May 2021 - Comments-gnso-rpm-pdp-phase-1-final-recommendations-07apr21

[Comments-gnso-rpm-pdp-phase-1-final-recommendations-07apr21] Correct version comment submitted on behalf of Mitch Stoltz
by Ariel Liang May 24, 2021

May 24, 2021

This comment is submitted on behalf of Mitch Stoltz, who notified staff on Monday, 24 May that the comment<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gnso-rpm-pdp-phase-1-final-recommen…> he submitted by the deadline on Friday, 21 May was not the correct version. The attached comment is the correct version.

1 0

[Comments-gnso-rpm-pdp-phase-1-final-recommendations-07apr21] Comment on GNSO RPM PDP Phase 1 Final Recommendations
by Mitch Stoltz May 21, 2021

May 21, 2021

Trademark scholars and attorneys submit the attached comments to the ICANN Baord on the GNSO RPM PDP Phase 1 Final Recommendations. -- Mitch Stoltz Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142 https://www.eff.org/join<https://www.eff.org/donate> | https://act.eff.org/

1 0

Reply of Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc. to comment by the IPC
by George Kirikos May 21, 2021

May 21, 2021

By: George Kirikos Organization: Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc. Website: http://www.leap.com/ Date: May 21, 2021 In the comment submitted by the Intellectual Property Constituency, https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gnso-rpm-pdp-phase-1-final-recommen… appear to claim, without evidence, that I made "legal threats to the Working Group co-chairs" and that there were "delays in the Working Group's progress". These are both false statements. Any communications to the co-chairs can easily be reviewed, and there were no "legal threats" from me or my representatives, who only sought to ensure due process. Furthermore, Phil Corwin (one of the three co-chairs) personally admitted that there was no actual disruption to the work as noted in the March 10, 2019 letter: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gross-to-jeffrey-10mar… (pages 1-2, section 2) where Phil Corwin is quoted as saying: "Goran’s statement that, “WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE HAVE BEEN DISPUTES WITHIN THE GROUP, AND IT'S MORE OR LESS BEEN STALLED FOR THE LAST SEVEN MONTHS” is factually incorrect. Greg Shatan’s ESB complaint was filed in June, so its resolution has been stalled for four months. However, the WG has made substantial progress on its work during the past few months, including the consideration, and adoption for Initial Report public comment purposes, of 34 sub-team recommendations and 33 individual proposals for URS operational and policy modifications. However, the escalation of outside counsel involvement beyond the original ESB complaint to occurrences within WG meetings does threaten its further progress absent a satisfactory resolution." which cited an email posted to the GNSO Council mailing list on October 25, 2018, see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-October/021981.html It's no surprise that the IPC gets things wrong, and is unable to cite evidence --- that's how its members routinely operated throughout this and other ICANN working groups. It's no surprise that they seek to weaponize the Expected Standards of Behaviour to remove their policy opponents, because they believe that **anyone** who counters their misinformation and weak arguments is "disruptive" and must be removed. By the way, if you review the history of ICANN, one of the few entities that has actually engaged in litigation is Verisign itself, who sued ICANN and "Does 1-50" (which presumably would have included many community volunteers): https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/verisign-v-icann-2012-02-25-en It's funny that no one has removed Verisign from policy debates or working group memberships, due to their *actual* litigation. This is further demonstration of the "double standards" that are employed, to eliminate policy opponents from policy debate. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

Ratified: ALAC Statement on GNSO Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process Phase 1 Final Recommendations for ICANN Board Consideration
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 21, 2021

May 21, 2021

Dear All, Please find attached the ALAC statement on GNSO Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process Phase 1 Final Recommendations for ICANN Board Consideration<https://community.icann.org/x/bgKlCQ>. ALAC ratification information is included on the cover page. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

BC comment on GNSO Review of All RPMs in All gTLDs PDP Phase 1 Final Recommendations for Board Consideration
by Steve DelBianco May 21, 2021

