[gnso-rpm-wg] Recordings, Attendance, & AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Thursday, 01 February 2018

George Kirikos icann at leap.com
Tue Feb 6 13:39:51 UTC 2018


Well said, Rebecca.

Furthermore, if a low level of appeals is an appropriate metric, then
I would think that the low overall usage rate of the entire URS
procedure, relative to the number of domain names registered, should
also be an appropriate metric. The same would apply to the very low
sunrise usage. That would support the elimination of the sunrise and
URS procedures, given their low adoption.

The fact that just 33 survey responses in the INTA survey were
considered by some here to be very powerful evidence (LOL!) speaks for
itself.

Unlike those 33 survey responses which purported to be statistically
representative of all TM holders worldwide and valid, we can review
the entire universe of URS decisions (thus it's no longer a *sample*
of a larger population, where getting a reliable sample might be hard;
it's the *entire* population being studied).

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 8:26 AM, Tushnet, Rebecca
<rtushnet at law.harvard.edu> wrote:
> I'd like to reiterate to the mailing list that "subjective" is often being
> used in an undefined and I think unjustified way.  As was pointed out on the
> call, there are plenty of qualitative inquiries on which we can expect
> agreement and which shouldn't be deemed "subjective" by any standard: did
> the panelist identify the domain name at issue?  Did the panelist identify
> the abusive use?  Aggregated, these individual observations provide valuable
> information about the transparency and functioning of the process as a
> whole.
>
>
> In general, many in this group don't trust the average registrant involved
> in a dispute, so it's not clear to me why their appeals, or lack thereof,
> would guide whether we think the process is working.  Especially when there
> are a lot of defaults, the appeal rate doesn't indicate much--similar to
> debt collection against poor people in the US, where there are lots of
> defaults but when individual claims are examined they often don't hold up.
> I expect that the rate of valid claims in the URS is much higher than the
> rate of valid claims in US debt collection cases, but that's just an
> expectation in advance of a lot of data.  Relatedly, the appealed cases are
> ones where the process is most likely to work as intended, because the
> parties join the issues.  But again, that's an expectation, and should be
> examined.
>
>
>
> Rebecca Tushnet
> Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
> 703 593 6759
> ________________________________
> From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of BECKHAM,
> Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 6:04:27 AM
> To: Julie Bisland; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recordings, Attendance, & AC Chat for Review of
> all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Thursday,
> 01 February 2018
>
>
> Thanks Terri, Julie,
>
>
>
> Having listened to the call recording, it is plain to see there is strong
> (and well-reasoned) disagreement on whether to proceed with a “subjective
> and qualitative review” of URS decisions with respect to the standard of
> evidence.
>
>
>
> Given this, and perhaps as a start, we can look to see the number of cases
> which have been appealed -- whether on the merits or following a default --
> to see if registrants themselves believe the standard is being misapplied.
> A statistically low number of appeals would suggest the answer may be “no”.
>
>
>
> If on the other hand, there is a significant instance of appeals, that may
> merit the type of “review” proposed by some WG members.  For that event,
> perhaps the WG should already agree to avoid an approach that would risk
> re-litigating the decisions themselves;  instead, the WG could agree to only
> review select URS decisions with a view to possible “improvements” going
> forward (e.g., as I believe Jeff Neuman proposed, suggesting that decisions
> should contain some minimal reasoning/elements).
>
>
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie
> Bisland
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 2:24 PM
> To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org
> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recordings, Attendance, & AC Chat for Review of all
> Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Thursday, 01
> February 2018
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Please find the attendance and AC Chat transcript of the call attached to
> this email. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording are below for the Review of
> all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held
> Thursday, 01 February 2018 at 04:00 UTC. Attendance and recordings of the
> call is posted on agenda wiki page:  https://community.icann.org/x/uAxyB
>
> MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-01feb18-en.mp3
>
> Adobe Connect recording:  https://participate.icann.org/p6mww2tis6b/
>
>
>
> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master
> Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
>
>
>
> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
>
>
>
> Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/
>
>
>
> Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Terri
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list