I cannot comment on what the BC did in 2007 as I have only been active within it since early this year. However I strongly question how any general statement of the past can be viewed as implying endorsement of a URS proposal the details of which were just finalized last month. Therefore I shall firmly object to any BC statement that implies such endorsement. I would also note that Bruce Tonkin observed that the majority of those polled on the URS in today's session were opposed to its adoption - and the majority of commenters either opposed it or suggested substantial modification. While dissent on this proposal may be a minority position within the BC that does not appear to be true in the wider ICANN community - and that inaccurate characterizations such as "loudly shouting" do not promote constructive dialogue on matters on which reasonable and well-meaning individuals can legitimately disagree. Philip S. Corwin Partner, Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 2026635347/Office 2022556172/Cell "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> To: bc-gnso@icann.org <bc-gnso@icann.org> Sent: Wed Jun 24 02:44:22 2009 Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT What strikes me is that we are rehashing, to some extent, arguments that the BC resolved long ago. A vocal minority is loudly shouting about the Uniform Rapid Suspension system and other IRT proposals. But in concept the URS is a consensus BC position since April 2007, reiterated less than six months ago after a vote of the membership. Same with standardized sunrise. Those members in the minority should make their own comments, but I strongly believe the BC should reiterate its support for those concepts, in addition to thanking the IRT for its very hard work. I would like to go further, but will accept we cannot reach new consensus now. That does not mean we should lessen the impact of our prior consensus positions, by ignoring that they have been considered and adopted by the IRT. So, I would suggest the following, based on Ayesha's text: The BC appreciates the considerable work and efforts of all those who participated in the IRT. The BC believes that this report is productive step forward in addressing several consumer and IP protection issues with respect to new gTLDs. In particular, the BC appreciates that the IRT has adopted the essence of the BC's recommendations from April 2007 and January 2009 with respect to the Uniform Rapid Suspension program and the standardized sunrise recommendations. The BC expects its members will post their individual comments on the detailed substance of the report, including those URS and sunrise recommendations, at the Public comment space http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm. ------ Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:21 PM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT I think it is important for BC members, both here in Sydney and those not, to take a step back and reflect on what the IRT is and what it is tasked to do. To say it is a shame that all of our members are not here to be able to share in the on-going discussion and dialogue with the IRT work team and the larger ICANN community on this topic is an understatement. I can appreciate that, without the larger context which we here in Sydney can gain a better understand of (as a result of the "local" discourse), some members might view the IRT report as being considerably too little or too much vis-à-vis their expectations. However, at the B.C. meeting yesterday it was agreed by those present and on the call in line that, as it would be futile to try to reach constituency consensus on this topic, it would be better to simply note that the BC is pleased that "this work has been undertaken" and ask each member to make their individual comments in the public comments space. Clearly, IP issues MUST be addressed AND the pressures to roll out new gTLDs is not decreasing (ergo the IRT -- in some watered down form, I suspect -- WILL be adopted and included in the 3rd DAG). Therefore, RNA Partners supports Ayesha's recommendation and urges all members to note their corporate positions on the public comment list. Respectfully, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859 -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of HASSAN Ayesha Sent: 2009-06-23 21:28 To: Rick Anderson; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT I thought the original brief statement reflected the discussion yesterday in the BC and the key is for members to submit their own comments to the consultation. My sense is the statement should be very brief so that members can express their own perspectives directly to the consultation process. To help reach a statement we can all support, I propose the following: "The BC recognizes the work and efforts of all those who participated in the IRT. The BC believes that this report is productive step forward in addressing several issues with respect to new gTLDs. The BC urges its members to post their individual comments on the substance of the report at Public comment space http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm" Regards, Ayesha -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rick Anderson Sent: mercredi 24 juin 2009 03:01 To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT Interborder agrees with George's improved