-7 on this, while CBUC participants (including MM)s split 6-1. However, the six who supported View A were in favor of initiating a PDP to investigate whether the new gTLD RPMs were appropriate and effective and could be applied to incumbent gTLDs - they did not favor immediate imposition of untested RPMs on incumbent registries without any further consideration, which is what the draft BC statement on .Net renewal would now advocate. Registrants in new gTLDs will become so with fully informed notice that they may be subject to a URS proceeding. On the other hand, Registrants in .Net, the third largest registry (after .com and .de), have acquired portfolios and developed websites based on a belief that their domains were safe from cancelation or transfer unless they acted in violation of the UDRP. They control valuable domains, and deserve a lot more in the way of due process and careful deliberation before the UDRP is altered or new expedited means of domain suspension are adopted for incumbent registries. 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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 2:15 PM To: Steve DelBianco; 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list' Cc: Elisa Cooper; Mike O'Connor Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal Importance: High Just to reiterate, ICA is unalterably opposed to imposing URS on .Net and we therefore strongly disagree and request that a voting period be initiated. 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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 5:12 PM To: 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list' Cc: Elisa Cooper; Mike O'Connor Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal ICANN is gathering responses to the proposed renewal of .NET registry contract. Attached is a discussion draft for BC response prepared by Elisa Cooper (with edits by Mikey O'Connor and Steve DelBianco) On our 21-April BC member call, we discussed our approach for this comment, and there was universal support to request Verisign to have a "Thick WHOIS" service in .NET Elise and Mikey added two additional requests based on new gTLD registry contract requirements: - Add TM Claims Service once the TM Clearinghouse is operating. - Add URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) ICANN's Comment period closes 10-May. Our member call on 21-Apr was 21 days before deadline, and today's draft is circulated 8 days before deadline. We can submit this response later if members feel they need the entire 14-day review and discussion period. Please review and post your suggestions/edits as soon as possible. If there are no disagreements noted by 10-May, this response will be adopted without a voting period, and posted to ICANN. For topic background, see http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#net-renewal Thanks again to Elisa Cooper and Mikey O'Connor for drafting this comment. Regards, Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3612 - Release Date: 05/03/11 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3624 - Release Date: 05/08/11 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3624 - Release Date: 05/08/11
um… actually, the conversation that started when Steve posted the draft **is** the solicitation of comments from the BC. Elisa and i put together that draft and folks are commenting. no dark conspiracy there. it doesn't sound like we've got agreement on the URS stuff, so i'd suggest dropping it from the draft and pushing on. mikey On May 8, 2011, at 6:52 PM, Phil Corwin wrote:
I have been advised that the BC Charter requires 10% of members (5 members at present) to disagree with the proposed BC statement. I am hereby asking for other BC members to register disagreement with the draft BC comment.
However, I have to ask about the process that created the draft before us. I have reviewed the e-mail thread at http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/ and it is very sparse on this subject. On April 13th Marilyn posted ICANN’s request for comment. On May 3rd Steve posted the draft BC comment with this note: Attached is a discussion draft for BC response prepared by Elisa Cooper (with edits by Mikey O'Connor and Steve DelBianco)
On our 21-April BC member call, we discussed our approach for this comment, and there was universal support to request Verisign to have a "Thick WHOIS" service in .NET Elise and Mikey added two additional requests based on new gTLD registry contract requirements: - Add TM Claims Service once the TM Clearinghouse is operating. - Add URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension)
But of course Mikey indicated today that he disagrees with imposing URS on .Net at this time. With all respect, it appears that these provisions came solely from Elisa and that they were not discussed on the 4/21 BC member call (I was on that call and have no recollection of any such discussion).
The imposition of new gTLD RPMs on incumbent gTLDs is, in my opinion, a matter that is completely extraneous to commenting on the provisions of the proposed .Net contract renewal. In addition, it is not a minor technical matter but a substantive issue of great import, with clear implications for the .Com renewal coming up in 2012 as well as for any UDRP reform effort undertaken by ICANN.
I know of no previous BC discussion of whether the new RPMs should be imposed on incumbent gTLDs at this time, much less the reaching of any consensus on that issue. I know of no support for that position in any of ICANN’s broader policy efforts – in fact, as I noted earlier today, the majority of BC members active in the RAPWG took the position one year ago that this should only be considered after a PDP, and in no way supported imposition of URS on .Net as of July 11, 2011 absent such a policy process. So what is the basis for putting this position in a draft BC comment, and why was there no effort made to give notice to Constituency members and ask their views on its inclusion?
