ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-udrp-dt] UDRP Webinar General Chat - Tuesday 10 May 2011

  • To: "gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-udrp-dt] UDRP Webinar General Chat - Tuesday 10 May 2011
  • From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:43:55 -0700

Kristina Rosette: @Georget:  Apologies. Don't know why it keeps adding a "t" to 
your name. Sorry.

George Kirikos: Give our side a budget, just like the IRT. :)

George Kirikos: Domain registrants will get together, and present a reformed 
UDRP, for discussion by the community.

George Kirikos: We'll decide which TM lawyers are on the panel, too. :)

David H. Bernstein: @George - when I have a case with a default, I always 
review the notice sent with great care, and I have on occasion asked providers 
to resend notice to additional email or physical addresses when I had a concern 
about the quality of notice.  That said,   when registrants use incorrect 
contact  information or register through unreliable privacy services, they are 
to blame if they don't receive prompt notice.

Mason Cole: George, look, Kristina is tyopsquatting your name : )

David Taylor: @George Are you excluding brand owners who are registrants?

George Kirikos: David: Yes, you're a superstar. But, some panelists are not as 
good as you are.

George Kirikos: No, certainly not, David. There are lots of responsible brand 
owners who own domains.

Luc_Seufer: I would have a question regarding conflicts of Law but I am not 
quite sure I would have an answer to that one...

George Kirikos: Verizon is a friend. Microsoft *buys* its prime domains (they 
*bought* office.com).

George Kirikos: Google *bought* adsense.com, etc.

George Kirikos: Let's just keep the psychos out.

Doug Isenberg: I suspect everyone on this webinar is a registrant

Kristina Rosette: @Mason:  Hmmm.  Perhaps a career change is in order . .. 

Wendy Seltzer: who's chirping into the mic?

George Kirikos: e.g. Phil was not allowed to be on the IRT. How fair was that?

George Kirikos: (Phil Corwin, that is)

Jeff Neuman 2: I find it ironic that those who desparately want to open the RAA 
to improvements through the policy process completely oppose opening up the 
UDRP to a policy process.

Philip Corwin: Actually I was trying to get jeremiah Johnston of Sedo onto the 
IRT, but that's starting to be ancient history.

Volker Greimann: Microsoft bought skype.com (along with some tech stuff) ;-)

Luc_Seufer: @Jeff NIMBY

Paul Tattersfield: excellent question

George Kirikos: Kathy was one of the people who drafted the UDRP, of course.

Paul Diaz: @Jeff N +1

Mason Cole: +2

Greg Aaron: The RYSG addreses that issue.

Kathy K: ..and knowing just how little we knew at the time, I think a review 
would be great!

George Kirikos: Is Michael Froomkin still following ICANN issues, like UDRP?

Philip Corwin: @JNeuman -- As they say, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little 
minds" ;-)

Mary Wong: @Jeff. no fair - that doesn't apply to NCSG

Philip Corwin: Froomkinn gave an excellent presentation on ICANN on American U 
last week -- still very much involved -- check out law.tm

George Kirikos: Thank Phil.

David H. Bernstein: @Wendy - I think this presentation has provided a 
fascinating window on how the Policy is working.  Complainants, Respondents, 
Panelists, Providers - all feel it is working remarkably well.  As Ari said, if 
it ain't broke, don't fix it.  I share his concern that a "fix" might actually 
break the system rather than support it.

Paul Tattersfield: urs for existing names too ? .net?

George Kirikos: Jeff: Is Neustar interested in bidding on .NET? :-)

Philip Corwin: IPC just filed a coment advocating URS for .Net -- ICA will be 
fiing one making brilliant arguments for not doing so in this contract renewal.

Volker Greimann: of the number of new TLDs, .brands will likely make up more 
than half of these applications, with no risk of cybersquatting

Wendy Seltzer: @David, thanks, but do you think that a /review/ of UDRP will 
fix/break it?

Kristina Rosette: @Jeff: I'm agnostic on whether a PDP should happen.  If it 
does, though, it needs to cover all of the issues. 

Jeff Neuman 2: @Kristina - completely agree

Philip Corwin: Didn't realize that questions I was typing here would be asked 
publicly. Oh well.

George Kirikos: I just noticed we can change the color, too.

Volker Greimann: oh no!

Paul Tattersfield: A big worry is the PDP will be framed in away that there 
will be no consensus and then we will end up with a mandated solution from on 

George Kirikos: I'll change it back. :-) Procedural rules are the main focus of 
problems, I think.

George Kirikos: Due process.

