Re: [gnso-rap-dt] RAPWG meeting agenda -- Monday 17 August at 14:00 UTC

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

As requested, the following information has been added to the wiki 
(https://st.icann.org/reg-abuse-wg/index.cgi?cybersquatting) to capture the 
discussion that took place on the RAP WG meeting of 20 July.

With best regards,

Marika

Latest developments


 *   Proposal posted to the RAP WG mailing list on 20 July by Mike Rodenbaugh 
combining the UDRP and ACPA definition of cybersquatting (see 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-rap-dt/msg00249.html)
 *   Discussion on the definition on the RAP WG call of 20 July 2009 (see 
abstract from transcript: Cybersquatting - RAP WG call 20 July 2009.doc), main 
points included:

- Modifications discussed and incorporated for v and vi (see updated version of 
definition below)
- Consider further clarification regarding 'location' in iv
- Consider adapting the definition so that it is less US-centric
- Consider deleting or rewording v and vi
- Does ACPA broaden cybersquatting definition beyond UDRP scope?
- Consider using UDRP definition as consensus definition of group and list ACPA 
elements (v and vi) as minority viewpoints

Draft definition:

We suggest that the WG consider the UDRP's definition of cybersquatting as the 
consensus working definition. It is well established throughout the ICANN 
community, as a consensus policy appended to all contracts between ICANN, its 
contracting parties, and gTLD domain registrants. We also suggest incorporating 
two additional categories of 'bad faith', to supplement those specifically 
stated in the UDRP, taken from the US ACPA (consistent also with Nominet ADR 
rules in UK). They are included in brackets at the end of this definition from 
the UDRP.

You are cybersquatting if:

(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or 
service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; 
and

(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be 
evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the 
domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise 
transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner 
of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for 
valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs 
directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the 
trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain 
name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of 
disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for 
commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by 
creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the 
source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location 
or of a product or service on your web site or location.

or, from ACPA: (v) you have provided material and misleading false contact 
information when applying for the registration of the domain name, or you have 
intentionally failed to maintain accurate contact information;

(vi) your registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which you know 
are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at 
the time of registration of such domain names.


On 8/13/09 11:37 PM, "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



The cybersquatting group has not made any progress since the last call.  We
did make progress on the last call itself though (or was it the call before
that?).  Perhaps a better action item is to capture that progress and see
where we are.

Could Marika or someone else on Staff please go through the recording of
that call, where we discussed the cybersquatting definition, and markup the
wiki with summary of comments that were made on the call?

Thanks,
Mike

Mike Rodenbaugh
Rodenbaugh Law
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104
+1.415.738.8087
www.rodenbaugh.com

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Greg Aaron
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 2:09 PM
To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-rap-dt] RAPWG meeting agenda -- Monday 17 August at 14:00 UTC

Dear group:

The Registration Abuse Policies Working Group call is scheduled for Monday
17 August at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes; dial-in info was sent to members
under separate cover.  Agenda is:

1. Roll-call
2. update from Cybersquatting group (Fred Felman, Mike Rodenbaugh, James
Bladel, Michael Young, Paul Stahura, Phil Corwin).  Action item was for this
group to work on the wiki, and consider adding in the ACPA factors.
3. update from "uniformity in contracts" group (Berry Cobb, Mike O'Connor,
Mike Rodenbaugh, James Bladel, Jeff Neuman.)  The sub-group will tell us
about their latest work.
4. update on Malware/botnet control (Rod Rasmussen) 5. update on
front-running (George Kirkos); George was been working on wiki.
6. Next topics on list: spam, phishing, etc.
7. Scheduling, WHOIS

With best wishes,
--Greg Aaron


**********************************

Greg Aaron

Director, Key Account Management and Domain Security

Afilias

vox: +1.215.706.5700 x104

fax: 1.215.706.5701

gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx

**********************************

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential
and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your
computer.