So, while requesting objections from other BC members on both substantive and procedural grounds, I have to ask why the onus is on objectors to seek a vote on this matter and was not on the authors of the draft statement to seek feedback from BC members on such an important matter.
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
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: Phil Corwin Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 4:38 PM To: Phil Corwin; Steve DelBianco; 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list' Cc: Elisa Cooper; Mike O'Connor Subject: RE: Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal
To further elaborate, in reviewing the RAPWG Final report issued in May 2010 (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-29may10-en.htm ) I find the following—
Recommendation #2: The RAPWG was evenly split regarding a second recommendation. The two opposing views are below. Seven members supported View A: The RAPWG recommends the initiation of a Policy Development Process by requesting an Issues Report to investigate the appropriateness and effectiveness of how any Rights Protection Mechanisms that are developed elsewhere in the community (e.g. the New gTLD program) can be applied to the problem of cybersquatting in the current gTLD space. In favour of View A (7): Cobb (CBUC), Felman (MarkMonitor), Queern (CBUC), Rasmussen (Internet Identity), Rodenbaugh (CBUC), Shah (MarkMonitor), Sutton (CBUC). Seven members supported View B: The initiation of such a process is premature; the effectiveness and consequences of the Rights Protection Mechanisms proposed for the new TLDs is unknown. Discussion of RPMs should continue via the New TLD program. Experience with them should be gained before considering their appropriate relation (if any) to the existing TLD space. In favour of View B (7): Aaron (RySG), Amadoz (RySG), Bladel (RrSG), Neuman (RySG), O’Connor (CBUC), Seltzer (NCSG), Young (RySG).
So, the WG’s members split 7-7 on this, while CBUC participants (including MM)s split 6-1. However, the six who supported View A were in favor of initiating a PDP to investigate whether the new gTLD RPMs were appropriate and effective and could be applied to incumbent gTLDs – they did not favor immediate imposition of untested RPMs on incumbent registries without any further consideration, which is what the draft BC statement on .Net renewal would now advocate.
Registrants in new gTLDs will become so with fully informed notice that they may be subject to a URS proceeding. On the other hand, Registrants in .Net, the third largest registry (after .com and .de), have acquired portfolios and developed websites based on a belief that their domains were safe from cancelation or transfer unless they acted in violation of the UDRP. They control valuable domains, and deserve a lot more in the way of due process and careful deliberation before the UDRP is altered or new expedited means of domain suspension are adopted for incumbent registries.
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
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 2:15 PM To: Steve DelBianco; 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list' Cc: Elisa Cooper; Mike O'Connor Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal Importance: High
Just to reiterate, ICA is unalterably opposed to imposing URS on .Net and we therefore strongly disagree and request that a voting period be initiated.
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
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 5:12 PM To: 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list' Cc: Elisa Cooper; Mike O'Connor Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal
ICANN is gathering responses to the proposed renewal of .NET registry contract. Attached is a discussion draft for BC response prepared by Elisa Cooper (with edits by Mikey O'Connor and Steve DelBianco)
On our 21-April BC member call, we discussed our approach for this comment, and there was universal support to request Verisign to have a "Thick WHOIS" service in .NET Elise and Mikey added two additional requests based on new gTLD registry contract requirements: - Add TM Claims Service once the TM Clearinghouse is operating. - Add URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) ICANN's Comment period closes 10-May. Our member call on 21-Apr was 21 days before deadline, and today's draft is circulated 8 days before deadline. We can submit this response later if members feel they need the entire 14-day review and discussion period. Please review and post your suggestions/edits as soon as possible. If there are no disagreements noted by 10-May, this response will be adopted without a voting period, and posted to ICANN.
For topic background, see http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#net-renewal Thanks again to Elisa Cooper and Mikey O'Connor for drafting this comment.
