[gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call

Tue Dec 5 21:40:36 UTC 2017

Rebecca,

Thanks. I think the article states that some domains were inadvertently
renewed by the registrar. It doesn't say the registrant is not able to
renew them.

In my post, I cited to domains listed on the NAF website that were
suspended for alleged phishing, and those domains appear to be renewed
because the Whois shows: 1) the same registrant; 2) an update made on the
expiration date, extending the registration for one year.

All good fodder for our group to consider for possible solutions.

Best,
Claudio

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:15 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>
wrote:

> Interesting post. It seems that the domains only showed up as renewed
> because of administrative issues, however, based on the end of the article,
> and were not actually under the control of the original respondent. So the
> phishing concern seems addressed.
>
> Rebecca Tushnet
> Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
>
> Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.
>
> On Dec 5, 2017, at 3:26 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jon,
>
> I agree with you about having this question/issue considered by our WG and
> potentially addressed with policy recommendations.
>
> I've heard concerns from trademark owners who've had difficulties securing
> the abusively registered domain that was suspended in the URS procedure
> after it came up for renewal. For example, there are several URS cases
> (on the NAF website) that involve alleged phishing activity, where the
> domain was suspended, and now it appears renewed by the same registrant.
>
> This practice is described in greater detail within this blog article:
> https://domainnamewire.com/2016/11/18/strange-thing-happening-domain-names-suspended-urs/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__domainnamewire.com_2016_11_18_strange-2Dthing-2Dhappening-2Ddomain-2Dnames-2Dsuspended-2Durs_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=hS2EgpJtnv5LhkpdHHs27fRGRHqXDOVUwU-hZ6XIofk&s=33Z5dZIyXGIeQCUrWuyAIaTyuZiVp5Z8dvEvsekFUXw&e=>,
> which states: “The most common thing that happened to these first 50
> domains is that they were renewed. Twice. And they still show the original
> owner who lost the URS in Whois.”
>
> Best regards,
> Claudio
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jon,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the reminder and apologies for missing that question.  We’ll
>> add it to the table.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Julie
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Jon Nevett <jon at donuts.email>
>> *Date: *Friday, December 1, 2017 at 3:04 PM
>> *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>> *Cc: *Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Action Items from 30 November
>> Working Group Call
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Julie.  I may have missed it, but I had asked on a prior call that
>> we add a question regarding whether a losing respondent may renew the
>> domain name at issue at all, for one more year (like the complainant),
>> during the pendency of an appeal, or forever.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>> Jon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Susan,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks so much for catching that!  I tried saving it again as a PDF, but
>> it still comes out truncated; I’m not sure why.  In any case, I’ve uploaded
>> it as a Word document and it looks fine that way.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’ve also attached the file.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Julie
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com>
>> *Date: *Friday, December 1, 2017 at 1:35 PM
>> *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> *Subject: *[Ext] RE: Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Julie, thanks for these notes from the call.  Regarding the revised
>> table – there is a link here (
>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729948
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D58729948&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=hS2EgpJtnv5LhkpdHHs27fRGRHqXDOVUwU-hZ6XIofk&s=2s5QaDhAGJxw-DpMWopm_2UkDAhm5MPrDGV_W3D0sZQ&e=>)
>> to a version of the table of 30 November, however only part of the table is
>> displaying (I tried downloading too and it made no difference).  Would you
>> mind re-uploading please – assuming this is the revised table?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Susan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy* |
>> *Valideus Ltd *
>> E: susan.payne at valideus.com
>> D: +44 20 7421 8255 <+44%2020%207421%208255>
>> T: +44 20 7421 8299 <+44%2020%207421%208299>
>> M: +44 7971 661175 <+44%207971%20661175>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund
>> *Sent:* 30 November 2017 16:51
>> *To:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> *Subject:* [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> The action items noted by staff from the Working Group call held on 30
>> November are as follows:
>>
>>
>>
>> Suggested Approach from the WG members on the call: To identify topics
>> addressed by the Charter questions and capture high-level questions/data
>> points for each topic. Suggested questions are:
>>
>> 1) Has it been used?
>>
>> 2) What was the original purpose and is it being fulfilled?
>>
>> 3) Bearing in mind the original purpose, have there been any unintended
>> consequences?
>>
>> 4) What changes could better align the mechanism with the original
>> purpose/facilitate it to carry out its purpose?
>>
>> 5) How many managed to prevail?
>>
>> *Action Items*:
>>
>>    1. Develop a strawman of high-level questions and Charter question
>>    topics. (forthcoming)
>>    2. WG to provide comments/thoughts about the proposed approach.
>>    3. If the approach is agreed to, WG to analyze the topics addressed
>>    by the Charter questions against the high-level questions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Question 1: Should the ability for defaulting respondents in URS cases to
>> file a reply for an extended period (e.g. up to one year) after the default
>> notice, or even after a default determination is issued (in which case the
>> complaint could be reviewed anew) be changed?
>>
>> *Action Item*: Staff to look up where the 1-year period for Question 1
>> originated.
>>
>>
>>
>> Question 2: Should the Response Fee applicable to complainants listing 15
>> or more disputed domain names by the same registrant be eliminated?
>>
>> *Action Item*: Staff to look up the origin of the response fee for 15
>> (and more) domains, and why 15 was chosen as a number.
>>
>>
>>
>> Revised Table:
>>
>> *Action Item*: Staff will post to the wiki space a revised version of
>> the table with excerpts from the notes.  *Please note that these will be
>> high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or
>> recording.*  The recording, transcript, Adobe Connect chat, and
>> attendance records are posted on the wiki.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Julie
>>
>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>>
>> <URS Sub Team Questions Table - 30 November 2017.docx>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=hS2EgpJtnv5LhkpdHHs27fRGRHqXDOVUwU-hZ6XIofk&s=QNT6WuPxzxziRvUDL6nfaYQ1Sek7UxR0PZHw_LH8H9g&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=hS2EgpJtnv5LhkpdHHs27fRGRHqXDOVUwU-hZ6XIofk&s=QNT6WuPxzxziRvUDL6nfaYQ1Sek7UxR0PZHw_LH8H9g&e=>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171205/456a96ec/attachment-0001.html>