ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

Comments of Michael Palage

  • To: <ppdrp-15feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Comments of Michael Palage
  • From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 05:48:50 -0400

My name is Michael Palage. I am President and CEO of Pharos Global, Inc. a 
consulting company that provides management solutions to domain name 
registration authorities. These comments are submitted in an individual 
capacity and do not necessarily reflect the opinions/viewpoints of any 
current/future/past clients.


In light of ICANN’s current vertical integration policy development process, it 
is conceivable that there will be common ownership/vertical integration between 
registrars and registries in connection with the new gTLD round. If this should 
happen it would be important to expand the coverage of the PDDRP to include not 
only the registry operator but also any affiliated registrar. This 
expanded/group coverage is modeled in part upon the recent changes in the RAA 
to recognize group liability for families of registrars. Failure to incorporate 
such umbrella coverage would potentially provide registries the ability to 
engage in inappropriate activities through their affiliated registrar to avoid 
accountability under the PDDRP.


The call for the expansion of the PDDRP to include not just registrars 
affiliated with registry operators, but all ICANN accredited registrars has 
been previously raised in the public comments of WIPO, see for example:


-       WIPO Center Comments on RAP WG initial report:  “…it might have been 
expected that any such recommendation would have sought to address any 
registration authority conduct that may tend to frustrate core UDRP principles 
and ICANN compliance conditions, particularly as UDRP panelists have found 
occasion to publicly discuss the various, and unfortunately sometimes 
repetitive, facets of these issues.  That such practices seem to persist 
substantially informed the concept of the WIPO-proposed Post-Delegation 
Procedure for New gTLD Registries;  the concept appears equally appropriate 
vis-à-vis registrar conduct. ( 



-       WIPO Center Comments on Feb2010 PDDRP:  “From its role in initiating 
the Post-Delegation concept, WIPO remains encouraged by the ICANN view that DNS 
stakeholders including ICANN, registries, registrars, registrants, and brand 
owners, can benefit from a PDDRP mechanism. […current debate…] misses an 
important opportunity to use ICANN’s contractual compliance framework to 
responsibly address abusive conduct in the broader interests of the DNS.” ( 



-       WIPO Center comments on Final IRT Report:  “We recommend an analogous 
dispute resolution procedure for ICANN-accredited registrars.  

The WIPO proposal for a post-delegation procedure was at first instance 
intended for registries within the context of ICANN’s New gTLD Program, and 
motivated in part by a perception of converging registry, registrar, and 
registrant roles in the DNS. That same argument also applies to registrars in 
their potential relationship to trademark abuse. A recent illustration is the 
observed conduct of one particular registrar, reported in a WIPO Center letter 
of April 9, 2009 to ICANN, and the latter’s subsequent Notice of Breach.”



-       WIPO Center comments on Draft IRT Report:  “The WIPO Center’s proposal 
for a trademark‑based Post‑Delegation Procedure is designed to facilitate 
prevention at the source of (large-scale) trademark abuses.  (In light of the 
perceived convergence of registry, registrar, and registrant roles both 
presently, and likely even more so in the context of New gTLDs, certain 
observed conduct points to the conclusion that the WIPO Center’s proposed 
Post-Delegation Procedure might in our view need to be adapted to apply to 
registrars as well as registries.)  The Post‑Delegation Procedure would also 
provide a foundation on which trademark-based RPMs may be built.”  



Respectfully submitted,


Michael D. Palage

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy