Re: [gnso-sti] IPC Position Statement
- To: GNSO STI <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-sti] IPC Position Statement
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:58:34 -0500
At 06/11/2009 09:11 PM, McGradyP@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Ladies & Gentlemen of the STI:
Attached please find the IPC Position Statement. Have a great
I have a few thoughts on the IPC statement, and on the GPML in
particular, and I hope they will be taken in a positive way.
The comments are my own, and are not made on behalf of ALAC or At-Large.
The statement says "The Globally Protected Marks List should be
restored to alleviate harm to serial victims of global
cybersquatting. Based on objective criteria of global trademark
registration and multiple UDRP and related decisions, the GPML is the
only proposal that satisfies ICANN's commitment to address the
problem of defensive registrations. The proposal is modest in that it
does not preclude registration of domain names on the GPML list, but
merely shifts the burden to the registrant to demonstrate at the time
of application that its planned use would be in good faith and not a
violation of the UDRP."
My following comments apply solely to the second-level registrations.
The GPML had a number of strong criticisms leveled against it during
the various comment periods, and for this or other reasons, the Board
chose not to include it in the staff proposals associated with DAGv3.
So I suspect that requesting that it be reinstated as per the IRT
report is a non-starter.
That being said, I accept that there is a problem that the GPML was
trying to address. Compiling the list itself should not be
controversial. In fact, it could streamline the IP Claims process in
that the n (or n-hundred) individual registrations need not be echoed
individually, but could be readily summarized. The real problem is in
how the list is then used.
The IRT report says "There should, however, be a process by which a
"blocked" domain name registration applicant should be permitted to
ultimately register the initially-blocked name if it can demonstrate
to a dispute resolution provider that its registration would be
consistent with generally accepted trademark laws; namely, that its
use of the domain name would not infringe the legal rights of the GPM
owner. To overcome the block, the applicant must show that it has a
right or legitimate interest in the initially blocked name."
The concept that a registrant will have to present a defence to a
dispute resolution provider, at the cost of significant time and
presumably money is not at all acceptable. It presumes guilt when
there is no direct evidence of such, takes a 5-minute process and
elongates it into weeks or months, and increases the cost from $10-20
to at least hundreds of dollars.
The current IPC Position Statement says "The proposal is modest in
that it does not preclude registration of domain names on the GPML
list, but merely shifts the burden to the registrant to demonstrate
at the time of application that its planned use would be in good
faith and not a violation of the UDRP."
"at the time of registration" implies that what is envisioned is a
process at that particular moment in time. The term "demonstrates" is
not defined. If it means that the registrant must make a declaration
that the domain will be used for valid purposes and is not a TM
violation (that is, exactly what they must do with respect to the
envisioned pre-launch IP Claims), I would likely consider this
acceptable. If it is a process that takes considerable time and cost,
then it is not.
More clarity in this statement might make the process acceptable to
many of us, or at least allow clear statements of what is not acceptable.
And as an aside, I would suggest a new acronym as the "GPML" now
results in a visceral reaction that cannot help its case.