[gnso-rpm-wg] RPM WG questions directed at me

Wed May 9 17:45:35 UTC 2018

Thanks Brian for the answers, hope we get to know more of each other over
time. Special thanks to take on the hard job of chairing. I personally
think you are a perfect candidate. I'm sure you will do an excellent job.

Cheers,
Martín Silva

On Wed, May 9, 2018, 1:35 PM Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks, Brian, I appreciate your engagement and response to my query.
>
> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:28 PM, BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>>
>>
>> I appreciate the chance to answer some of your questions.
>>
>>
>>
>> I also appreciate that time is near for our call, but I would like to
>> share the following:
>>
>>
>>
>> George asked about WIPO’s “Select UDRP-related Court Cases” page, and why
>> WIPO had not included certain cases on that page, and then why it was
>> updated it as it was.
>>
>>
>>
>> After discussing this internally, and based inter alia on assessment of a
>> number of reasoned discussions made on this very list as to the various
>> range of factors involved in court‑sanctioned settled cases, it seemed
>> clear that certain types of cases may or may not have probative value that
>> speaks to the merits of the UDRP case.  Illustrative of the fact that this
>> assessment was applied in a neutral manner in terms of not including
>> certain cases on this page, as you can see, the “lawsociety” case was also
>> removed.  As to why it was initially put up, I could not say;  as you can
>> see, nearly all of the content on that page predates my current role.  I
>> also understand from my Francophone colleagues that the Moobitalk case
>> involves a complex trademark-jurisdictional question decided on distinct
>> grounds from the UDRP case.  Moreover, while we are facing record volumes
>> of cases in recent years, with respect, on the few occasions where a third
>> party brings a case to our attention, rather than simply post it on WIPO’s
>> public webpage automatically, we prefer to take the necessary time to make
>> a reasoned assessment before potentially doing so.
>>
>>
>>
>> Michael asked about my suggestions on a question in the Providers subteam
>> survey.
>>
>>
>>
>> *As has already been clarified on the email list by staff*, the reason I
>> reached out to staff is that I had put a suggestion on the list (on 26-Apr)
>> with a suggestion to use more neutral language (i.e., that found in the URS
>> Rules regarding impartiality requirements).  Although there was subsequent
>> discussion on the list about this, I was not aware that a resolution had
>> been reached.  However, on a call on 4-May, Kathy represented that the
>> relevant subteam questions were finalized.  I wrote to staff merely to see
>> if they would be able to clarify whether this was the case; in their reply
>> to me, they shared the subteam-agreed wording on that particular question.
>> Since I understood that the subteam was seeking to close this work off by
>> COB that Friday I sought to provide some very targeted feedback along the
>> same lies of my original email of 26-Apr, and as I made clear to staff I
>> would have been happy to raise the very same point in the full WG – I
>> merely thought it would be more efficient to share my thoughts in advance
>> with the subteam, via staff in this case.  Anyone who know or has worked
>> with me can attest that I try when possible to approach such matters with
>> an efficient and solution-oriented mindset.  Since I understood that these
>> questions in any event would need to be cleared by the full WG, I merely
>> thought this approach (occasioned if you recall by my asking for a
>> procedural clarification) fit that mold.
>>
>>
>>
>> Martin asked about my role in WIPO, the GAC, and my Statement of Interest
>> stating that I am representing my employer.
>>
>>
>>
>> At WIPO, I am responsible for day-to-day management and oversight of
>> domain name operations (this includes a range of tasks such as HR,
>> administration, finance, and IT), and also related IP and DNS policy
>> activities (e.g., this working group).  If you will allow me a brief word
>> about WIPO (whose mission relates to “the development of a balanced and
>> effective international intellectual property (IP) system that enables
>> innovation and creativity for the benefit of all”), by definition, we, the
>> staff here, are the “secretariat” to WIPO’s Member States.  What this means
>> is that we act in a neutral manner without taking substantive views.  A
>> recent example of this is my participation at our Standing Committee on
>> the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT)
>> <http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=46435> where
>> issues such as trademarks and GIs on the Internet were discussed.  While I
>> might have personal views on international legal norms in these areas, our
>> role is to provide a platform for Member State discussions – very much like
>> the co-chair role envisaged for this particular ICANN working group.  As
>> for the GAC, WIPO, as a Member State-constituted organization, is an
>> official observer.  Frankly, we are not involved in the majority of GAC
>> discussions, but seek where relevant to share our experience e.g., with
>> administering dispute resolution systems, or where there are relevant
>> Member State decisions relating to IP norms – a good example is that during
>> discussions on the TMCH “proof of use” requirement, we shared with GAC
>> colleagues a WIPO SCT survey that had been conducted on the registration
>> office practices of Member States.  As to any WG review of UDRP providers,
>> at the recent Puerto Rico meeting, Mr. Kirikos raised some questions for
>> the NAF, and while WIPO has written to ICANN about provider accreditation
>> choices over the years, I did not intervene in that particular discussion;
>> had I done so, I would have made it clear whether I was doing so in a
>> non-chair capacity (assuming for argument’s sake that I would be in that
>> role, to complete this example).  It is of course true the WIPO is the
>> leading UDRP provider, and I am honored to contribute to its work in this
>> respect; WIPO (operating on a not-for-profit basis) believes that the UDRP
>> is a positive international contribution for all DNS stakeholders, and
>> WIPO’s interest is in its healthy functioning as a system that saves
>> parties the time and expense of going to court, acts as a safe harbor by
>> keeping registration authorities out of court/disputes, provides
>> predictability in a domain name aftermarket, and protects consumers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the opportunity to provide you all with these answers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>>
>> Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO
>> Arbitration and Mediation Center
>> 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247
>> | E brian.beckham at wipo.int | www.wipo.int
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic
>> message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected
>> information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please
>> immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its
>> attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses
>> prior to opening or using.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180509/f1447322/attachment.html>