[gnso-rpm-wg] Inferences (was Re: Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group)

[Beckham, Brian]

Thanks Jon for the reply, and while I didn't mean anything negative, point taken.

I'm still keen to see if this WG finds utility in "enhancing" the SDRP challenge process along the lines I noted yesterday (i.e., adding criteria which go to the bona fides of trademark registrations), rather than simply doing away with the TMCH/Sunrises.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon at donuts.co] 
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 11:22 PM
To: Beckham, Brian
Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Inferences (was Re: Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group)

Brian:

I wished you would have ended your last sentence at the word lost.  You make a valid point, but why did you feel the need to go on with the last part ("protecting speculators from other speculators")?

Do you think by adding a snarky comment about TMCH abuse only harming other speculators it makes your point any more salient?  I'm sorry, but legitimate registrants lost out due to some level of TMCH abuse.  We can debate the level of such abuse or what, if anything, to do about it, but denigrating the victims of such abuse by also calling them speculators isn't warranted or persuasive.

Jon


> On Jul 17, 2017, at 4:28 PM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int> wrote:
> 
> For the event this is discussed:
> 
> This would not only be a loss for trademark owners, who would solely be left to resort to curative RPMs, but for consumers who would be harmed in the meantime, because brand owners could not get ahead of abusive registrations that could be used for fraud such as phishing schemes or distributing malware.
> 
> In my view it is imperative that this public policy angle not be lost in the noise of protecting speculators from other speculators.


> ________________________________________
> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on 
> behalf of Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 7:29 PM
> To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Inferences (was Re: Mp3, Attendance, AC 
> recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) 
> PDP Working Group)
> 
> On 17/7/17 3:05 am, Paul Keating wrote:
>> If we halted all TMCH use for sunrise purposes I see no huge loss for 
>> trademark holders.  And such would resolve the underlying problematic 
>> issue - the use of the TMCH in the context of providing a preemptive, 
>> perpetual, globally exclusive right to a domain name that far exceeds 
>> any right granted by any trademark law or treaty.
> 
> Very well put.  Just a reminder that there is already a proposal on 
> the table to eliminate the Sunrise.  From what I can tell we haven't 
> officially come to discussing it yet but I trust that we will.
> 
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
> 
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
> 
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
> 
> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt
> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg