<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>I agree with Darcy that we are trying to fixed something that no one has said was broken. I strongly favor asking registries for their input (have they even received complaints, etc.). I also strongly favor asking trademark holders if they have any instance of issues. Otherwise I suggest leaving this alone.</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">I am in favor of mediation. My only issue is my experience shows that 90% of complaints are not serious or are seeking opportunistic settlement. </div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">As much as I like to avoid costs, it is important that complaints provide a formal complaint WITH EVIDENCE. I don't care how many pages it is. The idea is to require seriousness and avoid fishing expeditions. This can be accomplished. Y a rule that says if mediation fails the complaint filed will be the complaint for the dispute with any amendment being subject to th discretion of the arbitrators (and not favored). </div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">The response in turn should be formal and with evidence. This prevents gamesmanship by respondent.</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">The law of jurisdiction MUST be established. We need to eliminate the convent of a "universal" law.<br><br><span style="font-size: 13pt;">Paul Keating</span></div><div><br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Paul McGrady <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com" target="_blank">policy@paulmcgrady.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1f497d">Thanks Darcy. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1f497d">I agree that mediation before complaint is a good idea and that the policy should require both sides to consent to it. I think instead of a skeletal complaint, the aggrieved party should do a simple “mediation statement” (which is the normal thing) and then the registry could do a reply statement. I suggest we limit pages to no more than 10 so that this doesn’t become proxy litigation. The mediation (including the statements) should be confidential – in other words nothing shared in mediation while pursuing settlement should be used later by the parties if the complaint goes forward. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1f497d"><br>As for “class actions” I also agree with you on that. Not only do I not think they are feasible in this setting, I will invoke the highest authority on Earth to rebut the entire idea, namely Jimmy Buffett, and simply sayas a brand owner “I don’t want other people [people’s lawyers] thinking for me.” Could you imagine the disaster if a brand owner filed a complaint for abuses of its mark only to learn that a “class action” included them and was already lost? It would be Heck on Earth (especially for the poor law firm that “done it”). Yikes. While I understand the desire for efficiency, there is nothing keeping unhappy brand owners from filing a joint complaint to which they consent in advance. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1f497d">Best,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1f497d">Paul<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Darcy Southwell<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 22, 2016 4:38 PM<br><b>To:</b> Mary Wong; <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action items and updated document following the WG call on 20 July 2016<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div class="h5"><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Candara","sans-serif";color:black">I have to admit I’m struggling with how to evaluate the effectiveness of a policy that’s never been used ~ like we’re proposing solutions for unidentified problems. I don’t want to suggest that we identify and detail all possible use cases and apply the PDDRP to identify flaws. But when we consider the existing Standards (§6) and Burden of Proof (§17), do we have any concrete examples of when the PDDRP maybe should have been used that would indicate needed improvements? </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Candara","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Candara","sans-serif";color:black">Or maybe the better question is … do we have specific examples of registry behavior that doesn’t meet existing standards but is nonetheless concerning when it comes to profiting from sale of infringing domains?</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Candara","sans-serif";color:black">As for a couple of issues discussed on the list and at our last meeting:</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Candara","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-family:"Candara","sans-serif";color:black">Mediation</span></u><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Candara","sans-serif";color:black">Mediation is often a successful way for parties to reach a workable resolution, and I support the concept of non-binding mediation as an option with the PDDRP. If the PDDRP were to allow for the filing of “skeletal” complaints, do we intend that the filing party is the sole determiner of whether the complaint goes to mediation? It seems that the mediation option should be open to both parties to request. In the end, both parties need to be amenable to mediation for it ever have an effective outcome.</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Candara","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-family:"Candara","sans-serif";color:black">Class Actions</span></u><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Candara","sans-serif";color:black">The term “class action” seems problematic because of how it is used in many judicial systems. If what we’re trying to get to is a method for trademark owner to identify prolific abuses by a registry and to then have a more aggressive method for pursuing the registry, is there instead a way to build (1) public disclosure of filings and decisions (the way UDRPs work) and (2) place a burden on panel reviewers to rely on the precedence of prior findings (unlike the UDRP) and take those into account when determining remedies?