RE: [gnso-rap-dt] cybersquatting edit
- To: "'James M. Bladel'" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Rod Rasmussen'" <rod.rasmussen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] cybersquatting edit
- From: "Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 09:15:59 -0400
Hi, James. Bruce's comments are in the transcript here:
The relevant bits are:
"Bruce Tonkin: Thanks. Bruce Tonkin, The report used the term cyber squatting
and the definition seemed pretty loose. If I understand correctly it’s the use
of a name for making profit and it used an example of profit using pay per
click advertising. That seems a pretty broad definition of cyber squatting.
Names can be used for lots of different reasons. Like you might well if you
used a generic word like apple, you could legitimately an (apple.movi) and use
that for purposes that are completely unrelated to computing. You could be
selling apples that you eat.
And then the other I think quite a big shift if you look at the origins of UDRP
I don’t think it used the term cyber squatting. It’s a bit more specific about
defining the definition of bad sites. But it talks about one scenario which is
where somebody registers a brand for the purposes of selling it back to the
original owner... So just caution the terminology but I also wonder just how
well that has been - what the - I guess has it been tested in court because I
think what ICANN needs to be doing is following what is law. And if what you’re
setting is actually illegal or it’s been found to be illegal in court then
maybe we incorporate that and tighten up the UDRP rules.
So I just want to separate annoying and obviously people are trying to make
money using the brand, versus illegal and whether that’s really being thought
through, particularly with the pay per click...
Greg Aaron: This is Greg. Bruce, thank you for your comments. They’re well
taken. You critically note that our definition of cyber squatting mentions for
the purpose of profiting. It’s also true in the report that there was consensus
in the group that the UDRP offered a sound definition of cyber squatting.
There is discussion about whether we should take it broader than that or not.
So I wonder if there is perhaps an internal inconsistency in our report there.
Maybe that is something we’ll need to take a look at as we work towards our
From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 5:37 PM
To: Rod Rasmussen
Cc: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Greg Aaron
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] cybersquatting edit
Building a bit on Rod's proposed language:
....through pay-per-click advertisements or other means of traffic
Also, can someone post what Bruce was saying in Nairobi, or can we reach
out to him for clarification?
-------- 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>
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
On May 6, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Greg Aaron wrote:
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
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?
Director, Key Account Management and Domain Security
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.