[GNSO-RPM-WG] WG discussion on proposal #6 - last week

[claudio di gangi]

hi all,

I just had a chance to catch up on last week's WG call, when we discussed
proposal #6 among other topics.

Thanks for the robust discussion on this proposal. Since I wasn't able to
join, I am writing to clarify and respond to members' questions about how
the proposal is intended to align with the overall design of the URS
procedure.

Under the existing URS procedure, multiple companies, i.e. complainants,
are permitted to consolidate their claims against a single domain name
registrant who has registered multiple domain names, but only when they can
establish to the panelist that they are all *related companies*.

Under the UDRP, multiple *unrelated companies* are permitted to consolidate
their claim in one proceeding against a single domain name registrant who
has registered multiple domain names.

So the proposal harmonizes the URS with the UDRP in this one respect, by
allowing *unrelated companies* to consolidate the same way they are
permitted to consolidate under the UDRP.

Under the existing URS, importantly there is no requirement that the *related
companies* use the same or similar trademarks or other business identifiers
in commerce. So the way things exist today the related companies can appear *to
be** unrelated entities on the surface* (because they use different
trademarks, trade names, and business identifiers) until their trademark
registration certificates (and/or other legal documentation) are reviewed
by the panelist in order to establish that the various companies are in
fact related and all fall under the same corporate 'umbrella'. This
documentation must be provided by the complainants and reviewed by the
panelist under the existing rules.

Proposal #6 proposes to eliminate this step or requirement, i.e. that the
companies are related, because it serves no practical purpose, in order to
generate efficiencies and reduce costs.

Moreover, in terms of the number of domain names in a particular case:

the Providers charge additional fees based on the number of domain names
per case, with additional fees when the complaint involves over a certain
number of domain names. So the proposal does not touch upon this issue or
recommend any changes in this respect.

I hope this explanation is helpful, and if there are any further questions
please do not hesitate to let me know. Thanks in advance for your time.

Cheers,
Claudio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20200115/b0296cf7/attachment.html>