May 21, 2021

Attached is the Business Constituency (BC) comment on GNSO Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs PDP Phase 1 Final Recommendations for ICANN Board Consideration This comment was drafted by Andy Abrams, with edits from Mason Cole, Zak Muscovitch, and David Snead. It was approved in accord with our charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency (BC)

1 0

RySG Comments on the Phase 1 Final Recommendations of the GNSO Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs PDP
by Elizabeth Bacon May 21, 2021

May 21, 2021

Hello, On behalf of the gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG), please find attached our comments on the Phase 1 Final Recommendations of the GNSO Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs PDP. In the interest of time, we did not conduct a vote on these comments. We did discuss them on our mailing list and during a biweekly conference call, and no member opposed their submission. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Best, Elizabeth Bacon RySG Vice Chair, Policy

1 0

[Comments-gnso-rpm-pdp-phase-1-final-recommendations-07apr21] Comments of the IPC on the RPMs PDP Phase 1 Final Report
by Susan Payne May 21, 2021

May 21, 2021

Please find attached the comments of the Intellectual Property Constituency. Susan Payne IPC Secretary ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the "Com Laude Group") does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

1 0

NCSG Comment - GNSO Review of All RPM in All gTLDs PDP Phase 1 Final Recommendations for ICANN Board Consideration
by Tomslin Samme-Nlar May 21, 2021

May 21, 2021

Dear staff, On behalf of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG), I am sending the group's comments on this proceeding. Please find it attached. Regards, Tomslin NCSG Policy Chair

1 0

RPM PDP Final Report comments by Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.
by George Kirikos May 15, 2021

May 15, 2021

By: George Kirikos Organization: Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc. Website: http://www.leap.com/ Date: May 15, 2021 Your final report is replete with errors that I've documented in the attached PDF, demonstrating a very flawed process, one that is beyond repair. It's also published on our blog at: https://freespeech.com/2021/05/15/icann-incompetence-on-full-display-with-t… This demonstrates conclusively that ICANN is not operating in good faith, and did not actually review past public comments. It was dishonest to claim that you did. How else can one explain the multiple errors that still exist, which had been explicitly mentioned in the prior public comment period for the initial report? Anyone associated with this report should be ashamed. As I note in the PDF, we incorporate by reference our previously submitted comments, rather than recite them once again. This time, someone should actually read them! Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

[Comments-gnso-rpm-pdp-phase-1-final-recommendations-07apr21] Comments - 2
by Higor L. M. May 1, 2021

May 1, 2021

The Federal NIC, the national operator (Registry) for the ccSLD .FED.REP.BR (FEDerative REPublic of BRazil), through this contribution, proposes modifications to the ICANN gTLD rights and competition policies. The Federal NIC understands that for several years, ICANN has behaved strangely in relation to the New gTLDs program, which for the most part has been unsuccessful, has failed in relation to competition, has failed in relation to prices, in addition to creating a high number new gTLDs for low demand and low interest from registrants. ICANN itself does not know what to do with the problematic case of the .wed gTLD, which had the contract revoked and has been operated by an EBERO for some years. Given that ICANN created the New gTLD program to provide more Internet address options, more competition and more space in domain names, ICANN and its members should be held accountable when any decision that is made harms registrants of domains. It is clear that ICANN is not working for a better Internet and is neglecting to oversee its operations. A real example that ICANN is silent and negligent was the case that occurred a few years ago when the DNS.PT Association of Portugal, created to operate the .PT ccTLD, included in its statute that the current DNS.PT president was IANA / ICANN representative, with the aim of deceiving people as if ICANN itself has become a partner of DNS.PT. At the time, ICANN / IANA was questioned several times and only after pressure from society, ICANN took action, issuing a note denying the DNS.PT Association. From these reports involving a new gTLD and a ccTLD, it is clear that ICANN is not working to make the Internet even better. Thanks, Higor L. www.federalnic.fed.rep.br

1 0