DRAFT for review: BC comment on Strawman Solution
BC members: In Toronto , the BC/IPC/ISPC requested improved Rights Protection Measures (RPMs). That prompted ICANN executive management to host follow-up meetings with multiple stakeholders. As a result, ICANN posted a "strawman solution" for public comment (link<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-solution...>). Public comments are due by 16-Jan-2013. Attached is a draft BC comment on the Strawman solution, based on prior BC positions and discussions, email exchanges with BC members, and initial review by the ex comm. Per the BC charter, this draft is posted for 14 days of review and comment. As soon as possible, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits to these comments. If any BC member objects to the BC filing the attached draft comment , please REPLY ALL and indicate your objection and reason. We plan to finalize and submit these comments on 16-Jan-2013. -- Steve DelBianco BC vice chair for policy coordination
Thank you Steve and others who worked on this draft. I have a couple of comments and questions: What logic did staff (or those that pushed back on this) provide for termination of TM claims notices? [TM claims notices should not be arbitrarily terminated after 90 days] It is difficult to understand the logic, i.e. 'yes' we need to provide TM claims notices, but only for an arbitrary period! Your argument is quite clear: There is nothing equitable about a registrant applying for a name in the first 90 days getting a notice, while another registrant applying on the 91st or 210th day after launch doesn't get one.... Just doesn't make sense. We need to make the demand to leave the notice period in place until independent review stronger, in my view. Regarding the arbitrary limit of 50 related names for each Clearinghouse record I fully agree that the Strawman Solution may need to allow sufficient related domains to cover all actual instances of past abuse. Arbitrary determinations by ICANN serve no one. Can you provide the logic that was used to choose 50? Like the termination after 90-days issue, this just doesn't make any sense either. Why not all actual instances of abuse? Who is the loser with that policy (there must be one otherwise I cannot understand why)? I fully support the way forward on LPR. A PDP could create the semblance of a balanced approach for businesses through a lower cost bulk purchase program. Defensive registrations cannot be the driver for new gTLDs. That is not why this program was instituted to begin with. Thanks again for the work on this. And for providing the answers to the questions posed herein. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 5:47 PM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] DRAFT for review: BC comment on Strawman Solution BC members: In Toronto , the BC/IPC/ISPC requested improved Rights Protection Measures (RPMs). That prompted ICANN executive management to host follow-up meetings with multiple stakeholders. As a result, ICANN posted a "strawman solution" for public comment (link <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-solutio n-03dec12-en.pdf> ). Public comments are due by 16-Jan-2013. Attached is a draft BC comment on the Strawman solution, based on prior BC positions and discussions, email exchanges with BC members, and initial review by the ex comm. Per the BC charter, this draft is posted for 14 days of review and comment. As soon as possible, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits to these comments. If any BC member objects to the BC filing the attached draft comment , please REPLY ALL and indicate your objection and reason. We plan to finalize and submit these comments on 16-Jan-2013. -- Steve DelBianco BC vice chair for policy coordination
The attached update is for discussion and final approval during our 14-Jan member call. I've updated the original draft per suggestions from Ron Andruff, John Berard, Elisa Cooper, and Sara Deutsch. A redline is also attached to show those changes from the 2-Jan draft. The BC will submit these comments on 15-Jan. We will also be able to submit Reply comments thru 5-Feb. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 5:44 PM To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: DRAFT for review: BC comment on Strawman Solution BC members: In Toronto , the BC/IPC/ISPC requested improved Rights Protection Measures (RPMs). That prompted ICANN executive management to host follow-up meetings with multiple stakeholders. As a result, ICANN posted a "strawman solution" for public comment (link<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-solution...>). Public comments are due by 16-Jan-2013. Attached is a draft BC comment on the Strawman solution, based on prior BC positions and discussions, email exchanges with BC members, and initial review by the ex comm. Per the BC charter, this draft is posted for 14 days of review and comment. As soon as possible, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits to these comments. If any BC member objects to the BC filing the attached draft comment , please REPLY ALL and indicate your objection and reason. We plan to finalize and submit these comments on 16-Jan-2013. -- Steve DelBianco BC vice chair for policy coordination
