ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-acc-sgb]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Impact on UDRP

  • To: gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Impact on UDRP
  • From: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 17:12:35 -0500 (GMT-05:00)

<HEAD>
<STYLE>body{font-family: 
Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: 
#ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3086" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=compText>
<STYLE>body{font-family: 
Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: 
#ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3086" name=GENERATOR>
<P>Dr. Dierker and all sgb members,</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>&nbsp;&nbsp; The UDRP is not an entity in and of itself.&nbsp; WIPO 
is.&nbsp; Ergo it is not logically</P>
<P>possible for the UDRP to administer itself.&nbsp; WIPO took over the UDRP</P>
<P>Universal Domain name Resolution Process in 1999 at the behest of</P>
<P>the than ICANN "interim" board.&nbsp; </P>
<DIV id=compText><BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 
2px solid">-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Hugh Dierker 
<HDIERKER2204@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: May 22, 2007 9:17 AM <BR>To: Jeff Williams 
<JWKCKID1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx <BR>Subject: Re: 
[gnso-acc-sgb] Impact on UDRP <BR><BR>
<DIV>Wipo is neither the author nor administator of the UDRP. They are 
sanctioned to act under the UDRP which is a consensus policy arrived at by 
ICANN. Wipo does what the UDRP tells it to do not the other way around.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Eric<BR><BR><B><I>Jeff Williams &lt;jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;</I></B> 
wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; 
BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Dr. Dierker and all sgb members,<BR><BR>I don't 
believe another WG is needed or even workable to determine<BR>what the impact 
on UDRP from this subgroup may be or actually is.<BR>In fact whatever this 
subgroup determins as it relates to WIPO's<BR>UDRP can and should be part of 
our final recommendations and than<BR>let the GNSO and the ICANN Bod review, 
modify if necessary,<BR>and pass on to WIPO as may be appropriate.<BR><BR>Hugh 
Dierker wrote:<BR><BR>&gt; I have now done my homework and exchanged posts and 
spoken with my<BR>&gt; experts and feel extrememly confident that the UDRP was 
a consensus<BR>&gt; document and to change it requires a TF, a WG and a 
consensus filtered<BR>&gt; through staff and presented for the BoD for 
voting.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; In this case it would appear that the GNSO would be the 
place where<BR>&gt; the TF/WG would orginate, however I seen no restrictive 
language<BR>&gt; prohibiting its' starting elswhere and finishing with the 
council.<BR>&gt; (you see while these groups will be formed by and under the 
council,<BR>&gt; nowhere does it say it cannot originate elswhere)<BR>&gt; My 
particular bent is the GA of course.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Eric<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Doug 
Isenberg <DISENBERG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:<BR>&gt; v\:* 
{behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:*<BR>&gt; {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* 
{behavior:url(#default#VML);}<BR>&gt; .shape 
{behavior:url(#default#VML);}<BR>&gt; st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } I 
donÂt believe<BR>&gt; the UDRP has been amended since it was approved by ICANN 
in 1999 Â so,<BR>&gt; the process for amending it is not clear (at least not 
to me  though<BR>&gt; IÂd be happy to hear from others on this point). But, 
it does seem<BR>&gt; clear that either (1) the UDRP would need to be amended to 
accommodate<BR>&gt; some of the Whois proposals being discussed or (2) the 
Whois proposals<BR>&gt; being discussed need to be modified to accommodate the 
UDRP as it has<BR>&gt; existed since 1999.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Doug 
Isenberg<BR>&gt; www.GigaLawFirm.com<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; 
---------------------------------<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; From: Hugh Dierker 
[mailto:hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx]<BR>&gt; Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:13 
PM<BR>&gt; To: Doug Isenberg; gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx<BR>&gt; Subject: RE: 
[gnso-acc-sgb] Impact on UDRP<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; 
Doug,<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; What is the standard (if there is one) 
process for amending the<BR>&gt; UDRP. Your logic is inescapable. And the OPoC 
is going to happen<BR>&gt; therefor we must make the changes necessary 
elsewhere.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; I would be happy to do some 
"legwork" alone, if this is outside<BR>&gt; the "scope" of this WG. I think I 
could convince a few of my GA<BR>&gt; friends to help 
out.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Eric<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Doug Isenberg 
<DISENBERG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; My primary questions, refined 
in response to the below, are as<BR>&gt; follows:<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; (1) If the 
UDRP requires a Complainant to prove that a registrant has<BR>&gt; "no<BR>&gt; 
rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name" (UDRP<BR>&gt; 
Policy,<BR>&gt; paragraph 4(a)(ii)), then how would a Complainant be able to do 
so if<BR>&gt; the<BR>&gt; Complainant does not know the registrant's identity 
and instead knows<BR>&gt; only<BR>&gt; the identity of the registrant's OPOC? 
Either (a) the Complainant must<BR>&gt; have<BR>&gt; access to the registrant's 
identity, or (b) the UDRP must be amended<BR>&gt; to<BR>&gt; eliminate this 
requirement.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; (2) If the UDRP requires that a Complainant send 
or transmit the<BR>&gt; Complaint<BR>&gt; to "the holder of a domain-name 
registration against which a complaint<BR>&gt; is<BR>&gt; initiated" (UDRP 
Rules 1 and 3(b)(xii)), then how would a Complainant<BR>&gt; be<BR>&gt; able to 
do so if the Complainant does not know the registrant's<BR>&gt; identity 
and<BR>&gt; instead knows only the identity of the registrant's OPOC? Either 
(a)<BR>&gt; the<BR>&gt; Complainant must have access to the registrant's 
identity, or (b) the<BR>&gt; UDRP<BR>&gt; must be amended to eliminate this 
