RE: [gnso-rap-dt] cybersquatting edit

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Fred:

The definition in the paper currently says cybersquatting is for profit,
period.  But "There was consensus in the RAPWG that provisions 4(a) and 4(b)
of the UDRP are a sound definition of Cybersquatting UDRP."  That consensus
was also agreed to by all, after a lot of work.  

The UDRP mentions profit but also other motives and measures of bad faith,
such as interference with business.   So we have a conflict between the two
statements, I believe unintentional and overlooked at the time.  We are
trying to reconcile them now.

For example, if one has registered "the domain name in order to prevent the
owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a
corresponding domain name," (as per the UDRP language) isn't that
cybersquatting?

All best,
--Greg





-----Original Message-----
From: Frederick Felman [mailto:ffelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 1:52 PM
To: Greg Aaron; 'Wendy Seltzer'; 'Rod Rasmussen'
Cc: RAP-WG
Subject: Re: [gnso-rap-dt] cybersquatting edit
Importance: High

The edit is inaccurate.  It does not reflect the decision by the group, the
report as submitted the text of our definition of Cybersquatting is cited in
the report on page 25 in Section 5.1.1 as follows:

"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). Cybersquatting is recognized as an abuse in
the ICANN community, and the UDRP was created to address this abuse. There
was consensus in the RAPWG that provisions 4(a) and 4(b) of the UDRP are a
sound definition of cybersquatting.11"
 
I disagree with the edit as proposed

On 5/7/10 6:15 AM, "Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 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.
>>>  
>> 
>> 
>