<<<
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> </P>
<P> The UDRP is not an entity in and of itself. WIPO
is. Ergo it is not logically</P>
<P>possible for the UDRP to administer itself. 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. </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> </DIV>
<DIV>Eric<BR><BR><B><I>Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx></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>> I have now done my homework and exchanged posts and
spoken with my<BR>> experts and feel extrememly confident that the UDRP was
a consensus<BR>> document and to change it requires a TF, a WG and a
consensus filtered<BR>> through staff and presented for the BoD for
voting.<BR>><BR>> In this case it would appear that the GNSO would be the
place where<BR>> the TF/WG would orginate, however I seen no restrictive
language<BR>> prohibiting its' starting elswhere and finishing with the
council.<BR>> (you see while these groups will be formed by and under the
council,<BR>> nowhere does it say it cannot originate elswhere)<BR>> My
particular bent is the GA of course.<BR>><BR>> Eric<BR>><BR>> Doug
Isenberg <DISENBERG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:<BR>> v\:*
{behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:*<BR>> {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:*
{behavior:url(#default#VML);}<BR>> .shape
{behavior:url(#default#VML);}<BR>> st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } I
donÂt believe<BR>> the UDRP has been amended since it was approved by ICANN
in 1999 Â so,<BR>> the process for amending it is not clear (at least not
to me  though<BR>> IÂd be happy to hear from others on this point). But,
it does seem<BR>> clear that either (1) the UDRP would need to be amended to
accommodate<BR>> some of the Whois proposals being discussed or (2) the
Whois proposals<BR>> being discussed need to be modified to accommodate the
UDRP as it has<BR>> existed since 1999.<BR>><BR>> Doug
Isenberg<BR>> www.GigaLawFirm.com<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>
---------------------------------<BR>><BR>> From: Hugh Dierker
[mailto:hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx]<BR>> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:13
PM<BR>> To: Doug Isenberg; gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx<BR>> Subject: RE:
[gnso-acc-sgb] Impact on UDRP<BR>><BR>><BR>>
Doug,<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> What is the standard (if there is one)
process for amending the<BR>> UDRP. Your logic is inescapable. And the OPoC
is going to happen<BR>> therefor we must make the changes necessary
elsewhere.<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> I would be happy to do some
"legwork" alone, if this is outside<BR>> the "scope" of this WG. I think I
could convince a few of my GA<BR>> friends to help
out.<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> Eric<BR>><BR>> Doug Isenberg
<DISENBERG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:<BR>><BR>> My primary questions, refined
in response to the below, are as<BR>> follows:<BR>><BR>> (1) If the
UDRP requires a Complainant to prove that a registrant has<BR>> "no<BR>>
rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name" (UDRP<BR>>
Policy,<BR>> paragraph 4(a)(ii)), then how would a Complainant be able to do
so if<BR>> the<BR>> Complainant does not know the registrant's identity
and instead knows<BR>> only<BR>> the identity of the registrant's OPOC?
Either (a) the Complainant must<BR>> have<BR>> access to the registrant's
identity, or (b) the UDRP must be amended<BR>> to<BR>> eliminate this
requirement.<BR>><BR>> (2) If the UDRP requires that a Complainant send
or transmit the<BR>> Complaint<BR>> to "the holder of a domain-name
registration against which a complaint<BR>> is<BR>> initiated" (UDRP
Rules 1 and 3(b)(xii)), then how would a Complainant<BR>> be<BR>> able to
do so if the Complainant does not know the registrant's<BR>> identity
and<BR>> instead knows only the identity of the registrant's OPOC? Either
(a)<BR>> the<BR>> Complainant must have access to the registrant's
identity, or (b) the<BR>> UDRP<BR>> must be amended to eliminate this
requirement.<BR>><BR>> These are not necessarily the only UDRP-related
issues that may exist,<BR>> but<BR>> the general notion is that any
changes to Whois (whether via OPOC or<BR>> otherwise) are likely to have
broader implications than appear to have<BR>> been<BR>> discussed thus
far and that these implications may require changes to<BR>> the<BR>> UDRP
itself before the changes could be implemented.<BR>><BR>> Doug
Isenberg<BR>> www.GigaLawFirm.com<BR>><BR>><BR>> -----Original
Message-----<BR>> From: owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx<BR>>
[mailto:owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx] On<BR>> Behalf Of Milton
Mueller<BR>> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 11:47 AM<BR>> To:
disenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx;<BR>>
hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx<BR>> Subject: Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Impact on
UDRP<BR>><BR>> Doug Isenberg wrote:<BR>><BR>> >-- Presumably, a
Complainant needs to know the identity of a domain<BR>> >name registrant
to prove that the registrant has "no rights or<BR>> legitimate<BR>>
>interests in respect of the domain name" as required by paragraph<BR>>
4(a)(ii)<BR>><BR>> Under the OPoC proposal the identity of the registrant
(name,<BR>> location)<BR>> would be known. Yes, you additional info would
be useful (e.g., life<BR>> history, business registrations, etc.) but you
have no right to it nor<BR>><BR>> is it prima facie
required.<BR>><BR>> You can ask the registrant, via its OPoC, for the
basis of their claim<BR>><BR>> to a right and legitimate interest. If
they do not respond that is<BR>> often<BR>> used by UDRP panelists as
supporting evidence of bad faith.<BR>><BR>> >-- Presumably, a
Complainant needs to know the identity of a domain<BR>> name<BR>>
>registrant to prove bad faith under 4(b)(ii) of the Policy, which<BR>>
refers to<BR>> >a domain name registrant engaging in a "pattern" of
registering<BR>> domain<BR>> names<BR>> >to prevent trademark or
service mark owners from reflecting the marks<BR>><BR>> in<BR>>
>corresponding domain names.<BR>><BR>> Seems obvious to me that such a
pattern could be estalbished by having<BR>><BR>> the same name,
jurisdiction, and even the same OPoC. If the registrant<BR>><BR>> lies on
this they may as well lie on the additional information that<BR>> is<BR>>
screened. The same "lying pattern" that is often used with the<BR>>
additional info may show up.<BR>><BR>> This business about "premature
disclosure" strikes me as odd. If you<BR>> are<BR>> talking about filing
a UDRP claim you are disclosing all kinds of<BR>> things<BR>> to the
registrant.<BR>><BR>> >-- If a Complainant submitted a UDRP complaint
to an OPOC instead of<BR>> to<BR>> the<BR>> >registrant itself (if
the Complainant did not have the registrant's<BR>> identity<BR>> >and
contact information), would that satisfy paragraph 3(b)(xii) of<BR>>
the<BR>> >Rules, which requires a Complainant to certify that the
Complaint<BR>> "has<BR>> been<BR>> >sent or transmitted to the
Respondent"?<BR>><BR>> If that doesn't count as "sent or transmitted"
already the rules could<BR>><BR>> easily be modiied to make it
so.<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>
---------------------------------<BR>><BR>> Looking for a deal? Find
great prices on flights and hotels with<BR>> Yahoo!
FareChase.<BR>><BR>><BR>><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>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> 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 (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. 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
>>>
|