</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Candara","sans-serif";color:black">Thanks,</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Candara","sans-serif";color:black">Darcy</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Candara","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">From: </span></b><span style="color:black"><<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Mary Wong<br><b>Date: </b>Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:22 AM<br><b>To: </b>"<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>"<br><b>Subject: </b>[gnso-rpm-wg] Action items and updated document following the WG call on 20 July 2016<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Candara","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Dear all,</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Please find attached an updated document containing issues, concerns and suggestions received to date relating to the TM-PDDRP, the first version of which had been circulated on 19 July to the Working Group (see message below). Both documents have also been uploaded to the Working Group wiki space for your convenience: <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/9wWbAw" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/x/9wWbAw</a>. </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">The updated document contains summaries of the discussion during the last call relating to the suggested options for mediation and class action (see the boxed text on Page 2 and Page 4, respectively). <u>Please review the updates and continue discussion of the suggestions on this mailing list</u> (NOTE: the text summaries do not attempt to replicate or summarize the full discussions that took place on the call – please refer to the meeting transcript, recording and Adobe Connect chat transcript for context and additional explanations offered by participating Members on these topics: <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/9wWbAw)" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/x/9wWbAw)</a>. </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">For the next call, we anticipate that Members will discuss the issues, concerns and suggestions raised in relation to the ease/difficulty of access to/use of the TM-PDDRP (currently listed in the document under Section A.III on Pages 4-6). Members are also requested to continue to send in your thoughts and comments regarding <u>additional questions we can raise with ICANN Compliance, and the advisability/need to develop “use cases” for the TM-PDDRP</u> (see Page 7).</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Thanks and cheers</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Mary</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">Mary Wong</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">Senior Policy Director</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">Email: <a href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org" target="_blank">mary.wong@icann.org</a></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">Telephone: <a href="tel:%2B1-603-5744889" value="+16035744889" target="_blank">+1-603-5744889</a></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">From: </span></b><span style="color:black">Mary Wong <<a href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org" target="_blank">mary.wong@icann.org</a>><br><b>Date: </b>Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 18:22<br><b>To: </b>"<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br><b>Subject: </b>For review & discussion: summary document on TM-PDDRP issues, concerns and suggestions<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Dear all,</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Further to the proposed agenda (below), please find attached a document that: (1) compiles the issues, concerns, suggestions received and email discussions to date relating to the TM-PDDRP stemming from the WG’s deliberations up to and in Helsinki; and (2) contains responses received from several WG members regarding the possibility of developing “use cases” and other additional suggestions.</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">We apologize for the late notice, but hopefully Members will be able to review the document even briefly before the WG call tomorrow (Wednesday). </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Thanks and cheers</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Mary</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">Mary Wong</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">Senior Policy Director</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">Email: <a href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org" target="_blank">mary.wong@icann.org</a></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">Telephone: <a href="tel:%2B1-603-5744889" value="+16035744889" target="_blank">+1-603-5744889</a></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">From: </span></b><span style="color:black">Mary Wong <<a href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org" target="_blank">mary.wong@icann.org</a>><br><b>Date: </b>Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 14:56<br><b>To: </b>"<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br><b>Subject: </b>Proposed agenda for Working Group meeting of 20 July <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Dear all,</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">The proposed agenda for the next Working Group call, scheduled for Wednesday 20 July at 1600 UTC, is as follows:</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only) and updates to Statements of Interest</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">2. Discuss identified issues and concerns regarding the TM-PDDRP, including Working Group members’ responses on possible changes to, and things not to change about, the TM-PDDRP</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">3. Discuss follow up questions for ICANN Compliance and TM-PDDRP Providers, including suggestion for developing use cases </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">4. Agree on list of additional issues/concerns with the TM-PDDRP based on WG discussions to date</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">5. Next steps/next meeting</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">A document setting out a framework for the discussion of issues and listing Working Group members’ suggestions will be sent out shortly. </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Thanks and cheers</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Mary</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">Mary Wong</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">Senior Policy Director</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">Email: <a href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org" target="_blank">mary.wong@icann.org</a></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">Telephone: <a href="tel:%2B1-603-5744889" value="+16035744889" target="_blank">+1-603-5744889</a></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Candara","sans-serif";color:black">_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></span></div></blockquote></body></html>