[gnso-rap-dt] Cybersquatting discussion

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

As discussed on our call today, please find below the main thread from the 
different emails concerning cybersquatting. Please let me know if there is 
anything missing. You are encouraged to continue the discussion on the mailing 
list ahead of next week’s meeting.

With best regards,

Marika

=================================

>From Greg:
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?

>From Rod:
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...

>From James:
....through pay-per-click advertisements or other means of traffic diversion....

>From Mike R:
I like James' better than Rod's version; but I like Greg's even better since it 
is most broad.  Cybersquatting is bad faith registration; bad faith is defined 
through analysis of many factors, including 'for profit' and 'not for profit' 
actions of the defendant.

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

>From Greg:
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.

>From Fred:
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

>From Jeff N.
I actually agree with Fred here and .us is one of the ccTLDs that takes the 
"or" approach.  Wendy's comment reflects what is currently in the UDRP, but 
that does not mean that that is the absolute in definitions.  It just means 
that the UDRP only addresses what some view as a subset of cybersquatting.