<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><span lang="EN-GB">It’s important not to confuse privacy with
accountability. If a registrar wishes to offer their client privacy
that's a great service, but as the registrar of record they are not
innocent bystanders and they
have to accept a bit more responsibility for accountability..</span></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 4:34 PM Michael Karanicolas <<a href="mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com">mkaranicolas@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Top marks for creativity, but if you're actually arguing that brand owners are not the primary beneficiaries of the URS and UDRP systems then we've entered the realm of the absurd. Clearly these systems were set up to protect IP interests - else the IPC would not be arguing so vociferously in support of them.<div><br><div><div><div>I don't want to dig too much into the question of alternative penalties, as I think it drags us away from the core questions about cost recovery that this thread is focused on - but I will point out that privacy is not a "privilege" granted by companies - it is a human right.</div></div></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 10:35 AM Nahitchevansky, Georges <<a href="mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com" target="_blank">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>
<div id="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125response_container_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="outline:none">
<div name="BB10" id="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125BB10_response_div_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width:100%">Michael:</div>
<div name="BB10" id="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125BB10_response_div_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width:100%"><br>
</div>
<div name="BB10" id="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125BB10_response_div_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width:100%">Thank you for making my point. If the people who benefit from the processes are expected to bear the cost, then registrars and registries who benefit from the process of providing
registration services and selling domain names should likewise bear their costs. As they benefit from the sale of domain names, they should bear their own costs just like brands have to do so under the existing regime. A simple solution would be for registrars
and registries to charge slightly more for a domain name to cover these claimed costs. After all you expect brand owners to do that. What do you think ultimately happens. These costs, which are not insignificant and would be astronomical if you take George
K's ill thought out argument that everything should go to the courts, ultimately get passed on to the consumer in some form or another (higher price point, lower quality, less volume for the same cost, etc). The bottom line is that figuring out w<span style="color:initial;font-family:initial;font-size:initial">ays
to address abusive registrations quickly and efficiently is good for everyone, including consumers. (unless of course no one cares about consumers, which I hope is not the case).</span></div>
<div name="BB10" id="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125BB10_response_div_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width:100%"><span style="color:initial;font-family:initial;font-size:initial"><br>
</span></div>
<div name="BB10" id="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125BB10_response_div_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width:100%"><span style="color:initial;font-family:initial;font-size:initial">As for penalties, you just need a little imagination here. "Penalties" does not simply mean pay money, it can include
things such as losing privileges or having obligations imposed. For example, a repeat offender that meets a certain threshold could risk losing privacy privileges, disclosure of payment information, seizure of other names in their portfolio, placement on
a shared bad actor list etc.. Companies like eBay, Amazon and others have found some ways to deal with repeat bad actors. They are not full proof systems, but they help to some extent in stemming some bad activity. Are registrars and registries not capable
of coming up with some measures as well to address known bad actors and their proxies. I would propose that there be discussions on this point. </span></div>
<div name="BB10" id="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125BB10_response_div_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width:100%"><span style="color:initial;font-family:initial;font-size:initial"><br>
</span></div>
<div name="BB10" id="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125BB10_response_div_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width:100%"><span style="color:initial;font-family:initial;font-size:initial"><br>
</span></div>
<div name="BB10" id="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125response_div_spacer_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width:100%"><br style="display:initial">
</div>
<div id="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125blackberry_signature_BBPPID" name="BB10" dir="auto">
<div id="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125_signaturePlaceholder_BBPPID" name="BB10" dir="auto"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125_original_msg_header_BBPPID" dir="auto">
<table width="100%" style="background-color:white;border-spacing:0px;display:table;outline:none">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" style="padding:initial;font-size:initial;text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(181,196,223);padding:3pt 0in 0in;font-family:Tahoma,"BB Alpha Sans","Slate Pro";font-size:10pt">
<div id="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125from"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com" target="_blank">mkaranicolas@gmail.com</a></div>
<div id="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125sent"><b>Sent:</b> September 5, 2018 10:07 PM</div>
<div id="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125to"><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:mitch@eff.org" target="_blank">mitch@eff.org</a></div>
<div id="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125cc"><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a></div>
<div id="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125subject"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] URS / UDRP proposals -- data on registrar/registry compliance costs</div>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">I agree with Mitch. It's completely impractical to expect registrars to collect additional fees from parties that lose URS or UDRP proceedings.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>These systems are established to protect mark owners. It's only reasonable to expect the people who benefit from these processes to pay for them.</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 8:21 PM Mitch Stoltz <<a href="mailto:mitch@eff.org" target="_blank">mitch@eff.org</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div 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="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125m_-7097644878308531568moz-signature" cols="72">Mitch Stoltz
Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142
<a class="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125m_-7097644878308531568moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.eff.org/donate" target="_blank">https://www.eff.org/donate</a> | <a class="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125m_-7097644878308531568moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://act.eff.org/" target="_blank">https://act.eff.org/</a>
</pre>
<div class="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125m_-7097644878308531568moz-cite-prefix">On 9/5/18 2:55 PM, Paul Tattersfield wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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" target="_blank">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 lang="EN-US">
<div class="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125m_-7097644878308531568m_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">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="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125m_-7097644878308531568moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Doug@giga.law" target="_blank">
Doug@giga.law</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> gnso-rpm-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">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">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">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">Doug@giga.law</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> gnso-rpm-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">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">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">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">icann@leap.com</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> gnso-rpm-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">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">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" target="_blank">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">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" target="_blank">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">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></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125m_-7097644878308531568mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset> <br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
<a class="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125m_-7097644878308531568moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="m_6552476247379891399m_4066427118085639125m_-7097644878308531568moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<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/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<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/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></blockquote></div>