RE: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Chris, how about this?

 

Registry operations for adding new names [DEL should be] ARE OFTEN a
highly-automated function [DELETE, and the failure of a registry to take
affirmative steps to assess whether a domain name violates trademark laws
[DEL should not] MAY NOT ALWAYS  in itself constitute bad faith or systemic
infringement.]  However, a registry operator who fails to perform the
specific rights protection mechanisms enumerated in its Registry Operator's
Agreement should be subject to PDDM claims, as set forth in the IRT Final
Report.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

548 Market Street

San Francisco, CA  94104

(415)
<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer
=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact>  738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Christopher Martin
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 1:35 PM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper

 

I don't disagree with either Sarah's or Mike's comments on Steve's proposal.
But in terms of getting something through that will work for all parties
down the road, do we want to consider perhaps softening the language a bit?
Perhaps change 

 

Registry operations for adding new names [DEL should be] ARE OFTEN a
highly-automated function, and the failure of a registry to take affirmative
steps to assess whether a domain name violates trademark laws [DEL should
not] MAY NOT ALWAYS  in itself constitute bad faith or systemic
infringement.  However, a registry operator who fails to perform the
specific rights protection mechanisms enumerated in its Registry Operator's
Agreement should be subject to PDDM claims, as set forth in the IRT Final
Report.

 

Understand that may still not be close enough to other positions on the
committee, so just throwing out ideas.  USCIB does not have an official
position on this.

 

Chris

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 2:57 PM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper

 

Hi Steve,

 

BC members might disagree with most of your first sentence.  Specifically,
the BC appears to have reached consensus that registry operators and/or
registrars should do lookups against the Clearinghouse database, and provide
appropriate notices to all domain registration applicants.  ALAC and other
constituencies are of the same view, though some registrars and registries
appear to resist.  Those registries and/or registrars that choose to ignore
this lookup and notice capability (for whatever reason) ought not be
relieved from liability for that choice, and might be considered a bad faith
contributor to systemic infringement, if not a direct infringer.

 

I support your second sentence though!

 

Thanks,

Mike

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

548 Market Street

San Francisco, CA  94104

(415)
<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer
=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact>  738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Steve DelBianco
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 11:25 AM
To: Zahid Jamil; 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper

 

Thank-you, Zahid, for your exhaustive efforts on the rights protection
mechanisms.

As you requested, here's one comment on the draft BC position on Post
Delegation Dispute Mechanism (PDDM):

Twice in your draft you express concern about Registry Operators turning a
"blind eye" to infringements.  I'm a fan of clever phrases such as "turn a
blind eye", but in this case I think the rhetoric may go too far.  

One of my registry members reminded me in Seoul that registry operations are
highly automated processes.  There is no human "eye" looking at registration
Add records as they come in from registrars.  Accordingly, I suggest
replacing the two "blind eye" concerns in the BC comments with this
statement:

Registry operations for adding new names should be a highly-automated
function, and the failure of a registry to take affirmative steps to assess
whether a domain name violates trademark laws should not in itself
constitute bad faith or systemic infringement.  However, a registry operator
who fails to perform the specific rights protection mechanisms enumerated in
its Registry Operator's Agreement should be subject to PDDM claims, as set
forth in the IRT Final Report. 



Again, thanks for working this on our behalf.

 

-- 
Steve DelBianco
Executive Director
NetChoice
http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org 
+1.202.420.7482 


On 11/4/09 12:37 PM, "Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Would like to ask members that if there are any comments on the draft BC
position on RPMs that was sent out earlier?  If I don't hear anything on
whether there will be comments and that I should hold sending this out to
the GNSO, I will send it out by tomorrow to both the GNSO and the STI.