ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[ppdrp-15feb10]


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

NCUC Comments on Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP)

  • To: ppdrp-15feb10@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: NCUC Comments on Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP)
  • From: Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 17:38:27 -0700

<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; 
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<span></span></body></html>

Attachment: NCUC_Comments_PDDRP_04012010.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; 
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; 
"><span></span><br><!--StartFragment--><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" 
style="text-align:center"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:14.0pt"><b>NCUC 
Comments <o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" 
style="text-align:center"><span lang="EN-GB"><b>on the 
<o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" 
style="text-align:center"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:14.0pt"><b>Post 
Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP)<o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p 
class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span lang="EN-GB" 
style="font-size:5.0pt"><b>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" 
align="center" style="text-align:center"><span lang="EN-GB" 
style="font-size:11.0pt"><b>1 April 2010<o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p 
class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span 
lang="EN-GB">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" 
style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p><p 
class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">The 
Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) believes that the Post Delegation 
Dispute Resolution Procedure will create many problems both for the Registries 
– at an individual level – as well as the whole registration system – at a more 
collective level. It will upset the boundaries of the current registration 
culture and this will have a further impact on the rights of individual domain 
name registrants. We believe that this proposal is not well considered, it 
contradicts basic legal principles and seeks to create an extra-judicial system 
that lacks substantive, procedural and remedial balance. If it goes forward, 
there must be substantial substantive and procedural changes that a) protect 
the Registries, their use of ordinary words and common surnames, and the 
global, regional and local communities that they serve. 
<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span 
lang="EN-GB">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="ListParagraph" 
style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><span 
style="font-family:Symbol; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">·<span style="font:7.0pt 
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span><span 
lang="EN-GB">NCUC’s prime concern is that the justification for the creation of 
such a system is very weak. Registries are not content-controllers and should 
not be asked to operate as such. Registries assign domain names on a 
‘first-come, first-served’ basis and their rights and responsibilities are 
strictly limited to their contractual clauses. –When assigning domain names, 
Registries are not meant to conduct a thorough examination of whether the 
registration of the domain name infringes any trademark rights; their liability 
in relation to trademarks only extends to a contractual clauses which places 
the burden of proof upon Registrants to ensure that their registration 
constitutes a non-infringing act. (</span><span 
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><b>11. REPRESENTATIONS AND 
WARRANTIES.</b></span><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"> You agree and 
warrant that: (i) <i>neither your registration nor use of the any of the 
Network Solutions services nor the manner in which you intend to use such 
Network Solutions Services will directly or indirectly infringe the legal 
rights of a third party,</i></span><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"> - NSI 
Registration Agreement). Subjecting, therefore, Registries to the PDDRP process 
with potentially detrimental results and considering that a domain name 
registration is not by itself (and neither should it be) a conclusive 
determination of trademark infringement, ICANN is encouraging a system where 
Registries should be ‘forced’ to provide a check for the content of the domain 
name. This is illegitimate to the extent that Registries do not have such an 
authority nor should they be forced to perform one<o:p></o:p></span></p><p 
class="ListParagraph" style="text-align:justify"><span 
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p><p 
class="ListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list: l0 
level1 lfo1"><span style="font-family:Symbol; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">·<span 
style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
</span></span><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US">NCUC further believes that 
this Post-Delegation Dispute process raises significant and complex legal 
issues (like privity of contract), which seriously jeopardize the rights of 
domain name holders and users. The system does not allow registrants to be part 
of the dispute, which will ultimately determine the future of their service 
providers and, lead subsequently, to the revocation and sudden elimination of 
their online businesses, free speech websites and information-based platforms. 
Registrants constitute the sole entities that can attest to the content of 
their websites and should be part of this process.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p 
class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="mso-ansi-language: 
EN-US">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="ListParagraph" 
style="text-align:justify"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US">This process 
is tilted towards securing a very trademark-oriented DNS. It is obvious that 
the trademark community is pushing for a more controlled system of domain name 
registrations and seeks to achieve this at two different levels: against 
registrant<b>s and against Registries. The trade</b></span><span 
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US">mark community has its disposal t<i>hree 
different protection mechanisms – the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution 
System (UDRP), the recently established Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) 
and now the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure 
(PDDRP)</i></span><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"> – a structure, which 
taken as a whole, is over-excessive and can easily be abused by the trademark 
community.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="ListParagraph" 
style="text-align:justify"><span style="mso-ansi-language: 
EN-US">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="ListParagraph" 
style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><span 
style="font-family:Symbol; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">·<span style="font:7.0pt 
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span><span 
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US">WIPO’s assumed involvement in the PDD process 
is problematic and we anticipate that it will also be biased towards trademark 
owners based on our past experience with WIPO’s practices within the UDRP 
process. We believe that this system provides room for trademark 
abuse.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" 
style="text-align:justify"><span style="mso-ansi-language: 
EN-US">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="ListParagraph" 
style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><span 
style="font-family:Symbol; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">·<span style="font:7.0pt 
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span><span 
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US">This PDD? process will also have an impact on 
the registration culture. It will shift competition from price to other 
criteria, encouraging trademark competition between registries. It will 
encourage an environment distinguishing between trademark-friendly and non 
trademark-friendly Registries and can lead to potentially more confusing and 
stringent domain name registration practices.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <div 
class="ListParagraph"><span 
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></div><p 
class="ListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list: l0 
