<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">Could not have said it better myself. Thank you. <br><br><div id="AppleMailSignature">Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On 8 Sep 2018, at 00:14, Mitch Stoltz <<a href="mailto:mitch@eff.org">mitch@eff.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
Cybersquatting requires bad faith. (URS Procedure 1.2.6.3). A
subsequent user could use a domain name legitimately, even if a
previous user did not. The "doctrine of inevitable confusion" does
not transform a trademark into a global right to prevent the use of
a word in a domain name for all purposes. And a finding that a
domain name has been registered in bad faith doesn't create a
presumption that future registrants will also register the domain in
bad faith. So I agree with Paul and Jonathan that the balance of
equities favors a shorter suspension.<br>
Mitch<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 9/7/18 1:14 PM, Scott Austin wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:7723793C63CD244EA392F386E9DD5BF508A99C@svMail04.vlp.inc">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div>Paul:</div>
<div>If the domain that has been suspended had already been proven
to be essentially identical to a registered mark how does your
assumption of a subsequent "legitimate" use square with the
doctrine of inevitable confusion. Won't putting the same
conflicting domain back on the market merely accommodate and
facilitate old cybersquatting wine in a new registrant bottle?
And ensure whack a mole for the trademark holder.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Scott</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Scott</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div id="composer_signature">
<div dir="auto" style="font-size:85%; color:#575757">Sent from
my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-------- Original message --------</div>
<div>From: Paul Keating <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:paul@law.es"><paul@law.es></a> </div>
<div>Date: 9/7/18 1:23 PM (GMT-05:00) </div>
<div>To: "BECKHAM, Brian" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int"><brian.beckham@wipo.int></a> </div>
<div>Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org"><gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org></a> </div>
<div>Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] URS / UDRP proposals -- data on
registrar/registry compliance costs
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Brian,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think that the lock should remain for the balance of the
remaining year. I doubt anyone was thinking of long-term
registrations when the rule was created. If the
registration was for a longer period then the domain expires.
I understand this means that bad actors can continue to
potentially mis use a domain. However, the balance of
equities IMHO rests in favor of freeing up the domain for
other legitimate use.<br>
<div><br>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">Sent from my iPad</div>
<div><br>
On 7 Sep 2018, at 17:29, BECKHAM, Brian <<a href="mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int" moz-do-not-send="true">brian.beckham@wipo.int</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica}
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline}
span.m-3504767625336267987apple-style-span
{}
span.EmailStyle18
{font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:windowtext}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in}
div.WordSection1
{}
-->
</style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Paul,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">I
could be wrong and invite him to correct me, but I
think, with respect, that Jonathan is incorrectly
using the URS terminology of the suspension for
the
<i>duration of the life of the domain name</i>
incorrectly as the concept of a “<i>lifetime lock</i>”
(and certainly I did not read it as a proposal for
such duration).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">What
you rightly note however, is that the an extended
suspension locks out third parties from using a
domain name for whatever that duration is (whether
1, 2, 5 years, or even in perpetuity).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Brian
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </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"">
gnso-rpm-wg [<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Keating<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 07, 2018 4:13
PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Jonathan Frost<br>
<b>Cc:</b> gnso-rpm-wg<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] URS / UDRP
proposals -- data on registrar/registry
compliance costs</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The idea of an unlimited lock
on a domain is absurd. </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Trademarks are limited both
jurisdictionally and bu goods/services
classification. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">To justify a permanent lock
the trademark holder would have to satisfy a
huge burden. Essentially having to prove the
following:</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">1 the mark is registered
globally in all jurisdictions. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2. The mark is globally
famous such that it’s recognition transcends
any and all goods/services classifications.
The mark must truly be a household name.
(Think Coca Cola blue jeans. There are not
many marks that would satisfy these
requirements. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">3. Even if famous
jurisdictions differ widely in the applicable
law and factors necessary to determine fame. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">3. The URS/UDRP is simply
NOT an appropriate forum for such a
determination. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">4. Any limitation based
upon time is insufficient. First a trademark
lapses</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Only as a result of non-use
or failure to renew. It is not like a parent
or copyright - both both of which were
designed to be of limited duration. This any
absolute time reference would require one to
constantly monitor continued validity. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">5. Given that there are
non-conflicting uses for a phrase that is also
a trademark such a rule would both provide an
unfair advantage to the trademark holder and
limit the rights of others who may wish to use
the same phrase for non conflicting purposes. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">6. Many non infringing use
cases exist - the basis of fair use. Fair use
is present in virtually every Trulaw
underlying trademarks.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">7. The original WIPO
White Paper issued in 1999 clearly formulated
the foundational policy that the UDRP was NOT
intended to expand trademark rights beyond
those which existed outside the Internet. I
see no reason to question the logic of that
foundational policy statement. I further
cannot see any reason why the URS should be
treated differently. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let’s stop this silly
discussion. It is an example of gross over
reaching. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Paul Keating. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sent from my iPhone</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
On 6 Sep 2018, at 21:03, Jonathan Frost <<a href="mailto:jonathan@get.club" moz-do-not-send="true">jonathan@get.club</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;
margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Your point about the
10 year max is well taken, Maxim. I
would venture a guess that most domains
that are the subject of abuse are not
registered for long periods though. </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would be
concerned about the operational
overhead of removing locks from the
domains on a specific date. While
you're right that a lock (or any
requirement whatever) can be
overridden by the order of a court of
competent jurisdiction, I think that
building in specific dates in the
distant future where a lock should be
removed could increase operational
overhead. </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 Thu, Sep 6,
2018 at 12:45 PM Maxim Alzoba <<a href="mailto:m.alzoba@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">m.alzoba@gmail.com</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>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello
Jonathan, </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am
resending it (was not
processed by gnso-rpm-wg@
list).</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I
think lifetime lock (if
at all) should be
limited to the lifetime
of the TM registration, </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">to
avoid dumping of some
strings for no reason
(when there is no TM
holder to protect, </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">what
is the reason for
locking?)</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Also,
all registrations
terms are limited to
the time of Registry
contract with ICANN
(10 years), so at
the best it can be
10 years, and not a
single day more.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">So
either we do not use
this idea, or we
will have to create
mechanism of
removing such
lifetime-10years-lock,
preferably using the
current system</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">(for
example, TM database
to which URS
complainant of that
time referred to ,
does not have the
entry no more, </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">so
the party seeking
for the registration
can start a process,
might be even with
the same price of
filing via the same
URS provider, or
it's successor).</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">p.s:
any kind of such
lock can be
overridden by a
simple village court
in the same
jurisdiction as the
particular registry
is based.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">Sincerely
Yours,<br>
<br>
Maxim Alzoba<br>
Special
projects
manager,<br>
International
Relations
Department,<br>
FAITID<br>
<br>
m. +7 916
6761580(+whatsapp)</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">skype
oldfrogger</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif""> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">Current
UTC offset:
+3.00
(.Moscow)</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On
5 Sep 2018, at
20:59, Jonathan
Frost <<a href="mailto:jonathan@get.club" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">jonathan@get.club</a>> wrote:</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<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-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">What
are some of
the
“ambiguities
in complying
with the
rules”?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">Doug</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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" style=""> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">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" style=""> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">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" style=""> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">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" style=""> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">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>
<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>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;
margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">World
Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer:
This electronic message may contain privileged,
confidential and copyright protected information.
If you have received this e-mail by mistake,
please immediately notify the sender and delete
this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure
all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses
prior to opening or using.
</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<font size="1" face="Arial" color="Gray"><br>
This message contains information which may be confidential and
legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not
use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information
contained in the message. If you have received this message in
error, please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax
advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used
to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.<br>
</font>
<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>
</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>