RE: [gnso-rap-dt] action items: RAPWG meeting 11 January 2010

["Steingruebl, Andy" <asteingruebl@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike,

 

Is the point of your comment that if both parties can reasonably claim
at least some prior rights, then it isn't cybersquatting? 

 

--
Andy Steingruebl
Manager, Secure Development
PayPal Information Risk Management
P: (408) 967-4650
  

 

From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 8:55 AM
To: martinsutton@xxxxxxxx; 'Greg Aaron'
Cc: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx; owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] action items: RAPWG meeting 11 January 2010

 

Great stuff Martin, thanks.  Should clarify that these recommendations
are not supported by the BC yet, but will be floated along with the
Initial Report of this WG.

 

Personally I support the draft as is, with one minor question about this
language in the first paragraph -- "particularly where both parties can
evidence prior rights and a judgement is required to resolve a
complaint."  I think it should be deleted as unnecessary and unclear.  I
also would add a second bullet after the 'insufficient deterrent' -
"domains are freely monetized from the date of registration, via PPC and
other online advertising methods, thus earning revenue for the
registrant"

 

Thanks.

Mike

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

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

 

From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of martinsutton@xxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 8:40 AM
To: Greg Aaron
Cc: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx; owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-rap-dt] action items: RAPWG meeting 11 January 2010

 


Hi all, 

Sorry I missed Monday's meeting.  Here's the redraft for cybersquatting
which is still a little wordy, but the part before the recommendation
can be lifted into the background appropriate - 

Recommendations for Cybersquatting: 

The RAP WG recognises that the UDRP is regarded a useful mechanism to
counter some elements of cybersquatting, particularly where both parties
can evidence prior rights and a judgement is required to resolve a
complaint.  However, the scale of cybersquatting is overwhelming and the
drain on cost and resources for brand-owners to respond in all instances
by using UDRP is prohibitive.  Some of the key issues raised were: 

- insufficient deterrents to prevent registrants from registering
infringing domains (e.g. they can wait until UDRP is actioned then
simply give up the domain, without penalty) 
- that the UDRP is a slow, expensive process and does not contain any
provisions to address recidivism 
- the high cost and demand on resources for brand-owners to monitor,
investigate and pursue litigation in response to high volumes of
infringements means the burden rests with the brand-owner 
- the existing high costs incurred by brand-owners for the registration,
renewals and management of large portfolios of (unwanted) domains purely
to prevent cybersquatting is not sustainable in the current gTLD space,
let alone with the expected growth with new gTLDs 

The RAP WG recommends the initiation of a Policy Development Process by
requesting an issues report to investigate the appropriateness and
effectiveness of the existing UDRP to address cybersquatting. This
investigation should consider but not be limited to: 

- Whether the definition of cybersquatting within the existing UDRP
language is still acceptable or needs to be reviewed/updated; 
- The reasons why the UDRP is only used to resolve a small volume of
cybersquatting cases compared to the large-scale abuse evident across
gTLDs; 
- Where the UDRP fails to address the problems of cybersquatting (which
will indicate where the scope of the UDRP may be insufficient or
identify the need for alternative/additional policies and mechanisms); 
- Instances that may cross over different types of abuse that should be
dealt with in a different (prioritised) manner to cybersquatting
policies and therefore excluded from the UDRP process, e.g. malicious
use for a domain should follow a separate response process irrespective
of whether there is a brand infringement occuring within the domain; 
- Monitoring the efforts to establish Rights Protection Mechanisms
elsewhere in the community (e.g. the new gTLD program) for their
applicability to the problem of cybersquating.

