Re: [gnso-udrp-dt] UDRP Webinar General Chat - Tuesday 10 May 2011
- To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-udrp-dt] UDRP Webinar General Chat - Tuesday 10 May 2011
- From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 11:01:16 -0700
I think the chat got cut off. Here is the complete version:
Marika Konings:Welcome everyone. Please note that the webinar will start
at the top of the hour (at 15.00 UTC).
David Closon:you are live
Kristina Rosette:Margie/Glen - Hello! If you weren't already planning
to do so, can we have the chat captured/transcribed like we did for VI W?
Marika Konings:@Kristina: no problem.
Kristina Rosette:thank you, Marika!
Wendy Seltzer:is there an IRC channel to the chat?
Marika Konings:@Wendy - no, there isn't as far as I am awre
George Kirikos:Good morning, folks.
George Kirikos:Is audio woring on the phone call yet?
Gisella Gruber-White:Yes George
George Kiriks:Thanks, Gisella.
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis:i hear a sound retrn on my end...
Kristina Rosette:@David. That happens to me all te time
Jeff Neuman:Hello Everyone....Gladthis came together! Thanks Margie
Wendy Seltzer:Is there any reason for us to call in if we can hear the
Margie Milam:No reason
Marika Konings:If you are dialed in via the conference bridge, make sure
to turn of the auio on your computer.
Marika Konings:otherwise there will be an echo.
Gabriela Szlak:Hello to eveyone from Buenos Aires
George Kirikos:The bartoskova.com domain name is unregistered. :) Tereza
might wat to grab it, for vanity/branding.
Flip Petillion:hoe kan dat geluid luider?
Marika Konings:@Flip - via de computer of de telfoon?
George Kirikos:Always amazes me to see surname dot-coms unregistered,
esp. in 2011. :)
Tereza Bartoskova:I will think about it :)
Aimee Gessner:@margie, can you please update me to a presenter? not sure
if that makes a difference in my ability to present later
Staton Hammock:Good Day Everyone.
Michele Neylon:it won't be available for much longer
George Kirikos:hehe Tereza. I've failed o convince Mr. Komaitis.
George Kirikos:Dr, even.
Marika Konings:To adjust the volume in Adobe connect, please go to thespeaker
icon and select adjust volume.
Tom Barrett - EnCirca:Hi everone
Kristina Rosette:@Stratton: You don't want to share with us?
George Kirikos:Bastanchuri.com available too. Dr. Konstantinos
Komaitis:@George-i am planning to do that
Kristina Rosette:oops. typo. sorry about that Statton
George KirikosYou should, Konstantinos. No brainer.
Frederick Felman:hello all
Eduardo Santoyo:good mornig everyone
David Weslow:Good morning everyone.
Petter Rindforth:and good afternoon!
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis:margie the operator has muted me and i can't
Nacho Amadoz:Hi all
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis:willi have to call back? and i am not in the
presenter's list either
George Kirikos:Might be wise totake a 5 minute break at the mid-point.
Bret Moore:If you're a practitioner and o twitter, please follow me (so
I can follow you) @bretsmoore ... thanks :)
Marika Konings:@Konstantinos - should be fixed now
Jeff Neuman:This i a great turn out
Gabriela Szlak:Hi Nacho!
Frederick Felman:it is Jeff!
Nacho Amadoz:Hi Gabi :)
Doug Isenberg:Hello all
George Kirikos:Defences need to also be non-xhaustive.
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis:gisella- i get disconnecte. can you please
add me again to the presenters' list?
Wendy Seltzer:IPO: "don't do anything, it might destabilize the Net"
George Kirikos:lolWendy. The rights of registrants need to be
preserved, instead of being chipped away by WIPO.
Wendy Seltzer:that was note-taking, not agreement!
George Kirikos:Welcome, Phil.
Philip Corwin:What does "institutional;yy stacked" mean? Like ICANN is
but WIPO isn't?
Gorge Kirikos:I know, Wendy. You're on the right side.
Tom Barrett - ECirca:lost audio of speaker
Andrew Allemann:keep losing audio as well
Gabriela Szlak:I looe audio all the time
Wendy Seltzer:WIPO: investigate the revenues of DNS actors [??]
George Kirikos:Are you on the phone call, Tom? 1-866-6925726. Code: UDRP
Philip Corwin:Same here -- audio in and out
Kristina Rosette:audio on phone s fine
Volker Greimann:audio problems +1
George Kirkos:How about investigating revenues of FOR-PROFIT actors
David Silverman:Ditto--keep losing audio.
Wendy Setzer:I'm finding Adobe thru chrome audio works fine.
Raquel Gatto:same here...Adobe audio problems...
George Kirikos:Esp. given NAF's settlements related to arbitration.
Andrew Alleman:can someone summarize WIPO? Are they saying don't
Gorge Kirikos:Yes, Andrew.
Frederick Felman:they ae saying that now is not the right time i think,
not don't revise
Philip Corwin:WIPO stonewall -- one more reason to put all UDRP
proiders under contract
Wendy Seltzer:WIPO says don't even REVIEW UDRP, much less revise
Carlos Dionisio Aguirre:audio is fine by phone
George Kirikos:There are a lot of skeletons in the UDRP closet. Time to
shinethe light, folks.
Raquel Gatto:lost audio completely, can someone help?!
Jeff Neuman:Anew - They are saying that now is not the right time to
revise the UDRP, but if we do move forward with the process, they want to
ensure it is balanced and takes into consideration changes that IP owners
would like as well
Jeff Neumansorry - Andrew
George Kirikos:1-866-692-5725, code: UDRP is working fin.
Frederick Felman:That's exactly right Jeff
Marika Konings:if your are having difficulties with the audio in Adobe
Connect, lease dial into the conference bridge instead
Vicky Sheckler:took me several inutes to join the call
George Kirikos:Oops, 1-866-692-5726
George Kiikos:(not "25")
Philip Corwin:Staring to look at reform now might referin
recommendations a year or two or three from now, given the ICANN process-- long
lead times to get anything done
Erik Zilinek:@George, do we need the "conference leader's" name?
Carlos Dionisio Aguirre:lost audio by phone too
George Kirikos:Erik: No, just the code "DRP"
Erik Zilinek:@George: thank you
Kristina Rosette:definitely frustration.
George Kirikos:You're welcome.
Berry Cobb:#UDRP on twiter
Philip Corwin:And of course the concerns and perspectives of all
stakeholders shoud be heard and considered
Gabriela Szlak:This presentation has also images? I do not see change
in the slides
Wendy Seltzer:It's too bad we didn't ask for mp3 stream
Gabriela Szlak:Is difficult o follow with bad aoudio and no slides
Kristina Rosette:@Gabriela. Ceck the wiki.
