<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle22
{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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:945696498;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1090063652 134807555 134807555 134807557 134807553 134807555 134807557 134807553 134807555 134807557;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:2121298644;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1641247866 134807555 134807555 134807557 134807553 134807555 134807557 134807553 134807555 134807557;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></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]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">I appreciate the additional time to provide comments on the Framework for the Policy Status Report on the UDRP, which is an issue that the Intellectual Property Constituency place high importance upon and has been discussing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">At a high-level, the focus of the framework for the UDRP Policy Status Report (PSR) appears out of synch with the finding of the October 3, 2011 Final Report, which was largely an endorsement of the UDRP and in line with a dedicated webinar
on May 10, 2011 and a questionnaire sent to approved UDRP providers. In each of the UDRP goal areas (efficiency, fairness, addressing abuse, etc.) quotes and perspectives (including from providers, registrars, panelists, complainant and respondent counsel,
etc.) support the position that “the Internet community has come to rely on the transparency, predictability, and consistency associated with the UDRP.” Various viewpoints to the contrary are also referenced, but they are correctly characterized as coming
from “a minority of commentators”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In contrast, the framework for the PSR appears to focus on only very specific fairness issues taken from that minority of commentators, namely “forum shopping”, “process for selection of panelists”, and “analysis of abuse filings”. The
Status Report appears to presume problems and then suggest a study and correction.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The framework PSR also steps back from conclusions made in the Final Report. For example, the Final Report concludes that “[t]he UDRP is widely recognized as effective because it is much faster than traditional litigation” (citing public
comments made by D. Taylor, J. Berryhill, and P. Corwin). In contrast, the framework PSR essentially pushes the reset button, merely flagging “Analysis of case duration [and fees] for the UDRP vs. traditional litigation”, as something the community will need
to look at. The framework PSR also appears to be missing counterbalancing proposals from the community for improvements to the UDRP, as set out in the Final Report:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">o “The UDRP is inefficient because complainants have no means of identifying all of the domain names owned by a single respondent, which leads to the need to file additional complaints and incur additional
expenses.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">o “Difficulties of identifying the proper respondent often leads to unnecessary costs to both providers and complainants.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">o “UDRP proceedings cost brand owners millions of dollars a year and they cost the cybersquatter almost nothing.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">o “Conjunctive bad faith requirements allow gaming”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">o “Allowing the respondent to control the jurisdiction of any appeals increases costs to rights holders.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Furthermore, our specific comments on framework PSR slides are as follows:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">SLIDE 6: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is important to note that nowhere in the 2011 Final Issues report is there a statement that assessing the effectiveness of the UDRP requires an analysis of (1) Efficiency, (ii) Fairness, (iii) Addressing Abuse. This “Purpose” needs
to be entirely re-drafted as it is inaccurate. In fact, the “fairness” analysis of the Final Issues Report is only anecdotal “perspectives” from individuals on whether the UDRP was fair with most individuals asserting that it was fair. To the extent that
this is an exercise to be conducted, it would be a task for the Review itself and not the PSR.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Further, the original proposal for the PSR identifies the single purpose of this exercise as follows: “To ensure that the rechartering process focuses on specific issues and topics that could benefit from a comprehensive policy review,
resulting in a clearly scoped and precise Charter”, and goes on to propose certain tasks that the PSR should undertake in order to do so, namely “(1) identify the major substantive and procedural issues that have been reported to ICANN org and the respective
UDRP providers regarding use of the UDRP; (2) include recent, relevant and available data that can assist with an effective assessment of the UDRP; and (3) highlight any changes and trends that have been observed since the GNSO’s 2011 Issue Report on the State
of the UDRP.” The framework PSR slides improperly conflate proposed tasks with the PSR’s purpose and seem to miss the point that the role of this exercise is identify new information since the 2011 Final Issue Report that should help inform the work of the
PDP. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">SLIDE 8: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The first bullet point of Slide 8 states that it will look at “[an] overview of whether the UDRP is impartial or fair for trademark holders and domain name registrant”. While a worthy concept, this statement is so broad as to be meaningless
to the community is evaluating the intended work of the PSR.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The second bullet point purports to analyze “forum shopping”, which is a term that appears once in Final Report as a minority comment. The IPC would like to know why this one issue been singled out for analysis in the framework PSR. Moreover,
there is no evidence that “forum shopping” is a concern of the community. Instead, drawing on experience from Phase 1 of the RPM Review, the individual rules and policies of providers should be examined, but not through the lens of purported “forum shopping”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Similarly, with respect to the fourth bullet point, there is no explanation of why the PSR would also need to look at “reverse domain name highjacking cases”.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">SLIDE 9:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The IPC agrees with the BC and a reference to abuse is likely to be conflated with ongoing community work on abuse that is unrelated to the UDRP (i.e., scams, child pornography, prescription drugs, etc.)
