<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Tx Mary.<br>
<br>
Hi Steve - could you please post the language that you suggested on
the call yesterday - language that would limit the jurisdictional
provision solely to matters in Annex E?<br>
<br>
Tx,<br>
Kathy<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/4/2015 1:00 PM, Mary Wong wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:D25FB02E.19DB2%25mary.wong@icann.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div>
<div>Thanks for the detailed follow up, Phil – staff will in
turn follow up with Sub Team 3 as they finalize their
recommendations on the Framework for the WG this week.</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
As requested by Steve on the WG call yesterday, we’d like to
remind everyone to <u>please raise any further questions or
comments you may have on: (1) the latest proposed edits to
the Framework as presented by Todd and Kathy on the call;
and (2) the proposed new language on recommendations
concerning de-accreditation, to the mailing list</u> by the
end of your respective working days tomorrow (<b>Thursday 5
November</b>). If no further issues are raised with the few
post-Dublin changes made to the Framework language (except for
the annex, which is still being worked on by the Sub Team) or
the de-accreditation text, we’ll proceed to insert those into
the next iteration of the draft Final Report.</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Staff will also follow up on the proposed discussion with our
operational colleagues of implementation issues that may require
refinement or reconsideration of the current language of the
WG's policy recommendations – please look out for a separate
email on that topic.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thank you.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers</div>
<div>Mary</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Mary Wong</div>
<div>Senior Policy Director</div>
<div>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
(ICANN)</div>
<div>Telephone: +1 603 574 4889</div>
<div>Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org">mary.wong@icann.org</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div><span>From: </span> Phil Corwin <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com">psc@vlaw-dc.com</a></a>><br>
<span>Date: </span> Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 11:49<br>
<span>To: </span> Mary Wong <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org">mary.wong@icann.org</a>>,
"<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<span>Subject: </span> RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda and
documents for review on 3 November 2015<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE">
<div>
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Following up on yesterday’s
call, and amplifying/further explaining my oral
comments in regard to the “Revised Illustrative
Draft Disclosure Framework for Intellectual Property
Rights-holders” ---</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span><span>·<span>
</span></span></span><span>Section IIA, starting
on page 2, addresses situations where “Where a
domain name allegedly infringes a trademark” and
thus coincides with scenarios where a rights holder
could employ the URS (at new gTLDs) or the UDRP (at
all gTLDs; and noting that most ccTLDs have adopted
similar arbitration procedures) as well as initiate
litigation under applicable national laws. The
ICANN-adopted RPMs allow an action to be initiated
even when the identity of the registrant is not
known, and many national laws provide for
<i>In Rem</i> filings to address such circumstances.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span><span>·<span>
</span></span></span><span>Subsection 6a requires
the rights holder (or its representative) seeking
registrant disclosure to provide a good faith
statement that “provides a basis for reasonably
believing that the use of the trademark in the
domain name -i. allegedly infringes the trademark
holder’s rights; and ii. is not defensible”.
<b>Some questions that may require clarifying
modifications : 1) Does the phrase “use of the
trademark in the domain name” mean that this
process is only available where the actual
trademark, and not an allegedly confusingly
similar variant, constitutes the domain name or is
wholly incorporated within it? 2) Given that the
rights holder is seeking a lifting of privacy
protection chosen by the registrant, is it
sufficient that its statement merely recite a
basis for believing that the domain name
“allegedly infringes” its trademark or should
there be a higher threshold – that is, a
requirement that the statement allege that the use
of the TM in the domain <u>actually</u> infringes
its rights? 3) Does the phrase “is not defensible”
mean that disclosure should only occur (or at
least be seriously considered) when the domain
name presents a black-and-white,
know-it-when-you-see-it scenario such as that for
which the URS is designed? (Noting that in many
UDRP cases a defense is raised, and where it is
raised it is often successful.)(Further noting
that Section III.C.ii and iii allows the provider
to refuse disclosure where it has a basis for
reasonably believing that “use of the claimed
intellectual property is</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><b><span>defensible”.)</span></b><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span><span>·<span>
</span></span></span><span>Subsection 6b requires
the rights holder or representative thereof to use
the Customer’s contact details only for certain
purposes, one of which is “in a legal proceeding
concerning the issue”. <b>Is it intended that a URS
or UDRP filing fall within the meaning of “a legal
proceeding”? If so, can that be clarified as some
may assume it only references court proceedings?</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span><span>·<span>
</span></span></span><span>Subsection 6c requires
the Requestor’s statement that it “c) agrees that
the Requestor will submit, without prejudice to
other potentially applicable</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span>jurisdictions, to the
jurisdiction of the courts (1) where the trademark
holder is incorporated and (2) where Provider is
located for purposes of any disputes arising from
alleged improper disclosures caused by knowingly
false statements made by the Requester, or from
Requester’s knowing misuse of information disclosed
to it in response to its request”.
