RE: [gnso-rap-dt] cybersquatting edit

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Wendy's edit is accurate.  
Regarding Rod: if we are referencing the definition in the UDRP (and the
group had consensus agreement that it was the good definition of
cybersquatting), why don't we just reference instead of making
characterizations about motive?  Just seems cleaner not to.

All best,
--Greg



-----Original Message-----
From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 8:14 PM
To: Rod Rasmussen
Cc: Greg Aaron; gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-rap-dt] cybersquatting edit

One critical edit: "cybersquatting is the deliberate and bad-faith
registration *AND* use of a name...," as the UDRP defines it.

--Wendy

Rod Rasmussen wrote:
> 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.
>>  
> 
> 


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
phone: +1.914.374.0613
Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/