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The analysis of abuse in Slide 9 should also look at the costs to brand-owners.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is unclear to the IPC what the relevance of education for domain name registrants is in this context, but to the extent that there is a relevance why is this seemingly limited to considering a single project?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">SLIDE 11:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Slide 11 set forth the datasets that are available. However, it does not explain whether this is the only data or types of data that ICANN Staff will be able to access.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">SLIDE 14:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Slide 14 sets forth an initial proposed timeline. Allowing a mere 2 weeks for data gathering and report updating seems unduly rushed and unlikely to allow for a comprehensive exercise. Furthermore, the proposal to share a draft report
with Council the week before ICANN 72 and to expect any input from Council the week after that meeting is unlikely to allow sufficient time for Councilors and their constituents to provide substantive feedback. We would also question why there is no public
comment process envisaged. Staff Reports and Issues Reports as part of the pre-PDP process all are subject to public comment periods, why is this not?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In summary, the IPC believes that the authors of the framework PSR should not start from scratch, and instead should build from a thorough review of the Public Comment Forum on the Preliminary Issues Report, the UDRP Webinar, the UDRP Provider
Questionnaires, the 2015 RPM Staff Paper, and the Issue Report documents from 2015/16 which heralded this RPMs PDP. The authors should then sit down with representatives from the providers and a small team of interested GNSO councilors to develop an outline
for the PSR that accurately, and in a balanced manner, provides a roadmap to update to the 2011 Final Report’s conclusions avoiding the pitfalls learned from Phase 1 of the RPM review.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">John<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> <b>On Behalf Of
</b>Marie Pattullo - AIM via council<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 23, 2021 1:43 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> council@gnso.icann.org<br>
<b>Cc:</b> gnso-secs@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [council] Comments re: GNSO Update on the Framework for the Policy Status Report on the UDRP<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:red">◄External Email►</span></strong><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> - From:
<a href="mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org">council-bounces@gnso.icann.org</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">Thanks for all the work on this. On reading the slides, I have a number reactions so for efficiency, I set them out below prior to our meeting later.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">Slide 4 <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">“The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy") is an ICANN consensus policy that went into effect on 24 October 1999.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><span lang="EN-GB">It was written by WIPO. That’s relevant not just for history, but for understanding WIPO’s granularity of expertise - knowledge about where it came from and how it works.
<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">“The UDRP was created to provide a quick, efficient and more cost-effective way to facilitate trademark protection at the second level of the DNS.”<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><span lang="EN-GB">Yes, but its end goal is to
<b>protect users and consumers from cybersquatting and related fraud</b>. TM protection alone reads as “just protecting companies” – that is absolutely not the case. <o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">Slide 6<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">“…assess effectiveness of the UDRP in terms of its overarching goals as identified in the 2011 Final Issue Report:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">■</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black"> ii) Addressing abuse”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">
<span lang="EN-GB">It’s not abuse (wide) it’s <b>abusive registrations</b> (narrow). The original WIPO Report said “The scope of the procedure would be limited to cases of
<b><i>abusive registrations</i></b> (or cybersquatting)”. We need to be careful here not to suggest it’s about broader DNS abuse.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">“Share general data on case filings, decisions, etc.”.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><span lang="EN-GB">What does this mean? Data that there were x cases filed and y decisions? On what basis, what was the reason for bringing the case, were the parties first timers or multiple
applicants/defendants, what was the justification for the decision, does language play a part… This formulation misses both nuance and the bigger picture: the UDRP is the tip of the iceberg (private acquisitions being a big way names are reclaimed) and there
are various reasons why brand owners use other available tools that would never feature in such statistics (for example, compare the defensive portfolios of 100 random brands vs the number of UDRP case they have filed – the latter is not even in the same ballpark
as the former).<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">“High level statistics of data collected for each UDRP goal”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">
