[gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History

Susan Payne susan.payne at valideus.com
Wed Jan 4 16:15:29 UTC 2017


Whilst I appreciate now is not quite the time for a substantive discussion on TM+50 or the Claims service generally, I would like to respond briefly to one of your comments Phil, since there can be a risk that inaccuracy/ imprecise references start to become perceived as fact over time.

This WG has not made any finding that receipt of a Claims notice results in registration abandonment in 94% of instances.  That supposed-94% figure comes from the Analysis Group’s draft report on the Independent Review of the TMCH. The draft report carries numerous health warnings – see for example the second para of the exec summary, where AG state “Limitations in our data do not allow us to definitively conclude whether Claims Service notifications have  a deterrent effect on either type of registration activity.”  More detailed disclaimers and acknowledgements of the inadequacy of the data are carried in the section which deals with the Claims service itself.  Given that AG states “These results should not be relied upon to make policy recommendations” can we please avoid referring to their findings without context, and as if determinative.

thanks

Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd

E: susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>
D: +44 20 7421 8255
T: +44 20 7421 8299
M: +44 7971 661175


From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin
Sent: 03 January 2017 21:40
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net>
Cc: Zahid Jamil-IG via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History

Some reactive personal observations:

·         Even TM+50 requires the TM owner to pay a separate TMCH  registration fee for each registered term that was previously recovered in a UDRP or a judicial action. At $150 each, registration of each of the 474 domains suspended by this URS would have cost $71,100 – which is a pretty steep price to pay for the dubious benefits of a sunrise registration (more expense, although not so much at the particular registry involved in this case) and the generation of a claims notice.

·         IMHO, receipt of a claims notice is unlikely to stop a determined cybersquatter from completing an infringing domain registration.

·         The complainant was able to identify and proceed against all these domains absent receipt of a notice from the TMCH of the registrations, probably by using a commercial monitoring service at far lower cost than registering the 474 domain names in the TMCH.

·         Generation of a claims notice whenever a TM+something appears in a domain name, and not just when there is an exact match, would be a very substantial change in the claims notice procedure and goes beyond previous suggestions that a TM+keyword should be able to be registered in the TMCH. All such suggestions are of course open for consideration and debate when we reach the appropriate point in our work, but IMHO this one should be considered in the context of our finding that receipt of a claims notice results in registration abandonment in 94% of instances.

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> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 2:34 PM
To: jonathan matkowsky
Cc: Zahid Jamil-IG via gnso-rpm-wg
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History

As to whether something is "working", it's probably dangerous to extrapolate from a sample of 1.  I don't think this shows much, other than that the URS worked in this instance.  It would be interesting to know more about how the claimant felt this worked (and as Jon points out, why they chose URS over UDRP).

From the point of view of this group, an interesting aspect of the case is that all 474 domain names were registered in .xyz.

This type of wholesale registration may indicate that the Claims Notices are not working.  It's likely that the registrant received few if any claims notices since their domains are almost all "mark+" domains.  It would probably make more sense for Claims Notices to go out whenever the registered string appears in the domain string, not only when the registered string matches the domain string.

It's also interesting to think about what would happen if the claimant here wanted to initiate a PDDRP against .xyz.  While 474 domains is huge in the context of a single URS proceeding, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the 6 million (and dropping) domains registered in .xyz.  Is 474 domains enough to file a PDDRP claim?  Enough to win?  What else would be needed, if this is not enough to win (or to file)?

Greg

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:16 PM, jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net<mailto:jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net>> wrote:
I totally agree. The blog post was interesting read, but really is a distraction from the issues.



[http://safe.riskiq.com/rs/455-NHF-420/images/RiskIQ_Logo_Blue_Vertical.png]<http://riskiq.com/>





jonathan matkowsky,


vp – ip & brand security


usa:: 1.347.467.1193<tel:(347)%20467-1193> | office:: +972-(0)8-926-2766<tel:+972%208-926-2766>


emergency mobile:: +972-(0)54-924-0831<tel:+972%2054-924-0831>


company reg. no. 514805332<http://havarot.justice.gov.il/CompaniesDetails.aspx?id=514805332>

11/1 nachal chever, modiin israel






[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448744755-png/Email_Signature/twitter_signature_logo.png]<https://twitter.com/riskiq>[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448719740-png/Email_Signature/facebook_signature_logo.png]<https://www.facebook.com/pages/RiskIQ/555939994512820>[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448744760-png/Email_Signature/linkedin_signature_logo.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/riskiq_2>[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448719735-png/Email_Signature/google+_signature_logo-1.png]<https://plus.google.com/+Riskiq/posts>






On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 9:12 PM, <trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com>> wrote:
I don't see how it signifies anything - it's just one decision.


Best Regards,

Marc H.Trachtenberg
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Office (312) 456-1020<tel:%28312%29%20456-1020>
Mobile (773) 677-3305<tel:%28773%29%20677-3305>

On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Reg Levy <reg at mmx.co<mailto:reg at mmx.co><mailto:reg at mmx.co<mailto:reg at mmx.co>>> wrote:

My point was that a matter was successfully brought under the RPMs (my point would stand for matters unsuccessfully brought under the RPMs). That cybersquatting exists is not in dispute. Nor is it our—or ICANN’s—job to cause cybersquatting to no longer exist. The matter was a URS, which was a new-to-new-gTLDs RPM and (supposedly) cheaper than the UDRP.