draft. cheers/Rick Rick Anderson EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd email: randerson@interborder.ca cell: (403) 830-1798 office: (403) 750-5535 ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> To: 'mike@haven2.com' <mike@haven2.com>; 'icann@leap.com' <icann@leap.com> Cc: 'bc-gnso@icann.org' <bc-gnso@icann.org> Sent: Tue Jun 23 18:43:48 2009 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT ICA supports George's alternative and dissents on the original text. Philip S. Corwin Partner, Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 2026635347/Office 2022556172/Cell "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: BC gnso <bc-gnso@icann.org> Sent: Tue Jun 23 20:30:43 2009 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT i stand with George on this one. mikey On Jun 23, 2009, at 7:24 PM, George Kirikos wrote:
Hello,
We do not support that proposed BC statement on the IRT. We propose an alternative and balanced statement as follows:
----- start proposed statement ------ "The BC appreciates the effort of the IP constituency's work in creating a proposal that would protect trademark holders interests. However, much work remains to be done to ensure that the needs of trademark holders are balanced against the needs of domain registrants for certainty, predictability and due process. The BC looks forward to working with the IP constituency, and other constituencies within the GNSO on an improved version of the IRT's report, one that can achieve consensus support of all stakeholders." ----- end proposed statement ------
As we have stated previously, we have grave concerns about the IRT, and the "answers" provided by the members of the IRT team have been spurious. To give just two concrete examples (there are many more if one reads our prior comments submitted in the official comment periods):
a) No good reason has been provided as to why the IRT proposes that *all* domain names, irregardless of age, should be subject to the URS, especially given that markholders ultimately would want the URS to apply to legacy TLDs such as com/net/org. The URS is an extraordinary procedure that would take down a domain name with short notice (so short that a registrant on vacation may not receive actual notice of a complaint). Such an extraordinary procedure should be targeted only towards the most abusive domain names, one where "time is of the essence." Time is not of the essence if a domain name is 10 years old! The onus should be on markholders to not delay in bringing complaints if there is truly a matter that is "urgent" and requires the URS. We proposed that the URS either apply only to domains younger than a certain age (e.g. 6 months), or that the time to respond to complaints be a function of the age of the domain (e.g. 15 days + the age of the domain in months). Businesses and consumers require certainty and due process, and a system like the URS as proposed that would threaten their legitimate domain name, one that they've owned for years, denies them both certainty and due process.
b) No good reason has been provided as to why the IRT proposes to limit notification to registrants to only 2 emails and 1 letter by post for the URS. Email is unreliable given the amount of spam that exists, and international mail might not be received in time to respond to a complaint, given the slow delivery times of the international postal system. We specifically pointed to opt-in fax as a highly reliable system to notify registrants of complaints, and the IRT provides excuses that leave objective people incredulous. Footnote 30 of the report stated:
"The IRT decided that such requirements would add significant complexity and cost to the system due to time zones and national and local laws regarding faxing and calling."
This is simply astonishing for the IRT to say, given that (a) the faxes are 100% opt-in, and (b) the UDRP has been providing fax notification for over 10 years without issues. The cost to send a 1-page fax notification of a complaint (using email to fax gateways) is on the order of 10 cents, far below the postal delivery stamp fees.
A legitimate URS complaint by a markholder will not be impacted if the registrant receives proper and timely notification (actual notice) by fax. The URS was supposedly intended for "clear cut" cases, and notification shouldn't impact the registrant's ability to defend a "clear cut" case of abuse.
However, illegitimate and frivolous URS complaints with weak claims that hope to win by default due to lack of registrant notification will greatly benefit by lack of fax notification, lack of actual notice. A legitimate registrant will strongly defend their domain name and is hurt by lack of the ability to respond and prepare a defence.
The only logical conclusion is that the IRT has intentionally acted to put the rights of illegitimate and frivolous URS complainants with weak claims ahead of legitimate domain registrants with strong defences, by putting up spurious obstacles to the domain registrants receiving actual notice and due process. This is no surprise given the IP's pro-complainant dominance of the IRT process.
While the IRT members posture in public that their report was a "compromise" I hope it is clear from just the above two cases (and there are more) that it truly was not any compromise, but was an extreme and unbalanced report.
