[Gnso-rpm-protection] [gnso-rpm-wg] Food for Thought: DMCA procedure at YouTube contrast with URS/UDRP

Mon Jan 8 17:07:41 UTC 2018

Paul,

I don't have the exact numbers.

Anecdotally, it appears a non-trivial portion of the suspended domains are
being renewed by the losing registrant; see this blog article:
https://domainnamewire.com/2016/11/18/strange-thing-happening-domain-names-suspended-urs/

>From the domains I've researched, a much smaller subset are being put back
into use by redelegating the Name Servers.

I previously sent around reference to a domain that was suspended, and the
registrant took back control and the domain is being offered for sale.

Best regards,
Claudio

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Has there ever been an instance where someone has made a nuisance of
> themselves by re-registering and abusing names that they have had suspended
> under a URS determination?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 3:26 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> George, all,
>>
>> Thanks for this note.
>>
>> Just for clarification on the last point, as I understand the current
>> remedies available under the URS does not include cancellation of the
>> domain.
>>
>> As a result, upon expiry the suspended domain can be renewed and used
>> (including for abusive purposes) by the losing registrant of the URS
>> decision.
>>
>> To address this issue we can consider adding cancellation as a remedy (or
>> otherwise modifying the URS) to minimize the need for repeated, serial
>> enforcement against previously suspended domains.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Claudio
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 8:09 AM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that they are different. Just
>>> pointing out that there are other systems out there that don't have
>>> that role reversal feature.
>>>
>>> Also, I believe some folks had mused about the possibility of a single
>>> DRP that integrated the URS and UDRP. The issue of creation of a
>>> "Notice of Dispute", that preceded the actual dispute, also has
>>> arisen. If such a system also handled the high number of defaults
>>> differently than today, then one result might be a much lower cost
>>> procedure in the case of defaults (i.e. it could be very lightweight
>>> like the YouTube procedure), and then reference to the courts for the
>>> disputes when both sides show up and are heavily contesting the
>>> matter.
>>>
>>> In terms of integration, one way to look at the URS is that it's very
>>> similar to a UDRP where the Complainant (TM holder) asks only for
>>> cancellation, albeit that the URS cancellation happens with a delay
>>> (under the UDRP, the cancellation would happen almost immediately,
>>> after allowing for the appeal to the courts)
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> George Kirikos
>>> 416-588-0269
>>> http://www.leap.com/
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 6:30 AM, Paul Keating <Paul at law.es> wrote:
>>> > George,
>>> >
>>> > I know that a response has already been posted but I wanted to add my
>>> > quick thoughts.
>>> >
>>> > I agree that the DMCA and the UDRP/URS are not identical.  In fact the
>>> > roles remain reversed throughout the UDRP/URS process.  The DMCA merely
>>> > provides a notice, take-down followed by the opportunity to revive the
>>> > posting.  Once reposting occurs the issue remains as it was before the
>>> > notice - the copyright owner must proceed with litigation.  The
>>> UDRP/URS
>>> > however, results in the domain being transferred/suspended or not.  In
>>> the
>>> > case of transfer, it is the registrant that must file.  In the case the
>>> > complaint is denied then the trademark owner has that burden (like the
>>> > copyright owner in the DMCA example).
>>> >
>>> > PRK
>>> >
>>> > On 1/6/18, 12:23 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos"
>>> > <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of icann at leap.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>Hi folks,
>>> >>
>>> >>There was an interesting article published today about a copyright
>>> >>dispute involving "white noise" videos on YouTube:
>>> >>
>>> >>https://gizmodo.com/man-s-youtube-video-of-white-noise-hit
>>> -with-five-copyr
>>> >>i-1821804093
>>> >>
>>> >>which linked to the dispute procedure that YouTube follows:
>>> >>
>>> >>https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454
>>> >>
>>> >>Going through the various links, it was very interesting that they
>>> >>even have a "Copyright School", see:
>>> >>
>>> >>https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000
>>> >>
>>> >>(expand the "How to resolve a copyright strike" to see the link to
>>> >>it), which is quite interesting, given how often the education aspect
>>> >>for registrants has come up in our PDP's work.
>>> >>
>>> >>Also of interest is the section on "Counter Notification Basics":
>>> >>
>>> >>https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684
>>> >>
>>> >>where importantly it says:
>>> >>
>>> >>"After we process your counter notification by forwarding it to the
>>> >>claimant, the claimant has 10 business days to provide us with
>>> >>evidence that they have initiated a court action to keep the content
>>> >>down."
>>> >>
>>> >>and it's the content creator who posts the relevant jurisdiction:
>>> >>
>>> >>https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919
>>> >>
>>> >>""I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the
>>> >>district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside
>>> >>of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is
>>> >>located, and will accept service of process from the claimant."
>>> >>
>>> >>As noted in prior threads, various issues arise under the URS (and
>>> >>UDRP) when the natural role of plaintiffs vs. defendants (had the
>>> >>URS/UDRP not existed) gets reversed (e.g. the Yoyo.email UK "cause of
>>> >>action issue", as well as IGO and other groups' claimed "sovereign
>>> >>immunity").
>>> >>
>>> >>With the dispute resolution procedure followed by YouTube, instead the
>>> >>onus is on the copyright owner (the "claimant") to file the lawsuit,
>>> >>in the same natural way that would exist had that dispute resolution
>>> >>procedure not existed. Thus, none of the issues due to reversal of
>>> >>plaintiff/defendant arise.
>>> >>
>>> >>I thought it would be of interest, especially as it also might also
>>> >>give insights as to how "defaults" are handled.
>>> >>
>>> >>Food for thought.
>>> >>
>>> >>Sincerely,
>>> >>
>>> >>George Kirikos
>>> >>416-588-0269
>>> >>http://www.leap.com/
>>> >>_______________________________________________
>>> >>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>> >>gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>> >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>> >
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-protection/attachments/20180108/e20c811b/attachment.html>