<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Dear Scott:<br>
<br>
The owner of a trademark doesn't have the exclusive right to use
that trademark in a domain name. Others can use it, either to sell
goods or services in different geographic or product markets, to
criticize the rightsholder, or simply to use it in good faith as a
word or phrase with independent meaning. Cybersquatting and other
unlawful uses of a trademark have always required bad faith on the
part of the user, and the absence of any independent right to use
the mark. Likelihood of confusion alone has never been enough. <br>
<br>
Because the illegal use of a domain name has always turned on the
circumstances and bad faith of the user, there can be no presumption
that future uses will be illegitimate. If "Example" were a popular
brand of clothing, then example.xyz may well be "attractive[] to
cybersquatters" and have "potential to benefit from confusing
similarity with a registered mark." But that's irrelevant to a
blogger who wants to criticize Example Clothing's labor practices, a
different business called Example that sells sheet metal, and many
other legitimate users who also have the "potential to benefit" from
the use of that domain name. One person who registers example.xyz in
bad faith and loses a URS proceeding does not diminish the rights of
those future users. Nor does one URS proceeding give Example
Clothing superior rights in the domain name over Example Sheet Metal
or the labor activist. <br>
<br>
Either a "lifetime" suspension or a right of first refusal would
effectively create a presumption of bad faith on the part of future
users. There's no basis for that in trademark law. Either proposal
would elevate the rights of trademark holders above anything granted
by national law, and above the rights of other legitimate users.
That's an extraordinary ask.<br>
Mitch<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 9/8/18 2:32 PM, Scott Austin wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7723793C63CD244EA392F386E9DD5BF508D268@svMail04.vlp.inc">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:"Consolas",serif;
color:black;}
p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault
{mso-style-name:msochpdefault;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
span.emailstyle18
{mso-style-name:emailstyle18;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Mitch:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><br>
The balance of what equities? It is easy to assume away the
problem speculating that “A subsequent user could use a
domain name legitimately”. There is nothing in your comment
that supports this speculation that the domain name once
released from suspension would be available to or of
interest to fewer cybersquatters. In fact it may now have
alerted new ones to its potential.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Before
the suspension the odds may have been even that the domain
could be put to legitimate or illegitimate use. Once the
domain has demonstrated its capacity for attractiveness to
cybersquatters for illegitimate use through confusing
similarity to a registered mark that resulted in URS
suspension, the odds are more likely the domain, now
established as having verified potential to benefit from
confusing similarity with a registered mark, would have
gained a cybersquatting seal of approval and perhaps the
attention of a wider audience.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">What
is your evidence that the domain post suspension is more
likely to be used for legitimate purposes. Clearly at least
one registrant was attracted to the domain and found value
in it for illegitimate use. Why not others? More
importantly, what is to prevent that same registrant, masked
under the guise of a new entity, from returning for a second
bite at the apple when suspension ends and the domain is
once again at market? Especially when there is no vetting of
the true ownership of a new entity that could be used by the
former cybersquatting registrant’s owner to apply for its
second round of illegitimate use.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Shorter
suspension periods mean the domain is more quickly cycled
back into the queue for, more likely, another round of whack
a mole deterrence on the part of the trademark holder. That
is assuming another battle on a different domain name front
hasn’t weakened or distracted their vigilance at the time
suspension ends.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">There
is no transfer remedy under the URS, but would you be
adverse Mitch to granting a successful complainant a right
of first opportunity to register the disputed domain when
suspension ends? If not why not? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Best
regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Scott<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">Please
click below to use my booking calendar to schedule:<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">
<a href="calendly.com/saustin-2/15min"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-weight:normal;font-style:normal">a
15-minute call</span></a>
</span></i></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red"> <a
href="calendly.com/saustin-2/30min"
moz-do-not-send="true">a 30-minute call</a>
<a href="calendly.com/saustin-2/60min"
moz-do-not-send="true">a 60-minute call</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><img
style="width:1.3437in;height:.5312in"
id="Picture_x0020_1"
src="cid:part4.2B859ABE.96759B09@eff.org" class=""
width="129" border="0" height="51"><img
style="width:.4166in;height:.552in"
id="Picture_x0020_2"
src="cid:part5.FA4B8B65.47D26C54@eff.org"
alt="IntellectualPropertyLaw 100" class="" width="40"
border="0" height="53">
</span></b><a
href="http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/33308-fl-scott-austin-1261914.html"
moz-do-not-send="true"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;text-decoration:none"><img
style="width:1.5625in;height:.375in"
id="Picture_x0020_3"
src="cid:part6.7566EA87.B736FCCC@eff.org"
alt="microbadge[1]" class="" width="150" border="0"
