[gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today
J. Scott Evans
jsevans at adobe.com
Fri Apr 7 17:50:58 UTC 2017
Well said, sir. Well said.
J. Scott Evans
408.536.5336 (tel)
345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544
Director, Associate General Counsel
408.709.6162 (cell)
San Jose, CA, 95110, USA
Adobe. Make It an Experience.
jsevans at adobe.com
www.adobe.com
On 4/7/17, 10:39 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Colin O'Brien" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of colin at PartridgePartnersPC.com> wrote:
Looking at the Working Group Charter the Mission Scope of this working group is to:
"This PDP Working Group is being chartered to conduct a review of all RPMs in all gTLDs in two phases: Phase One will focus on a review of all the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program, and Phase Two will focus on a review of the UDRP. , by the completion of its work, the Working Group will be expected to have also considered the overarching issue as to whether or not all the RPMs collectively fulfill the purposes for which they were created, or whether additional policy recommendations are needed, including to clarify and unify the policy goals. At a minimum, in each Phase of this PDP, the Working Group is expected to first assess the effectiveness of the relevant RPM(s), for which the Working Group should seek the input of experienced online dispute resolution providers and other subject matter experts, as may be appropriate. The Working Group should also consider the interplay between and complementary roles of each RPM in seeking to more fully understand their
overall functioning and effectiveness"
Based on the terms of the charter the order in which things should be discussed are:
1. Whether or not all the RPMs collectively fulfill the purposes for which they were created;
2. Whether additional policy recommendations are needed;
3. Whether there should be a clarification and unification of policy goals.
I agree with Jeff that many of the questions being re-asked have dealt with extensively by ICANN in short they have been "asked and answered." It is not the place for a handful of individuals to declare that everything should be reviewed and they should be entitled to challenge past assumptions allowing this to happen will result in a tyranny of few creating paralysis in this working group. The end result of this paralysis will ensure no tangible fixes are made to the RPM system in ICANN and everything remains in status quo.
Colin Thomas Jefferson O'Brien
321 North Clark Street, Suite 720
Chicago, Illinois 60654
312-634-9503
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.partridge.partners%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0634c9d55ff94efe28ea08d47ddd7802%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636271837548763770&sdata=%2BRlJ8z%2FtrCKbYqmzWFJV0KczlGDi4ZcOgVqD28bFIvs%3D&reserved=0
-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 12:18 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today
With all due respect, I fundamentally disagree with that position.
It's our *task* to review everything, challenge past assumptions, gather and look at the hard data, and not simply pretend to review it and defer to "precedent".
If it's all been said before, wrong policies would be permanent.
ICANN has repeatedly made major policy mistakes. Anyone suggesting they haven't really hasn't been paying much attention.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0634c9d55ff94efe28ea08d47ddd7802%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636271837548763770&sdata=Msyu96Ld5C5%2FdT0a7xBwjQTSANwlFwrZrYqzfpJXWko%3D&reserved=0
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> wrote:
> THIS IS IN MY PERSONAL CAPACITY AND NOT AS A WG CHAIR FOR THE SUBPRO
> PDP
>
> With all due respect to everyone, all of these types of issues have been "asked and answered." We should not be revisiting issues that were extensively debated from 1999-2001 and 2006-2012. There is a huge archive of this information and just because we have new participants in this group that were not around back then, unless there are changed circumstances which necessitate a change in policy, I think this is beyond our scope.
