[gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from 07 February Working Group Call

[Paul Keating]

Brian,

I do not see how the extraction of data can be linked to an "attempt to
rewrite a well-established domain name law doctrine established in thousands
of UDRP cases and now being applied in the URS context”.  Data is data.  The
goal is to determine IF in fact the doctrine is in fact being applied.  This
is certainly within the ambit of this WG and as a representative of WIPO
such an undertaking should not be of concern.  You certainly believe that
the WIPO panelists correctly apply the rules and WIPO goes to great lengths
to ensure that panelists are properly educated.   Unfortunately other ADR
providers do not have such a track record.

Be well,

Paul

From:  gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "BECKHAM,
Brian" <brian.beckham at wipo.int>
Date:  Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 12:52 PM
To:  Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org"
<gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from 07 February Working Group Call

> Thanks Julie,
> 
> 
> As to the call for input in the next 48 hours, based inter alia on arguments
> raised on last night's call, my own view is that it does not seem productive
> for staff -- at present -- to proceed (or continue) with URS data extraction.
> 
> Before time and precious resources are spent on data extraction (not to
> mention analysis), there should be agreement from WG members as to what should
> be extracted and to what end, e.g., producing a recommendation as to the
> minimum elements a URS determination should include.  As to that particular
> end however, frankly, it should be possible to already agree on such elements
> now (several have already been mentioned on the last two calls, such as the
> trademark at issue and domain name use).
> 
> An email from George Kirikos perfectly underscores the reason for some of the
> arguments raised on the last several calls;  there, he said:
> 
> "It's possible that the first URS was wrongly decided using the basis of
> "non-use" as proof of "bad faith use" (which the 2nd URS correctly rejected),
> but we don't know for sure given the lack of any detail/reasoning in the first
> URS decision."
> 
> On the one hand, this is merely one view as to whether a URS case was decided
> correctly, to which there may very well be a counter view.
> 
> On the other hand, and I think this gets to the concerns being raised, it is
> effectively an attempt to rewrite a well-established domain name law doctrine
> established in thousands of UDRP cases and now being applied in the URS
> context -- and yet ostensibly​this flows from assessing whether a panel
> correctly applied the burden of proof.
> 
> Thanks for considering,
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund
> <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 9:01 PM
> To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from 07 February Working Group Call
>  
> Dear All, 
>  
> The action items noted by staff from the Working Group call held on 07
> February 2018 (1800 UTC) are as follows.
>  
> 1. Staff to recirculate the latest version of the Compilation of Current URS
> Discussion Documents (see attached the latest version which was updated from
> the meeting on 01 February);
> 2. NEXT 48 HOURS: Staff seeks direction from the Working Group on whether they
> should proceed with data extraction for all URS cases, some URS cases, or no
> URS cases.  If some URS cases, then staff can extract data based on specific
> data elements to be agreed by the Working Group (e.g. types of cases for which
> such data extraction is deemed needed).
>  
> Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes.  Please note
> that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the
> transcript or recording.  The recording, transcript, Adobe Connect chat, and
> attendance records are posted on the wiki.
>  
> Best Regards,
> Julie
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________ 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/20180208/79d0fe2c/attachment.html>