Erik Zilinek:if you can get on the phone, it's much better (so far)
Jeff Neuman:Kristine and NAF bring up some real good issues that are
affecting the Providers today -- Issues are not just around substance, but
George Kirkos:One can replay this conference in Adobe Connect later.
Chat will update in the synched time, but not sue about audio.
Wendy Seltzer:NAF: points to specific questions, such as practice aound
registrar locking of domains during UDRP
Carlos Dionisio Aguirre:not now . audio by phone is interrupted
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis:off again the presenters list Wendy Seltzer:NAF:
registrants are often confused by email notices
without formal proceedin Wendy Seltzer:NAF: who is the proper respondent when
service is used
WIPO:A letter detailing the observations just made by WIPO can be found
Jeff NeumanThanks for the letter WIPO
George Kirikos:QUESTION: Why don't the UDRP providers provide dcisions
in a standard XML format, as I've asked for multiple times?
Gorge Kirikos:(allows for academic research, reuse of data, etc.)
Jeff Neman:George - I have not seen that request before, but perhaps
making that cmment directly to ICANN to get that in the issues report.
Frederick Felman:George, that's a good point on xml, it would help
research and emable all kinds of data use and analysis
Geoge Kirikos:Will do, again, Jeff. Just that ICANN plans to do the
issues report *before* hearing from registrants.
Bret Moore:I think it's a good point: let the provder forward
complaint, rather than have the complainant send a copy. NAF made that
David Taylor:One provider wide searchable database would be nice in fact
Mary Wong:Good idea, Jeff. George, there will lso be a Public Comment
period at the end of May to comment on the preliminary Issue Report.
George Kirikos:Only hearing from UDRP providers isn't fair. Registrants
have a lot of issues, that should be in the preliminary report.
Jef Neuman:@David - I completely agree
Kristine Dorrain:The Forum's lettr will be posted on our website
domains.adrforum.com later today.
GeorgeKirikos:Mary: Yes, but these should be *in* the preliminary
report. i.e. open up a omment period now, to let us put those issues on
FrederickFelman:we used to provide a unified database, but it became
problematic to assemble the data
Volker Greimann:@Jeff, @David: I think WIPO has such a database
George Kirikos:i.e. why do the UDRP providers get preferential
treatment, in being heard before the preliminary report?
Jeff Neuman:George - there were a few comment preiods during the RAP
process, New TLD process, etc. that Margie will be looking at todraft the
preliminary issues report
Paul Diaz:@George - lots of people will present today, representing many
George Kirikos:Their databases are not in standard formats that machines
can parse easily. Zak spent a lot of time doing his own research, as did
Michael Geist years ago.
Wendy Seltzer:wow, all providers think the UDRP is working well...
Mary Wong:@George, there will be other presenters later. The idea was to
identify issues from all perspectives, and to lead off with the providers
who administer the cases.
George Kirikos:Yes, Jeff. I've made those points in the RAP....will they
show up in the prelimminary report? Doubtful.....if there was a comment
period opened up today, it would hep.
David Taylor:@George this is fact finding, providers, complainants,
respoondents and academics here
George Kirikos:Mary: Are any of your presenters DOMAIN REGISTRANTS??
George Kirikos:lol Wendy :)
George Kirikos:Domain registrants fund the entire industry, yet I don't
see any as speakers.
Margie Milam:John Berryhill and Ari Golberger will address respondent
John Berryhill:I have JohnZuccarini.com, if that counts
George Kirikos:Margie: that's one perspective, but how about some
presenters who are registrants, not lawyers?
Cedric Manara:@JB lol
George Kirikos:Representation by "proxy" is not satisfactory.
George Kirikos:If we were discussing rules for drivers, we wouldn't
only hear from accident lawyers.
George Kirikos:We'd hear from actual drivers, too.
George Kirikos:(e.g. truckers)
David Taylor:On the driving analogy, BMW might have registered a few
domains and we may hear from them in a moment or two...
Paul Tattersfield:Why not simply allow an appeals process where the
registrant can pay the same fee as the claimant so outlier panelist
decissions can be reconsidered without the need for costly litegation?
Margie Milam:We had originally sought to get respondent but it didnt
Doug Isenberg:Patience. I'm sure the agenda won't change in real-time.
Kudos to ICANN for a far-reaching webinar
George Kirikos:It's not only actual respondents. But, domain name
registrants who get threatened.
George Kirikos:I've never had a single UDRP, but am affected by this
Bret Moore:@DougIsenberg, +1
Frederick Felman:@Doug +1
George Kirikos:(we own generics, e.g. math.com, options.com, etc.) But,
frivolous threats are real.
Mary Wong:All, this webinar is just the first step in the process, not
the only opportunity to hear from/participate.
George Kirikos:USPTO had a comment period on Trademark Abuse.
Jeff Neuman:Good procedural issues rought up by the Czech Arbitration
George Kirikos:Notice ICANN complained about "wasted legal fees" when
.jobs threatended arbitration.
David Taylor:Funny how the webinar is knocked by a minority when it is
not even 15 minutes in and is far reaching as Doug has just said, so give
it a chance before knocking it!!
George Kirikos:Same issue for domain name registrants. QED.
Paul Diaz:@David Taylor +1
Andrew Allemann:I assume Khalil is referring to EuroDNS case in there
Charles Shaban:@David Taylor +1
Kristina Rosette:@George: frivolous threats are an issue, but beyond
the scope of this webinar IMHO.
George Kirikos:They are an issue related to the UDRP itself, though.
When decisions are not predictable, it increases gaming, which increases
the number of frivolous threats.
George Kirikos:Just a few days ago, a three-letter .com was lost. As
Andrew rightly said, the complainant "won the UDRP lottery."
John Berryhill:You'd be surprised how prevalent they are, Kristina,
which contributes to the perception that domain registrants have a target
on their backs
avri:who is speaking now?
Michele Neylon:Statton Hammock
Kristina Rosette:@John. Actually, I probably wouldn't. I don't like
them any more than you do.
John Berryhill:Statton Hammock NSI
George Kirikos:Make the rules sharp and tight. Then, frivolous threats
(and associated wasted legal fees) are reduced. Of course, some lawyers
don't want to see legal fees reduced....
Jeff Neuman:Statton makes some good points about issues registrars face
in implementing the udrp
Michele Neylon:Jeff - several of us gave him detailed input
Kristina Rosette:Hmm. Methinks some RAA amendments are in order.