Legitimate domain registrants like my company and others in the BC and other constituencies are prepared to work with the IP constituency to come up with a balanced solution within the GNSO process. But, until such time, the IRT report should continue to draw skepticism within the ICANN community, and be rejected.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
P.S. One can read our early substantial comments on the IRT, indeed with novel approaches (such as the concept of easements), that were ignored by the IRT:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00000.html http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00015.html http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00016.html http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00000.html
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event this e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender's company do not waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have been sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify sender at the above e-mail address. Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this e-mail message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender's company accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent is assumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.
I was in the room and think it was roughly 50/50, even though very few brandholders were in the room. Anyway that is irrelevant as to the consensus adopted BC position from Jan this year. My proposed statement does not endorse the IRT report in any way, other than to note its general acceptance of our general recommendation as to a process like the URS, and standardized sunrise. It is important to note the BC's continued support of those general recommendations, and of course individual members are free to note their differences with them, generally and specifically as to detail. George was quite loud in the room yesterday, but probably he was not shouting. I apologize for that characterization and agree it is not helpful. -Mike -----Original Message----- From: Phil Corwin [mailto:pcorwin@butera-andrews.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 12:36 AM To: 'mike@rodenbaugh.com'; 'bc-gnso@icann.org' Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT I cannot comment on what the BC did in 2007 as I have only been active within it since early this year. However I strongly question how any general statement of the past can be viewed as implying endorsement of a URS proposal the details of which were just finalized last month. Therefore I shall firmly object to any BC statement that implies such endorsement. I would also note that Bruce Tonkin observed that the majority of those polled on the URS in today's session were opposed to its adoption - and the majority of commenters either opposed it or suggested substantial modification. While dissent on this proposal may be a minority position within the BC that does not appear to be true in the wider ICANN community - and that inaccurate characterizations such as "loudly shouting" do not promote constructive dialogue on matters on which reasonable and well-meaning individuals can legitimately disagree. Philip S. Corwin Partner, Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 2026635347/Office 2022556172/Cell "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> To: bc-gnso@icann.org <bc-gnso@icann.org> Sent: Wed Jun 24 02:44:22 2009 Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT What strikes me is that we are rehashing, to some extent, arguments that the BC resolved long ago. A vocal minority is loudly shouting about the Uniform Rapid Suspension system and other IRT proposals. But in concept the URS is a consensus BC position since April 2007, reiterated less than six months ago after a vote of the membership. Same with standardized sunrise. Those members in the minority should make their own comments, but I strongly believe the BC should reiterate its support for those concepts, in addition to thanking the IRT for its very hard work. I would like to go further, but will accept we cannot reach new consensus now. That does not mean we should lessen the impact of our prior consensus positions, by ignoring that they have been considered and adopted by the IRT. So, I would suggest the following, based on Ayesha's text: The BC appreciates the considerable work and efforts of all those who participated in the IRT. The BC believes that this report is productive step forward in addressing several consumer and IP protection issues with respect to new gTLDs. In particular, the BC appreciates that the IRT has adopted the essence of the BC's recommendations from April 2007 and January 2009 with respect to the Uniform Rapid Suspension program and the standardized sunrise recommendations. The BC expects its members will post their individual comments on the detailed substance of the report, including those URS and sunrise recommendations, at the Public comment space http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm. ------ Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:21 PM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT I think it is important for BC members, both here in Sydney and those not, to take a step back and reflect on what the IRT is and what it is tasked to do. To say it is a shame that all of our members are not here to be able to share in the on-going discussion and dialogue with the IRT work team and the larger ICANN community on this topic is an understatement. I can appreciate that, without the larger context which we here in Sydney can gain a better understand of (as a result of the "local" discourse), some members might view the IRT report