[gnso-rpm-wg] Materials on Willful Blindness / PDDRP

Wed Aug 10 20:52:27 UTC 2016

Again, well said, Jeff.

Thank you for making this point.

Statton

*Statton Hammock*

*Vice-President, Business & Legal Affairs*

[image: Rightside]

*Office   | 425-298-2367*

*Mobile | 425-891-9297*
*statton at rightside.rocks*

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
wrote:

> All,
>
>
>
> I just want to restate my point that I made on the call today.  I believe
> our job is not to rehash discussions that took place in 2008-2012 on the
> rights protection mechanisms.  Rather I believe our job is to assess
> whether any changes to the RPMs (or additions to the RPMs) need to be made
> based on actual evidence.  In my *personal* opinion (not of my company or
> any client), a person proposing changes to the policies or processes should
> have the burden showing good cause as to why those change should be made.
> Absent a showing of that good cause, I do not believe we should make the
> changes.
>
>
>
> On the call (and the chat) Lori (from INTA) and Susan K.(from Facebook)
> stated that they had filed concerns with ICANN on certain registry
> practices and the failure of ICANN to address them or the inapplicability
> of the existing RPMs to cover those activities.  I believe we should be
> looking at those concerns (as well as any other issues that are brought
> forward), evaluate whether any of them could (or should) have been brought
> under the existing RPMs, why they were not, and whether we should address
> them by changing an existing RPM or even adding a new one.
>
>
>
> Discussions on the PDDRP thus far have focused on what theoretical changes
> we can make to the PDDRP to “make it better” without any evidence being
> evaluated by the group on whether or not there is a need to “make it
> better.”  One of those proposals contemplates adding a willful blindness
> standard to the PDDRP without any showing that such a lower standard is
> necessary or whether there is any activity going on now (or in the past)
> that would fall under that lower standard necessitating a change to the
> policy.
>
>
>
> Absent any evidence showing good cause to change the policy to include
> willful blindness, the policy should not change.  In fact, this issue was
> HEAVILY discussed and argued in 2010-2011. Ultimately, ICANN decided that
> the PDDRP should not include a willful blindness standard.  I have included
> just some of the comments that were filed by WIPO, myself, the Registries,
> Neustar and others on this Issue including ICANN’s analysis.  There were
> other proponents of willful blindness other than WIPO (including I believe
> MARQUES, INTA and other IP organizations.  I believe that this was even
> supported by the governments during the Board-GAC consultations.  I know I
> do not have them all on here.  But at the end of the day, this was not
> accepted.
>
>
> The point is that we should not be rehashing these old arguments.  Our RPM
> PDP should not a “second bite at the apple”.
>
>
>
> Here is a start for collecting the discussions that have already taken
> place:
>
> WIPO Proposal:
>
> ·        https://forum.icann.org/lists/ppdrp-15feb10/pdfkYQ1rYb8Ni.pdf
> (March 2010)
>
> ·        https://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-base/pdfjIZkXr0Dc2.pdf (June
> 2010)
>
> ·        https://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-base/pdf0nS63XScIt.pdf
> (December 2010)
>
>
>
> Circle ID Articles
>
> ·        http://www.circleid.com/posts/say_no_to_wipos_proposal_to_
> amend_the_pddrp_to_create_new_law/ (May 5, 2010)
>
>
>
> ICANN Analysis:
>
> ·        https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/pddrp-
> comment-summary-and-analysis-28may10-en.pdf (also has info on contract
> compliance) (May 2010)
>
> ·        https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-
> analysis-agv4-12nov10-en.pdf (November 2010) - Pg 118
>
>
>
> ICANN PDDRP (Revised May 2010):  https://archive.icann.org/en/
> topics/new-gtlds/pddrp-clean-28may10-en.pdf (Introduction addresses “The
> procedure is not intended to hold liable a registry operator that simply
> happens to have or knows of infringing domain names within its gTLD.
> Affirmative conduct is required.”)
>
>
>
> RYSG Statement to WIPO Proposal:  https://forum.icann.org/lists/
> 4gtld-base/docLoFbNFb2jb.doc  (June 2010)
>
>
>
> Neustar position:  https://forum.icann.org/lists/
> 4gtld-guide/pdf6T19n10mO4.pdf (July 2010)
>
>
>
>
>
> *Jeffrey J. Neuman*
>
> *Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
>
> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
>
> Mclean, VA 22102, United States
>
> E: *jeff.neuman at valideus.com <jeff.neuman at valideus.com>* or *jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
> <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>*
>
> T: +1.703.635.7514
>
> M: +1.202.549.5079
>
> @Jintlaw
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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-wg/attachments/20160810/fc74acb2/attachment.html>