Jeff Neuman:Thanks Michele
Michele Neylon:Kristina - why RAA? UDRP is the issue not the RAA
Volker Greimann:He is absolutely right. We have about half a dozen UDRP
domains that were won by the complainants, but those very same
complainants have never contacted us or requested a transfer
avri:Kristina: you are not allowed to have an opinion, or to state it
Luc_Seufer:@Volker same here
Volker Greimann:One thinks they want us to guess the correct new Whois
Kristina Rosette:@Michele: Yes, if we can get them into the UDRP
itself. I don't think the UDRP Rules are consensus policy, are they?
George Kirikos:Avri is right, that should be opened up to the public.
David Taylor:Good points from registrar perspective
George Kirikos:Not negotiated behind closed doors.
John Berryhill:@Voker - yes, they think it happens automatically
Jeff Neuman:7 is the issue EuroDNS has and Registries have faced this
issue as well
Michele Neylon:Kristina - Not 100% tbh - and I'm not a lawyer :)
Jeff Neuman:Neustar faced it with respect to "sex.biz" back in 2004 or
George Kirikos:I'm not a laywer either....wouldn't want the pay cut. :)
Doug Isenberg:Note WIPO Supp. Rule 4(c) says: "The Complainant shall
provide a copy of the complaint to the concerned Registrar(s) at the same
time as it submits its complaint to the Center."
Kristina Rosette:Would like to be able to transfer to a different
Bret Moore:@Doug NAF requires the same thing.
John Berryhill:Yes, Doug, but if it goes to support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
it won't be noticed. Plus, that provision is not enforced
Volker Greimann:@Doug: and most complainants' representatives do provide
it, but about 15-20% don't
Paul Diaz:of course UDRP is CP
Kristina Rosette:Is 4 really an issue? I would think that if the
counsel doesn't have authority, that's an ethics violation.
Michele Neylon:Paul D - thanks for the clarification
Kristina Rosette:@Paul. I know that UDRP is. Are the UDRP rules?
George Kirikos:Was there such a thing as "consensus policy" back in the
DNSO days? Or was it simply labeled that after the fact?
George Kirikos:(UDRP is verryyyyy old)
John Berryhill:@kristine - yes, transfer to the preferred registrar
would be appropriate. The rules are a subset of the policy and thus a
consensus policy - the whole package
Jeff Neuman:Kristina - an ethics issue of one attorney does not provide
a shield from liability of the registrar
Michele Neylon:Kristina - we can lose our accreditation due to
non-compliance with a UDRP, so a lawyer's ethics really aren't my problem
Volker Greimann:Thank you Statton, good job!
Michele Neylon:Jeff - exactly
Kristina Rosette:@Jeff and Michele: Not disagreeing. Just surprised
(and naive apparently) that it happens.
Tom Barrett - EnCirca:good job Statton
George Kirikos:It's funny that a registrar can cybersquat all they want,
and not lose their accreditation. But, don't comply with the UDRP itself,
and you lose it.
Kristina Rosette:@George: I'd LOVE to hear more about those
cybersquatting registrars . . .
George Kirikos:"undermine efficacy" = give greater rights to legitimate
Volker Greimann:same here
John Berryhill:Markmonitor - zillions of trademarks squatted there
Andrew Allemann:Should a UDRP panelist also be allowed to be a lawyer
for a complainant/respondent in UDRP cases
George Kirikos:Kristina: Look up GoDaddy's "standard tactics"
George Kirikos:Or, eNom's multiple losses. They were in my DAGv5
Matt Serlin:wow...thanks John
Michele Neylon:In our experience the biggest issue has been with the
total lack of clarity of the policy
Jeff Neuman:Andrew - I dont think there is a need to prohibit panelists
from being a lawyer for a complianant or respondent so long as there are
no direct conflicts in the matter at hand
Michele Neylon:pity this chat doesn't work like IRC a /ignore switch
would be useful
David Taylor:Good points listed by Matthew here re issues
George Kirikos:FINRA allows non-lawyers to be arbitrators. FINRA deals
with big disputes ($$$). How many non-lawyers are panelists?
Doug Isenberg:WIPO requires all panelists sign a "DECLARATION OF
IMPARTIALITY AND INDEPENDENCE" when accepting appointment to any UDRP
George Kirikos:(although, it's often unclear who actually writes NAF
rulings, as Paul Keating has noted)
Kristina Rosette:@Andrew: I don't see why not as long as no direct
conflicts. I could be wrong, but I would be very surprised if
Complainant's cousnel in any proceeding in which RDNH was found were UDRP
Andrew Allemann:@ Kristina @ Jeff Neuman thanks for your opinion
George Kirikos:Contracts for registrars? But not for UDRP providers??
George Kirikos:It was the lack of those contracts that is one of the
drivers of this look at UDRP.
Andrew Allemann:Neil Brown is a smart guy on UDRP
avri:@Doug, what enforcement is there for the signature on the
declaration. it is a formality or is it menaaingful. have there been
cases where someone was removed?
Andrew Allemann:...and he takes his role seriously (unlike some
panelists who just want to sign off and get paid)
George Kirikos:+1, Andrew. Some panelists like Neil set the bar high.
George Kirikos:Why isn't superstar Carolyn Marks Johnson presenting here
George Kirikos:With her track record of decisions, she should be the
most knowledgeable about UDRP..... ;-)
David Taylor:+1 Andrew. Agree re Neil, and also agree re each of the
panelists speaking here
George Kirikos:Neil should hold seminars to train other panelists. CLE
courses for panelists.
John Berryhill:No question, Mr. Brown is brilliant
George Kirikos:Well, one can be brilliant and evil. He's brilliant and
GOOD too. :-)
Wendy Seltzer:Brown: it is essential that proceedings be conducted on
the basis of proof and evidence
Miguel O'Farrell:I also agree with David Taylor and the other panelists
who have spoken here
Kristina Rosette:I think it would be very helpful to have the type of
guidelines that Neil is referencing. It would make the information and
document collection process less "controversial" from a client resources
Wendy Seltzer:Brown: UDRP is not a system of precedent. Previous cases
are not evidence.
Bret Moore:We all treat the "caselaw" as precedent, though, so why not
just call it precedent?
Godwin Chan:The Registrar presenter raised valid points for UDRP
amendment. Based on personal experience, there seems to be a disconnect
between the Registrar and the other parties in carrying out the transfer
as per the decision of the arbitration panel. I am in full support for a
specified time period for the Respondent to comply with the arbitrator's
decision on transfer of the domain name at dispute. Thanks for the
informative webinar. Could participants and presenters be asked whether
they are interested in forming a network or chat group for future
discussions? If so, contact information such as email address could be
provided for this purpose. Any takers?
Philip Corwin:The fact that prior cases are not trated as precedents is
one of the reasons there is a continuing lack of predictability after a
decade of use.
George Kirikos:Godwin: Usually the name is locked by the registrar. So
the respondent can't transfer/change the domain.
Wendy Seltzer:@Bret: I'd say because we have no system of appeal, so no
way of clearing bad cases from "precedent"
George Kirikos:+1 Wendy
Bret Moore:@Wendy good point, the appeal idea raised earlier sounds
reasonable to me.
George Kirikos:Plus, you have certain panelists referencing their own
decisions as "precedent".
Philip Corwin:As more dispute providers are accredited, there is a
growing need for some system of star decicis so that they don't diverge on
key issues with resultant forum shopping.
George Kirikos:As Andrew has analyzed for the public.
Andrew Allemann:Yes: RDNH is a mandatory consideration for
panelists...it doesn't need to be requested
Wendy Seltzer:Brown: reverse-domain name hijacking is mandatory on the
panel, if shown
Kristina Rosette:@George. But not until the registrar is requested to
do so. I have to amend Complaints frequently where the registrant has
changed registrars or transferred the domain name to another registrant.
Doug Isenberg:The (newly revised and greatly expanded) WIPO Overview 2.0
is perhaps the closest we have to stare decisis:
Wendy Seltzer:Brown: improvement likely to be found in full, consistent
application of existing rules
Paul Tattersfield:Execellent consideration from Neil
George Kirikos:Note that the "domainers" complaining about UDRP are
*against* cybersquatting. we have good portfolios, and don't want to
protect the "bad guys."
George Kirikos:But, make the rules focus just on the bad guys, to not
trap the good guys too.
Kristina Rosette:@Wendy &@Andrew. Agree w/r/t RDNH, but I had occassion
to read a lot of those decisions recently. I was surprised at how
frequently it seemed to be the case that no RDNH finding was made b/c the
Respondent didn't request one. (So, I requested one. And got it.)
George Kirikos:If the rules focused on the bad guys, UDRP would be
faster and cheaper.
John Berryhill:George has encapsulated the hazard well
David Taylor:Agre with George, we all want to sort the bad guys from the
Volker Greimann:as do we
George Kirikos:Thanks, David. I think the "moderates" on both sides can
reform UDRP in a mutually beneficial manner.
George Kirikos:The extremists on both sides should be left out. No
extremist "wish lists" to try to get our prime generics under a UDRP
"lottery" decision, and no excessive requests on the registrant side
Bret Moore:Ooh, laches. :)
Wendy Seltzer:Carmody: and/or. [I missed the "question" there]
Paul Tattersfield:is URS currently or instead of and ?
Volker Greimann:@george: The problem being that as soon as the word
"reform" pops up, it will not be the moderates that will flock to the
George Kirikos:Time to respond should be a function of domain age.
George Kirikos:True, Volker.
David Taylor:very true Volker, and that is where everyone gets defensive!
George Kirikos:The funny thing is, UDRP hasn't impacted cybersquatting.
It's been court cases brought by Verizon, Microsoft, etc. that have
damanged it more.
Andrew Allemann:@ George, agreed...the bad guys aren't worried about
losing domains in UDRP
George Kirikos:(and I see those cases as "responsible". Verizon and MSFT
have targeted those cases to the most egregious TM infringers)
John Berryhill:+1 Voker - good faith negotiation can be difficult in an
George Kirikos:Yep, Andrew. They just default, w/o a response.
Volker Greimann:the UDRP is not a tool to solve the cybersquatting
issue, it is a tool for solving individual cases of cybersquatting. Making
it out to be anything else will only cause disappointment
David Taylor:@George the problem is we don't know how much it does
affect cybersquatting. I often send decisions to responodents, and indeed
I send decisions to overreaching complainants and thereby often avoid ever
getting to a UDRP complaint
George Kirikos:The IRT attracted too many extremists, with a wishlist.
George Kirikos:The STI was more balanced. But, UDRP reform affects
*existing* registrants, not non-existent *future* registants. So,
deliberation must be more balanced.
Andrew Allemann:David's UDRP decisions:
avri:are most UDPR panaleist IP maximalists, or is there a good
distribution of various viewpoints.
George Kirikos:Many of them represent complainants, so there's an
Kristina Rosette:@avri: David is among those panelists who finds in
favor of respondents most frequently
John Berryhill:Avri - it is a mixed bag, and that is one of the
strengths of three-member panel proceedings
George Kirikos:FINRA allows law non-lawyers to be panelists. This would
reduce bias, potentially.
George Kirikos:*law--->should be lay"
Doug Isenberg:@avri: what is an "IP maximalist"?
Frederick Felman:audio is cutting out
Andrew Allemann:Yes, David denies a lot of complaints
George Kirikos:Even the US constitution has been amended many times.
George Kirikos:Is the UDRP more perfect than the US constitution? :-)
George Kirikos:Only the 10 Commandments were set in stone.
John Berryhill:25 amendments in over 200 years, George
Ari Goldberger:The UDRP is fair
George Kirikos:1 every 8 years. So, UDRP was 10 years ago.
George Kirikos:Seems that it's overdue. :)
John Berryhill:and it has been amended procedurally wrt to electronic
Volker Greimann:@george and that was only because Moses dropped the
third panel on his way down ;-)
Marika Konings:If you have any questions for the speakers, please feel
free to post your question in the chat starting with QUESTION.
George Kirikos:lol Volker. I've seen that film. ;-)
Doug Isenberg:@Berryhill: The U.S. Constitution allows for electronic
avri:@Doug - probably a more complicated notion than a quick comment,
but an characteristic of an IP maximalist would be someone who puts the
concerns of the claimants of IP rights as paramount.
George Kirikos:QUESTION: Do the providers support having all decisions
posted in XML format, standardized by an ICANN-approved schema?
Bret Moore:Tony fell asleep. :)
Andrew Allemann:Here are Tony's decisions:
George Kirikos:*6 to unmute
David Taylor:@Avri In that case I think that there are few IP
maximalists as panelists, at least I dont come across them, I come across
the independent IP specialists who wish to decide cases fairly on the
basis of the facts.
Darlene Thompson:I believe that it is actually *7 to unmute
George Kirikos:The Ultimate Driving Machine, and sponsor of Mad Men. :)
Margie Milam:Sorry about the technical difficulties
Andrew Allemann:BMW has filed 43 cases and hasn't lost
Doug Isenberg:@Margie No problem. Again kudos for a great webinar
Andrew Allemann:Rolls Royce also hasn't lost
Wendy Seltzer:so is she the only one who can call herself "the Rolls
Royce of complainants"?
George Kirikos:lol Wendy
Doug Isenberg:BMW *has* lost at least one UDRP
avri:@David - thanks. that sounds good.
Wendy Seltzer:(at least in the US, the answer to that joke question is
Doug Isenberg:Correction: Although the domain name contained "bmw," the
Compainant was not BMW.
George Kirikos:We have the cream of the crop in complainants here. Let's
here from some of the reverse hijackers....
George Kirikos:*hear, even
Andrew Allemann:I'm curious about a situation where BMW would want to
argue that a domain wasn't registered in bad faith, but was used in bad
Kristina Rosette:That happens to me all the time.
George Kirikos:I'd support a loser pays model.
George Kirikos:As long as arbitration was optional, so I could instead
opt for court, without a UDRP case to bother with.
Wendy Seltzer:BMW: UDRP has no deterrent effect
George Kirikos:(some panelists will make a decision even if there's a
court case; that option should be eliminated; make both sides *opt* for
Andrew Allemann:Hmmm...has cybersquatting actually increased? Not sure
Paul Tattersfield:You need to be very careful with a looser pays model
being abused by the economically advantaged
George Kirikos:Statistically in total quantity, but not in *relative*
Volker Greimann:Loser pays will only lead to more fake whois entries
Andrew Allemann:@ Goerge - yes, and that's the number of compliants, not
the number of cybersquatted domains
David Taylor:Re hearing from registrants, and the Rolls Royce comments
above, and in the space of 2 minutes quick search, perhaps we could hear
from the registrant of rollsroyse.com, which has nice PPCs to Mercedes
Benz and others, someone called Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd...
George Kirikos:Would folks support greater due process rights for those
with VERIFIED WHOIS?
Berry Cobb:@ Andrew, perhaps not, but still prevelant. Regardless, all
reasons why I would want my own TLD.
Doug Isenberg:Court is always an option in a UDRP proceeding. See Rule 18
George Kirikos:(Verified WHOIS would proactively decrease cybersquatting)
John Berryhill:When they want to "launch" a new brand, they find the
name is taken? Good golly I had the same problem last week when I wanted
to start a car company and call it "BMW"
Wendy Seltzer:BMW: overall UDRP is working fairly and efficiently
George Kirikos:e.g. either longer time to respond, or other rights)
Andrew Allemann:@ Berry Cobb so if you owned your own TLD you wouldn't
feel it necessary to register your brands in other TLDs?
Volker Greimann:verified whois will increase domain costs substantially
Kristina Rosette:paul - speak more loudly
George Kirikos:No, Volker. It only costs $1 or $2 to send a PIN code by
George Kirikos:Spread that over hundreds or thousands of domains, and
George Kirikos:It's done by PayPal, IRS, Revenue Canada, online casinos,
George Kirikos:Basically, allow the *good* people to White-List
Berry Cobb:@ Andrew. I didnt say that. But haveing your own over time
and of course a spend in brand change....but long run you get more control.
Andrew Allemann:@ Berry Cobb - I just don't think that solves anything
on the cybersquatting side
George Kirikos:All the domain names? LOL
George Kirikos:"Wish list" mentioned before...
Volker Greimann:that verifies a throw-away email address only. How does
anyone verify addresses, telephone numbers (and names) from registrants in
any country of the world, when there is no database to check against
Mason Cole:+1 volker
George Kirikos:Volker: Verify *physical* address, e.g. PIN code mailed
to 123 Main Street.
Aimee Gessner:@john berryhill - i didn't say when we launch a new brand.
I said a new campaign for a certain product or service offering.
Berry Cobb:@ Andrew, I think over time it lessens success of cybersquat
in dot com as users become more mature in navigating to a brand
George Kirikos:There are unlimited throwaway email addresses, but a
finite number of physical addresses.
George Kirikos:Alternatively, give people the ability to whitelist via a
Andrew Allemann:@ Berry Cobb - agree in the long term. Although we may
disagree on what the long term is :)
Wendy Seltzer:$5000 attorneys' fees/case?! I should get into this biz
Berry Cobb:@ Andrew, +1.....I'm recalling one of your blogs a while back
about this very topic! Cheers!
George Kirikos:Agree with Paul's last point, penalize RDNH.
Volker Greimann:printing a letter, sending it internationally raises
domain costs by at least 0,70 EUR, up to 4 EUR
David Taylor:Wendy, there is plenty of room with the new gTLDs around
George Kirikos:CIRA does this now, for dot-ca, but is planning to move
to UDRP, grrrrr.
Greg Aaron:@Wendy: yeah, set up an escrow company and live on the float!
Mason Cole:Yes, please take care with assumptions about "cost"
George Kirikos:Nope on "or."
Wendy Seltzer:McGrady: and "modernizes" to or
Steve Levy:Need some loser-pays system to disincentivize serious
squatting and also abusive complaints.
Volker Greimann:@George: .CA is for canadian registrants only. Com is
Wendy Seltzer:funny neologism there
George Kirikos:Unless you give precedent rights to domains before
George Kirikos:I knowl, Volker.Just giving an example of where it's
KM:I've never understood how "loser pays" would be enforced
George Kirikos:Even the "or" in the US law does not stand alone. Read
the entire act, there's a "notwithstanding" that weakens the "or".
David Taylor:@KM With difficulty and thats the problem
George Kirikos:KM: Charge the registrar under the loser pays.
Volker Greimann:@george: to continue your example: .ca costs about
double the amount that is charged for .com
George Kirikos:That would make the registrar vet the registrations,
charging more for "high risk" domains.
David Taylor:@George or ICANN
Philip Corwin:I've lost all audio -- others??
Volker Greimann:@George: Charge the registrar? Good luck enforcing that.
George Kirikos:e.g. math.com, no risk in a "loser pays". Charge $8.
verizonbilling.com = high risk, charge $10,000.
George Kirikos:Volker: it puts the incentives in the right place.
Remember, cybersquatting is ruthless economics.
Michele Neylon:/me wonders which planet some people in this chat live on
George Kirikos:If you want to change the behaviour, changing the
economics is the best route.
Mason Cole:sorry George...not really operationally workable
George Kirikos:It was the change in economics (the non-refundable 25
cents) that eliminated domain tasting.
John Berryhill:A lot of "cybersquatting" is plain ignorance. If some
guy gets drunk while watching a GoDaddy commercial, ending up paying
thousands of dollars seems harsh
George Kirikos:<<--- economist by training
George Kirikos:The irony is that the registrar of those cyberquatted
"drunk" registrations was parking it, not the registrant.
Volker Greimann:@George: That would transfer the responsibility for the
registration from the registrant to the registrar, requiring them to make
extensive legal checks for each registration. End result: Congratulations,
you have just abolished automated registration processes.
Statton Hammock:John = +1 Registrants don't do UPTO lookups before they
register a name
Steve Levy:Perhaps reserve loser pays to serial squatters to limit
erik knuppel:+1 steve levy
David Taylor:@John Berryhill - but the ignorant registrants generally
just accept a transfer when they receive a fairly friendly email pointing
out that they perhaps might not have wanted to register that name whilst
George Kirikos:That could work too, Steve. But, it would incentivize
Volker Greimann:@George: Are you, as a registrant, willing to pay
100-200 USD per registration per year?
George Kirikos:i.e. lose one as "John Smith", and next time you are "Amy
Erik Zilinek:How does one define "serial squatter"?
Erik Zilinek:Slippery slope in my view.
Steve Levy:Serial = >3 adverse UDRP decisions
Jeffrey Neuman 2:I think there is an assumption that is we "review the
UDRP", we are going to abolish it. I have not heard many (if any) really
argue for this
Erik Zilinek:And what if that's balanced with > 3 pro UDRP decisions?
George Kirikos:Some believe that, Jeffrey, because they've invested in
the status quo.
Philip Corwin:Contrary to some presenters, I think a well-managed UDRP
reform process would have very salutary effects -- if only to provide a
much greater understanding of the process and of various perspectives on
George Kirikos:+1 Philip
Steve Levy:3 pro after 3 adv decisions seems like a very rare situation
Michele Neylon:Review != abolish
David Taylor:I dont think anyone would advocate abolishing the UDRP? I
think we may have consensus on that point!
George Kirikos:I could live without it, as any dispute I'd get into
would go straight to court.
George Kirikos:But, if both sides opt for arbitration, UDRP is fine.
Wendy Seltzer:what?? I followed an abolishtheudrp.foo URL to get here!
Doug Isenberg:Today's comments in favor of "reform" seem largely focused
on procedural, not substantive, issues
George Kirikos:I've had someone claim they had a TM for "tax", for
example, to try to get my TAX.NET.
Volker Greimann:that's the way it works out in Germany. No UDRP=higher
Erik Zilinek:@Steve there's a difference b/w >3 /consecutive/ adverse
decisions and >3 adverse decisions historically (and vice versa)
George Kirikos:That's the frivolous threat that domain registrants deal
Philip Corwin:My conception is we carefully review it, divide potential
reforms into procedural (accomlished via uniform provider agreements) and
substantive (adjust standards), and proceed cautiously.
Philip Corwin:Just don't but argument that it's too fargile to withstand
Philip Corwin:Buy, I meant.
Paul McGrady:The unfairness is that the Respondent gets to make all of
the choices related to possible venues, not that they don't live in Marina
del Ray. Even so, I'm glad it was an important enough point for you to
George Kirikos:e.g. 12 years ago, domains weren't very old (most domains
registered in 1996-1999 back then). Now, some domain are 15+ years old.
Philip Corwin:Nothing ever created by humns is perfect or can't use some
adjustment based upon experience.
George Kirikos:Those "aged" domains deserve longer times to respond, so
that owners can take vacations without fear of losing a name.
George Kirikos:"creative" LOL :)
David Taylor:@George Is that really an argument that people lose their
domain names when on holiday? I keep hearing it..
Michele Neylon:Doug - as a registrar I'd disagree - I can lose my
accreditation due to the way the current set up is lacking in detail
Kristina Rosette:@Paul/@John: What about tweaking Paul's suggestion to
include a jurisdiction in which ICANN has an office? That would include
Brussels and Sydney.
George Kirikos:David: Since such a huge percentage of cases are won via
default, having "actual notice" is very important to registrants.
Michele Neylon:David - it's George's argument. That doesn't mean it's a
George Kirikos:If you have a challenge to your USPTO registration, you
have to be *Served* the documents. Then the clock starts.
George Kirikos:No so with UDRP.
David Taylor:Thanks Michele, I was wondering as I have a holiday coming
Mikey O'Connor:minneapolis! woohoo!
Michele Neylon:David - any legal issue could occur when you are on
holidays/ unreachable :)
Kristina Rosette:@George: I wanted us to invite as a speaker one of the
respondents who lost a proceeding b/c they were on vacation, but we didn't
know of how to find them.
Michele Neylon:David - I got served with a takedown last week that had a
deadline 7 days prior to the posting of the letter :)
George Kirikos:Kristina: Sure, there should be a survery of all
George Kirikos:That should be in the issues report.
Doug Isenberg:DMCA takendown notices != UDRP
Michele Neylon:Doug - never said it was :)
George Kirikos:Has it been studied why there are so many defaults? Not
all were voluntary defaults.
David Taylor:Michele, I have clients who have received takedown requests
with 48 hours deadlines., makes the notice period for response to a UDRP
seem very fair indeed!
George Kirikos:First thing that happens when you hire a lawyer is
they'll do a "conflicts" check. That reduces the 20 days to 18.
George Kirikos:David: the key word is *received* the requests.
George Kirikos:What if you never actually *receive* them?
Doug Isenberg:My conflicts checks don't take 2 days
Michele Neylon:David T - the entire takedown timeline can be "fun" -
especially when they're sending them to the wrong place :)
George Kirikos:Other solution is to allow WHOIS to be supplemented with
Legal Contacts. e.g. UDRP would be sent not only to me, but also to my
legal contacts shown in WHOIS.
George Kirikos:Would folks support that?
David Taylor:Well, I am admin-c for a few clients and I forward all on
to the end client, thats part of the role of admin-c in some
jurisdictions. If you have the tea lady down as admin-c and she is doing
her rounds then there may be a problem ;-)
George Kirikos:e.g. Admin Contact, Tech Contact, Billing Contact, Legal
George Kirikos:I wouldn't want my lawyers as admin contact on my
8-figure domains. :-)
George Kirikos:I trust them, but not that much!
Wendy Seltzer:If we all support the UDRP as it's written and applied,
then why the danger of a review -- review will show that.
David Taylor:@George, I guess you could go on vacation then though... or
Kristina Rosette:QUESTION: Does any panelist support a PDP on the
substance (not procedure) of the UDRP?
Volker Greimann:@George: Many registrants use the admin-C as legal
George Kirikos:If UDRPs were sent directly to lawyers, it would improve
the odds of actual notice.
Kristina Rosette:Revise: I meant panelist here, not UDRP Panelist
KM:Is UDRP really "predictable"?
George Kirikos:That's very ad-hoc, Volker. I'm suggesting formalizing it.
Michele Neylon:George - that assumes that every registrant has a lawyer
- they don't
Andrew Allemann:They're predictable when Ari defends them :)
Michele Neylon:and why would they?
John Berryhill:@KM - by and large, yes it is. The "interesting cases"
are, of course, always interesting
George Kirikos:It would be opt-in, Michele. For those who want to
improve their actual notice.
George Kirikos:Locking domains or VeriSign-lock is opt-in too.
Michele Neylon:GK - making any changes to WHOIS is problematic
Doug Isenberg:Did I hear correctly that Respondents' counsel Berryhill
and Goldberger agree with WIPO that UDRP should not be revised?
David Taylor:Great point from Ari
George Kirikos:Doug: let's hear from registrants, not just lawyers
Andrew Allemann:@ doug, I believe you heard that correctly.
Berry Cobb:@ Doug, that's what I hear.
George Kirikos:Lawyers defending cases benefit from more cases. That's
when they get paid.
John Berryhill:Yes, Doug
David Taylor:Ari here is a registrant
Berry Cobb:+1 to George though.
Bret Moore:are you suggesting Ari and John don't have your interests at
Andrew Allemann:so WIPO is afraid that IP interests will lose in reform,
and respondent lawyers are afraid IP interests will win in reform
George Kirikos:UDRP cases are a sign of failure. Proactively
*decreasing* cybersquatting would result in fewer UDRPs.
John Berryhill:It is not without issues, problems and bad results, but
it could be worse. Like I said to my wife last night - the only thing
more difficult than having a second wife is having two ex-wives
George Kirikos:The goal should be to reduce TM infringement, not
preserve the UDRP as a holy thing to those invested in it.
Luc_Seufer:"Not broken" doesn't mean there is no room for improvement
George Kirikos:+1 to Ari, on the bogus C&Ds.
Michele Neylon:Luc +1
Wendy Seltzer:QUESTION: who do you believe stands to lose from a review
(as opposed to a revision) of the UDRP?
Philip Corwin:@John -- does that reluctance cover all aspects of UDRP,
or just substantive? That is, are you open to looking at procedural
reform, such as limiting scope supplemental rules, perhaps via standard
David Taylor:@Andrew I think many are wary of any process that could go
either way to undermining IP rights or good faith registrants
John Berryhill:@Bret - the issue is that because Ari and I defend a lot
of these cases, we have been accused of being "co-opted". I can
understand the perception, but really, we can find other things to do
Mark:shouldn't teeth then be added for reverse domain name hijacking
Michele Neylon:Wendy - is there a big difference between revision and
review? Surely they're tied?
Bret Moore:@John yeah I think it's kind of a silly accusation, myself.
John Berryhill:@phil - lots of room for procedural improvements and
uniformity of supplemental rules
David Taylor:Provided they file a response and are well represented by
counsel is the key for registrants in my view
David Taylor:well said Ari.
Philip Corwin:Bonus question -- if UDRP is so good, and doesn't need
reform, then why do we need URS for new gTLDs??
George Kirikos:Either extend the response time, OR make it a function of
Volker Greimann:indeed, but how many simple domain owners can (or are
willing to) hire counsel able to represent them appropriately
Wendy Seltzer:@Michele: A review is factual inquiry; it could take
pressure off calls for reform, if it backs up the stories that UDRP is
George Kirikos:Intersects with the issue of laches.
John Berryhill:@Phil - .com grew slowly over time, the concern with new
tlds is a rapid influx of bad actors
Michele Neylon:Wendy - ok
Tom Barrett - EnCirca:IP Claims will help lower cybersquatting
George Kirikos:If you take 10 years to bring your case, I need time to
Philip Corwin:Thanks John re: procedural. I have felt for a long time
that could address large part of concerns on both sides.
John Berryhill:The UDRP is ten years old - if you don't have your .com
name by now, where have you been?
George Kirikos:If it's a domain name registered 4 months ago, time to
respond should be less.
Michele Neylon:Volker - agreed - a lot of our clients handover domains
without a fight since they cannot afford to defend
David Taylor:@Philip, the URS was originally designed for a different
need rapid suspension of multiple domain names, different beast to the
UDRP and should stay that way IMHO
Maxim Voltchenko:Silly question. Does anyone represent or speak from a
perspective of cybybersquatters in this webinar?
George Kirikos:3rd party who filed their TM in Benelux.
George Kirikos:In 2010.
Philip Corwin:Well, we shall see how URS works -- if and when new gTLDs
ever get approved ;-)
John Berryhill:@george - see the ICANN/GAC discussions on "actual use"
of a mark
George Kirikos:BTW, URS decisions should be PUBLIC.
Steve Levy:So, is bad faith use, alone, with good faith registration,
merely TM infrgement and best decided by the courts?
John Berryhill:The "benelux problem" is well known
George Kirikos:It's not clear whether ICANN is requiring URS decisions
to be posted.
Volker Greimann:if a domain costs one-figure numbers to register, many
"normal" registrants simply are not willing to sink four-digit numbers
into a legal defense when hit with a UDRP, so they represent themselves,
often emotionally, and fail due to lack of ability to express their cases
David Taylor:The key to the UDRP is showing that the registrant is
acting in bad faith, if you cant show that then you are going to stgruggle
to get the domain name from that registrant, and rightly so.
Bret Moore:Yeah, but "priceless.com" is like a slam dunk defense win,
isn't it? 20 lawyers on the other side or no.
Volker Greimann:one modification would be fair though:
George Kirikos:David: Or, one can hope for an accomodating panelist.
Happens too often.
Philip Corwin:@davidT--agree that URS should remain confined to
suspension -- ICANN should not permit a transfer option, will greatly
undermine UDRP at new gTLDs.
Volker Greimann:A loser-pays system limited to the complainant
Kristina Rosette:QUESTION FOR STAFF: Are the UDRP Rules part of the
George Kirikos:Looks like we're running late, by the way. Will we go
over the limit, to get in 30 mins of questions?
