[gnso-rpm-wg] Correction to UDRP data on 2-June TM Claims Sub-Team call

[Nahitchevansky, Georges]

George K:

Unfortunately, I think you are going down the wrong rabbit hole and ignoring the big picture problem. The UDRP and URS are not the only aspects of this issue. They are tools that were created to help address problems of cyberquatting -- problems that include myriad ways that fraud, counterfeiting, brand hijacking and other harms have been perpetrated on consumers and brand owners. If I registered GeorgeKirikos.xyz and used the domain name to attempt to steal  ‎personal information from consumers or sell them junky products, you might have a different view of the issue. The problem here is far greater than what you try to portray. Every day there are probably thousands of demand letters sent out around the world to try to address these problems‎, there are thousands of hours spent investigating and addressing these matters etc.  The costs, needless to say, are staggering and substantially more than the small registration fee that many cybersquatters pay to get a domain name for the various schemes that we now have seen for over 20 years.

To put things in perspective, there are hundreds of millions of cars in the world and everyday millions if not billions or car rides are taken around the world. The percentage of accidents are relatively small by comparison, and the number of car accident matters that end up in court is even a much much smaller number. The point is that we don't sit around and say their shouldn't be laws that govern driving and/or  to use to resolve car accidents, that there shouldn't be arbitration or court regimes for resolving car accidents etc or that we shouldn't have commissions rethinking or discussing the laws or ways to handle car accident matters.   We have laws and procedures for handling these issue. The rights protection mechanisms are in the same fashion regimes put in place to help address ongoing problems -- real problems that exist and which by every legitimate study (FBI, Interpol and others)  I have seen are growing in scope.

So, in closing, while I understand that you may have hostility to the notion of RPMs, I would ask that you try to focus on the big picture here of the overall harm that has and is occurring and how best to address it.
‎.
  Original Message
‎
From: George Kirikos
Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 6:31 AM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Correction to UDRP data on 2-June TM Claims Sub-Team call


Hello,

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:14 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int> wrote:
> Apologies if I incorrectly in your view added the word percent after the raw numbers.
>
> In any event, I stand by what I said, and prefer not to engage in further discussion.

So, if it's the WIPO position, that you "stand by", that 6%
constitutes "very few", what does that imply about 1200 UDRPs for new
gTLDs (or say 3000, to estimate the total including other providers,
out of 25 million new gTLDs)?

By my math, 3000 out of 25,000,000 or so new gTLD domains is 0.012
percent (i.e. 0.00012 x 100). It seems by your analysis, there's no
real problem of cybersquatting. That would seem to argue for the
elimination of the UDRP/URS and TMCH, given there are "very few"
cases. Indeed, since 0.012 percent is 1/500th of 6%, it might be
called "very, very, very few". Divide it by 4, even, given those cases
are spread over approximately 4 years.

Why are we investing such substantial time and effort, for a so-called
"problem" which affects "very, very, very few" domain names??!!??
Those "very, very, very few" domain names would not cause any
significant burden on the judicial system, spread over 100+ countries,
given there are "very, very, very few" of them to begin with.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

________________________________

Confidentiality Notice:
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.

________________________________

***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.