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

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all:

First, Martin, thank you for the material.

I think procedurally, Martin's first set of bullets is more background
material, and so I suggest we cover it in the Background section rather than
in the Recommendation itself.  In the background section of the draft paper
I listed various concerns that have been raised about the UDRP over the
years.  Martin, do you feel that the text in the paper cover things
sufficiently?  (If not, can you insert redlined edits you suggest?)

My approach was to list concerns that people have raised about the UDRP and
refer those to the Council, rather than making judgments about the veracity
of those concerns.  In some cases the facts have not been established well.
Also, one of the functions of any Issues Report and subsequent PDP is to
help establish the facts necessary to inform policy-making.  Might this
work?:

* * * * * * * * * * * 
RECOMMENDATION: The RAPWG recommends the initiation of a Policy Development
Process by requesting an issues report to investigate the current state of
the UDRP. This effort should consider: 
- How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and
where the UDRP may be insufficient to curb cybersquatting;
- Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP
language needs to be reviewed or updated; 
- 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 cybersquatting.
* * * * * * * * * * * 

I removed this bullet: "- 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."  
Reasoning: The RAPWG has not discussed prioritizing types of UDRP cases.  If
a domain name infringes upon a trademark, is there a reason to exclude that
domain from arbitration eligibility under UDRP?  Indeed, if it's also being
used for malicious purposes, that may be evidence of bad faith under the
UDRP.  

All best,
--Greg



-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 12:04 PM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx; owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx;
martinsutton@xxxxxxxx; 'Greg Aaron'
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] action items: RAPWG meeting 11 January 2010

Thanks for working this, Martin.

And without taking a strong position on the recommendations, I would
feel more comfortable if we weren't overly prescriptive of what a
UDRP-PDP should be looking at or concluding.  Maybe we could trim the
last bullet list to just understanding the advantages of using UDRP as
an anti-Cybersquatting tool (versus alternative methods), and if/how the
UDRP could be made to be more effective....

Thoughts?

J.



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] action items: RAPWG meeting 11 January 2010
From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, January 14, 2010 10:55 am
To: <martinsutton@xxxxxxxx>, "'Greg Aaron'" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx>, <owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx>

    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
  
  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 
 ________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
    "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] 
 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] 
 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.