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

Maxim Alzoba m.alzoba at gmail.com
Thu Oct 18 08:11:22 UTC 2018


Hello Georges, 

I believe that without understanding of the amounts we can not blindly approve additional costs.

30USD for a domain name with the TLD price of 5USD is a lot.

Under the current set of RAA 2013, RA contracts, any outside requestors to Registrar or Registry contracts are pure third parties and have no additional rights.

Making a particular set of Registrant benefactors of the process is not fair to other Registrants, and Registries and Registrars can not provide unlimited
amount of services for free.

P.s: Direct regulation of prices via policy will not work, due to a picket fence part of RA and RAA2013 contracts.

Sincerely Yours,

Maxim Alzoba
Special projects manager,
International Relations Department,
FAITID

m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp)
skype oldfrogger

Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)

> On 18 Oct 2018, at 03:09, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 <mailto:icann at leap.com>
> Sent: October 17, 2018 7:34 PM
> To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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/date.html>
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003263.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/003266.html>
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003269.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/ <http://www.leap.com/>
> _______________________________________________
> GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
> GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <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.
> _______________________________________________
> GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
> GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <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/20181018/eebdcfd5/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list