as being considerably too little or too much vis-à-vis their expectations. However, at the B.C. meeting yesterday it was agreed by those present and on the call in line that, as it would be futile to try to reach constituency consensus on this topic, it would be better to simply note that the BC is pleased that "this work has been undertaken" and ask each member to make their individual comments in the public comments space. Clearly, IP issues MUST be addressed AND the pressures to roll out new gTLDs is not decreasing (ergo the IRT -- in some watered down form, I suspect -- WILL be adopted and included in the 3rd DAG). Therefore, RNA Partners supports Ayesha's recommendation and urges all members to note their corporate positions on the public comment list. Respectfully, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859 -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of HASSAN Ayesha Sent: 2009-06-23 21:28 To: Rick Anderson; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT I thought the original brief statement reflected the discussion yesterday in the BC and the key is for members to submit their own comments to the consultation. My sense is the statement should be very brief so that members can express their own perspectives directly to the consultation process. To help reach a statement we can all support, I propose the following: "The BC recognizes the work and efforts of all those who participated in the IRT. The BC believes that this report is productive step forward in addressing several issues with respect to new gTLDs. The BC urges its members to post their individual comments on the substance of the report at Public comment space http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm" Regards, Ayesha -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rick Anderson Sent: mercredi 24 juin 2009 03:01 To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT Interborder agrees with George's improved draft. cheers/Rick Rick Anderson EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd email: randerson@interborder.ca cell: (403) 830-1798 office: (403) 750-5535 ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> To: 'mike@haven2.com' <mike@haven2.com>; 'icann@leap.com' <icann@leap.com> Cc: 'bc-gnso@icann.org' <bc-gnso@icann.org> Sent: Tue Jun 23 18:43:48 2009 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT ICA supports George's alternative and dissents on the original text. Philip S. Corwin Partner, Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 2026635347/Office 2022556172/Cell "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: BC gnso <bc-gnso@icann.org> Sent: Tue Jun 23 20:30:43 2009 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT i stand with George on this one. mikey On Jun 23, 2009, at 7:24 PM, George Kirikos wrote:
Hello,
We do not support that proposed BC statement on the IRT. We propose an alternative and balanced statement as follows:
----- start proposed statement ------ "The BC appreciates the effort of the IP constituency's work in creating a proposal that would protect trademark holders interests. However, much work remains to be done to ensure that the needs of trademark holders are balanced against the needs of domain registrants for certainty, predictability and due process. The BC looks forward to working with the IP constituency, and other constituencies within the GNSO on an improved version of the IRT's report, one that can achieve consensus support of all stakeholders." ----- end proposed statement ------
As we have stated previously, we have grave concerns about the IRT, and the "answers" provided by the members of the IRT team have been spurious. To give just two concrete examples (there are many more if one reads our prior comments submitted in the official comment periods):
a) No good reason has been provided as to why the IRT proposes that *all* domain names, irregardless of age, should be subject to the URS, especially given that markholders ultimately would want the URS to apply to legacy TLDs such as com/net/org. The URS is an extraordinary procedure that would take down a domain name with short notice (so short that a registrant on vacation may not receive actual notice of a complaint). Such an extraordinary procedure should be targeted only towards the most abusive domain names, one where "time is of the essence." Time is not of the essence if a domain name is 10 years old! The onus should be on markholders to not delay in bringing complaints if there is truly a matter that is "urgent" and requires the URS. We proposed that the URS either apply only to domains younger than a certain age (e.g. 6 months), or that the time to respond to complaints be a function of the age of the domain (e.g. 15 days + the age of the domain in months). Businesses and consumers require certainty and due process, and a system like the URS as proposed that would threaten their legitimate domain name, one that they've owned for years, denies them both certainty and due process.
b) No good reason has been provided as to why the IRT proposes to limit notification to registrants to only 2 emails and 1 letter by post for the URS. Email is unreliable given the amount of spam that exists, and international mail might not be received in time to respond to a complaint, given the slow delivery times of the international postal system. We specifically pointed to opt-in fax as a highly reliable system to notify registrants of complaints, and the IRT provides excuses that leave objective people incredulous. Footnote 30 of the report stated:
"The IRT decided that such requirements would add significant complexity and cost to the system due to time zones and national and local laws regarding faxing and calling."
