[gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair

Fri Apr 27 05:04:38 UTC 2018

*Soundstop*, *Austin Pain* and *SDT* are all *settlements*.  The WIPO page
is entitled "Select UDRP-related Court Cases," which they specify as
"orders and decisions." As settlements, they really are neither court
orders or decisions.  The court just rubber-stamped the private agreement
of the parties.  There's nothing wrong with that, but there's no judicial
value in these actions.  They provide nothing a third party could rely on,
set no precedent, apply no law and make no law.

These are not "successful challenges" in the sense that a court actually
considered the merits of the case and rendered a decision.  They may be
favorable settlements to the respondents, but they do not represent success
in court in the way that a "case" does.  (In law school, when students are
"reading cases" in law school, they are reading decisions; when a lawyer
says she has a "case on this point," she is referring to a decision.) A s
such I wouldn't consider these "cases" at all for this purpose.

Also none of these are relevant to "the other side of the coin, abuse of
the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are
required to achieve justice."  Hopefully, nobody who read this thread
actually thought that these (non)cases represented any of those things, or
thought that WIPO was biased and engaging in a cover-up by "failing" to
post these settlements.  (This seemed to be the undercurrent of the
argument, but perhaps I'm reading too much into it.)

In other words, WIPO did the right thing with regard to *Soundstop*, *Austin
Pain* and *SDT*.

*Moobitalk* is different -- it is an actual court decision (indeed, two
court decisions), which I think would be of some interest to those looking
for court decisions reflecting the outcome of judicial challenges to UDRP
cases.  In this instance, I would join George in requesting (respectfully,
in my case) that WIPO post the decisions in this case on the "Select
UDRP-related Court Cases" page.

Again I should note that *Moobitalk* doesn't appear to demonstrate "the
other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name
hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice," and
also note that none of this is relevant to Brian's fitness or
appropriateness to serve as Co-Chair of this WG.  For that purpose, this is
a "frolic and detour."

Greg

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 3:30 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
wrote:

> George, all,
>
> Personally, I don't believe WIPO is doing anything wrong by not publishing
> your specific list of post-UDRP cases, which is not a requirement for
> Providers. From my perspective, it looks like they have posted some of
> these cases as a nice gesture to the community.
>
> The webpage on which these cases are published clearly states these are
> "select" cases and there is no intent to create a comprehensive, updated
> running list of all post-UDPR actions.
>
> Moreover, in taking a quick glance at some of the cases you highlighted:
>
> <Soundstop.com> - the court case settled; it doesn't appear the court
> issued a holding that is generally applicable to other UDRP proceedings.
>
> <sdt.com> - it looks like the UDRP panel terminated the proceeding to let
> the court case run its course.
>
> <Moobitalk.com> -   the decision of the appeals court was based on a
> legal principle (territoriality) that is not a required element under the
> UDRP. This seems to be a relatively unique case and publishing this
> decision may confuse some readers in terms of the general applicability of
> UDRP jurisprudence.
>
> ---
>
> In terms of Brian's nomination, I am very grateful that he is willing to
> serve and dedicate the time needed to take on this role.  As mentioned by
> Zak and other's, I believe he is preeminently qualified and has the natural
> leadership skills that will greatly benefit our team.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Best regards,
> Claudio
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:47 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>
>> With regards to Brian Beckham of WIPO being one of the co-chairs, I'm
>> relatively indifferent, as long as the co-chairs comply with the
>> working group guidelines which place constraints on their behaviour
>> (i.e. neutrality, not pushing their own agenda, etc.). It's meant to
>> be an administrative/clerical task, essentially.
>>
>> I think Brian would go a long way towards demonstrating his commitment
>> towards that required neutrality if he would get WIPO to update their
>> "Court Challenged Cases" page at:
>>
>> http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
>>
>> with cases that have been **repeatedly** brought to their attention in
>> the past, including:
>>
>> 1. Soundstop.com --
>> http://domainnamewire.com/2016/07/21/mike-mann-overturns-
>> udrp-decision-court/
>> https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/soundstop-1.pdf
>>
>> 2. AustinPain.com --
>> http://ia601008.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.cod.147
>> 273/gov.uscourts.cod.147273.23.0.pdf
>>
>> 3. SDT.com --
>> http://domainnamewire.com/2015/07/22/50000-penalty-for-filin
>> g-a-frivolous-udrp/
>> https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/SDT-settlement1.pdf
>>
>> 4. Moobitalk.com --
>> http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5899d5f9-3bbc-
>> 416e-a9a5-7233a147b62c
>> https://www.legalis.net/jurisprudences/cour-dappel-de-paris-
>> pole-5-ch-1-arret-du-8-novembre-2016/
>> (actual decision)
>>
>> It looks bad on WIPO's part that all of these successful challenges
>> are not being reflected on that page. WIPO is quick to assert "record
>> cybersquatting" exists, yet they fail to mention the other side of the
>> coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the
>> court cases that are required to achieve justice. If Brian would get
>> that page updated before an election, that would be wonderful.
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180427/de429e54/attachment-0001.html>