Martin C SUTTON 
Group Risk 
Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence | HSBC HOLDINGS PLC HGHQ
Group Security & Fraud Risk
8 Canada Square,Canary Wharf,London,E14 5HQ,United Kingdom 
________________________________________________________________

Phone.     +44 (0)20 7991 8074 / 7991 8074 
Mobile.     +44 (0) 7774556680 
Email.       martinsutton@xxxxxxxx <mailto:martinsutton@xxxxxxxx>  
________________________________________________________________ 

"Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx 

Jan 11 2010 17:29 

Mail Size: 32622 

To

<gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 

cc

        
Subject

[gnso-rap-dt] action items: RAPWG meeting 11 January 2010

 

  Entity

   HSBC Holdings plc - GMO




Thanks for a good meeting, everyone.  The action items from today's
meeting are: 
1.                   Martin is re-writing the cybersquatting
recommendation and will post to the list. 
2.                   Everyone please read the paper draft that Greg sent
out and put notes or red-lines up to the list. 
3.                   We will put the meta-issues of BPs and
reporting/notification/compliance into the paper somewhere early on.
Mikey and Rod fine-tuning the recommendations sections. 
4.                   uniformity of contracts: Mikey updated Barry's
latest draft on-screen during the meeting, and Mikey to provide that
revised text to the list.  First sentence will be a recommendation
inserted into the UoC section of the paper.  The other sentence will go
into the Malicious Use.   
5.                   Greg and Marika will talk offline about logistics
of maintaining the master draft and getting the polling up. 
  
Please let me know if any additions/corrections to the above. 
  
Our next meeting is Monday 18 January at the usual time. 
  
All best, 
--Greg 
  

 

________________________________


From: Greg Aaron [mailto:gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx> ] 
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 2:45 PM
To: 'gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: action items: RAPWG meeting 4 January 2010, 15:00 UTC 
  
Thanks for a great meeting, everyone.  Action items for the next week
are as follows; please correct if I missed anything: 
1.        Martin to re-write the cybersquatting Recommendation 
2.        Greg A, with Mikey and Barry: write text for the registration
vs. use issues, including indemnification. 
3.        Mikey and Barry: re-write the Uniformity of Contracts
Recommendation.  Also, write up the meta-issue of reporting, compliance,
and notification.   There was agreement that the Uniformity of Contracts
Recommendation be along the lines of "recommend an examination of
whether there should be a baseline..." rather than saying there should
be a baseline. 
4.        Rod to work on text to discuss how ICANN should be in a
position to support the organization, dissemination, and maintenance of
Best Practices".  Greg A will work on some text about BPs for malicious
uses of domain names and tie that in to this and the registration vs.
use issues. 
5.        Greg A is tweaking the master draft doc that Marika created,
and will send out this week. 
  
All best, 
--Greg A. 
  

 

________________________________


From: Greg Aaron [mailto:gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx> ] 
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 3:32 PM
To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-rap-dt] agenda: RAPWG meeting 4 January 2010, 15:00 UTC 
  
The Registration Abuse Policies Work Group is scheduled to meet on
Monday 4 January 2010 at 15:00 UTC (07:00 PST, 10:00 EST, 15:00 London,
16:00 CET).  Access details have been circulated to members under
separate cover.   
  
Agenda is: 
1. Roll-call 
2. Cybersquatting and Uniformity of Contracts recommendations 
3. Master document; Review schedule below.   
  
All best, 
--Greg 
  
Timeline: 
* January 4: Deadline for all other Issue/Background/Recommendations
sections -- ALL topic areas.  Initial report (very) rough draft
available. 
* January 11: walk through remaining Issue/Background/Recommendations
sections; measure level of consensus. 
* January 18: walk through remaining Issue/Background/Recommendations
sections; measure level of consensus. 
* January 25: walk through remaining Issue/Background/Recommendations
sections; measure level of consensus. 
* February 1: walk through remaining Issue/Background/Recommendations
sections; measure level of consensus. 
* February 8: walk through remaining Issue/Background/Recommendations
sections; measure level of consensus. 
* February 12. Finalize any last-minute items; PUBLISH INITIAL REPORT. 
  
  
********************************** 
Greg Aaron 
Director, Key Account Management and Domain Security 
Afilias 
vox: +1.215.706.5700 
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. 
  
  


************************************************************
HSBC Holdings plc
Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom
Registered in England number 617987
************************************************************
----------------------------------------- SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU
PRINT! This E-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged.
If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use
any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please
delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender
immediately by return E-mail. Internet communications cannot be
guaranteed to be timely secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not
accept liability for any errors or omissions.