Hello, On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 4:47 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:

The enquiry was to understand the context of Mr. Kirikos's strong antithesis to the IRT's abuse protection mechanisms in contrast to his concern about TLD expansion in general. The BC position is concern about TLD expansion in general BUT also in favour of abuse protection mechanisms. This is thus different. It was a difference we wanted to understand.

His web site did not provide this context as it mentions only Registrar and other consulting services. He has recently told us that his company is an owner of 500 domain names. The context is now a little clearer.

It's kind of silly to suggest that I only "recently told" the BC anything, given on the very first day I joined the BC, I posted the number of domain names my company owned. On February 3, 2006 I sent an introductory post to the BC with the subject of "Thanks to Marilyn and Gary" with the second paragraph beginning with: "For those who don't know me, my company is based in Toronto and owns approximately 500 domain names, with www.math.com being the most active of them...." This was also fully disclosed on our application to the BC of January 13, 2006. We own a relatively *small* number of domain names, relative to most companies in the BC. And, as disclosed in our BC application, the domain name registration services provided to others form a tiny portion of our business, less than 0.1% of our revenues (our account with Tucows/OpenSRS is focused on the management of our own company's domain names). AOL (within Time Warner) owns a registrar, and other current/former BC members or their related companies have much larger registrar or registry interests than we do. To suggest that we're against abuse protection mechanisms is a ridiculous misreading of our postings and positions since we've been involved in ICANN policy discussions and domain name discussions going back to 2001 and earlier. e.g. a post in 2001 created a spreadsheet so that people could monitor their domain names in case of hijackings (a form of abuse that continues to this day): http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss-list@opensrs.org/msg06769.html We're against domain abuse. We've given concrete suggestions that have balance, unlike those proposed in the IRT. One can go back and read all our comments to the IRT draft: 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-draft-report/msg00069.html and to the final report (which are preliminary, and we'll post detailed ones later): http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00000.html http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00001.html http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00002.html http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00040.html The IRT devised a system that almost guarantees defaults, because of the lack of proper notification to registrants. They outright lied (see footnote #30) about the costs of sending notification via fax (very cheap to send a 1-page fax anywhere in the world using an email to fax gateway, and all one needs is 1 page to give notification of the procedure; they talk about potentially breaking laws if they used faxes, which is hilarious since the UDRP already does so, and has been doing it for 10 years on an opt-in basis!). With the very short period to respond, and the heavy reliance on email to only the registrant (as opposed to all domain contacts, including the technical and billing contacts), the odds of "actual notice" are slim. The IRT could have restricted the URS to domains younger than a certain age (say 2 years), to limit this extraordinary procedure to "truly abusive" domains that were "clear-cut". They did not. So, a domain owned for 10+ years could be attacked using this procedure. Of course, they say it's only for "new gTLDs", but you can bet that they'd want it for .com/net/org too. The IRT desire a special central registry where TM holders can post their TMs, yet deny domain registrants a special registry of their own (or just a supplement to WHOIS) to list their lawyers proactively, so that if there is a domain dispute their lawyers can be notified directly. Clearly, TM owners went out of their way to devise a scheme to maximize defaults, and making sure the other side's lawyers are never notified is one of the best ways to ensure this. I'd be willing to wager that of the companies directly represented on the IRT team, their win rate in UDRPs exceeds 97%. They were not happy with that rate, and would only be happy if complainants won 100% of the time, given the terms they inserted, and they terms they refused to add. Being against the unbalanced and extreme terms in the IRT report does not magically transform someone into a supporter of domain abuse. We suggested stronger abuse protection mechanisms like registrant verification, which would be proactive in reducing overall abuse, unlike the "reactive" approach of the URS which actually does nothing to reduce abuse, it simply makes it faster and easier to take down both guilty and innocent domains alike without due process. If support of the IRT is some sort of "litmus test", i.e. "you're either with us, or you're against us" then the BC has really sunk to new lows. It is our position that a balanced approach is necessary, one that protects the rights of businesses and gives them due process. And to followup on yesterday's discussion about company "reach" and so on, I find that it amusing that our company is charged the highest fees in the BC as a Category 1 member, no differently than a Time Warner, HP, eBay or Nike. When we've repeatedly suggested that the Category 3 membership be redefined to reflect true definitions of small businesses (i.e. 300 employees or less, without any reference to revenues), it is Philip who has fought those changes the most. Similarly when we've suggested that the BC vote on its budget, and have an elected treasurer, an elected secretary, and spend less, who has fought against that the most? Since Philip is suddenly so keen on providing "context" to discussions, according to his Statement of Interest: http://www.bizconst.org/interests.htm he's a director of Zaparazzi sprl, which provides the Secretariat services for the BC. In our opinion, that is an enormous potential conflict of interest. Has the secretariat role ever been put out to competitive tender, to minimize cost to members? As others have pointed out, the fees to the BC are hard to explain, given nearly all "services" provided can be obtained for free (like this mailing list) or at very low cost. Have the BC officers continued to fight against reform of the BC charter that would make the Secretary an elected position? Have the BC officers fought against making the Treasurer an elected position? Have the BC officers continued to delay and defer charter reforms? Have the BC officers taken maximum advantage of offloading of services to ICANN staff to save money? Have the BC officers increased spending, instead of keeping it constant or even reducing it in the midst of a global recession? If one seeks to understand the "context" of why the BC officers refuse these common sense changes, one doesn't need to look very far. I think if the BC provided a public accounting of dollars going into the BC by member, and dollars going out of the BC by member, over the last 5 years, the results would be very telling. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

Hello, On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:

George, thank you for your recent post. I had forgotten your introductory message to the BC.

Your comments on specifics of the IRT will help AIM as we too consider our response to this report.

In the words of the Dixie Chicks, "I'm not ready to make nice" ;) Since I explained my context, and you opened the door to this debate, why don't you explain exactly how fees to the Secretariat are set, and why such a huge proportion of the BC budget goes to a no-bid contract to an entity that you are a director of? The BC could easily be transformed into a constituency open to companies for a membership fee of less than $100/yr, or even for free. The BC has enormous reserves which could be rebated back to members. Most of the services of the secretariat can be done for free or at low cost, or by BC members themselves or via ICANN staff (GNSO toolkit, etc.), or through the Commercial Stakeholders group. ICANN will also be paying for most travel fees: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/draft-travel-support-guideline... (page 2, GNSO: Increase in support to 23 travelers per meeting) The BC has a clear choice, to be stuck in the past with a small number of members paying excessive fees, that mostly go to one entity of which Philip is a director. Or, it can be very lean and focused on policy making, and open to all businesses, with low or no fees, and with administrative tasks offloaded to ICANN, etc. and with secretary and treasurer positions being elected. The topic of GNSO reform and BC charter reform was placed last on today's conference call agenda, presumably so that we'd run out of time before it could be fully discussed. However, the issue is not going to go away. To be explicit, I proposed (before an agenda was even set) that 4 items be placed on today's meeting agenda: 1) That the BC charter be immediately amended to have elected positions of Treasurer and Secretary, as previously discussed. 2) That past, current and future BC budgets (and indeed those of all constituencies) be made public, in keeping with ICANN's goals of maximum transparency. 3) That current and future BC budgets (put forward by an elected Treasurer) require majority approval of all members (via weighted voting). 4) That the Category 3 member level in the BC be defined as all companies with fewer than 500 employees (in keeping with other published definitions of small businesses, without references to revenues). I'd really like to see the justification why they would not be simple common sense matters that would have unanimous support amongst the BC membership, and easily handled first, before others "use up the clock" and the meeting ends with unfinished business. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/