[gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW/ACTION - Members', staff and co-chairs' action items from the WG meeting today

Sun Jul 17 23:05:26 UTC 2016

Good suggestions, Petter.

We should probably also look at the sufficiency of the relief if one prevails – we’ve had feedback that the result is too weak to justify the expense.

Finally, although we don’t have any specific complaints as of yet regarding a registry that may be in violation of the PDDRP standards, we should probably survey the community and ask if there are any registries or registry operators that are either actively encouraging or turning a blind eye to substantial infringement (and we’ll need to define what substantial is). If we get any specific feedback we might look at whether there is any correlation between a greater percentage of infringement and domain pricing; we’ve seen a lot of new registries give domains by the millions away for free or very low prices, and it just seems intuitive that bad actors may be attracted by the very low cost of entry.

Best, Philip

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Petter Rindforth
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 6:23 PM
To: Mary Wong
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW/ACTION - Members', staff and co-chairs' action items from the WG meeting today

4 things… well, at least: 2 things that can be improved/changed about the PDDRP:
1) Considering the possibility to clearly introduce online mediation as a natural part of the initial phase (adding to PDDRP Section7.2.3(d), where the TM owner notify the Registry operator about its specific concerns and the resulting infringement and indicated its willingness to meet to resolve the issue).
2) Reach out to RySG to discuss the possibility to introduce “class action” – at least regarding 2nd level complaints. It may be necessary to make it possible to show infringement at this level where a registry operator has a pattern or practice of actively and systematically encouraging registrants to register second level domain names and to take unfair advantage of the trademark to the extent and degree that bad faith is apparent, and/or where a registry operator has a pattern or practice of acting as the registrant or beneficial user of infringing registrations, to monetize and profit in bad faith.

All the best,
Petter

--
Petter Rindforth, LL M

Fenix Legal KB
Stureplan 4c, 4tr
114 35 Stockholm
Sweden
Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>
www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu>

NOTICE
This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail.
Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu>
Thank you

14 juli 2016 00:40:45 +02:00, skrev Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>:

Dear all,

The following are the action items captured by staff based on the Working Group members’ call earlier today. We will work with the co-chairs to refine and generate an up to date list of all the additional questions and issues relating to the TM-PDDRP identified in discussions in Helsinki and on the call today, and will circulate that list as soon as possible.

WORKING GROUP MEMBERS’ ACTION ITEMS:

1.       Members to provide input on whether it will be helpful to generate “use cases” that can be referred to experienced counsel for input, and ICANN staff. The aim here is to learn what they would do in those situations and discover any gaps not adequately or otherwise handled that would fall to be dealt with under the TM-PDDRP. Please feel free to discuss this idea via this email list.

2.       Members to send in their list of up to 4 things that they think can be improved/changed about the PDDRP (and up to 4 that should not). Please do so – either directly to ICANN staff or to this email list – by Monday 18 July if at all possible.

STAFF ACTION ITEMS:

1.       Contact ICANN Compliance with the following questions:

·         Has ICANN Compliance received complaints from TM owners regarding issues that might be covered under the TM-PDDRP?

·         If/when use cases are developed, ask which (if any) Compliance will refuse to handle on the basis that this ought to be dealt with under the TM-PDDRP (WG to consider related point – is the TM-PDDRP the mechanism of last resort after Compliance options are exhausted, or is it the only possible mechanism?)

2.       Invite Compliance colleagues to the next WG meeting (next week).

3.       Send calendar invitations for all WG calls through end-October.

STAFF/CO-CHAIRS ACTION ITEMS:

1.       Check with gTLD registries (possibly via letter to the Registries Stakeholder Group) to see if the informal pre-complaint notification procedure has even been invoked, and if issues were resolved without there being a need to invoke the TM-PDDRP

2.       Refine and generate updated list of additional issues/questions on the TM-PDDRP.

3.       Determine whether a half or full day PDP face to face (with remote participation) meeting on Day 1 of ICANN57 is necessary/feasible.

Thanks and cheers

Mary

Mary Wong

Senior Policy Director

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Email: mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>

Telephone: +1-603-5744889

_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4613/12558 - Release Date: 07/04/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20160717/66951ff5/attachment-0001.html>