RE: [gnso-rap-dt] latest draft of the Initial Report

["Frederick Felman" <Frederick.Felman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is my third attempt at sending a message supporting Martin and questioning 
Michael and others about their comments....

Marika - Thanks for your support! - Fred


-----Original Message-----
From: Frederick Felman
Sent: Thu 1/21/2010 3:47 PM
To: Greg Aaron; martinsutton@xxxxxxxx; myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Marika Konings
Cc: RAP-WG; owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Faisal Shah
Subject: Re: [gnso-rap-dt] latest draft of the Initial Report
 
Greg/Marika ­ I¹d thought when I ³replied all² to an earlier message that it
would have been distributed to the entire group... Below is my response to
Martin and to Michael which expresses support for Martin¹s proposal and
concern over this vital issue:

"Michael ­ I am not sure that I understand your comment.  It was my
understanding that the IRT and STI processes were assembled to address
cybersquatting in the new namespace based on experience in the existing
namespace. The RPM's that were developed are based on data derived from the
experience of the entire community from the abuse in the legalcy gTLD's. So
that begs the question:

why wait? 

Simply put, why wouldn't we recommend that we put all that intensive and
valuable effort to work as soon as possible to help address what is clear
abuse? 

Thanks, 

Fred "

I¹m not sure why this message did not make it to the list and this is my
second attempt at sending it and apologize in advance if I¹m
misunderstanding how to address this forum < If I¹m not including the
correct list - could one of you please forward to the group and let me know
what address should be included to address the group?

Thanks in advance - Fred


On 1/21/10 1:56 PM, "Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear Martin:
>  
> Omission of the new background paragraph was inadvertent.  I do think the
> paragraph and associated resolutions should receive discussion on-list and in
> our next WG call.  I submitted comment last week, which was:
> ³In the background section of the draft paper I listed various concerns that
> have been raised about the UDRP over the years.... 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.²
>  
> Your new paragraph takes a very different approach. It takes
> stances/conclusions (on behalf of the WG) on some very controversial topics. I
> don¹t recall the cybersquatting sub-team reaching any agreement on the
> positions below ­ what is the history?
>  
> I also see that James and Michael have posted some concerns.
>  
> All best,
> --Greg
>  
>  
> 
> 
> From: martinsutton@xxxxxxxx [mailto:martinsutton@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 6:07 AM
> To: Greg Aaron
> Cc: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx; owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rap-dt] latest draft of the Initial Report
>  
> 
> Greg, 
> 
> I note the additional paragraph for the Ctbersquatting backround section I
> sent over has been omitted - any reason why?  I think that is a representation
> of some of the discussions we had within the group and should be included -
> I've certainly not had any comments back to object to this, quite the
> contrary.  Could you therefore append the following paragragh to this section:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Many thanks, 
> 
> Martin 
> 
> 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 20 2010 19:27
>  
>  Mail Size: 2597591
>   To   <gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
>   cc       
>   Subject   [gnso-rap-dt] latest draft of the Initial Report
>  
>   
>     Entity      HSBC Holdings plc - GMO
>   
> 
> 
> 
> Dear RAPWG: 
>  
> Hello, all.  Marika arrived safely at ICANN headquarters in southern
> California, where she is now experiencing some uncharacteristically dreary
> weather.  (Sorry, Marika!)   In the meantime I have taken an opportunity to
> create a new version of the master report document (attached).  I have
> attempted to incorporate everyone¹s contributions since the last draft,
> including Mikey¹s latest material, James¹ edits, and Martin¹s latest
> cybersquatting recommendation.  Also, you will see the new section about WHOIS
> Access; please check it out.  You will also see the new recommendation for
> malicious use, as per the assignment I took in Monday¹s meeting.  I also made
> some inclusions of my own, as an individual member of the group.
>  
> The doc is redlined; make sure the editing marks are turned on to see them.
> Please let me know ASAP if you have any questions, or if there are any
> omissions or errors.
>  
> Marika is now taking the Recommendations as they stand, and is creating the
> online straw-poll about them.  You will receive an invitation hopefully
> tomorrow to take part in the poll.
>  
> With best wishes,
> --Greg 
>  
>  
>   
> **********************************
> 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.
>   
>  [attachment "RAPWG - Draft Initial Report - 20 January 2010.doc" deleted by
> Martin C SUTTON/GMO/HSBC]
> 
> 
> ************************************************************
> 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.
>