RE: [gnso-rap-dt] Cybersquatting

["Michael Young" <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Martin,

 

 

I am not sure I understand the value of the following recommendation:

 

"The RAP WG further recommends the initiation of a Policy Development
Process by requesting an Issues Report to investigate the appropriateness
and effectiveness of how any Rights Protection Mechanisms that are developed
elsewhere in the community (e.g. the new gTLD program) can be applied to the
problem of Cybersquatting in the current gTLD space."

 

 

As an avid follower of the NGTLD process, I would understand the Rights
Protection Mechanism candidates up for consideration would be the proposed
URS and TM Clearinghouse concepts. Given that neither has been implemented
as of yet, and therefore we have no real world experience to judge their
effectiveness, I don't know that an "Issues Report" and subsequent PDP is
going to reveal or add value in addressing Cybersquatting.  I think a more
effective recommendation would be that, after a suitable period of active
use (at least 2 years) of the URS and/or TM Clearinghouse, an Analysis
report of their effectiveness in reducing Cybersquatting should be
conducted.

 

I think first examining whether the URS or TM Clearinghouse is effective
following their implementation in the NGLTDs is a responsible stepped
approach.  While they sound like valid ideas today, we could find in
practice they do not turn out to be the best tools to address concerns about
Cybersquatting, on the other hand if they are huge successes, then we can
certainly consider a PDP (following an Analysis report showing that success)
at that time.   

 

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael Young

 

Vice-President,

Product Development

Afilias

O: +14166734109

C: +16472891220

 

From: martinsutton@xxxxxxxx [mailto:martinsutton@xxxxxxxx] 
Sent: January-19-10 10:08 AM
To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-rap-dt] Cybersquatting

 


Dear all, 

Cybersquatting 

After considering everyone's feedback including some postings last night, I
propose to add the following paragraph to the existing background
information, followed by the recommendation below.  I've got so many
versions of the main document I would prefer your comments back before
sending through a redlined version, to avoid any further (major) markups -
so let me know what you think and I'll then send it through:- 

Background (additional para) 

The RAP WG recognises that the UDRP is a useful mechanism to counter some
elements of Cybersquatting but the scale of Cybersquatting is overwhelming
and the drain on cost and resources for brand-owners to respond in all
instances by using only the UDRP as a remedy is prohibitive.  In addition,
there is insufficient up-front protection mechanisms to prevent registrants
from initially registering infringing domains which are freely monetized
from the date of registration, via PPC and other online advertising methods,
thus earning revenue for the registrant.  They can then simply wait until a
UDRP action is commenced before they give up the domain, without penalty.
The burden therefore rests with the trademark owner to monitor, investigate
and pursue litigation in order to provide protection to Internet users. This
burden often includes the registration and ongoing management of large
domain name portfolios, consisting mainly of unwanted domains that benefit
only the Registry, Registrar and ICANN parties.  This approach is already a
major concern for trademark owners, in terms of cost and resources, with the
existing level of gTLDs and ccTLDs, let alone the anticipated growth of new
gTLDs and IDNs.

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; 


The RAP WG further recommends the initiation of a Policy Development Process
by requesting an Issues Report to investigate the appropriateness and
effectiveness of how any Rights Protection Mechanisms that are developed
elsewhere in the community (e.g. the new gTLD program) can be applied to the
problem of Cybersquatting in the current gTLD space. 

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 
________________________________________________________________

************************************************************
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.