Regards, Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3612 - Release Date: 05/03/11
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3624 - Release Date: 05/08/11
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3624 - Release Date: 05/08/11
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
Mikey: Never meant to suggest any conspiracy, dark or otherwise, just that it might have been advisable to let BC members know that suggesting that new RPMs be imposed on .Net was being considered before the draft was finalized. Needless to say, I support dropping URS from the draft. For consistency's stake I also have to urge dropping Trademark Claims Service as well - it doesn't raise anywhere near the same level of concern but it is a new RPM and the overall issue is whether any RPMs created for new gTLDs should be imposed on .Net alone through this contract renewal process rather than through a PDP, be it on UDRP reform or just this issue, especially as I don't know of any policy previously adopted by the BC that can serve as a foundation for the position advocated in the draft statement. To close the loop, I have no problem with the thick WHOIS position as it is undisputedly relevant to the proposed new .Net registry agreement and there is substantial basis in prior ICANN PDPs for the position advocated. --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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 7:54 AM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Steve DelBianco; 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list'; Elisa Cooper Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal um... actually, the conversation that started when Steve posted the draft **is** the solicitation of comments from the BC. Elisa and i put together that draft and folks are commenting. no dark conspiracy there. it doesn't sound like we've got agreement on the URS stuff, so i'd suggest dropping it from the draft and pushing on. mikey On May 8, 2011, at 6:52 PM, Phil Corwin wrote: I have been advised that the BC Charter requires 10% of members (5 members at present) to disagree with the proposed BC statement. I am hereby asking for other BC members to register disagreement with the draft BC comment. However, I have to ask about the process that created the draft before us. I have reviewed the e-mail thread at http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/ and it is very sparse on this subject. On April 13th Marilyn posted ICANN's request for comment. On May 3rd Steve posted the draft BC comment with this note: Attached is a discussion draft for BC response prepared by Elisa Cooper (with edits by Mikey O'Connor and Steve DelBianco) On our 21-April BC member call, we discussed our approach for this comment, and there was universal support to request Verisign to have a "Thick WHOIS" service in .NET Elise and Mikey added two additional requests based on new gTLD registry contract requirements: - Add TM Claims Service once the TM Clearinghouse is operating. - Add URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) But of course Mikey indicated today that he disagrees with imposing URS on .Net at this time. With all respect, it appears that these provisions came solely from Elisa and that they were not discussed on the 4/21 BC member call (I was on that call and have no recollection of any such discussion). The imposition of new gTLD RPMs on incumbent gTLDs is, in my opinion, a matter that is completely extraneous to commenting on the provisions of the proposed .Net contract renewal. In addition, it is not a minor technical matter but a substantive issue of great import, with clear implications for the .Com renewal coming up in 2012 as well as for any UDRP reform effort undertaken by ICANN. I know of no previous BC discussion of whether the new RPMs should be imposed on incumbent gTLDs at this time, much less the reaching of any consensus on that issue. I know of no support for that position in any of ICANN's broader policy efforts - in fact, as I noted earlier today, the majority of BC members active in the RAPWG took the position one year ago that this should only be considered after a PDP, and in no way supported imposition of URS on .Net as of July 11, 2011 absent such a policy process. So what is the basis for putting this position in a draft BC comment, and why was there no effort made to give notice to Constituency members and ask their views on its inclusion? So, while requesting objections from other BC members on both substantive and procedural grounds, I have to ask why the onus is on objectors to seek a vote on this matter and was not on the authors of the draft statement to seek feedback from BC members on such an important matter. 