Re: [gnso-rap-dt] Cybersquatting discussion

[Frederick Felman <ffelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Marika, thanks for going through that exchange ? the only thing I¹d add is
the text from an earlier email that I sent:

³?Moreover, there's precedence for use of "or" and it makes sense:
 
1) many ccTLDs in multiple ICANN regions use "or" in their definition of
Cybersquatting for the purpose of UDRP including .AU and .ES
 
2) the basis for the GNSO policy changes to reduce kiting was a case that
demonstrated registration abuse involving Cybersquatting.  One look at the
exhibits link below shows a plainly an example of Cybersquatting as a pure
registration abuse in an actual case.²

Best regards - Fred

On 5/10/10 10:56 AM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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 week¹s 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 ³disrupting the business of a competitor.²)  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.