>
> For example, see each of the following all before the 2012 round:
>
> - DNSO WG-B: Famous Trade - Marks (1999-2000):
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Farchive.icann.org%2Fen%2Fdnso%2Fwgb-report-17apr00.htm&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0634c9d55ff94efe28ea08d47ddd7802%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636271837548763770&sdata=odTeKsEWvWrHV0SedwkLBmng1quzKQXxkXHw4pUbLV0%3D&reserved=0;
> - DNSO WG-B Position Papers (1999):
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dnso.org%2Fwgroups%2Fwg-b%2FArchives%2Fmsg00505.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0634c9d55ff94efe28ea08d47ddd7802%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636271837548763770&sdata=tPzWmGQeNWXCcq8zRw%2FWt8u4j0ttNE2CiGiuuAOvWZM%3D&reserved=0 (includes
> positions from community)
> - DNSO WG-C: New gTLDs (1999-2000): See
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dnso.org%2Fwgroups%2Fwg-c%2FArc00%2Fmsg02018.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0634c9d55ff94efe28ea08d47ddd7802%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636271837548763770&sdata=mV9iMyznr6Cea6v9%2B6Zf%2F4mDWekuqa9MEgFtS99mmWU%3D&reserved=0
> - Evaluation of Legal Policy Issues in new gTLDs
> (https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Farchive.icann.org%2Fen%2Ftlds%2Fnew-gtld-eval-31aug04.pdf&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0634c9d55ff94efe28ea08d47ddd7802%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636271837548763770&sdata=vP6t2%2FJZPBbWcQrUUH9jjR9QkCn3FhtaVSeK1T6cjCQ%3D&reserved=0)
> - WIPO Report on New gTLDs (2005)
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wipo.int%2Famc%2Fen%2Fdomains%2Freports%2Fnewgtld-ip%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0634c9d55ff94efe28ea08d47ddd7802%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636271837548763770&sdata=YLqEZBNOHtvmzv1tO6XDWTnkgR01eRClzH9p6ouRL08%3D&reserved=0
> - Protecting the Rights of Others Working Group (2006-2007):
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fen%2Fgroup-activities%2Finactive%2F2007%2Fpro&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0634c9d55ff94efe28ea08d47ddd7802%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636271837548763770&sdata=ght55Zfb2%2FBQnvI4x%2FGzTweQhaa5L%2FL09tmqRi9VLO4%3D&reserved=0
> - Final IRT Report (2009):
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Farchive.icann.org%2Fen%2Ftopics%2Fnew-gtlds%2Firt-final-report-tradema&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0634c9d55ff94efe28ea08d47ddd7802%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636271837548773770&sdata=fqT4%2FxZeCl63wHqyKcJ86SpJs0zzR5GzC89ex4wIpEg%3D&reserved=0
> rk-protection-29may09-en.pdf
> - STI Final Report (2009):
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fen%2Fissues%2Fsti%2Fsti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0634c9d55ff94efe28ea08d47ddd7802%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636271837548773770&sdata=IjVMgNOpBO7pQnH3ShI8P2nIiEmQ1jksJSk5mqGpvso%3D&reserved=0
> .pdf
> - Trademark Clearinghouse (2010):
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Farchive.icann.org%2Fen%2Ftopics%2Fnew-gtlds%2Ftrademark-clearinghouse-&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0634c9d55ff94efe28ea08d47ddd7802%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636271837548773770&sdata=KIMjeZottorbYve6RfE3V1fgvZlpoAA2%2BTBY%2FeDN3CA%3D&reserved=0
> clean-28may10-en.pdf
> - URS (2010):
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Farchive.icann.org%2Fen%2Ftopics%2Fnew-gtlds%2Fdraft-urs-clean-28may10-&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0634c9d55ff94efe28ea08d47ddd7802%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636271837548773770&sdata=dAmlmHHrMOGj41YB4PlgFaAqVLT4g8h83TWGT3V%2BxJc%3D&reserved=0
> en.pdf
> - Trademark Issues (2011):
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Farchive.icann.org%2Fen%2Ftopics%2Fnew-gtlds%2Ftrademark-protection-cla&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0634c9d55ff94efe28ea08d47ddd7802%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636271837548773770&sdata=CWw9yw08nut9foRDJNnGAMHCUY8CVog5TgdXlnuWlPw%3D&reserved=0
> ims-use-15apr11-en.pdf
> - Trademark Clearinghouse (2011):
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Farchive.icann.org%2Fen%2Ftopics%2Fnew-gtlds%2Ftrademark-clearinghouse-&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0634c9d55ff94efe28ea08d47ddd7802%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636271837548773770&sdata=KIMjeZottorbYve6RfE3V1fgvZlpoAA2%2BTBY%2FeDN3CA%3D&reserved=0
> implementation-30may11-en.pdf
> - Board Briefing Paper on Rights of Others (2011):
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Farchive.icann.org%2Fen%2Ftopics%2Fnew-gtlds%2Fgac-board-protection-rig&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0634c9d55ff94efe28ea08d47ddd7802%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636271837548773770&sdata=luumwfFY2anO5p7mHoBfQkS%2FfzPLr1%2BW7Vgyupk8rfY%3D&reserved=0
> hts-owners-21feb11-en.pdf
>
> I think we are well past the point of discussing whether Sunrise is consistent with trademark law or whether it infringes free speech unless actual and substantial evidence can be shown to override all of the thousands of pages of materials that have come before. Hundreds of smart people have debated these issues before including many of the people in this very group. It is one of the reasons that precedent is so important. We should not be redoing the work of the past unless there is new and substantial evidence to do so.
