<div dir="ltr">I think that ICANN mandated arbitrators handing out dozens and dozens of monetary awards against registrants who may not even know that they were the subject of a UDRP would be outside of ICANN's remit. The enforcement of these awards would fall to local courts (which would cause a huge chilling effect on registrations in general). This chilling effect may benefit some commercial interests, but i don't know how it creates a more stable or secure Internet.</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 9:09 PM Michael Graham (ELCA) via gnso-rpm-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</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" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="m_-3160793621652863566WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#203864">Disagree. Determining appropriate penalties for abuse and misuse of domain names and
the DNS is entirely within the scope of ICANN’s powers and purview in order to ensure the stable and secure operation of the internet. Under
<span style="background:white">Section 4.6(d) of its bylaws, </span>ICANN<span style="background:white"> is committed to ensuring that it will adequately address issues of competition, consumer protection, security, stability and resiliency, malicious abuse
issues, sovereignty concerns, and rights protection in the New gTLD program. Thus, determining whether a “loser pays” program in connection with URS or UDRP proceedings would further the interests of safety, stability and security is certainly within the
scope of ICANN policy and this PDP’s review.<u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#203864;background:white"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#203864;background:white">Michael R. Graham</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#203864"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<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 [mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Keating<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 06, 2018 7:56 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Mitch Stoltz <<a href="mailto:mitch@eff.org" target="_blank">mitch@eff.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <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<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I completely agree with the comments of Mr Stoltz!!<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is a huge attempt at over reach. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Paul Keating. <u></u><u></u></p>
<div id="m_-3160793621652863566AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal">Sent from my iPhone<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
On 6 Sep 2018, at 03:21, Mitch Stoltz <<a href="mailto:mitch@eff.org" target="_blank">mitch@eff.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<pre>Mitch Stoltz<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="https://www.eff.org/donate" target="_blank">https://www.eff.org/donate</a> | <a href="https://act.eff.org/" target="_blank">https://act.eff.org/</a> <u></u><u></u></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 9/5/18 2:55 PM, Paul Tattersfield wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Georges I tend to agree....<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">If this is going to be considered further then I think we need to look at
<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 8:31 PM Nahitchevansky, Georges <<a href="mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com" target="_blank">ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></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"><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><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></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 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><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></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.<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></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). <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jonathan<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></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:<u></u><u></u></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">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Doug<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></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<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></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).<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jonathan<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></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:<u></u><u></u></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”?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Doug<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></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<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></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. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></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. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jonathan Frost<u></u><u></u></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><u></u><u></u></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><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</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><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</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" 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><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</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>