requirement.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; These are not necessarily the only UDRP-related 
issues that may exist,<BR>&gt; but<BR>&gt; the general notion is that any 
changes to Whois (whether via OPOC or<BR>&gt; otherwise) are likely to have 
broader implications than appear to have<BR>&gt; been<BR>&gt; discussed thus 
far and that these implications may require changes to<BR>&gt; the<BR>&gt; UDRP 
itself before the changes could be implemented.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Doug 
Isenberg<BR>&gt; www.GigaLawFirm.com<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; -----Original 
Message-----<BR>&gt; From: owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx<BR>&gt; 
[mailto:owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx] On<BR>&gt; Behalf Of Milton 
Mueller<BR>&gt; Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 11:47 AM<BR>&gt; To: 
disenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx;<BR>&gt; 
hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx<BR>&gt; Subject: Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Impact on 
UDRP<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Doug Isenberg wrote:<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;-- Presumably, a 
Complainant needs to know the identity of a domain<BR>&gt; &gt;name registrant 
to prove that the registrant has "no rights or<BR>&gt; legitimate<BR>&gt; 
&gt;interests in respect of the domain name" as required by paragraph<BR>&gt; 
4(a)(ii)<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Under the OPoC proposal the identity of the registrant 
(name,<BR>&gt; location)<BR>&gt; would be known. Yes, you additional info would 
be useful (e.g., life<BR>&gt; history, business registrations, etc.) but you 
have no right to it nor<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; is it prima facie 
required.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; You can ask the registrant, via its OPoC, for the 
basis of their claim<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; to a right and legitimate interest. If 
they do not respond that is<BR>&gt; often<BR>&gt; used by UDRP panelists as 
supporting evidence of bad faith.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;-- Presumably, a 
Complainant needs to know the identity of a domain<BR>&gt; name<BR>&gt; 
&gt;registrant to prove bad faith under 4(b)(ii) of the Policy, which<BR>&gt; 
refers to<BR>&gt; &gt;a domain name registrant engaging in a "pattern" of 
registering<BR>&gt; domain<BR>&gt; names<BR>&gt; &gt;to prevent trademark or 
service mark owners from reflecting the marks<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; in<BR>&gt; 
&gt;corresponding domain names.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Seems obvious to me that such a 
pattern could be estalbished by having<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; the same name, 
jurisdiction, and even the same OPoC. If the registrant<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; lies on 
this they may as well lie on the additional information that<BR>&gt; is<BR>&gt; 
screened. The same "lying pattern" that is often used with the<BR>&gt; 
additional info may show up.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; This business about "premature 
disclosure" strikes me as odd. If you<BR>&gt; are<BR>&gt; talking about filing 
a UDRP claim you are disclosing all kinds of<BR>&gt; things<BR>&gt; to the 
registrant.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;-- If a Complainant submitted a UDRP complaint 
to an OPOC instead of<BR>&gt; to<BR>&gt; the<BR>&gt; &gt;registrant itself (if 
the Complainant did not have the registrant's<BR>&gt; identity<BR>&gt; &gt;and 
contact information), would that satisfy paragraph 3(b)(xii) of<BR>&gt; 
the<BR>&gt; &gt;Rules, which requires a Complainant to certify that the 
Complaint<BR>&gt; "has<BR>&gt; been<BR>&gt; &gt;sent or transmitted to the 
Respondent"?<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; If that doesn't count as "sent or transmitted" 
already the rules could<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; easily be modiied to make it 
so.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; 
---------------------------------<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Looking for a deal? Find 
great prices on flights and hotels with<BR>&gt; Yahoo! 
FareChase.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR><BR>Regards,<BR>--<BR>Jeffrey A. 
Williams<BR>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders 
strong!)<BR>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -<BR>Abraham 
Lincoln<BR><BR>"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what 
is<BR>very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt<BR><BR>"If the 
probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;<BR>liability depends 
upon whether B is less than L multiplied by<BR>P: i.e., whether B is less than 
PL."<BR>United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 
1947]<BR>===============================================================<BR>Updated
 1/26/04<BR>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data 
security<BR>IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.<BR>ABA member in 
good standing member ID 01257402<BR>E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Registered 
Email addr with the USPS<BR>Contact Number: 
214-244-4827<BR><BR><BR>Regards,<BR><BR>Jeffrey A. Williams<BR>Spokesman for 
INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)<BR>"Obedience of the 
law is the greatest freedom" -<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Abraham Lincoln<BR><BR>"Credit 
should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very<BR>often the 
accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt<BR><BR>"If the probability be called P; 
the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability<BR>depends upon whether B is less 
than L multiplied by<BR>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."<BR>United States 
v. Carroll Towing&nbsp; (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 
1947]<BR>===============================================================<BR>Updated
 1/26/04<BR>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. 
div. of<BR>Information Network Eng.&nbsp; INEG. INC.<BR>ABA member in good 
standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Registered Email 
addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827<BR><!-- 
--></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></BODY>



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy