[bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call
Frederick.Felman at markmonitor.com
Fri Nov 11 16:32:00 UTC 2011
MarkMonitor disagree, we support Jeff's proposal.
The majority of large business who are our customers tell us that they enjoy the predictability of this tried and tested mechanism. Furthermore, with the dns undergoing so much change they prefer that udrp remains stable and predictable while the community evaluates the effectiveness of proposed new rights protection mechanisms.
Sent from my mobile +1(415)606-3733
(please excuse any content I might blame on apple's absurd and comical autocorrect including but not limited to typos)
On Nov 10, 2011, at 3:54 PM, "Phil Corwin" <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
I’m in general agreement with the views that Mike stated. While I believe there’s a middle ground - of the two competing Resolutions, Mary’s is preferable
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
1155 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 2:33 PM
To: Mike Rodenbaugh; BC Secretariat
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call
Thanks for this. Can I share these thoughts with Steve and an ongoing discussion about this with CSG Councillors?
Jamil & Jamil
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***
From: <icann at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann at rodenbaugh.com>>
Sender: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:17:23 -0800
To: <bc-gnso at icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso at icann.org>>
ReplyTo: <mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call
Thanks Zahid. Curious to hear how the discussion went on the BC call this morning on this issue.
I have a feeling I may be a fairly lone voice, but fwiw, I support Mary’s motion over Jeff’s. Indeed it was a unanimous recommendation of the RAP-WG, including a bunch of IP attorneys and reps (including me), to do a review of the UDRP since it has been in place for ten years and has not been all that effective as a deterrent against cybersquatting. Waiting another 2.5 years, or longer if the newTLD program is stalled, is not going to help anything or anyone other than IP attorneys who charge many thousands of dollars to file or defend UDRP cases (again, including me); … oh, and also the bad guys who abuse the DNS and reputable brands with virtually no trouble and no consequence.
Also I am not holding my breath waiting for URS implementation, as it may never happen and even if it does come into some form or another, it is unlikely to be used much if at all, particularly in just the first 18 mos. after the first new TLD. I fail to see how it will impact a review of the decade-old UDRP in any way whatsoever.
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org]> On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 7:19 AM
To: bc-gnso at icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso at icann.org>
Subject: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call
Dear BC Members,
Here are two competing motions that have recently been posted to the Council list for inclusion in the next GNSO Council call:
ROPOSED MOTION ON REVIEW OF THE UDRP
Made by: Mary Wong (Non-Commercial SG)
WHEREAS, on 3 February 2011 the GNSO Council adopted a resolution requesting an Issue Report on the current state of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) from ICANN staff, to include consideration of: (1) how the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process; (2) whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated; and (3) suggestions for how a possible PDP on this issue might be managed;
WHEREAS, a Preliminary Issue Report was prepared by ICANN staff and released for public comment from 27 May 2011 to 22 July 2011, for which 24 community comments were received;
WHEREAS, further feedback was received in the form of responses by various UDRP providers to a questionnaire issued by ICANN staff, a Webinar conducted by ICANN staff, and two UDRP-related sessions held at the 41st ICANN meeting in Singapore;
WHEREAS, a Final Issue Report taking into account the community comments and public feedback received was prepared by ICANN staff and published on 3 October 2011;
WHEREAS, the Final Issue Report illustrates a diversity of views among the ICANN community as to a number of UDRP-related issues, such as: (1) the advisability of commencing a PDP at this time rather than when the new rights-protection mechanisms (RPMs) mandated by the new gTLD program (e.g. the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system) are reviewed; (2) whether the UDRP, although improved over time in terms of consistency of application and streamlining of processes, is fair; and (3) other matters such as whether to launch a PDP or form an experts’ panel, and whether more formal accreditation or contracts between ICANN and UDRP providers is desirable;
WHEREAS, a PDP provides the best means for assessing how to respond to this diversity of views, in particular because a PDP can be designed to address concerns about the size and complexity of the UDRP review, such as: (1) by identifying short-term issues that can be worked on during the launch of the new gTLD program and up to the first review of the URS, and other issues that may require a longer time frame for work, including any process-related or current implementation problems; (2) the formation of Sub-Teams within the Working Group to handle different issues, tasks and timelines; and (3) the division of the PDP into work phases, including possible issues and time frames corresponding to the new gTLD program, if appropriate;
WHEREAS, the UDRP is the oldest GNSO policy that has yet to be reviewed, and the further postponement of a PDP is unlikely to improve or correct some of the flaws and problems with the current UDRP that were identified by the ICANN community during the process of preparation of the Final Issue Report; and
WHEREAS, the issue of community bandwidth and resource allocation may not diminish even after the launch of the new gTLD program and the new RPMs, and reviewing such a complex policy as the UDRP together with the URS is likely to exert even more pressure on community bandwidth and resources;
Be it RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the initiation of a PDP on the UDRP and the establishment of a Working Group on UDRP Review;
RESOLVED, further, that the drafting team that will be formed and charged with developing a charter for the Working Group on UDRP Review take into account the diverse possibilities for Working Group modalities and work phasing; and
RESOLVED, further, that the charter for the Working Group specifically task the Working Group with considering: (1) related issues and recommendations raised by the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP Working Group, which were adopted by the GNSO Council as recommendations to the ICANN Board of Directors at its meeting on 21 July 2011; and (2) recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP; and (3) such other similar issues and recommendations as it considers appropriate.
Competing Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP
Made by: Jeff Neuman (Registries SG)
Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted a final report the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf), recommending an issue report on the current state of the UDRP considering both (a) How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process, and (b) Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated, and
Whereas, on February 3, 2011, the GNSO Council requested an Issues Report in accordance with the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group [LINK], and
Whereas, a Preliminary Issue Report was published on 27 May 2011 [LINK] and series of webinars and workshops were held soliciting public comment to allow for the ICANN community to provide feedback on the analysis and recommendations contained therein, and
Whereas, a Final Issue Report was published on 3 October 2011 [LINK] in which ICANN staff recommended the GNSO Council consider the “perspective of the majority of the ICANN community, and the advice of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), and the At-Large Advisory Committee” and that “a PDP be delayed until after the New gTLD Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) has been in operation for at least eighteen months. . . [to] allow the policy process to be informed by data regarding the effectiveness of the URS, which was modeled on the UDRP, to address the problem of cybersquatting.”
RESOLVED, that the GNSO approved the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP.
RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD.
Jamil & Jamil
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025
Fax: +92 21 35655026
Notice / Disclaimer
This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2092/4007 - Release Date: 11/09/11
More information about the Bc-gnso