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

[Paul Keating]

+1 absolutely.

From:  <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "David W. Maher"
<dmaher at pir.org>
Date:  Wednesday, August 10, 2016 10:46 PM
To:  Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org"
<gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Materials on Willful Blindness / PDDRP

> +1
>  
> 
> David W. Maher
> Public Interest Registry
> Senior Vice-President ­ Law & Policy
> +1 312 375 4849
>  
> 
> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On
> Behalf Of Jeff Neuman
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 3:37 PM
> To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Materials on Willful Blindness / PDDRP
>  
> 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 ³make it better² without any evidence being evaluated
> by the group on whether or not there is a need to ³make it better.²  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 ICANN¹s 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 ³second bite at the apple².
>  
> 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_c
> reate_new_law/ (May 5, 2010)
> 
>  
> ICANN Analysis:  
> ·      
> https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/pddrp-comment-summary-and-analys
> is-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 ³The 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.²)
>  
> 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 <mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com>  or
> jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto: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/e2195168/attachment-0001.html>