This is simply astonishing for the IRT to say, given that (a) the faxes are 100% opt-in, and (b) the UDRP has been providing fax notification for over 10 years without issues. The cost to send a 1-page fax notification of a complaint (using email to fax gateways) is on the order of 10 cents, far below the postal delivery stamp fees.
A legitimate URS complaint by a markholder will not be impacted if the registrant receives proper and timely notification (actual notice) by fax. The URS was supposedly intended for "clear cut" cases, and notification shouldn't impact the registrant's ability to defend a "clear cut" case of abuse.
However, illegitimate and frivolous URS complaints with weak claims that hope to win by default due to lack of registrant notification will greatly benefit by lack of fax notification, lack of actual notice. A legitimate registrant will strongly defend their domain name and is hurt by lack of the ability to respond and prepare a defence.
The only logical conclusion is that the IRT has intentionally acted to put the rights of illegitimate and frivolous URS complainants with weak claims ahead of legitimate domain registrants with strong defences, by putting up spurious obstacles to the domain registrants receiving actual notice and due process. This is no surprise given the IP's pro-complainant dominance of the IRT process.
While the IRT members posture in public that their report was a "compromise" I hope it is clear from just the above two cases (and there are more) that it truly was not any compromise, but was an extreme and unbalanced report.
Legitimate domain registrants like my company and others in the BC and other constituencies are prepared to work with the IP constituency to come up with a balanced solution within the GNSO process. But, until such time, the IRT report should continue to draw skepticism within the ICANN community, and be rejected.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
P.S. One can read our early substantial comments on the IRT, indeed with novel approaches (such as the concept of easements), that were ignored by the IRT:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00000.html http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00015.html http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00016.html http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00000.html
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event this e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender's company do not waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have been sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify sender at the above e-mail address. Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this e-mail message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender's company accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent is assumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.
Hello, On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 3:43 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
George was quite loud in the room yesterday, but probably he was not shouting. I apologize for that characterization and agree it is not helpful.
You know, it is said that those experiencing cognitive dissonance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance can perceive certain words to be "loud" as they resonate in their minds due to oversensitivity. Or, it might simply be that the audio-visual staff set the volume of the speakers in the room to "11"!! I'd say it's 50:50. ;-) ('twas a joke, folks, to lighten the mood, for those who are humour impaired). I accept your apology, Mike. I'm reminded of the famous play/movie "12 Angry Men" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men While we are not debating matters of life and death, one can certainly learn from that drama. As most folks will recall from the story, initially the jury had a single dissenting juror, who felt the accused was not guilty. In this masterpiece, one of the important lessons one can learn is to keep talking, to refine one's arguments and explore those of others, to attempt to convince the other side about why you support a position, and exactly what parts of the other side's arguments are unsupported by fact. Unanimity would be a powerful signal to be able to send. When there's disagreement, it usually means more words need to be spoken by both sides, not less. Both sides need to elevate their game, think deeply about why they support something, and what parts of the other person's argument might be correct. This is not about summary judgments, or pointing to some vague past vote, or attempts to end debate too soon. There's an important process involved in trying to state your argument in a logical manner, and rebut the argument of the other side. It forces you to examine and reexamine your own position and that of the other side, and attempt to get to an even better position. Recall, many of us share a lot in common. My company is strongly against cybersquatting. We're for thick WHOIS. We're against new gTLDs. We've thought about the issues deeply and carefully, and are prepared to defend them and "keep on talking" to ensure folks fully explore their own ideas, and make it clear what it is that they support and what it is that they don't. So, let me try to fill Henry Fonda's shoes for a moment. 