<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><i>Soundstop</i>, <i>Austin Pain</i> and <i>SDT</i> are all <u>settlements</u>. 

<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">The WIPO page is entitled "Select UDRP-related Court Cases," which they specify as "orders and decisions." As settlements, they really are neither court orders or decisions.  The court just rubber-stamped the private agreement of the parties.  There's nothing wrong with that, but there's no judicial value in these actions.  They provide nothing a third party could rely on, set no precedent, apply no law and make no law.  </span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">T</span>hese are not "successful challenges" in the sense that a court actually considered the merits of the case and rendered a decision.  They may be favorable settlements to the respondents, but they do not represent success in court in the way that a "case" does.  (In law school, when students are "reading cases" in law school, they are reading decisions; when a lawyer says she has a "case on this point," she is referring to a decision.) A s such I wouldn't consider these "cases" at all for this purpose.  </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Also none of these are relevant to "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice."  Hopefully, nobody who read this thread actually thought that these (non)cases represented any of those things, or thought that WIPO was biased and engaging in a cover-up by "failing" to post these settlements.  (This seemed to be the undercurrent of the argument, but perhaps I'm reading too much into it.)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">In other words, WIPO did the right thing with regard to 

<i style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">Soundstop</i><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">,<span> </span></span><i style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">Austin Pain</i><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline"><span> </span>and<span> </span></span><i style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">SDT</i>.  </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><i>Moobitalk</i> is different -- it is an actual court decision (indeed, two court decisions), which I think would be of some interest to those looking for court decisions reflecting the outcome of judicial challenges to UDRP cases.  In this instance, I would join George in requesting (respectfully, in my case) that WIPO post the decisions in this case on the "Select UDRP-related Court Cases" page.   </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Again I should note that <i>Moobitalk</i> doesn't appear to demonstrate <span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">"the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice," and also n</span>ote that none of this is relevant to Brian's fitness or appropriateness to serve as Co-Chair of this WG.  For that purpose, this is a "frolic and detour."</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 3:30 PM, claudio di gangi <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com" target="_blank">ipcdigangi@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">

<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">George, all,</span><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">Personally, I don't believe WIPO is doing anything wrong by not publishing your specific list of post-UDRP cases, which is not a requirement for Providers. From my perspective, it looks like they have posted some of these cases as a nice gesture to the community.</div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">The webpage on which these cases are published clearly states these are "select" cases and there is no intent to create a comprehensive, updated running list of all post-UDPR actions. <br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">Moreover, in taking a quick glance at some of the cases you highlighted:<br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><Soundstop.com> - the court case settled; it doesn't appear the court issued a holding that is generally applicable to other UDRP proceedings.</div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><<a href="http://sdt.com" target="_blank">sdt.com</a>> - it looks like the UDRP panel terminated the proceeding to let the court case run its course. </div><br class="m_-6341651457402542524gmail-Apple-interchange-newline"></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><Moobitalk.com> -  <span> </span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">the decision of the appeals court was based on a legal principle (territoriality) that is not a required element under the UDRP. This seems to be a relatively unique case and publishing this decision may confuse some readers in terms of the general applicability of UDRP jurisprudence.</span></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">---</div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">In terms of Brian's nomination, I am very grateful that he is willing to serve and dedicate the time needed to take on this role.  As mentioned by Zak and other's, I believe he is preeminently qualified and has the natural leadership skills that will greatly benefit our team.<br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">Hope this helps.</div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">Best regards,</div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">Claudio</div><br class="m_-6341651457402542524gmail-Apple-interchange-newline">

<br></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:47 PM, George Kirikos <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:icann@leap.com" target="_blank">icann@leap.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">With regards to Brian Beckham of WIPO being one of the co-chairs, I'm<br>
relatively indifferent, as long as the co-chairs comply with the<br>
working group guidelines which place constraints on their behaviour<br>
(i.e. neutrality, not pushing their own agenda, etc.). It's meant to<br>
be an administrative/clerical task, essentially.<br>
<br>
I think Brian would go a long way towards demonstrating his commitment<br>
towards that required neutrality if he would get WIPO to update their<br>
"Court Challenged Cases" page at:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/dom<wbr>ains/challenged/</a><br>
<br>
with cases that have been **repeatedly** brought to their attention in<br>
the past, including:<br>
<br>
1. Soundstop.com --<br>
<a href="http://domainnamewire.com/2016/07/21/mike-mann-overturns-udrp-decision-court/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://domainnamewire.com/2016<wbr>/07/21/mike-mann-overturns-<wbr>udrp-decision-court/</a><br>
<a href="https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/soundstop-1.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://domainnamewire.com/wp-<wbr>content/soundstop-1.pdf</a><br>
<br>
2. AustinPain.com --<br>
<a href="http://ia601008.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.cod.147273/gov.uscourts.cod.147273.23.0.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://ia601008.us.archive.org<wbr>/18/items/gov.uscourts.cod.147<wbr>273/gov.uscourts.cod.147273.<wbr>23.0.pdf</a><br>
<br>
3. SDT.com --<br>
<a href="http://domainnamewire.com/2015/07/22/50000-penalty-for-filing-a-frivolous-udrp/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://domainnamewire.com/2015<wbr>/07/22/50000-penalty-for-filin<wbr>g-a-frivolous-udrp/</a><br>
<a href="https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/SDT-settlement1.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://domainnamewire.com/wp-<wbr>content/SDT-settlement1.pdf</a><br>
<br>
4. Moobitalk.com --<br>
<a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5899d5f9-3bbc-416e-a9a5-7233a147b62c" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.lexology.com/librar<wbr>y/detail.aspx?g=5899d5f9-3bbc-<wbr>416e-a9a5-7233a147b62c</a><br>
<a href="https://www.legalis.net/jurisprudences/cour-dappel-de-paris-pole-5-ch-1-arret-du-8-novembre-2016/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.legalis.net/jurisp<wbr>rudences/cour-dappel-de-paris-<wbr>pole-5-ch-1-arret-du-8-novembr<wbr>e-2016/</a><br>
(actual decision)<br>
<br>
It looks bad on WIPO's part that all of these successful challenges<br>
are not being reflected on that page. WIPO is quick to assert "record<br>
cybersquatting" exists, yet they fail to mention the other side of the<br>
coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the<br>
court cases that are required to achieve justice. If Brian would get<br>
that page updated before an election, that would be wonderful.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
George Kirikos<br>
416-588-0269<br>
<a href="http://www.leap.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.leap.com/</a><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">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/l<wbr>istinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<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/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>