Volker Greimann: @paul: hmm, are there pdp WG's like that? Where 8000+ mails 
and 20+ votes lead to no consensus?

Kristina Rosette: @Volker: Don't go there. Please.

Volker Greimann: sorry, I could not resist

George Kirikos: QUESTION: Do people believe a mediation process would help? 
(e.g. dot-UK)

Statton Hammock: @ Ari. And some procedural enhancements will help registrars 
implement decisions

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis: @George-definitely

George Kirikos: Would be nice to hear from the presenters orally on that.

Philip Corwin: What we want to avoid is a focus on binary questions like' and' 
or 'or' for bad faith registration/use -- no possibility of middle ground so 
inherently polarizing and nonproductive.

George Kirikos: That would likely make many default decisions be resolved 

David H. Bernstein: @Wendy, as I expresed in my remarks, I am very concerned 
that it will harm the policy in two ways -- first, I do worry that one side or 
the other will try to upset the balance that currently exists.  Second, and of 
more concern, is the harm to the stability of the Policy by making it seem like 
it is open to political processes.

Paul Tattersfield: .uk is or rather than and elements?

David Taylor: @George - The mediation processis paid for by Nominet, so who 
would pay for it on the UDRP? Registrars? ICANN? Suggestions?

George Kirikos: e.g. allow the respondent to do a "no contest" during mediation.

George Kirikos: David: reduce ICANN waste, and there's $60 million/yr in our 
funds out there.

George Kirikos: Or, use it as part of the complaint fees, with a rebate if the 
case is solved in mediation.

Kathy K: But John, what about the long time it sometimes takes Registrants to 
find attorneys and know they can intelligently respond (didn't Ari talk about 

John Berryhill: @George - WIPO effectively does that

George Kirikos: But, formalize it.

John Berryhill: Again that goes to "intent to respond"

George Kirikos: It's a waste of the panel's time and the complainant's money 
for a "no contest" case.

George Kirikos: Question: What keeps the UDRP providers ACCOUNTABLE, if there's 
no contract??

George Kirikos: e.g. the cut/paste cases I identified at: 

George Kirikos: Did ICANN compliance punish providers for those cut/paste 
nonsense decisions?

George Kirikos: If it won't change things, then that means you don't  mind 
signing it, right? :)

George Kirikos: Signing won't hurt us.....so go ahead and sign.

Khalil Rasheed: Can you send me an e-mail with specifics George?

George Kirikos: Khalil: what's your email? Or email me at: gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx

Kathy K: @George and John: but who knows what is a "no contest" case until the 
end?  I worry particularly about the new gTLDs and the many people coming 
online who don't speak English as a first, second or third language.It's 
already an expedited process, and I would hate to something inadvertently  
shorten or resstrict the already-short  response time.

George Kirikos: The website is clear, though.

George Kirikos: Kathy: No contest would be where the respondent specifically 
says "no contest", e.g. during a mediation.

Khalil Rasheed: @George: Thx

Paul Tattersfield: allow a suspension and damages if the claims  are not 

George Kirikos: Khalil: if there was a public comment period, I'm sure there 
would be many examples of provider/panel problems.

Volker Greimann: would not "no contest" to the complaint be in fact an 
admission of the cybersquatting claim of the complainant?

Kristina Rosette: @Paul:  + 1000000000000

George Kirikos: DNW.com has documented many examples.

George Kirikos: Volker: it would depend on what the rules were; if one simply 
wanted the domain with no admission of guilt, that would be the quickests; 
other complainants might want a formal ruling, though, to set an example.

David Taylor: Said it earlier, but great webinar, excellent varied speakers, 
great thoughts, good input on the chat also, well done ICANN Staff for putting 
it on and organising in such a short time space.

Greg Aaron: Excellent job by the staff and presenters!

Doug Isenberg: Thank you, presenters and ICANN!

Kathy K: Tx to all who spoke, and all who organized!

George Kirikos: The PDP will be fun. Bye for now, folks.

Wendy Seltzer: Thanks all!

Raquel Gatto 2: Thank you for the webinar!

Paul Tattersfield: excellent session thanks 

Philip Corwin: very valuable -- an excellent first word on this subject.

Volker Greimann: thank you, and a good night

Frederick Felman: well done margie et al

Jessica Calvo: Thanks.

Luca Barbero 2: Thank you to all the presenters

Margie Milam: Bye everybody!

jose arce 2: Thanks, bye !!!

Wendy Seltzer: +1 to Margie and fellow staff for great organizing

Liz Gasster: A+ Magie and ll

John Berryhill: Liked it so much I'm registering ICANN-webinar.com

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy