<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<meta content="script-src 'self'; img-src * cid: data:;">
<style id="x_outgoing-font-settings">
<!--
#x_response_container_BBPPID
{font-family:initial;
font-size:initial;
color:initial}
-->
</style>
<div style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255); line-height:initial">
<div id="x_response_container_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="outline:none">
<div name="x_BB10" id="x_BB10_response_div_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width:100%">
This should simply be the cost of doing business for registrars and registries. They can easily offset ths cost by adding a few pennies to each domain name registration or renewal After all, brand owners are expected to assume the costs of defending their
rights and protecting their consumers. If you are argue that domain name registrants should not have to pay a few pennies more to cover this cost, then by the same token the world's consumers should not have to pay a few pennies more so a small group of folks
can benefit at their expense. If you are truly worried about this cost, then perhaps the solution is to have registrants and complainants who are in a proceeding pay an additional small fee. The losing party has that fee paid to the registrar and registry
and the winner gets his or her money back. This seems like a much fairer and more reasonable proposal. After all someone can register a domain name for under $30 and cause another party to spend thousands of dollars to prevent potentially nefarious activity.
So that initial registrant should be potentially on the hook for something apart from the loss of a $30 or less domain name registration. You could even tie the cost to an outcome based result. If you fail to pay the fee then you lose automatically or your
case gets terminated as a Complainant. Again, the point is that this is a cost of doing business, but if you and others want to insist on going down that path then there needs to be balance and registrants should be on the hook as well.</div>
<div name="x_BB10" id="x_response_div_spacer_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width:100%">
<br style="display:initial">
</div>
<div id="x_blackberry_signature_BBPPID" name="x_BB10" dir="auto">
<div id="x__signaturePlaceholder_BBPPID" name="x_BB10" dir="auto"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="x__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="x_from"><b>From:</b> icann@leap.com</div>
<div id="x_sent"><b>Sent:</b> October 17, 2018 7:34 PM</div>
<div id="x_to"><b>To:</b> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</div>
<div id="x_subject"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels</div>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Hi Paul T.,<br>
<br>
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 6:35 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote:<br>
> George #23 doesn’t seem very sensible and I’m somewhat surprised it is<br>
> deemed to have adequate support.<br>
><br>
> As I have already pointed out the TM holder is a 3rd party looking to<br>
> intervene in a private contract. What you are proposing is that one of the<br>
> parties to the contract that is causing the problem should be rewarded<br>
> proportionately to level of bad behaviour, which would have the effect of<br>
> working in direct opposition to the intenttions of RAA 3.18.<br>
<br>
The registrar (or registry) isn't being "rewarded" --- they're simply<br>
recovering their compliance/admin costs associated with providing help<br>
to providers during the dispute. Forget about domain names for a<br>
moment, and suppose that an ISP like Verizon, Cox, or AT&T is<br>
approached to provide information about one of their subscribers (by<br>
law enforcement, copyright holders, etc.). There are staff costs to do<br>
that. Those ISPs aren't getting "rewarded" -- they're just recovering<br>
those costs (the cost recovery needs to be "reasonable"). It doesn't<br>
become a "profit center." Here's a cost schedule for Cox, as an<br>
example:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.cox.com/aboutus/policies/law-enforcement-and-subpoenas-information.html">https://www.cox.com/aboutus/policies/law-enforcement-and-subpoenas-information.html</a><br>
<br>
"$50.00 Per account for basic information*<br>
"$100.00 Expedited handling fee"<br>
"$75.00/hr./staff Requests requiring greater than 0.5 hours ($40.00 minimum)"<br>
"Wiretap $3,125 for 30 days"<br>
<br>
And it's a proposal not just for registrars, it'd be for registries<br>
too (which don't have a direct contractual relationship with<br>
registrants, but still need to interact with providers, at least for<br>
the URS). And the costs for registries exist, as Jonathan Frost has<br>
noted, when this topic came up last month on the mailing list. See the<br>
thread at:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/date.html">https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/date.html</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003263.html">https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003263.html</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003266.html">https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003266.html</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003269.html">https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003269.html</a><br>
etc.<br>
<br>
Indeed, by allowing registrars to recover costs, just like ISPs do,<br>
it'll strengthen 3.18 of the RAA.<br>
<br>
Furthermore, this isn't "bad behaviour" -- prior to the matter being<br>
discharged by the courts, or a panel, etc., the outcome of the dispute<br>
is unknown (one can't presume the registrar's customer is guilty,<br>
based on an accusation or request; the ISP or registrar or registry is<br>
neutral, and not a party to the dispute). I don't know if we have any<br>
ISPs participating in this PDP, but they might be able to provide<br>
further data/insights.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
George Kirikos<br>
416-588-0269<br>
<a href="http://www.leap.com/">http://www.leap.com/</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list<br>
GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></div>
</span></font><br>
<hr>
<font face="Arial" color="Black" size="1"><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 face="Arial" color="Black" size="1"><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>
</body>
</html>