[gnso-rpm-wg] Action items and updated document following the WG call on 20 July 2016

Paul McGrady policy at paulmcgrady.com
Fri Jul 22 22:42:18 UTC 2016


Thanks Darcy.  

 

I agree that mediation before complaint is a good idea and that the policy should require both sides to consent to it.  I think instead of a skeletal complaint, the aggrieved party  should do a simple “mediation statement” (which is the normal thing) and then the registry could do a reply statement.  I suggest we limit pages to no more than 10 so that this doesn’t become proxy litigation.  The mediation (including the statements) should be confidential – in other words nothing shared in mediation while pursuing settlement should be used later by the parties if the complaint goes forward.  


As for “class actions” I also agree with you on that.  Not only do I not think they are feasible in this setting, I will invoke the highest authority on Earth to rebut the entire idea, namely Jimmy Buffett, and simply say as a brand owner “I don’t want other people [people’s lawyers]  thinking for me.”  Could you imagine the disaster if a brand owner filed a complaint for abuses of its mark only to learn that a “class action” included them and was already lost?  It would be Heck on Earth (especially for the poor law firm that “done it”).  Yikes.  While I understand the desire for efficiency, there is nothing keeping unhappy brand owners from filing a joint complaint to which they consent in advance.  

 

Best,

Paul

 

 

 

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Darcy Southwell
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 4:38 PM
To: Mary Wong; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action items and updated document following the WG call on 20 July 2016

 

I have to admit I’m struggling with how to evaluate the effectiveness of a policy that’s never been used ~ like we’re proposing solutions for unidentified problems. I don’t want to suggest that we identify and detail all possible use cases and apply the PDDRP to identify flaws.  But when we consider the existing Standards (§6) and Burden of Proof (§17), do we have any concrete examples of when the PDDRP maybe should have been used that would indicate needed improvements?  

 

Or maybe the better question is … do we have specific examples of registry behavior that doesn’t meet existing standards but is nonetheless concerning when it comes to profiting from sale of infringing domains?

 

As for a couple of issues discussed on the list and at our last meeting:

 

Mediation

Mediation is often a successful way for parties to reach a workable resolution, and I support the concept of non-binding mediation as an option with the PDDRP.  If the PDDRP were to allow for the filing of “skeletal” complaints, do we intend that the filing party is the sole determiner of whether the complaint goes to mediation?  It seems that the mediation option should be open to both parties to request.  In the end, both parties need to be amenable to mediation for it ever have an effective outcome.

 

Class Actions

The term “class action” seems problematic because of how it is used in many judicial systems.  If what we’re trying to get to is a method for trademark owner to identify prolific abuses by a registry and to then have a more aggressive method for pursuing the registry, is there instead a way to build (1) public disclosure of filings and decisions (the way UDRPs work) and (2) place a burden on panel reviewers to rely on the precedence of prior findings (unlike the UDRP) and take those into account when determining remedies?

 

Thanks,

Darcy

 

From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong
Date: Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:22 AM
To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org"
Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action items and updated document following the WG call on 20 July 2016

 

Dear all,

 

Please find attached an updated document containing issues, concerns and suggestions received to date relating to the TM-PDDRP, the first version of which had been circulated on 19 July to the Working Group (see message below). Both documents have also been uploaded to the Working Group wiki space for your convenience: https://community.icann.org/x/9wWbAw. 

 

The updated document contains summaries of the discussion during the last call relating to the suggested options for mediation and class action (see the boxed text on Page 2 and Page 4, respectively). Please review the updates and continue discussion of the suggestions on this mailing list (NOTE: the text summaries do not attempt to replicate or summarize the full discussions that took place on the call – please refer to the meeting transcript, recording and Adobe Connect chat transcript for context and additional explanations offered by participating Members on these topics: https://community.icann.org/x/9wWbAw). 

 

For the next call, we anticipate that Members will discuss the issues, concerns and suggestions raised in relation to the ease/difficulty of access to/use of the TM-PDDRP (currently listed in the document under Section A.III on Pages 4-6). Members are also requested to continue to send in your thoughts and comments regarding additional questions we can raise with ICANN Compliance, and the advisability/need to develop “use cases” for the TM-PDDRP (see Page 7).

 

Thanks and cheers

Mary

 

 

Mary Wong

Senior Policy Director

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Email: mary.wong at icann.org

Telephone: +1-603-5744889

 

 

From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 18:22
To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: For review & discussion: summary document on TM-PDDRP issues, concerns and suggestions

 

Dear all,

 

Further to the proposed agenda (below), please find attached a document that: (1) compiles the issues, concerns, suggestions received and email discussions to date relating to the TM-PDDRP stemming from the WG’s deliberations up to and in Helsinki; and (2) contains responses received from several WG members regarding the possibility of developing “use cases” and other additional suggestions.

 

We apologize for the late notice, but hopefully Members will be able to review the document even briefly before the WG call tomorrow (Wednesday). 

 

Thanks and cheers

Mary

 

 

Mary Wong

Senior Policy Director

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Email: mary.wong at icann.org

Telephone: +1-603-5744889

 

 

 

From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 14:56
To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Proposed agenda for Working Group meeting of 20 July 

 

Dear all,

 

The proposed agenda for the next Working Group call, scheduled for Wednesday 20 July at 1600 UTC, is as follows:

 

1.      Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only) and updates to Statements of Interest

2.      Discuss identified issues and concerns regarding the TM-PDDRP, including Working Group members’ responses on possible changes to, and things not to change about, the TM-PDDRP

3.      Discuss follow up questions for ICANN Compliance and TM-PDDRP Providers, including suggestion for developing use cases 

4.      Agree on list of additional issues/concerns with the TM-PDDRP based on WG discussions to date

5.      Next steps/next meeting

 

A document setting out a framework for the discussion of issues and listing Working Group members’ suggestions will be sent out shortly. 

 

Thanks and cheers

Mary

 

 

Mary Wong

Senior Policy Director

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Email: mary.wong at icann.org

Telephone: +1-603-5744889

 

 

_______________________________________________ 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/20160722/7ec35d94/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list