1. Going back to first principles, the BC's mission involves ICANN *policy* positions. That's in our mission statement, that's in the BC charter. We're part of the GNSO. What is the IRT, and why would we even make a formal statement on it? If it's not "policy", then while we as a constituency might hold opinions one way or the other, individually or as a group, then a single dissenting member can and should be able to point to our charter and say "Since this is not policy, it's out of scope of the BC to make any statement at all." However, as many of us are aware and even convinced, the IRT is not simply "implementation", it IS policy. Policy should go through the GNSO, and the appropriate process, and one constituency (the IP constituency) cannot simply dictate policy using "expediency" as an argument. That is why the language of my proposed statement expressly states: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00153.html "The BC looks forward to working with the IP constituency, and other constituencies within the GNSO on an improved version of the IRT's report, one that can achieve consensus support of all stakeholders." (note, the proposed statement was only the 8 lines at the top of that link, and not the rest of the post which was explanatory in nature) So, explain to us all, is the IRT report policy, or is it not? If it's not "policy" why are we talking about it? If it IS policy, why did it not properly go through the GNSO, and what exactly do you object about the above sentence from my proposed statement that says we look forward to working on an inproved version of the IRT's report within the GNSO that needs to achieve consensus support? 2. In my prior post at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00153.html I gave two specific examples about why we oppose the URS (there are more, but we limited it to just those 2 initially). a) Explain to us, if you support the URS, why do you need it to apply to domain names whose age is greater than say 6 months? Or 2 years, or even 10 years? What urgency is there that would make a markholder need a rapid suspension for a domain that a registrant has owned for long periods? b) Explain to us what laws are broken by sending a person who wants to opt-in to receive notification via fax of a URS complaint, just like the UDRP has done for the past 10 years? Is it so unreasonable that domain registrants would want *actual notice* of a complaint so that they have time to properly defend themselves? 3. I made a very substantial comment on using the notion of "easements" to resolve certain issues at the top level. http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00016.html It was not even considered by the IRT (no mention of it in the report, and not even in ICANN's staff summary of comments). I heard during yesterday's meeting about how markholders would be upset at having to continue to monitor TLD applications even if they had previously successfully opposed an application. It costs them a lot of time and money. The approach I suggested would give every com/net/org a veto over a conflicting new TLD, using a broader notiion of "dilution and public confusion" pulled from Tim Berners-Lee's comments on new TLDs. For example, if you owned verizon.com, or verizon.net or verizon.org, NO ONE could get dot-verizon (i.e. .verizon) as a TLD without your consent. There'd be no expensive monitoring. And if you owned all 3, you control your destiny and could easily get the TLD for yourself. The proposal for "ascended TLDs" really works to strengthen property rights, and would have solved a lot of issues that TM holders had using simple economics. I'd appreciate knowing in detail why you think this would have been such a terrible idea to strengthen people's existing property rights in such a manner, or perhaps you do support the idea but never thought about it because it wasn't even mentioned in the IRT report. I encourage others to continue to engage in dialogue, to "raise their game" and to listen twice as much as they speak. The more we think about and refine our arguments, the more we might find there is even greater common ground to find something we all would support, namely a better and well thought out position. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Hello, Just in case anyone had any doubts that the IRT is ultimately intended for existing gTLDs too, see the article at Computerworld: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxo... "Unfortunately, the proposal applies only to new GTLDs when it's the existing ones that cause the biggest problems, Metalitz says. Even if every recommendation is adopted for the new GTLDs, getting the same rules applied to existing domains like .com will be tough, he adds. "The problem is, you have entrenched interests that are resistant to change," he says. However, ICANN may be able to apply the new rules as existing registrar contracts expire, Levins says. "We may be able to retrofit the features that are in the new GTLD agreements to address abuse." (that's from page 5 of the article) I disagree with Steve Metalitz that people are resistant to change. The key is that the change must be for the better, a "win-win", and that's currently not on the table via the IP Constituency's one-sided and unbalanced proposals. Lynn Goodendorf (mentioned in the article) was in the live chatroom yesterday during the public session (well, yesterday in my timezone), and she was responsive to the suggestions folks like myself were making (e.g. limiting the URS to only newer domains below a certain age, as that's where most of the abuse was for her company). I think there's a disconnect between the members of the IRT, who took on very extreme positions, and the "average Joe Markholder", who would have been just as happy with a more reasonable and balanced proposal, one that responsible registrants would have supported. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
participants (3)
-
George Kirikos -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Phil Corwin