Today word comes from Phil Corwin of the Internet Commerce Association that the BC has dropped this proposal in its new comments to ICANN.
In his letter to the BC today Mr. Corwin Wrote:
“The ICA supports this new draft.”
“We greatly appreciate the response of other BC members to our concerns regarding the imposition of untested RPMs through this contract renewal, and look forward to working cooperatively with other BC members to address rights and consumer protection issues within the context of UDRP reform and other appropriate mechanisms.”
“ICA’s comment letter will address the issue of RPMs based on the possibility that others may suggest such amendments to the contract. We will also support transition to Thick WHOIS, as well as the possibility of VeriSign’s engagement in commercial use of traffic data so long as ICANN engages in vigorous enforcement of contract clauses regarding nondiscrimination and prohibition of wildcard services.”
“Finally, while not opposing new contract provisions that permit VeriSign to offer marketing and price incentives in “geographically underserved’ regions, we request a tighter definition and other safeguards to prevent gaming as well as to assure that this will not lead to below cost furnishing of .Net domains to such regions subsidized by developed world registrants. In that regard, we note that the current and revised .net contract sets annual registry-level transaction fees at $.75 per domain, which is $.50 higher than the standard for most registry contracts, and that this differential generated approximately $6.8 million in additional ICANN revenue in 2010. These monies are set aside in a restricted fund, the primary use of which is supposed to be support of developing country Internet communities in ICANN, and we request that ICANN account for how these funds are actually being utilized.”
“Again, we appreciate the BC’s response to our concerns and look forward to seeing many of you in Singapore.”
The ICA will still be filing comments as indicated above on the proposed contract renewal later today.
Lets be clear about what happened here.
Mr. Corwin was able to get the BC to drop this proposal basically on procedural grounds and saved domainers a huge headache, for now.
All domainers owe a big thanks to Phil and the ICA.
This is not the first and won’t be the last time trademark groups seek to get more protections for them and less for you in existing extensions which is why I continue to support the ICA and so should you
Thank God for Phil Corwin !!! 🙂
.
So who is paying Coerwin and the ICA these days. As I recall people cooled off to Rick Schwartz’s incessant begging so where is the ICA getting the money to do whatever it is that it does?
Great news!! Thank you Phil, and Michael for breaking the news!
Mike–
ICA just filed its comment. We kept all the stuff opposing URS in there because we suspected that someone else would make that request — and, lo and behold, the Intellectual Property Constituency just did so earlier this afternoon.
Thanks as always for your support,
Philip
“All domainers owe a big thanks to Phil and the ICA.
This is not the first and won’t be the last time trademark groups seek to get more protections for them and less for you in existing extensions which is why I continue to support the ICA and so should you”
Thanks Philip/ICA
Regarding the encouragement of us lazy, cheapy or less flush domainers to show more support, how about a bi-yearly ICA auction where we could donate our domains with the proceeds of the sales goes directly to the ICA ?
Just a thought that might get more of a buzz/participation going for ICA while generating extra income.