Steve, Great work, thank you. Given the sensitivities around the term 'blocking' I've suggested amendments to one of the paragraphs, which I hope is helpful. Kind regards, Martin 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: 14/01/2013 02:30 Subject: [bc-gnso] Updated draft for approval on 14-Jan: BC comment on Strawman Solution Sent by: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org The attached update is for discussion and final approval during our 14-Jan member call. I've updated the original draft per suggestions from Ron Andruff, John Berard, Elisa Cooper, and Sara Deutsch. A redline is also attached to show those changes from the 2-Jan draft. The BC will submit these comments on 15-Jan. We will also be able to submit Reply comments thru 5-Feb. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 5:44 PM To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: DRAFT for review: BC comment on Strawman Solution BC members: In Toronto , the BC/IPC/ISPC requested improved Rights Protection Measures (RPMs). That prompted ICANN executive management to host follow-up meetings with multiple stakeholders. As a result, ICANN posted a "strawman solution" for public comment (link). Public comments are due by 16-Jan-2013. Attached is a draft BC comment on the Strawman solution, based on prior BC positions and discussions, email exchanges with BC members, and initial review by the ex comm. Per the BC charter, this draft is posted for 14 days of review and comment. As soon as possible, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits to these comments. If any BC member objects to the BC filing the attached draft comment , please REPLY ALL and indicate your objection and reason. We plan to finalize and submit these comments on 16-Jan-2013. -- Steve DelBianco BC vice chair for policy coordination [attachment "BC Comment on Strawman Solution [v2].docx" deleted by Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC] [attachment "Redline.docx" deleted by Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC] ************************************************************ 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.
Let me try that with the attachment! (sorry) 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: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC@HSBC To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Cc: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org>, owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Date: 14/01/2013 10:19 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Updated draft for approval on 14-Jan: BC comment on Strawman Solution Sent by: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Steve, Great work, thank you. Given the sensitivities around the term 'blocking' I've suggested amendments to one of the paragraphs, which I hope is helpful. Kind regards, Martin 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: 14/01/2013 02:30 Subject: [bc-gnso] Updated draft for approval on 14-Jan: BC comment on Strawman Solution Sent by: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org The attached update is for discussion and final approval during our 14-Jan member call. I've updated the original draft per suggestions from Ron Andruff, John Berard, Elisa Cooper, and Sara Deutsch. A redline is also attached to show those changes from the 2-Jan draft. The BC will submit these comments on 15-Jan. We will also be able to submit Reply comments thru 5-Feb. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 5:44 PM To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: DRAFT for review: BC comment on Strawman Solution BC members: In Toronto , the BC/IPC/ISPC requested improved Rights Protection Measures (RPMs). That prompted ICANN executive management to host follow-up meetings with multiple stakeholders. As a result, ICANN posted a "strawman solution" for public comment (link). Public comments are due by 16-Jan-2013. Attached is a draft BC comment on the Strawman solution, based on prior BC positions and discussions, email exchanges with BC members, and initial review by the ex comm. Per the BC charter, this draft is posted for 14 days of review and comment. As soon as possible, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits to these comments. If any BC member objects to the BC filing the attached draft comment , please REPLY ALL and indicate your objection and reason. We plan to finalize and submit these comments on 16-Jan-2013. -- Steve DelBianco BC vice chair for policy coordination [attachment "BC Comment on Strawman Solution [v2].docx" deleted by Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC] [attachment "Redline.docx" deleted by Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC] ************************************************************ 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. ************************************************************ 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.
Dear Steve and all, We agree with the BC comments and appreciate the work done by Steve and other BC members on these issues. We support these efforts and understand the need for implementation improvements to RPMs to mitigate costs and risk to companies and consumers and make RPMs more effective. We are only attaching for your consideration some small suggested edits to the introduction. The idea behind these suggestions is to use a constructive and future oriented language approach. Please feel free to just ignore our suggestions if they do not reflect the way you/BC want/s to express or if not relevant. Thanks a lot, Gabi & Celia eInstituto *Gabriela Szlak * Directora Iniciativas RED/ODR y eGobernanza eInstituto 25 de mayo 611 Piso 3º - C1002ABM Ciudad Autonoma Buenos Aires - Argentina (+54 11) 4878-0179 *Skype:* gabrielaszlak odr@einstituto.org <presidencia@einstituto.org> www.einstituto.org**** 2013/1/14 <martinsutton@hsbc.com>
Let me try that with the attachment! (sorry)
*Martin C SUTTON*<http://directory.global.hsbc/cgi-whitepages/search-entry.pl?attribute_extram...> * * 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* <martinsutton@hsbc.com>
________________________________________________________________ Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to!
From: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC@HSBC To: Steve DelBianco < sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Cc: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org>, owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Date: 14/01/2013 10:19 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Updated draft for approval on 14-Jan: BC comment on Strawman Solution Sent by: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org ------------------------------
Steve,
Great work, thank you.
