<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Monetary "penalties" on registrants, and any recovery of costs
beyond the arbitration itself, are beyond the scope of URS, UDRP, or
indeed any ICANN policy. Those are matters for national courts.
Aside from being a vast expansion of these dispute resolution
policies, what Georges proposes is unworkable in practice. How would
"penalties" and second- and third-order costs be collected from
registrants? Would registrars have to sue their customers to collect
these funds on behalf of trademark holders? Or would every
registrant have to submit to potentially unbounded contractual
liability to unknown third parties as a condition of registration?<br>
<br>
Establishing a workable fee structure for URS (and UDRP)
arbitrations is one thing. Expanding these policies to become
systems for punishment of bad actors and broadly defined cost
recovery is quite another—that's the domain of courts and trademark
law, not ICANN policies.<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Mitch Stoltz
Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.eff.org/donate">https://www.eff.org/donate</a> | <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://act.eff.org/">https://act.eff.org/</a>
</pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/5/18 2:55 PM, Paul Tattersfield
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAF5NKX5RKkneH=4ekfqjR3f-NcVaNypHzHuhjWS4TV3NwFZegg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Georges I tend to agree....<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>If this is going to be considered further then I think we
need to look at <br>
<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">1) if some registrars are suffering a
disproportionate amount of costs in proportion to the total
number of domains they have under management? and<br>
<br>
2) if there any is correlation between the age of the domain
and the number of complaints?<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 8:31 PM Nahitchevansky,
Georges <<a href="mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div class="m_3810877025606734000WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Will
this not raise the cost of URS and UDRP proceedings.
If so, who pays that? The problem is that what is
being proposed is just another cost shifting. The
basic cost issue arises from the fact that there
exists a sub-group of bad actor domain name
registrants who register infringing domain names at a
fairly low cost and use such in often nefarious ways
(including in deceiving and defrauding consumers),
which then forces brand owners to expend large amounts
of money to enforce and protect their rights (staff
time, investigator and attorney’s fees, filing fees,
responding at times to government agencies, post URS
and UDRP fees to secure a suspension or a transfer of
a domain name etc.). All of this is further
complicated by the GDRP, which just adds more costs.
So the question in regards to registrar and registry
costs ignores the question about the brand owner
costs? Typically the view espoused is that
enforcement is part of the brand owners cost of doing
business, so the question is why isn’t this cost to
registrar and registries not the cost of doing
business. Registrars and registries, after all,
basically promote the registration (sale) of domain
names for profit (registration of domain names is the
service/ product being sold, just like a brand owner
sells a product or service). Registrar and registries
are not akin to a provider such as WIPO or NAF. If we
start going down the path of costs, what about the
added costs that result when registrars, for example,
promote the sales of infringing domain names or
unnecessarily complicate transfers of domains names
after a successful UDRP, or otherwise act in other
ways that are prejudicial to the brand owner
constituency. Perhaps what should be looked at in a
more focused way is the sub-group of domain name
registrants that engage in actual and clear
cybersquatting and then figuring out some meaningful
penalty that can compensate everyone who bears a cost
(i.e., brand owners, providers, registrars and
registrants). It just seems that cost shifting
arguments miss the point that someone can waltz in,
register an infringing domain name for often less than
$20 USD and create significantly higher costs for a
number of parties that in the aggregate are quite
significant. My point here is that yes there are
costs, but they should not fall disproportionately on
one constituency. So if we start going down this
path, then we should look at everyone’s costs and
discuss what is fair and appropriate, as well as what
penalties should be placed on bad actors. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:gray"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
gnso-rpm-wg <<a
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Jonathan Frost<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 5, 2018 2:39 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Doug@giga.law">Doug@giga.law</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> gnso-rpm-wg <<a
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] URS / UDRP proposals
-- data on registrar/registry compliance costs</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I agree that it's not an issue that
will arise with frequency, however these types of
issues do arise, they do create costs for the
Registries/Registrars. In fact, like George pointed
out, it arises when a TM Holder prevails in URS, then
decides that it actually wants possession of the
domain, and subsequently files a UDRP.</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">My main point was that, in
addition to the day to day time commitments, there
are unpredictable legal costs associated with the
administration of URS/UDRP (in part because rule
sets laws or contracts cannot cover all scenarios
without being inefficiently burdensome). </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">That's why it makes sense for
there to be a cost-recovery mechanism, so that the
Registries/Registrars can be compensated costs
related to administration overhead in the same way
that NAF/WIPO are compensated.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jonathan</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 2:19 PM
Doug Isenberg <<a href="mailto:Doug@giga.law"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Doug@giga.law</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc
1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks, Jonathan, this seems
like a very discrete issue that is unlikely to
arise with any frequency. (Actually, now that I
reread your email, I’m not even sure what a
“lifetime lock” is in the context of a URS
proceeding – can you explain?) I’d love to know
of any real-life disputes that fit the situation
you’ve described.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Doug</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Jonathan Frost
<<a href="mailto:jonathan@get.club"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">jonathan@get.club</a>>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 5, 2018 1:59
PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:Doug@giga.law"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Doug@giga.law</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> gnso-rpm-wg <<a
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] URS / UDRP
proposals -- data on registrar/registry
compliance costs</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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).</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jonathan</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at
1:47 PM Doug Isenberg <<a
href="mailto:Doug@giga.law"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Doug@giga.law</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">What are some of the
“ambiguities in complying with the
rules”?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Doug</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b>
gnso-rpm-wg <<a
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Jonathan Frost<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 5,
2018 1:15 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:icann@leap.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">icann@leap.com</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> gnso-rpm-wg <<a
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] URS /
UDRP proposals -- data on
registrar/registry compliance costs</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jonathan Frost</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<hr>
<font size="1" face="Arial" color="Black"><br>
Confidentiality Notice:<br>
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.<br>
</font><br>
<hr>
<font size="1" face="Arial" color="Black"><br>
***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.<br>
</font>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>