RE: [gnso-rap-dt] cybersquatting edit

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, James.  Bruce's comments are in the transcript here: 
http://nbo.icann.org/meetings/nairobi2010/transcript-rap-initial-report-information-10mar10-en.pdf
 
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 
final report."

All best,
--Greg



-----Original Message-----
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
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.