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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Phil Corwin Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 4:38 PM To: Phil Corwin; Steve DelBianco; 'bc-GNSO@icann.org<mailto:'bc-GNSO@icann.org> GNSO list' Cc: Elisa Cooper; Mike O'Connor Subject: RE: Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal To further elaborate, in reviewing the RAPWG Final report issued in May 2010 (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-29may10-en.htm ) I find the following- Recommendation #2: The RAPWG was evenly split regarding a second recommendation. The two opposing views are below. Seven members supported View A: The RAPWG recommends the initiation of a Policy Development Process by requesting an Issues Report to investigate the appropriateness and effectiveness of how any Rights Protection Mechanisms that are developed elsewhere in the community (e.g. the New gTLD program) can be applied to the problem of cybersquatting in the current gTLD space. In favour of View A (7): Cobb (CBUC), Felman (MarkMonitor), Queern (CBUC), Rasmussen (Internet Identity), Rodenbaugh (CBUC), Shah (MarkMonitor), Sutton (CBUC). Seven members supported View B: The initiation of such a process is premature; the effectiveness and consequences of the Rights Protection Mechanisms proposed for the new TLDs is unknown. Discussion of RPMs should continue via the New TLD program. Experience with them should be gained before considering their appropriate relation (if any) to the existing TLD space. In favour of View B (7): Aaron (RySG), Amadoz (RySG), Bladel (RrSG), Neuman (RySG), O'Connor (CBUC), Seltzer (NCSG), Young (RySG). So, the WG's members split 7-7 on this, while CBUC participants (including MM)s split 6-1. However, the six who supported View A were in favor of initiating a PDP to investigate whether the new gTLD RPMs were appropriate and effective and could be applied to incumbent gTLDs - they did not favor immediate imposition of untested RPMs on incumbent registries without any further consideration, which is what the draft BC statement on .Net renewal would now advocate. Registrants in new gTLDs will become so with fully informed notice that they may be subject to a URS proceeding. On the other hand, Registrants in .Net, the third largest registry (after .com and .de), have acquired portfolios and developed websites based on a belief that their domains were safe from cancelation or transfer unless they acted in violation of the UDRP. They control valuable domains, and deserve a lot more in the way of due process and careful deliberation before the UDRP is altered or new expedited means of domain suspension are adopted for incumbent registries. 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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 2:15 PM To: Steve DelBianco; 'bc-GNSO@icann.org<mailto:'bc-GNSO@icann.org> GNSO list' Cc: Elisa Cooper; Mike O'Connor Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal Importance: High Just to reiterate, ICA is unalterably opposed to imposing URS on .Net and we therefore strongly disagree and request that a voting period be initiated. 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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 5:12 PM To: 'bc-GNSO@icann.org<mailto:'bc-GNSO@icann.org> GNSO list' Cc: Elisa Cooper; Mike O'Connor Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal ICANN is gathering responses to the proposed renewal of .NET registry contract. Attached is a discussion draft for BC response prepared by Elisa Cooper (with edits by Mikey O'Connor and Steve DelBianco) On our 21-April BC member call, we discussed our approach for this comment, and there was universal support to request Verisign to have a "Thick WHOIS" service in .NET Elise and Mikey added two additional requests based on new gTLD registry contract requirements: - Add TM Claims Service once the TM Clearinghouse is operating. - Add URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) ICANN's Comment period closes 10-May. Our member call on 21-Apr was 21 days before deadline, and today's draft is circulated 8 days before deadline. We can submit this response later if members feel they need the entire 14-day review and discussion period. Please review and post your suggestions/edits as soon as possible. If there are no disagreements noted by 10-May, this response will be adopted without a voting period, and posted to ICANN. For topic background, see http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#net-renewal Thanks again to Elisa Cooper and Mikey O'Connor for drafting this comment. Regards, Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3612 - Release Date: 05/03/11 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3624 - Release Date: 05/08/11 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3624 - Release Date: 05/08/11 - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3625 - Release Date: 05/08/11
In relation to the discussion about URS, Trademark clearing and .NET, please note that the proposal earlier (see below) is a principle of equal treatment. Under this principle the BC DEFAULT would be that all new mechanisms (including rights protection) would form part of a new .NET contract. A secondary argument, then comes in. Is there any BC-supported reason NOT to do this for any specific new obligation? That is the inverse starting point to the debate at present. Maybe we need a vote on the first principle. Philip -------------------------------- NEW The BC believes in the principle of equal treatment. Under this as ICANN's contracts evolve to suit changing market conditions, the ICANN contract renewal process should be the opportunity to upgrade older contracts to the new standards. This is fair both from a public interest perspective and from a competition law perspective. Under the ICANN process the contract parties are in the room when the conditions for new market entrants are being set. Under these unusual circumstances the contract parties cannot expect their older contracts to be immune from the changes they themselves are imposing on their future competitors. In the context of .NET therefore, ICANN should seek as a fundamental principle to amend this contract to equate with the requirements of the new gTLD program.