<b>Given that the allegation of an infringing domain
name may also be subject to a contemporaneous or
subsequent URS or UDRP action, for the sake of
completeness should this agreement be expanded to
include submitting to the jurisdiction of an
accredited dispute resolution provider (DRP) based
upon the applicable jurisdiction rules so that
such bad conduct could be taken into account to
find either abuse of the URS or attempted reverse
domain name hijacking under the UDRP?</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span><span>·<span>
</span></span></span><b><span>Noting that, while
the UDRP and URS are not always directly
applicable, many of these same questions and
requests for clarification arise in regard to
Section II.C (Domain name resolves to website
where trademark is allegedly infringed).</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span><span>·<span>
</span></span></span><span>Section III.D states,
“Disclosure cannot be refused solely for lack of any
of the following: (i) a court order; (ii) a
subpoena;
<b>(iii) a pending civil action; or (iv) a UDRP or
URS proceeding</b>; nor can refusal to disclose be
solely based on the fact that the Request is founded
on alleged intellectual property infringement in
content on a website associated with the domain
name”.
<b>I take issue with the notion that the provider
should still continue to determine whether to
disclose the customer’s contact information where
a related civil action for trademark infringement,
or a URS or UDRP, have been initiated (presumably
by the rights holder, since it is unlikely that
the customer would do so and thereby make its
identity known, in which event further
consideration of disclosure would be moot). The
request for disclosure is based upon allegations
of trademark infringement and a court and/or
accredited DRP have far greater expertise than a
P/P provider to determine whether actual
infringement exists. Given that disparity of
expertise, my view is that the filing of such
action by the rights holder should stay the
disclosure request and relieve the provider from
any further obligation to decide on it. Allowing
the process to continue could result in a
situation where privacy is violated and the court
or DRP subsequently finds no actual infringement.</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Thank you for considering
these questions and views as the WG moves toward a
final version of this document.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Best to all,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Philip</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>Philip S. Corwin,
Founding Principal</span></b><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>Virtualaw LLC</span></b><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>1155 F Street, NW</span></b><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>Suite 1050</span></b><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>Washington, DC 20004</span></b><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>202-559-8597/Direct</span></b><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>202-559-8750/Fax</span></b><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>202-255-6172/cell</span></b><b><span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>Twitter: @VlawDC</span></b><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span>"Luck is the residue
of design" -- Branch Rickey</span></i></b><span></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Mary Wong<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 02, 2015 5:13 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda and
documents for review on 3 November 2015</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Dear WG members,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The agenda for our next
meeting, on Tuesday 3 November, is as follows.
<b>PLEASE NOTE THE UTC TIME CHANGE</b> due to
daylight savings time in a number of countries –
the call will be at 1500 UTC (07:00 PST, 10:00
EST, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET).</span></p>
</div>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal"><span>Roll call/updates to SOI</span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span>Continued discussion of
Illustrative Disclosure Framework (latest version
attached – please also see the note below)</span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span>Discussion of proposed
revised text for de-accreditation (see attached
draft text) and possible data escrow
recommendation</span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span>Next steps</span></li>
</ol>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>For agenda item #2, please
note that the draft being circulated is still
under discussion by Sub Team 3 and is subject to
further revision and recommendations by the group.
As such, the “redlined” edits that were presented
during the Dublin F2F meeting have been retained
rather than “accepted” as changes. For your easier
review, please note that the main changes since
Dublin that incorporate the WG’s discussion points
and agreement in Dublin include: (1) clarification
in Section III.A regarding an exception to
disclosure in cases where personal safety is
endangered; and (2) an addition to Section III.C
(as sub-section (vii)) to clarify that providers
will not need to disclose if the verifiable
evidence spelled out in Section II is not fully
produced by the requester.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>In addition, this current
draft includes new language on dispute resolution
(see, e.g., Section II.A(6)(c)). The new language
was inserted to cover what has been termed “Option
2” in the annex, concerning dispute resolution in
the event of disclosure due to improper
requests. The Sub Team acknowledges that while
this topic was discussed briefly in Dublin, there
was no WG agreement on a specific recommendation.
The new language in the current draft
document – as well as specific edits to
the “annex” containing Options One and Two –
reflects a suggestion by some Sub Team members to
adopt Option Two. This suggestion, which may not
reflect the view of all Sub Team members as it is
still being discussed, is nevertheless being
presented to the full WG for further
consideration.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Thanks and cheers</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Mary</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Mary Wong</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Senior Policy Director</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Telephone: +1 603 574
4889</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Email:
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org">mary.wong@icann.org</a></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span>
<hr width="100%"></span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>No virus found in this
message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 -
Release Date: 10/25/15<br>
Internal Virus Database is out of date.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>