level1 lfo1"><span style="font-family:Symbol; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">·<span 
style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
</span></span><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US">The PDDRP also places a 
veil of uncertainty over Registries, which will further impacts on the whole 
registration culture and, ultimately, Registrants. Unless carefully structured, 
the PDDRP process will most likely raise the registration bar criteria 
significantly, making more difficult for domain name holders to register names 
and thus enter the DNS. Even if we accept the potential threat to trademark 
owners and their rights, trademark law categorically rejects the idea of 
raising the bar for new entrants. Through various limitation and restrictions 
(genericness doctrine, principle of territoriality, International Class of 
Goods and Services) trademark law assists and encourages entry to new 
participants and free speech advocates.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p 
class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="mso-ansi-language: 
EN-US">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="ListParagraph" 
style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><span 
style="font-family:Symbol; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">·<span style="font:7.0pt 
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span><span 
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US">It should be anticipated that the PDDRP will 
open the floodgates to litigation and law suits.<span style="mso-spacerun: 
yes">&nbsp; </span>Parallel litigation should be expected to the extent that 
registrants or registrars will proceed to courts to ensure that their 
contractual rights are safeguarded. Anyone with a trademark, or anyone who 
later gets a trademark, even from a race-to-register jurisdiction such as 
Tunisia will bring an action because the stakes and rewards are so 
high.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" 
style="text-align:justify"><span style="mso-ansi-language: 
EN-US">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <div class="ListParagraph"><span 
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US">The PDDRP must introduce a statute of 
limitations. Given the nature of this process, any trademark holder can turn 
against a Registry at any given time. This gives trademark owners too much 
discretion and given the abstract nature of the process it creates a system 
that can easily be abused. Trademark owners can proceed to collect data of 
potentially infringing domain names against any Registry and compile portfolios 
establishing a pattern in the space of five or ten years. This process makes 
Registries liable to trademark manipulation and abuse for the period of their 
life and creates instability in the registration 
process.<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class="ListParagraph"><span 
lang="EN-GB">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></div><p class="ListParagraph" 
style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><span 
lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:Symbol">·<span style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times 
New Roman&quot;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span><span 
lang="EN-GB">The PDDRP must allow Registries adequate response to reply. 20 
days is simply<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>not enough, 
especially when the trademark owners have unlimited time to prepare their 
Complaints in conjunction with their outside law firms.<span 
style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>This is not a rapid takedown system, 
but a TLD approved pursuant to a tough scrutiny and review of the ICANN TLD 
application process.</span></p> <div class="ListParagraph"><span 
lang="EN-GB">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></div><p class="ListParagraph" 
style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><span 
lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:Symbol">·<span style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times 
New Roman&quot;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span><span 
lang="EN-GB">The PDDRP must allow Registries to make their case before a panel 
of 3-5 Panelists as both the rights of Registry and all their Registrants are 
now on the line. </span></p> <div class="ListParagraph"><span 
lang="EN-GB">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></div><p class="ListParagraph" 
style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><span 
lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:Symbol">·<span style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times 
New Roman&quot;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span><span 
lang="EN-GB">The PDDRP must allow Registries to appoint half the Panelists, and 
together with the Complainant to choose the forum in which the complaint will 
be heard.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>This is not a UDRP, but 
the arbitration of a critical contract issue of a global Registry business. 
Forums to date are known for their biases and self-selected procedures and 
panellists for pre-determined outcomes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; 
</span>A more neutral set of forums and panellists must be allowed in this 
extraordinary circumstances of challenging a gTLD.</span></p> <div 
class="ListParagraph"><span lang="EN-GB">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div 
class="ListParagraph"><span lang="EN-GB">The PDDRP must recognize that the use 
of ordinary words and surnames is a right reserved to all communities and all 
peoples.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>Our NCUC representatives 
from developing countries are deeply concerned that their cultural terminology 
is being hijacked by trademark owners in developed countries who register the 
same terms. A lawsuit before WIPO would simply put out of business a small 
registry seeking to preserve and share its cultural heritage – a right accorded 
it in the new TLD application process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; 
</span>The ICANN process must continue to protect these rights for which 
members of the GAC, the NCUC, the Registry and Registrar communities and so 
many others have fought for. </span></div><p class="MsoNormal" 
style="text-align:justify"><span style="mso-ansi-language: 
EN-US">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" 
style="text-align:justify"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US">In conclusion 
we feel that the PDDRP process is not considered thoroughly and leaves many 
questions unanswered, whilst failing to address significant legal issues. The 
PDDRP procedure is unimaginative to the extent that it seeks to address a 
contractual issue through an administrative procedure that resembles the UDRP 
(which is a process with different scope and mandate).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p 
class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="mso-ansi-language: 
EN-US">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" 
style="text-align:justify"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US">We are very 
concerned, therefore, that this process will further impact the legitimate, 
non-commercial rights of Registrants, it will provide room to the trademark 
community to abuse a system and receive excessive benefits. We are concerned 
that this system will ultimately lead to a more controlled registration 
environment by the trademark community and it will create an atmosphere of fear 
in the registration process. It will, therefore, have a severe impact upon the 
relationship between Registries and Registrars, Registries and Registrants and 
Registries and ICANN. It will create a dystopian registration environment 
driven by trademark interests and control. <o:p></o:p></span></p> 
<!--EndFragment-->  <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px; 
"><div><br 
class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><div><br></div></span><div><span 
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px; "><div><br 
class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div>IP JUSTICE</div><div>Robin Gross, 
Executive Director</div><div>1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA&nbsp; 
94117&nbsp; USA</div><div>p: +1-415-553-6261 &nbsp; &nbsp;f: 
+1-415-462-6451</div><div>w: <a 
href="http://www.ipjustice.org";>http://www.ipjustice.org</a>&nbsp; &nbsp; 
&nbsp;e:&nbsp;<a 
href="mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</a></div><br 
class="Apple-interchange-newline"></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> 
</div><br></body></html>


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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy