RE: [gnso-rap-dt] new Cybersquatting definition

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Fred:

Thank for your note.  The addition of "defined by the GNSO" would not be
accurate, because the UDRP was not created by or through the GNSO.  UDRP had
its unique genesis in the White Paper that created ICANN, before the GNSO
existed, and UDRP was not created under the Consensus Policy process (at
least not as we know it today).  UDRP was later grandfathered into the list
of Consensus Policies that sits on the ICANN Web site.  Domain registration
dispute processes are listed as one of the areas currently covered under
Consensus Policy-making, which means the GNSO can look at the issue.  The
language discussed in yesterday's call -- "Cybersquatting is currently
defined in gTLDs as" -- avoids those problems.

Your proposed language also contains a new statement -- that "inexpensive
adjudication of registration abuse involving Cybersquatting would benefit
the community."  The WG has not endorsed that conclusion, and in its
discussions the WG has ended up with divided opinions about new rights
protection mechanisms, some of which were proposed as less expensive
adjudication systems.  The WG has agreed not to advocate or specific
recommendations or drivers for UDRP reform.  Instead, the WG agreed to
mention many issues regarding cybersquatting and UDRP that have been voiced
in the community, and we recommend the Council take up the cybersquatting
recommendation for which we have forged consensus.  Then a successor effort
can delve into the various issues and their merits.  

So personally I find the language arrived at in yesterday's call to be more
accurate and more in keeping with the previous discussions of the group.  I
look forward to additional comments from the group today.

All best,
--Greg



-----Original Message-----
From: Frederick Felman [mailto:Frederick.Felman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 10:06 PM
To: Greg Aaron; gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] new Cybersquatting definition 

an alternate...

Cybersquatting is defined by the GNSO in the gTLD namespace as the
deliberate and bad-faith registration and use of a name that is a registered
brand or mark of an unrelated entity, often for the purpose of profit.
Cybersquatting is recognized as registration abuse in the ICANN community,
and the UDRP was originally 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. However, Cybersquatting has been defined
inconsistently in national laws and UDRP arbitration practices in global
jurisdictions.  Furthermore, abuse of the domain naming system has evolved
as has use and abuse of the UDRP administrative procedure.   Consequently, a
consistent evolved approach that could expedite fair and inexpensive
adjudication of registration abuse involving Cybersquatting would benefit
the community.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Greg Aaron
Sent: Mon 5/17/2010 6:12 PM
To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-rap-dt] new Cybersquatting definition 
 
Dear WG members:

 

Below is the new Cybersquatting definition (section 5.1.1) that was
discussed today.  Please provide comments ASAP.

 

"Cybersquatting is currently defined in gTLDs as the deliberate and
bad-faith registration and use of a name that is a registered brand or mark
of an unrelated entity, often for the purpose of profiting (typically,
though not exclusively, through pay-per-click advertisements).
Cybersquatting is recognized as registration abuse in the ICANN community,
and the UDRP was originally 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.  Over the years, a number of issues have been
raised regarding the UDRP policy and practices.  These bring up issues of
how cybersquatting is defined and addressed.  For example,  cybersquatting
has been defined differently in different ccTLDs, national law, and
arbitration practices."

 

In the meantime, other members will post up material for the Background
section (5.1.2).

 

All best,

--Greg