Re: [gnso-rap-dt] cybersquatting edit
- To: Greg Aaron <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-rap-dt] cybersquatting edit
- From: Rod Rasmussen <rod.rasmussen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 11:32:45 -0700
I was simply trying to do the best with keeping the original language we'd
agreed upon. I don't have a dog in this fight, so am fine with all the
variants that have popped up, as they are essentially the same. The
differences are in anything used as an example - the base case (the one Greg
originally proposed) is equivalent - the others just either reference other
material or provide examples.
I'm cool with any of them I've seen so far - in the quest for simplicity
getting rid of examples is perfectly fine with me.
On May 7, 2010, at 6:15 AM, Greg Aaron 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,
> -----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.
> 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
>> 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
>>> 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 Aaron
>>> Director, Key Account Management and Domain Security
>>> vox: +1.215.706.5700
>>> fax: 1.215.706.5701
>>> 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