height="36"></span></b></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Scott
R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney
| VLP Law Group LLP<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">101
NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Phone:
(954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 |
<a href="mailto:SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></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;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
gnso-rpm-wg <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org"><gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org></a>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Mitch Stoltz<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 7, 2018 5:14 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] URS / UDRP proposals
-- data on registrar/registry compliance costs<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<pre>Mitch Stoltz<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.eff.org%2fdonate&c=E,1,lqLRZQ-tzQlB6GtbNt-MdU3kmoBDQs5Y3FQwUNpQRx6zZPrkEAEiF02xJfwdcNtyh59rjgR6-Jaq13ROTW6xJxSc8SjN0fjfoXkWe-HvCevZMQ4,&typo=1" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.eff.org/donate</a> | <a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fact.eff.org%2f&c=E,1,Zdvs17kpyovD8Tl44CRg0aXRYQNZTPNSUJ8zHeUPwbTsVqz1qgloskN3gDiO6Z5nUWUVL2dZHF77_NEQL7iQW2FGcJSxsi9Eeibhp-cNpWoqydIoekQTJqFV&typo=1" moz-do-not-send="true">https://act.eff.org/</a> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 9/7/18 1:14 PM, Scott Austin wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Paul:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Scott<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Scott<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="composer_signature">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;color:#575757">Sent from my
T-Mobile 4G LTE Device<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-------- Original message --------<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">From: Paul Keating <a
href="mailto:paul@law.es" moz-do-not-send="true"><paul@law.es></a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Date: 9/7/18 1:23 PM (GMT-05:00) <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">To: "BECKHAM, Brian" <a
href="mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int"
moz-do-not-send="true">
<brian.beckham@wipo.int></a> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <a
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org></a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] URS / UDRP
proposals -- data on registrar/registry compliance costs
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Brian, <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal">Sent from my iPad<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Paul,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Brian
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The idea of an unlimited
lock on a domain is absurd. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Trademarks are limited
both jurisdictionally and bu
goods/services classification. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">1 the mark is
registered globally in all jurisdictions. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">3. Even if famous
jurisdictions differ widely in the
applicable law and factors necessary to
determine fame. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">3. The URS/UDRP is
simply NOT an appropriate forum for such a
determination. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">4. Any limitation based
upon time is insufficient. First a
trademark lapses<o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let’s stop this silly
discussion. It is an example of gross over
reaching. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Paul Keating. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sent from my iPhone<o:p></o:p></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:<o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jonathan<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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:<o:p></o:p></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>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello
Jonathan, <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am
resending it (was not
processed by gnso-rpm-wg@
list).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I
think lifetime lock
(if at all) should
be limited to the
lifetime of the TM
registration, <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">to
avoid dumping of
some strings for
no reason (when
there is no TM
holder to
protect, <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">what
is the reason for
locking?)<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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<o:p></o:p></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, <o:p></o:p></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).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">skype oldfrogger</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Current UTC offset:
+3.00
(.Moscow)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></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:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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).<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Jonathan<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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:<o:p></o:p></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”?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Doug<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Jonathan
Frost<o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><br>
</span><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;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>
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><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><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>