Volker Greimann:complainant wins, complainant pays his own fees,
complainant loses, he pays losers reasonable defense too
George Kirikos:QUESTION 1: Do UDRP providers agree to sign formal
contracts with ICANN?
George Kirikos:QUESTION 2: Do UDRP providers agree to publish all
decisions in a standardized XML format?
George Kirikos:QUESTION 3: Do UDRP providers agree to provide greater
transparency on panelist selection? (see Zak Muscovitch study on NAF
Jeff Neuman:Goerge - You are focusing on "solutions" and not on the
Jeff Neuman:Sorry - George
George Kirikos:The issues are implicit in the question....we all know
Jeff Neuman:George - I am not sure I agree with your notion of "we all
know the problems"
George Kirikos:Although, the UDRP providers see no problems. :)
George Kirikos:+1 on Forum Shopping
George Kirikos:CitizenHawk cases -- aren't most of them at NAF?
Frederick Felman:it seems like there might be universal agreement on
Frederick Felman:at least some of them
David H. Bernstein:Regarding the comments concerning amendment of the US
Constitution, I would note that any amendement to the Constitution
requires a super majority and extraordinary consensus on the change. I
think it is very clear that we never will be able to achieve such
consensus on substantive law changes to the UDRP. Indeed, the one
consensus we seem to have among most of the provider, registrar, panelist,
complainant and respondent speakers is that a PDP is not warranted.
Cedric Manara:I see that when a prof speaks, no one seems to listen :)
John Berryhill:Dr. Komaitis is always worth an ear
George Kirikos:David: We only need a supermajority in the GNSO for a
Bret Moore:let's not assume all complainants are huge megaconglomerates
with "unlimited" budgets for TM enforcement. that's erroneous, I think.
George Kirikos:Not hard, e.g. see "domain tasting"
Kristina Rosette:@George: UDRP is Consensus Policy
George Kirikos:Right, Kristina, however did the DNSO have that concept
in 1999? Or was it later just labeled that, after the fact?
David Taylor:Wait till you start speaking Cedric...
George Kirikos:Registries and registrars control the GNSO, so the IP
constituency knows they won't get their way on this.
John Berryhill:Addressing TM disputes was a condition of the original
DoC / ICANN contract
Bret Moore:still, a 30d limit for the response is probably good.
John Berryhill:I would prefer an "intent to respond" which could extend
the time, but with an adverse presumption if not followed through
Doug Isenberg:[Multiple Attendees are not listening to the speakers...]
George Kirikos:Some of us can multitask. :)
Kristina Rosette:I don't know about ya'll, but I can type and listen at
the same time.
George Kirikos:+1 Kristina :)
David Taylor:thats why our hands and ears were separated by God.
John Berryhill:I've seen her act. She can type, listen, dance, sing,
and play the piano
George Kirikos:Oops, that slide went too fast.
George Kirikos:Go back, so we can read about forgery of evidence.
Kristina Rosette:I'm confused. Is Cedric saying that Complainants are
falsifying evidence or that there's the possbility to do so?
George Kirikos:With "retargeting" you can see an ad based on prior
websites you've visited.
George Kirikos:e.g. if you visit WebMD.com, you might see health ads on
Math.com, unrelated to the domain name.
George Kirikos:Same can happen on a parked page.
John Berryhill:Forged evidence - procpr.com
Doug Isenberg:Version 1 of Photshop released in 1990 -- years before the
Volker Greimann:cedric makes some valid points
George Kirikos:Yep, that's the "dark side" of UDRP, which needs to be
brought to light.
Michele Neylon:the ad targetting thing on parked pages etc., is a problem
David Taylor:I think that each and every one of the speakers today were
absolutely excellent and this has been one of the most interesting and
rich webinars I have attended and barely seen the 2 hours pass
George Kirikos:Hard disk space is cheap.
Doug Isenberg:+1 David Taylor
John Berryhill:No, Kristina, but if my ads are cookie driven, then the
ads YOU see are not what other people see. Also, some complainants will
game the "seach" bar on a PPC page and present that as evidence of the
appearance of the page generally
Michele Neylon:John +1
Volker Greimann:<- applauds all speakers for their excellent
John Berryhill:e.g. - see the UDRP for elephant.com - users in the UK
saw different ads than users in the US
Paul McGrady:I agree that a full, public record of all UDRP proceedings
would be helpful and is consistent with ICANN's obligation of transparency.
Kristina Rosette:@John: Super helpful (as always). Thanks!
George Kirikos:+1 Paul.
Mary Wong:+1, Volker, and to Margie for organizing and running it so
George Kirikos:QUESTION: What is the data on respondents receiving
ACTUAL NOTICE of complaints?
Wendy Seltzer:why the resistance to REVIEW != REVISE
George Kirikos:(relates to URS too)
John Berryhill:Good question, George... seen several of those
Wendy Seltzer:shouldn't we know how the policy is working?
Wendy Seltzer:the policy loses from facts, sad.
Volker Greimann:@George: As registrar, we ALWAYS forward the complaint
to our customers once we receive the complaint (after locking the domains,
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis:the review/revision will help us to see how
the UDRP is working or not
George Kirikos:Wendy: seems folks with vested interests have the floor.
Wendy Seltzer:if it's so good, a review will show that. great!
George Kirikos:Reformers aren't represented, esp. domain registrants.
Kristina Rosette:@Georget: Why don't you muster up the registrants?
George Kirikos:I showed Panelists were cutting/pasting decisions.
Kathy K:Fascinating to listen to this discussion - sorry to miss the fun
in the chatroom (just came in)
George Kirikos:Kristina: How many do you want? We can get more
registrants than lawyers, easily. :)
George Kirikos:XML just discovered, wow.
Volker Greimann:From the ICANN announcement of this Webinar: UDRP
providers, panelists, attorneys and other observers of the UDRP process
will be invited to share their perspective on this key ICANN policy.
David Taylor:Careful george, you knwo what they say about rats and
Kristina Rosette:@Georget: No set number. It seems to be an important
issue to you so perhpas you would be willing to take this on.
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
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
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)
Paul Tattersfield:excellent question
George Kirikos:Kathy was one of the people who drafted the UDRP, of
Paul Diaz:@Jeff N +1
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
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
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 high
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
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 this)?
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
George Kirikos:Did ICANN compliance punish providers for those cut/paste
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:
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
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
On 10/05/11 19:43, "Glen de Saint Géry" <Glen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>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
>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
>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
>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
>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
>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 high
>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
>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 this)?
>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
>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:
>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
>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