Thanks Steve - I support the reply. Martin C SUTTON Group Risk Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence | HSBC HOLDINGS PLC HGHQ Group Security & Fraud Risk 8 Canada Square,Canary Wharf,London,E14 5HQ,United Kingdom ________________________________________________________________ Phone +44 (0)20 7991 8074 / 7991 8074 Mobile +44 (0) 7774556680 Email martinsutton@hsbc.com ________________________________________________________________ Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to! From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org> Date: 05/02/2013 03:22 Subject: [bc-gnso] BC Reply Comment on Strawman proposal Sent by: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org On 15-Jan, the BC filed substantive comments on the TM Clearinghouse Strawman solution. (link) We did not anticipate needing to also file a "Reply" comment. But the ExCom now believes we should file, since we heard last week about the CEO's wavering support for the Strawman proposal. Feb 5 is deadline for "Reply" comments on this topic. So we are proposing a brief Reply comment summarizing comments filed and re-emphasizing key parts of our initial Strawman comments. Below are DRAFT Reply Comments from the Business Constituency, regarding TM Clearinghouse Strawman Solution (link) Of the 88 comments filed on the Strawman solution, 67 supported the Strawman solution and/or called for even stronger rights protection mechanisms, such as Limited Preventive Registrations (LPR). In other words, 76 percent of commenters favor implementation changes such as advance Sunrise notice and enhanced TM claim notices. Unsurprisingly, these supporting comments came from businesses that are negatively affected by having to purchase defensive registrations and engage in other expensive and often inadequate mechanisms to protect their consumers against confusion or outright fraud using second level domain names. While the BC does not believe that new gTLD operators will proactively solicit fraudulent registrations, we believe the comments submitted show that present anti-abuse mechanisms are simply inadequate. That is why commenters from around the world have endorsed the minimal implementation improvements proposed in the Strawman. The additional Strawman suggestion for Limited Preventive Registrations (LPR) also found wide support in comments filed. We believe that LPR could be done as a matter of implementation. But if ICANN determines that LPR is new policy, we believe that GNSO Council should embark on a fast-track policy development process (PDP). The gNSO Council has in the past done at least one fast-track PDP, which entailed face-to-face working sessions and significant time commitment from Councilors. ICANN should also commit to provide support for a fast track PDP, such as consulting services and travel funding for PDP participants. Unless we see objections from at least four BC members, we will file the above comment before end of day tomorrow, 5-Feb-2013. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency ************************************************************ HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ************************************************************ ----------------------------------------- SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT! This E-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return E-mail. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.

Thanks for putting this together Steve. I note that you will be posting if there is no significant opposition, but wanted to add my support to pushing the Strawman proposals through. I agree that Fadi appears to be waivering on what we all agree are still not-yet-strong-enough measures, so it is important for the BC to stay on the fore front of this matter. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA <http://www.rnapartners.com> Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 10:22 PM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] BC Reply Comment on Strawman proposal On 15-Jan, the BC filed substantive comments on the TM Clearinghouse Strawman solution. (link <http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00070.html> ) We did not anticipate needing to also file a "Reply" comment. But the ExCom now believes we should file, since we heard last week about the CEO's wavering support for the Strawman proposal. Feb 5 is deadline for "Reply" comments on this topic. So we are proposing a brief Reply comment summarizing comments filed and re-emphasizing key parts of our initial Strawman comments. Below are DRAFT Reply Comments from the Business Constituency, regarding TM Clearinghouse Strawman Solution (link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-strawman-30nov12-en.htm> ) Of the 88 comments filed on the Strawman solution, 67 supported the Strawman solution and/or called for even stronger rights protection mechanisms, such as Limited Preventive Registrations (LPR). In other words, 76 percent of commenters favor implementation changes such as advance Sunrise notice and enhanced TM claim notices. Unsurprisingly, these supporting comments came from businesses that are negatively affected by having to purchase defensive registrations and engage in other expensive and often inadequate mechanisms to protect their consumers against confusion or outright fraud using second level domain names. While the BC does not believe that new gTLD operators will proactively solicit fraudulent registrations, we believe the comments submitted show that present anti-abuse mechanisms are simply inadequate. That is why commenters from around the world have endorsed the minimal implementation improvements proposed in the Strawman. The additional Strawman suggestion for Limited Preventive Registrations (LPR) also found wide support in comments filed. We believe that LPR could be done as a matter of implementation. But if ICANN determines that LPR is new policy, we believe that GNSO Council should embark on a fast-track policy development process (PDP). The gNSO Council has in the past done at least one fast-track PDP, which entailed face-to-face working sessions and significant time commitment from Councilors. ICANN should also commit to provide support for a fast track PDP, such as consulting services and travel funding for PDP participants. Unless we see objections from at least four BC members, we will file the above comment before end of day tomorrow, 5-Feb-2013. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency

Thanks Steve. We too support the reply but would like to add the following two sentences: "While ICANN continues to consider the Strawman and LPR, they should recognize that being responsive to the concerns of the broader business community is also acting in the public interest to protect consumers. It is essential that broader business community's views are heard and addressed to ensure their continued engagement in ICANN's work. Thanks again, David From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 3:22 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] BC Reply Comment on Strawman proposal On 15-Jan, the BC filed substantive comments on the TM Clearinghouse Strawman solution. (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00070.html>) We did not anticipate needing to also file a "Reply" comment. But the ExCom now believes we should file, since we heard last week about the CEO's wavering support for the Strawman proposal. Feb 5 is deadline for "Reply" comments on this topic. So we are proposing a brief Reply comment summarizing comments filed and re-emphasizing key parts of our initial Strawman comments. Below are DRAFT Reply Comments from the Business Constituency, regarding TM Clearinghouse Strawman Solution (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-strawman-30nov12-en.htm>) Of the 88 comments filed on the Strawman solution, 67 supported the Strawman solution and/or called for even stronger rights protection mechanisms, such as Limited Preventive Registrations (LPR). In other words, 76 percent of commenters favor implementation changes such as advance Sunrise notice and enhanced TM claim notices. Unsurprisingly, these supporting comments came from businesses that are negatively affected by having to purchase defensive registrations and engage in other expensive and often inadequate mechanisms to protect their consumers against confusion or outright fraud using second level domain names. While the BC does not believe that new gTLD operators will proactively solicit fraudulent registrations, we believe the comments submitted show that present anti-abuse mechanisms are simply inadequate. That is why commenters from around the world have endorsed the minimal implementation improvements proposed in the Strawman. The additional Strawman suggestion for Limited Preventive Registrations (LPR) also found wide support in comments filed. We believe that LPR could be done as a matter of implementation. But if ICANN determines that LPR is new policy, we believe that GNSO Council should embark on a fast-track policy development process (PDP). The gNSO Council has in the past done at least one fast-track PDP, which entailed face-to-face working sessions and significant time commitment from Councilors. ICANN should also commit to provide support for a fast track PDP, such as consulting services and travel funding for PDP participants. Unless we see objections from at least four BC members, we will file the above comment before end of day tomorrow, 5-Feb-2013. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of News America Incorporated or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.