>
> This would be part of the essence behind Neuman Rule #2.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
> T: +1.703.635.7514
> M: +1.202.549.5079
> @Jintlaw
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating
> Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 3:32 AM
> To: Jon Nevett <jon at donuts.email>
> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the
> Working Group call held earlier today
>
> Hello all. I have been following these threads with growing concerns. It seems people are letting their anger show and I ask that the discussion be rebooted. Email is a horrible communication system - even when polite emails are often misconstrued.
>
> Seems to me that the issues all seem to center around the following:
>
> 1. Sunrise as inconsistent with freedom of expression
>
> 2. Sunrise is unfair because it provides a priority right to TMCH registrants over all other potential registrants.
>
> Regarding #1 there is no doubt that the sunrise system infringes on speech freedoms. The infringement is not avoided simply because The speaker has an alternative channel; part of the freedom incorporates the communicative aspects of being able to select the method of speech itself.
>
> There are indeed many enroachments upon freedom of speech. Some are
> permissible. Some are not. Whether a particular impact is permissible
> or appropriate requires a balance of interest. That balance includes
>
> the societal interests in restricting speech vs not.
>
> The speaker's interests
>
> Whether alternatives to the restrictions exist.
>
> Seems to me here that alternatives do exist which alone may not preclude all possible trademark abuse but acting together may. These include the use of the pre-registration TMCH notice (which I am told is extremely effective), the UDRP, The URS, and of course litigation. There are also of course economic forces wherein the registration price is placed outside of the affordable range for an abuser. This issue is not limited to trademark rights. It arises anytime there is a priority granted.
>
> I ask that we consider all of the above.
>
> 2. The priority right. In addition to the speech related issue above there is the issue of priority based upon trademark rights.
>
> To determine if this is being abused or if the benefits granted are
> not otherwise justified we need data. L
>
>> On Apr 6, 2017, at 12:47 PM, Jon Nevett <jon at donuts.email> wrote:
>>
>> Contrary to George's fears, for example, it seems clear from the study that Sunrise is not being used by trademark owners to monopolize generic terms. Nor is there any empirical evidence that it has had any negative effect on non-trademark owner registrants or applicants.
>
> I ask that Jon kindly provide the data. I have not seen any data that would permit such a conclusion. This would require data as to:
>
> - the actual mark's in the TMCH,
> - the number of sunrise registrations undertaken based on a TMCH registration,
> - the number of post-sunrise, pre-registration notices sent to registrants, and
> - the number of registrations subsequently undertaken notwithstanding the notice (from which we can determine the number of domain registrations abandoned post notice.
>
> If we do this honestly then "camps" don't matter and insults and offensive language can be avoided. We are tasked with making recommendations that will benefit the entire space and we should strive to avoid words and decisions that separate us from that goal.
>
> Paul Keating.
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0634c9d55ff94efe28ea08d47ddd7802%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636271837548773770&sdata=GBDDNmhJksW1hakvuEwvE5nERSv2lVmYk0UgWLlM2Ls%3D&reserved=0
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0634c9d55ff94efe28ea08d47ddd7802%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636271837548773770&sdata=GBDDNmhJksW1hakvuEwvE5nERSv2lVmYk0UgWLlM2Ls%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0634c9d55ff94efe28ea08d47ddd7802%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636271837548773770&sdata=GBDDNmhJksW1hakvuEwvE5nERSv2lVmYk0UgWLlM2Ls%3D&reserved=0
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.symanteccloud.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0634c9d55ff94efe28ea08d47ddd7802%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636271837548773770&sdata=vqJ%2B4X1DCeTJVEVdCHe84QEGF1c7r27Obzv8ey7zP6s%3D&reserved=0 ______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.symanteccloud.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0634c9d55ff94efe28ea08d47ddd7802%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636271837548773770&sdata=vqJ%2B4X1DCeTJVEVdCHe84QEGF1c7r27Obzv8ey7zP6s%3D&reserved=0
______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0634c9d55ff94efe28ea08d47ddd7802%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636271837548773770&sdata=GBDDNmhJksW1hakvuEwvE5nERSv2lVmYk0UgWLlM2Ls%3D&reserved=0
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg
mailing list