[gnso-rpm-wg] URS / UDRP proposals -- data on registrar/registry compliance costs

Fri Sep 7 14:29:33 UTC 2018

If this is going to be considered further then I think we need to look at

1) if some registrars are suffering a disproportionate amount of costs in
proportion to the total number of domains they have under management? and

2) if there is any correlation between the age of the domains and the
number of complaints?

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 3:21 PM Jonathan Frost <jonathan at get.club> wrote:

> Paul,
>
> I think the misunderstanding here is that when I say "lifetime lock", I'm
> only referring to the fact that, under 10.2 of the URS Procudures (
> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf),
> when a party prevails in a URS case, the domain is locked for the life of
> the domain registration: "Immediately upon receipt of the Determination,
> the Registry Operator shall suspend the domain name, *which shall remain
> suspended for the balance of the registration period* and would not
> resolve to the original web site. "
>
> I merely pointed this out to show a potential conflict with the rules of a
> subsequently filed UDRP.   And I was only pointing it out to support
> George's point that the registry operators / registrars are sustaining
> costs associated with administration, and should be equally entitled to
> cost recovery as WIPO/NAF.
>
> This seems like common sense to me.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 10:12 AM Paul Keating <paul at law.es> wrote:
>
>> The idea of an unlimited lock on a domain is absurd.
>>
>> Trademarks are limited both jurisdictionally and bu goods/services
>> classification.
>>
>> To justify a permanent lock the trademark holder would have to satisfy a
>> huge burden. Essentially having to prove the following:
>>
>> 1   the mark is registered globally in all jurisdictions.
>>
>> 2.  The mark is globally famous such that it’s recognition transcends any
>> and all goods/services classifications.  The mark must truly be a household
>> name.  (Think Coca Cola blue jeans. There are not many marks that would
>> satisfy these requirements.
>>
>> 3. Even if famous jurisdictions differ widely in the applicable law and
>> factors necessary to determine fame.
>>
>> 3. The URS/UDRP is simply NOT an appropriate forum for such a
>> determination.
>>
>> 4. Any limitation based upon time is insufficient. First a trademark
>> lapses
>> Only as a result of non-use or failure to renew. It is not like a parent
>> or copyright - both both of which were designed to be of limited duration.
>>   This any absolute time reference would require one to constantly monitor
>> continued validity.
>>
>> 5. Given that there are non-conflicting uses for a phrase that is also a
>> trademark such a rule would both provide an unfair advantage to the
>> trademark holder and limit the rights of others who may wish to use the
>> same phrase for non conflicting purposes.
>>
>> 6. Many non infringing use cases exist - the basis of fair use. Fair use
>> is present in virtually every Trulaw underlying trademarks.
>>
>> 7.   The original WIPO White Paper issued in 1999 clearly formulated the
>> foundational policy that the UDRP was NOT intended to expand trademark
>> rights beyond those which existed outside the Internet. I see no reason to
>> question the logic of that foundational policy statement. I further cannot
>> see any reason why the URS should be treated differently.
>>
>> Let’s stop this silly discussion. It is an example of gross over
>> reaching.
>>
>> Paul Keating.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 6 Sep 2018, at 21:03, Jonathan Frost <jonathan at get.club> wrote:
>>
>> Your point about the 10 year max is well taken, Maxim.  I would venture a
>> guess that most domains that are the subject of abuse are not registered
>> for long periods though.
>>
>> I would be concerned about the operational overhead of removing locks
>> from the domains on a specific date.  While you're right that a lock (or
>> any requirement whatever) can be overridden by the order of a court of
>> competent jurisdiction, I think that building in specific dates in the
>> distant future where a lock should be removed could increase operational
>> overhead.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 12:45 PM Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Jonathan,
>>>
>>> I am resending it (was not processed by gnso-rpm-wg@ list).
>>>
>>> I think lifetime lock (if at all) should be limited to the lifetime of
>>> the TM registration,
>>> to avoid dumping of some strings for no reason (when there is no TM
>>> holder to protect,
>>> what is the reason for locking?)
>>>
>>> Also, all registrations terms are limited to the time of Registry
>>> contract with ICANN (10 years), so at the best it can be 10 years, and not
>>> a single day more.
>>>
>>> So either we do not use this idea, or we will have to create mechanism
>>> of removing such lifetime-10years-lock, preferably using the current system
>>> (for example, TM database to which URS complainant of that time referred
>>> to , does not have the entry no more,
>>> so the party seeking for the registration can start a process, might be
>>> even with the same price of filing via the same URS provider, or it's
>>> successor).
>>>
>>> p.s: any kind of such lock can be overridden by a simple village court
>>> in the same jurisdiction as the particular registry is based.
>>>
>>> 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 5 Sep 2018, at 20:59, Jonathan Frost <jonathan at get.club> wrote:
>>>
>>> For instance, there is ambiguity about what action a registry should
>>> take when a domain which is already the subject of a URS judgement &
>>> lifetime lock receives a UDPR judgement that requires unlock & transfer.
>>> The URS rules don't account for this situation, and by their letter,
>>> require that the domain not be unlocked.  However, the registries are also
>>> required to comply with consensus policies (such as UDRP).
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 1:47 PM Doug Isenberg <Doug at giga.law> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What are some of the “ambiguities in complying with the rules”?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Doug
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Jonathan
>>>> Frost
>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 5, 2018 1:15 PM
>>>> *To:* icann at leap.com
>>>> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] URS / UDRP proposals -- data on
>>>> registrar/registry compliance costs
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree that Registries and Registrars need to be able to recover the
>>>> cost of administering the URS/UDRPs, as part of the filing fee.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The costs that the Registries/Registrars bear actually goes beyond what
>>>> Reg has said.  There are situations where we have to go to outside counsel
>>>> or even ICANN to resolve ambiguities in complying with the rules.
>>>> Additionally, the 24 hour action requirement on locking a domain that has
>>>> received a URS complaint actually increases the resources that have to be
>>>> dedicated, beyond the actual number of minutes per complaint, because
>>>> compliance personal has to allocate/reserve a certain time per day to
>>>> perform the tasks, even if no complaint is received that day.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just like the arbitration administrators charge a cost recovery fee for
>>>> administration as part of the filing fee, it's just common since that the
>>>> Registries/Registrars would too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan Frost
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180907/f3cd7896/attachment.html>