[gnso-rpm-wg] Draft Work Plan for review and discussion

Wed May 11 15:41:50 UTC 2016

Hi Mary & Others:       Re: UDRP Review ~ Phase 2 ~ January 2018.

Thank you for the email and attachment.  I have but one (1) question, *relating
to the Attachment*.

If the UDRP Review is going to begin as Phase 2, in January 2018, does that
mean that our current WG Member, "SD"'s question / request of Monday,
December 09, 2002 must remain un-asked formally & un-answered for ... *ONLY
15 years & 11 months. ??*

In all seriousness, icann tell you that's not  "accountability"  by any
standard; and the NTIA needs to explain why, given ".COM" remains within
their purview.

*FYI NTIA:  If the United States wants Canada  [and other Nations]  to
"ratify" the TPP, then ICANN needs to be "accountable;" b**ecause, **Section
18, Article 18.28: Domain Names has ICANN as a "service provider" of sorts
to the Government of Canada.*

*SD's attachment of 2002, quote's:*

"I'd like to alert the Task Force to a new issue that has been discussed
within the BC concerning infringement problems arising in the .uk.com"
 and   *"I would like to propose that the Task Force engage in further
discussion on how the UDRP can potentially address this problem."   which* also
states   *"Currently, neither the UDRP nor Nominet provide any form of
alternative dispute resolution for this extension, which has, not
surprisingly, resulted in a host of new infringement problems for owners of
well known marks."*

These are questions that "GS"  MUST ADDRESS  quickly, given ".COM"
Registrants are funding IPC working travel via ICANN's ".COM" revenue.

1.   Why wouldn't a Verizon Attorney "know" that a ".COM"  Domain Name
purchased from Network Solutions, by a retail Client, being CentralNic, as
a Domain Name Registrant, isn't, or wasn't then, subject to the ICANN RAA
at Section 3.7.7.9?

*2.   *Why did this problem exist, after Network Solutions became aware of
CentralNic's antics earlier?

History records Network Solutions  FORMALLY  making the discovery at WIPO's
inquiry regarding:  J C Bamford Excavators Limited, as Case No. D2001-1484.
> http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-1484.html <

Perhaps, ICANN's former IPC Member,  "BW"  can explain, having represented
Network Solutions, from as far back as Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, having
done work for them in 2004 can explain.  [ ICANN Wiki says employed
between 2002
- 2005 ]
> http://surftheboard.azurewebsites.net/SiteMap/Docs/ttabvue-76172057-EXT-24
<

3.   Did CentralNic ~ *even then* ~ manage to confuse Verizon?   As
"Verizon" says:  "*nor Nominet "  *who by that time were well established,
as what is now a ccNSO, ccTLD Registry for .UK.

Much less, as an American Corporation, why didn't they know then, that the
well established  Lanham Act  had been revised / expanded as the ACPA, to
include Domain Names of ".COM" where issues where under American Law?   In
Rem / In Personum.

As history also records, the British Public were apprised of CentralNic's
pursuit, as written about in The Guardian on September, 10th, 2000.
> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2000/sep/10/money.efinance <

The members of the NTIA, emailed, should make themselves aware, that the
article linked of Sepember, 10th, 2000,  *PREDATES*  the email attached
of December 09, 2002; and worse still, it  *PREDATES*  when J C Bamford
Excavators Limited were "*harmed*" by CentralNic, as the WIPO date lists
the Case as being in the 2001 Files, per: Case No. D2001-1484.

Thank you all for You're collective attention, immediate discussion; and
resolution of this long festering problem.

Regards,

Graham Schreiber.

*GNSO RPM WG MEMBER.*
*See SOI Link:
 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Graham+Schreiber+SOI
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Graham+Schreiber+SOI> *

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Please find attached an initial draft Work Plan for Phase One of our PDP,
> for your review and discussion on the WG call scheduled for later today
> with WG Members. Please note that while the co-chairs have made initial
> comments on the draft, they may have additional comments and observations
> that they will elaborate on during our upcoming call with WG Members. Of
> course, following the call, we will also update the draft as necessary to
> reflect changes and edits agreed on during the call. Further, as we move
> along with the work in this Phase One, it is possible that additional
> changes – especially to the estimated timelines – will need to be made.
>
> 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/20160511/49ad74a6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen Shot 2016-05-10 at 6.53.33 PM.png
Type: image/png
Size: 428560 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20160511/49ad74a6/ScreenShot2016-05-10at6.53.33PM-0001.png>