Given the sensitivities around the term 'blocking' I've suggested amendments to one of the paragraphs, which I hope is helpful.
Kind regards,
Martin * **Martin C SUTTON*<http://directory.global.hsbc/cgi-whitepages/search-entry.pl?attribute_extram...> * * 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* <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: 14/01/2013 02:30 Subject: [bc-gnso] Updated draft for approval on 14-Jan: BC comment on Strawman Solution Sent by: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org
------------------------------
The attached update is for discussion and final approval during our 14-Jan member call.
I've updated the original draft per suggestions from Ron Andruff, John Berard, Elisa Cooper, and Sara Deutsch. A redline is also attached to show those changes from the 2-Jan draft.
The BC will submit these comments on 15-Jan. We will also be able to submit Reply comments thru 5-Feb.
* From: *Steve DelBianco <*sdelbianco@netchoice.org*<sdelbianco@netchoice.org>
* Date: *Wednesday, January 2, 2013 5:44 PM* To: *bc - GNSO list <*bc-gnso@icann.org* <bc-gnso@icann.org>>* Subject: *DRAFT for review: BC comment on Strawman Solution
BC members:
In Toronto , the BC/IPC/ISPC requested improved Rights Protection Measures (RPMs). That prompted ICANN executive management to host follow-up meetings with multiple stakeholders. As a result, ICANN posted a "strawman solution" for public comment (*link*<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-solution...>). Public comments are due by 16-Jan-2013.
Attached is a draft BC comment on the Strawman solution, based on prior BC positions and discussions, email exchanges with BC members, and initial review by the ex comm.
Per the BC charter, this draft is posted for 14 days of review and comment. As soon as possible, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits to these comments. If any BC member *objects* to the BC filing the attached draft comment , please REPLY ALL and indicate your objection and reason.
We plan to finalize and submit these comments on 16-Jan-2013.
-- Steve DelBianco BC vice chair for policy coordination [attachment "BC Comment on Strawman Solution [v2].docx" deleted by Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC] [attachment "Redline.docx" deleted by Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC]
************************************************************ 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.
************************************************************ HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ************************************************************
-- * * *Dra. Gabriela Szlak * Abogada & Mediadora Consultora en Derecho y Nuevas Tecnologías Estudio Rosz Avenida Roque Saenz Peña 943, Piso 6° 62, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina (005411) 4328-0231 / 4393-7508 www.estudiorosz.com.ar www.gabrielaszlak.com.ar <http://www.gabrielaszlak.com.ar/> *Skype:* gabrielaszlak *Twitter: @G*abiSzlak La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential.
Steve, Thanks for the good work on the comments. I have two comments. First, on the Claims 2 notice, I would urge the following change: "Accordingly, the BC supports a reasonable fee for the notice service PROVIDED THE CLAIMS 2 NOTICE CONTAINS THE SAME INFORMATION AND AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY THE REGISTRANT AS THE CLAIMS 1 NOTICE" Without this change, it could be misread to mean the BC supports the business community paying all the costs for a an ineffective notice. The comments again appear to be silent on the changes we are seeking to the URS. Even though that issue is on a separate track at ICANN, this paper seems to be the place to remind them of the substantive remedies the IPC/BC working group proposed as a key priority, such as a real loser pays model and a permanent suspension remedy. I would urge at least a few sentences on the importance of making the URS a meaningful (and not just low cost) remedy. Sarah From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 9:29 PM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] Updated draft for approval on 14-Jan: BC comment on Strawman Solution The attached update is for discussion and final approval during our 14-Jan member call. I've updated the original draft per suggestions from Ron Andruff, John Berard, Elisa Cooper, and Sara Deutsch. A redline is also attached to show those changes from the 2-Jan draft. The BC will submit these comments on 15-Jan. We will also be able to submit Reply comments thru 5-Feb. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 5:44 PM To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: DRAFT for review: BC comment on Strawman Solution BC members: In Toronto , the BC/IPC/ISPC requested improved Rights Protection Measures (RPMs). That prompted ICANN executive management to host follow-up meetings with multiple stakeholders. As a result, ICANN posted a "strawman solution" for public comment (link<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-solution...>). Public comments are due by 16-Jan-2013. Attached is a draft BC comment on the Strawman solution, based on prior BC positions and discussions, email exchanges with BC members, and initial review by the ex comm. Per the BC charter, this draft is posted for 14 days of review and comment. As soon as possible, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits to these comments. If any BC member objects to the BC filing the attached draft comment , please REPLY ALL and indicate your objection and reason. We plan to finalize and submit these comments on 16-Jan-2013. -- Steve DelBianco BC vice chair for policy coordination
