[GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels

Thu Oct 18 00:09:36 UTC 2018

This should simply be the cost of doing business for registrars and registries.  They can easily offset ths cost by adding a few pennies to each domain name registration or renewal After all, brand owners are expected to assume the costs of defending their rights and protecting their consumers.  If you are argue that domain name registrants should not have to pay a few pennies more to cover this cost, then by the same token the world's consumers should not have to pay a few pennies more so a small group of folks can benefit at their expense.  If you are truly worried about this cost, then perhaps the solution is to have registrants and complainants who are in a proceeding pay an additional small fee.  The losing party has that fee paid to the registrar and registry and the winner gets his or her money back.  This seems like a much fairer and more reasonable proposal.  After all someone can register a domain name for under $30 and cause another party to spend thousands of dollars to prevent potentially nefarious activity.  So that initial registrant should be potentially on the hook for something apart from the loss of a $30 or less domain name registration.  You could even tie the cost to an outcome based result.  If you fail to pay the fee then you lose automatically or your case gets terminated as a Complainant.  Again, the point is that this is a cost of doing business, but if you and others want to insist on going down that path then there needs to be balance and registrants should be on the hook as well.

From: icann at leap.com
Sent: October 17, 2018 7:34 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels

Hi Paul T.,

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 6:35 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com> wrote:
> George #23 doesn’t seem very sensible and I’m somewhat surprised it is
> deemed to have adequate support.
>
> As I have already pointed out the TM holder is a 3rd party looking to
> intervene in a private contract. What you are proposing is that one of the
> parties to the contract that is causing the problem should be rewarded
> proportionately to level of bad behaviour, which would have the effect of
> working in direct opposition to the intenttions of RAA 3.18.

The registrar (or registry) isn't being "rewarded" --- they're simply
recovering their compliance/admin costs associated with providing help
to providers during the dispute. Forget about domain names for a
moment, and suppose that an ISP like Verizon, Cox,  or AT&T is
approached to provide information about one of their subscribers (by
law enforcement, copyright holders, etc.). There are staff costs to do
that. Those ISPs aren't getting "rewarded" --  they're just recovering
those costs (the cost recovery needs to be "reasonable"). It doesn't
become a "profit center." Here's a cost schedule for Cox, as an
example:

https://www.cox.com/aboutus/policies/law-enforcement-and-subpoenas-information.html

"$50.00     Per account for basic information*
"$100.00  Expedited handling fee"
"$75.00/hr./staff  Requests requiring greater than 0.5 hours ($40.00 minimum)"
"Wiretap    $3,125 for 30 days"

And it's a proposal not just for registrars, it'd be for registries
too (which don't have a direct contractual relationship with
registrants, but still need to interact with providers, at least for
the URS). And the costs for registries exist, as Jonathan Frost has
noted, when this topic came up last month on the mailing list. See the
thread at:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/date.html
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003263.html
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003266.html
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003269.html
etc.

Indeed, by allowing registrars to recover costs, just like ISPs do,
it'll strengthen 3.18 of the RAA.

Furthermore, this isn't "bad behaviour" -- prior to the matter being
discharged by the courts, or a panel, etc., the outcome of the dispute
is unknown (one can't presume the registrar's customer is guilty,
based on an accusation or request; the ISP or registrar or registry is
neutral, and not a party to the dispute). I don't know if we have any
ISPs participating in this PDP, but they might be able to provide
further data/insights.

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20181018/1fc3bd44/attachment.html>