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

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike and Andy:

UDRP was specifically designed to handle all cases where there is an
allegation of trademark infringement - that includes both "pure"
cybersquatting (such as where the registrant knew he didn't have any rights
to the mark), AND cases where the two parties may both present pre-existing
or competing claims. 

Bad faith was established as a test of whether a domain name registrant
should be able to keep a registration that was challenged.

All best,

--Greg  

 

 

  _____  

From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 12:32 PM
To: 'Steingruebl, Andy'; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 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

 

It's probably not the type of case the UDRP was intended to address.

 

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 Steingruebl, Andy
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 9:11 AM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 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

 

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.        <mailto:martinsutton@xxxxxxxx> 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.