I have no objection to the URS being referenced in the BC's comment letter if that is the consensus among members. However, if we are going to mention the URS I hope we will not be selective in noting the elements of the final BC/IPC recommendations (referenced below). In particular, ICA would want to see mention of #2, that there be some substantive review even in default cases. Perhaps the best means of addressing URS would simply be to say that the BC wants improvements and to attach the WG#2 recommendations as an appendix to the letter. URS RECOMMENDATIONS - Working Group #2 1. Agreement that the TMCH should automatically tie into the URS with an easy-to-use interface so that brand owners need only validate their marks once, thus making URS complaints simpler and less costly and the URS process faster. 1. Agreement that even with a default judgment, there must be at least some substantive review of the elements that make up a successful complaint. Simple failure to respond to a URS claim would not result in automatic judgment in favor of complainant without a showing that the complainant established a prima facie case (e.g., valid trademark, identical or confusingly similar domain name, no legitimate registrant rights, bad faith registration and use). 1. Agreement that if the Respondent (registrant) does not respond, the brand owner should pay only an administrative fee and not the fee required in a contested proceeding where a full substantive review of the response is required. 1. Agreement that successfully suspended domains (the entire string at issue -only) should become ineligible for future registration, in perpetuity. 1. Agreement that the URS must operate on a low- or no-cost basis, which ICANN should subsidize/underwrite if necessary. 1. Agreement that the requirement that the registrant pay a Response Fee should be expanded beyond the partial loser pays system for 15 or more domains in a single complaint (as currently in the Applicant Guidebook). During negotiations we will discuss the various ideas proposed on our calls (e.g., a showing that a respondent/registrant has a history of URS/UDRP loses opens the door for full loser pays, regardless of how many domains are at issue in a complaint against that respondent/registrant). Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 8:00 AM To: Steve DelBianco; bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: Updated draft for approval on 14-Jan: BC comment on Strawman Solution Steve, Thanks for the good work on the comments. I have two comments. First, on the Claims 2 notice, I would urge the following change: "Accordingly, the BC supports a reasonable fee for the notice service PROVIDED THE CLAIMS 2 NOTICE CONTAINS THE SAME INFORMATION AND AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY THE REGISTRANT AS THE CLAIMS 1 NOTICE" Without this change, it could be misread to mean the BC supports the business community paying all the costs for a an ineffective notice. The comments again appear to be silent on the changes we are seeking to the URS. Even though that issue is on a separate track at ICANN, this paper seems to be the place to remind them of the substantive remedies the IPC/BC working group proposed as a key priority, such as a real loser pays model and a permanent suspension remedy. I would urge at least a few sentences on the importance of making the URS a meaningful (and not just low cost) remedy. Sarah From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 9:29 PM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] Updated draft for approval on 14-Jan: BC comment on Strawman Solution The attached update is for discussion and final approval during our 14-Jan member call. I've updated the original draft per suggestions from Ron Andruff, John Berard, Elisa Cooper, and Sara Deutsch. A redline is also attached to show those changes from the 2-Jan draft. The BC will submit these comments on 15-Jan. We will also be able to submit Reply comments thru 5-Feb. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 5:44 PM To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: DRAFT for review: BC comment on Strawman Solution BC members: In Toronto , the BC/IPC/ISPC requested improved Rights Protection Measures (RPMs). That prompted ICANN executive management to host follow-up meetings with multiple stakeholders. As a result, ICANN posted a "strawman solution" for public comment (link<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-solution...>). Public comments are due by 16-Jan-2013. Attached is a draft BC comment on the Strawman solution, based on prior BC positions and discussions, email exchanges with BC members, and initial review by the ex comm. Per the BC charter, this draft is posted for 14 days of review and comment. As soon as possible, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits to these comments. If any BC member objects to the BC filing the attached draft comment , please REPLY ALL and indicate your objection and reason. We plan to finalize and submit these comments on 16-Jan-2013. -- Steve DelBianco BC vice chair for policy coordination ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2637/5485 - Release Date: 12/25/12 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