Equal treatment as a long-term goal is one thing, equal treatment as an immediate requirement is quite another. There has never been any suggestion in the debate on RPMs for new gTLDs that whatever was adopted would be immediately imposed on the incumbent gTLDs via the contract renewal process. That position was never even considered, much less supported, by the RAPWG. And imposing URS right now on .Net (and by implication, on .Com next year) is at complete odds with a balanced UDRP reform process that is informed by, but not necessarily bound to, the experience with new RPMs at the new gTLDs. To be clear, ICA has consistently advocated that the goal should be to have equivalent RPMs across all gTLDs so that registrants have the same rights and responsibilities throughout the DNS. But we oppose the immediate imposition of URS on .Net, the second largest gTLD and third largest overall, through a contract renewal process where those changes would take effect in less than two months - when we don't even know what the final form of those RPMs will be (and still may not know even after Singapore, given Secretary Strickling's remarks last week and the pressure on ICANN to delay final approval and engage in extended discussions with the GAC), much less have any real world experience with their workings, effectiveness, and potential for abuse. 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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:08 AM To: 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal In relation to the discussion about URS, Trademark clearing and .NET, please note that the proposal earlier (see below) is a principle of equal treatment. Under this principle the BC DEFAULT would be that all new mechanisms (including rights protection) would form part of a new .NET contract. A secondary argument, then comes in. Is there any BC-supported reason NOT to do this for any specific new obligation? That is the inverse starting point to the debate at present. Maybe we need a vote on the first principle. Philip -------------------------------- NEW The BC believes in the principle of equal treatment. Under this as ICANN's contracts evolve to suit changing market conditions, the ICANN contract renewal process should be the opportunity to upgrade older contracts to the new standards. This is fair both from a public interest perspective and from a competition law perspective. Under the ICANN process the contract parties are in the room when the conditions for new market entrants are being set. Under these unusual circumstances the contract parties cannot expect their older contracts to be immune from the changes they themselves are imposing on their future competitors. In the context of .NET therefore, ICANN should seek as a fundamental principle to amend this contract to equate with the requirements of the new gTLD program. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3626 - Release Date: 05/09/11
Phil Corwin makes good points about the differences in timing between .NET renewal and new TLD contracts. However, it is not beyond the wit of ICANN to ensure these coincide by one means or the other. Nor should it change a principle. Philip
I just asked Steve to work with the Rapporteurs to gather all comments. Depending on the views of members,and following the Charter, the question of voting on the draft position may be appropriate. If so, and there are different views on sub elements, then it could be that the ballot would separate out certain sub elements. That needs to be determined by Steve as V.Chair, Policy Coordination, in consultation with the Rapporteurs.That is a process comment, as chair. In addition, I ask that members consider: -- PDP WG process isn't working out in a balanced manner, from the feedback I getfrom members who participate, and from my own observation. Parties can 'stack the participant deck' and then block any agreement coming out of a WG. PDPs are binding if they reach consensus status, and not if not. It could be that the operating registry would accept moving to thick WHOIS on a voluntary contractual basis, and that such a proposal would in any case, be published for public comment. If established by contractual negotiations, the termswould be important to follow and comment on [e.g. what said data can be used for, etc.]. Registrars are likely to oppose any such change, as will the NCUC... I suspect. My individual comments on the draft are provided separately, and as an individual. Marilyn Cade From: philip.sheppard@aim.be To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 15:08:11 +0200 In relation to the discussion about URS, Trademark clearing and .NET, please note that the proposal earlier (see below) is a principle of equal treatment. Under this principle the BC DEFAULT would be that all new mechanisms (including rights protection) would form part of a new .NET contract. A secondary argument, then comes in. Is there any BC-supported reason NOT to do this for any specific new obligation? That is the inverse starting point to the debate at present. Maybe we need a vote on the first principle. Philip -------------------------------- NEW The BC believes in the principle of equal treatment. Under this as ICANN's contracts evolve to suit changing market conditions, the ICANN contract renewal process should be the opportunity to upgrade older contracts to the new standards. This is fair both from a public interest perspective and from a competition law perspective. Under the ICANN process the contract parties are in the room when the conditions for new market entrants are being set. Under these unusual circumstances the contract parties cannot expect their older contracts to be immune from the changes they themselves are imposing on their future competitors. In the context of .NET therefore, ICANN should seek as a fundamental principle to amend this contract to equate with the requirements of the new gTLD program.
participants (6)
-
Elisa Cooper -
Marilyn Cade -
Mike O'Connor -
Phil Corwin -
Philip Sheppard -
Steve DelBianco