RE: [gnso-rap-dt] cybersquatting edit

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Building a bit on Rod's proposed language:

....through pay-per-click advertisements or other means of traffic
diversion....

Thoughts?

Also, can someone post what Bruce was saying in Nairobi, or can we reach
out to him for clarification?


Thanks--


J.



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-rap-dt] cybersquatting edit
From: Rod Rasmussen <rod.rasmussen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, May 06, 2010 4:32 pm
To: Greg Aaron <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx>

How about this sentence reshuffling alternative that keeps the primary
methodology mentioned (which people are familiar with) and should take
care of Bruce's concern:

Cybersquatting is the deliberate and bad-faith registration or use of a
name that is a registered brand or mark of an unrelated entity,
typically, though not exclusively, for the purpose of profiting through
pay-per-click advertisements...

 Rod

On May 6, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Greg Aaron wrote:

Dear WG:
 
For the definition of cybersquatting in 5.1.1: Our report says:
"Cybersquatting is the deliberate and bad-faith registration or use of a
name that is a registered brand or mark of an unrelated entity, for the
purpose of profiting (typically, though not exclusively, through
pay-per-click advertisements).... There was consensus in the RAPWG that
provisions 4(a) and 4(b) of the UDRP are a sound definition of
Cybersquatting."
 
In the Nairobi comment session, Bruce Tonkin noted that the above is
internally inconsistent.  Profit is not always a motive for all
cybersquatters.  Sections 4(a) and 4(b) of the UDRP mentions other
proofs of bad faith (such as “disrupting the business of a
competitor.”)   And its mentions profiting by getting people to come
to the site.
 
So, I propose we just delete the phrase "for the purpose of profiting
(typically, though not exclusively, through pay-per-click
advertisements)".  I think that would make the statement accurate, and
respects the conversations we had in the WG.  Are there any objections?
 
All best,
--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.