Maggie (and drafting team)

Many thanks for producing this and meeting the time constraints.

I’m fine with the content, its brief and covers what’s required as the initial ISPCP input.

Tony

From: Mansourkia, Magnolia [mailto:maggie.mansourkia@verizon.com]
Sent: 28 October 2009 07:27
To: ispcp@icann.org; Tony Holmes
Subject: IRT statement
Importance: High

Hi all. These are the proposed bullet points that Tony will use as the basis of our constituency statement for the IRT working group.  Please review and provide your comments to the list.  Obviously, we did not address every question in the letter, only those that we had a vested interest in. 

• There is no need for the clearinghouse to be separate and independent from ICANN.  ICANN should oversee and have complete responsibility for the clearinghouse.
• URS must be mandatory.  Staff’s belief that there is a strong incentive to do this anyway does not address the impact of a business model formed as a haven for bad actors.  
• The clearinghouse is an existing and proven model that preserves rights while expediting the registrants ability to register domains that do not infringe on the rights of others.  It is a model that should extend to existing registries, but consideration should be given to the timing. 

Please copy the list on your response, if any.  Tony will need our responses by end of day, Thursday, October 29th.

Thanks,

M.