The attached update [v3] reflects suggestions received today and discussed on our BC member call, including: * Gaby Szlak's suggestion to "give the new team a chance!" * David Fares 's pivot from past frustration to present appreciation * Bill Smith's suggestion to use the term Fraud and Abuse early on * Martin Sutton's change from "blocking" to "reservation" * Consensus suggestion to list the other 4 items from our Toronto list, incl URS. * Sarah Deutsch's point about dissatisfaction with paying fees for weak Claims 2 notices: "Accordingly, the BC supports a reasonable fee for the Claims 2 notice service, provided the notice includes the same information and registrant acknowledgement mechanism required for Claims 1 notices. * Chris Chaplow's updated PDP target date and link to his PDP timeline * Plus prior draft suggestions from Ron Andruff, John Berard, Elisa Cooper, and Sara Deutsch. A redline is also attached to show those changes from the 2-Jan original draft. The BC will submit these comments end of day on 15-Jan. We will also be able to submit Reply comments thru 5-Feb. --Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 5:44 PM To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: DRAFT for review: BC comment on Strawman Solution BC members: In Toronto , the BC/IPC/ISPC requested improved Rights Protection Measures (RPMs). That prompted ICANN executive management to host follow-up meetings with multiple stakeholders. As a result, ICANN posted a "strawman solution" for public comment (link<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-solution...>). Public comments are due by 16-Jan-2013. Attached is a draft BC comment on the Strawman solution, based on prior BC positions and discussions, email exchanges with BC members, and initial review by the ex comm. Per the BC charter, this draft is posted for 14 days of review and comment. As soon as possible, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits to these comments. If any BC member objects to the BC filing the attached draft comment , please REPLY ALL and indicate your objection and reason. We plan to finalize and submit these comments on 16-Jan-2013. -- Steve DelBianco BC vice chair for policy coordination
Great work Steve, thank you and thanks to all, (Please note that I tried but could not open the link to the timeline developed by Chris) G. *Gabriela Szlak * Directora Iniciativas RED/ODR y eGobernanza eInstituto 25 de mayo 611 Piso 3º - C1002ABM Ciudad Autonoma Buenos Aires - Argentina (+54 11) 4878-0179 *Skype:* gabrielaszlak odr@einstituto.org <presidencia@einstituto.org> www.einstituto.org 2013/1/15 Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>
The attached update [v3] reflects suggestions received today and discussed on our BC member call, including:
- Gaby Szlak's suggestion to "*give the new team a chance*!" - David Fares 's pivot from past frustration to present appreciation - Bill Smith's suggestion to use the term Fraud and Abuse early on - Martin Sutton's change from "blocking" to "reservation" - Consensus suggestion to list the other 4 items from our Toronto list, incl URS. - Sarah Deutsch's point about dissatisfaction with paying fees for weak Claims 2 notices:
"Accordingly, the BC supports a reasonable fee for the Claims 2 notice service, provided the notice includes the same information and registrant acknowledgement mechanism required for Claims 1 notices.
- Chris Chaplow's updated PDP target date and link to his PDP timeline
- Plus prior draft suggestions from Ron Andruff, John Berard, Elisa Cooper, and Sara Deutsch.
A redline is also attached to show those changes from the 2-Jan original draft.
The BC will submit these comments end of day on 15-Jan. We will also be able to submit Reply comments thru 5-Feb.
--Steve
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 5:44 PM To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: DRAFT for review: BC comment on Strawman Solution
BC members:
In Toronto , the BC/IPC/ISPC requested improved Rights Protection Measures (RPMs). That prompted ICANN executive management to host follow-up meetings with multiple stakeholders. As a result, ICANN posted a "strawman solution" for public comment (link<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-solution...>). Public comments are due by 16-Jan-2013.
Attached is a draft BC comment on the Strawman solution, based on prior BC positions and discussions, email exchanges with BC members, and initial review by the ex comm.
Per the BC charter, this draft is posted for 14 days of review and comment. As soon as possible, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits to these comments. If any BC member *objects* to the BC filing the attached draft comment , please REPLY ALL and indicate your objection and reason.
We plan to finalize and submit these comments on 16-Jan-2013.
-- Steve DelBianco BC vice chair for policy coordination
participants (6)
-
Deutsch, Sarah B -
Gabriela Szlak -
martinsutton＠hsbc.com -
Phil Corwin -
Ron Andruff -
Steve DelBianco