If this does not signify that RPMs work, does it signify that they do not?


Reg Levy
VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited
C: +1-310-963-7135<tel:%2B1-310-963-7135>
S: RegLevy2

Current UTC offset: -8

On 3 Jan 2017, at 10:30, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>> wrote:

Agree with Doug and Marc, I would be curious to understand the thinking further.

Also, it will be interesting to see what happens to all of these names when the suspension period is over.

K

Kiran Malancharuvil
Policy Counselor
MarkMonitor
415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:27 AM, "trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com><mailto:trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com>>" <trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com><mailto:trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com>>> wrote:

Agreed. How does one large URS filling indicate that the RPMs are working?


Best Regards,

Marc H.Trachtenberg
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Office (312) 456-1020<tel:%28312%29%20456-1020>
Mobile (773) 677-3305<tel:%28773%29%20677-3305>

On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Doug Isenberg <disenberg at gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg at gigalawfirm.com><mailto:disenberg at gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg at gigalawfirm.com>><mailto:disenberg at gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg at gigalawfirm.com>>> wrote:

As the author of the blog post that Phil shared, I disagree with Reg’s conclusion below (and am quite unsure how that conclusion was reached).  This URS case is interesting because its size makes it unusual (and, indeed, unprecedented).  It is not indicative of any trend about RPMs in general or the URS in particular.  If anything, it is a reminder that there are many domain name registrants – even in the new gTLDs –  who continue to engage in cybersquatting on a large-scale, despite the RPMs such as the URS.

Sincerely yours,

Douglas M. Isenberg
Attorney at Law

<image001.png><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ZlOXy68aDw9dtyJO-ShgSeFTgT5qjSffEUGc14ZQL78&e=>

“When your brand is on the line, The GigaLaw Firm protects your brand online.” Learn more: www.GigaLaw.com<http://www.GigaLaw.com><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.GigaLaw.com&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s=2EuoR5I7h2Xn6TFKTv9MuhDFQ3usqxsVL-6CMVpyfbc&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ZlOXy68aDw9dtyJO-ShgSeFTgT5qjSffEUGc14ZQL78&e=>





From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Reg Levy
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:56 PM
To: Philip S. Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>><mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>>
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History

Which seems to indicate that the current RPMs are working.

Reg Levy
VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited
C: +1-310-963-7135<tel:%2B1-310-963-7135>
S: RegLevy2

Current UTC offset: -8

On 3 Jan 2017, at 09:34, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>><mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>> wrote:

FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing.

For more background see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_20161223-5Fheres-5Fthe-5Flargest-5Furs-5Fcomplaint-5Fever-5Ffiled_&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=fgHeIuw69VHEcmbXFEVpbqoiy5s_C2pOj08v08OjTa0&s=uuBJPL7S7Bq1LLxnQi6-hMVaLBUGbWfLWbzUWaGowVI&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_20161223-5Fheres-5Fthe-5Flargest-5Furs-5Fcomplaint-5Fever-5Ffiled_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=OUHplwLUfg3180ijgGiEmvhZ4gztm1YhH13LqLUt1OI&e=> and https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaindecisions_1703352D.htm&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=fgHeIuw69VHEcmbXFEVpbqoiy5s_C2pOj08v08OjTa0&s=lkCdLadNciOafHsJ9pa4VDWScSKJ4CCUZKajVKxxecI&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaindecisions_1703352D.htm&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=6C7KqyrV7UIBNaA7RqhQeA-ApSbBAsjisDW_czuUCqk&e=>

Best regards, Philip


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

Twitter: @VlawDC

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

________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s=C63MXdBt_K8Fa9WBaWkBP18-jViVNJ0I44HimAc_21I&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=DcyREXZNRu3J24MyaCAlQv0DTP01AeO46btFz4QITVk&e=>
Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=fgHeIuw69VHEcmbXFEVpbqoiy5s_C2pOj08v08OjTa0&s=Nr-ty83kRt8QQyQqG_g1bxNkZq0m9gsx7nnu3T9nDYw&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ACWaH_t-BoxZE1k7HpXoBCt5EeY6VNY0hDlTKLCW0VY&e=>

_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgICAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ACWaH_t-BoxZE1k7HpXoBCt5EeY6VNY0hDlTKLCW0VY&e=

----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster at gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster at gtlaw.com><mailto:postmaster at gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster at gtlaw.com>>, and do not use or disseminate such information.
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s=3WEdhXLoXeXnxby5pC3bko8NWOIaXQzoFgVrM4hGSlI&e=
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s=3WEdhXLoXeXnxby5pC3bko8NWOIaXQzoFgVrM4hGSlI&e=

_______________________________________________
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


_______________________________________________
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: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170104/68c40415/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list