<span lang="EN-GB">I’m not sure what this means? And how do you assess efficiency and fairness through stats?<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">Slide 7<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">“Review of UDRP cases filed per year. Continued growth in UDRP filings worldwide helps demonstrates that the UDRP remains a popular/effective tool to combat cybersquatting.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2">
<span lang="EN-GB">It also demonstrates that cybersquatting isn’t going away. (The Charter could consider whether we need some form of Notice & Suspension front-end bolt-on to the existing UDRP?)<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">“Community views concerning effectiveness”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><span lang="EN-GB">Effectiveness for whom? TM owners don’t want others squatting their names (and thus duping users/consumers, and/or leading to unfair trading practices necessitating expensive
purchases and defensive registrations, which have no wider societal or public interest benefit and serve only to clog the DNS with parked names). Domainers want to buy/sell all names. CPs want to register all names. Non-commercials want everyone to have the
chance to register any name. (Often there are free speech concerns cited, yet free speech features in a tiny percentage of UDRP cases and
<b>the UDRP itself already codifies free speech as a defence</b> - numerous cases have found in favour of legitimate free speech). Brand owners’ views on the “effectiveness” of core aspects of (e.g.) Registrars’ business would not likely be given equal weight
as that of the CPH. So effectiveness for whom?<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">Analysis of duration/fees<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><span lang="EN-GB">OK but – what’s the goal? Who will tell you the fees for litigation – so how can you analyse that? It’s case-by-case/jurisdiction relevant, surely? Do we include the $$$$ paid
by brands to develop and pursue a UDRP with the 0.0001$ paid by a squatter? What is this supposed to show, how would you get those figures and from whom?
<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">Slide 8 <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">“Overview of whether the UDRP is impartial/fair for trademark holders and domain name registrants”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><b><span lang="EN-GB">This is the only part of the slide that refers to fairness for TM holders</span></b><span lang="EN-GB"> – the rest seems weighted to assumptions that they are somehow the
ones being “unfair”.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><b><span lang="EN-GB">What about fairness for users and consumers</span></b><span lang="EN-GB">? Should we not protect them from being - deliberately - duped/defrauded?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><span lang="EN-GB">What is the cost on both sides? How much does it cost (monitoring the entire DNS = money + resources; + duped consumers + reputational damage; x repeat offenders x false registrant
details + unknown (redacted…) details; vs registering one DN & running away? <o:p>
</o:p></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">“Forum Shopping - Analysis of complaint win percentage for each UDRP provider”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><span lang="EN-GB">This is rather loaded – again, an assumption that TM owners – alone – must be in the wrong. Analyses of this conducted by WIPO also show that the stats on success rates across
main providers were remarkably similar.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">“Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH)”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><span lang="EN-GB">This is about 0.5% of all cases. Of course it should be addressed, but let’s not make it bigger in theory than it is in reality.
<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">Slide 9<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">“UDRP Goal: Addressing Abuse”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><span lang="EN-GB">Again – the goal is addressing cybersquatting, i.e.
<b>abusive registrations</b>. Not all abuse. This is an important distinction.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">“Analysis of yearly panel decisions published by each provider on their website (e.g., transfer/cancellation rates, complaints rejected, split decisions)”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><span lang="EN-GB">So stats only with no reasons why the cases went that way?<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">“Summary of UDRP-related data from ICANN org departments”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><span lang="EN-GB">This will be a very incomplete picture as most cases do not need to be escalated to ICANN.
<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">“.CL project”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><span lang="EN-GB">If we include this, should we not also look at assistance (filing tips, fees etc.) to micro, small and medium-sized companies who face cybersquatting but simply cannot afford
the $$$$ to take a UDRP forward? Again, why are we looking at only one side of the coin?<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">Slide 11<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">All of this strikes me as a waste of staff’s scarce resources when we have a massive dataset already - the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview and its (online) stats page: would it not make more sense to
start there and ask the other providers to add their data? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">Slide 14<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">With this timeline, I really don’t see how staff can (although I know they will do their best to do so!) produce something comprehensive and thus useful in practice.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">I return to what I said in July: we all know we need a better Charter and if we want it to be built on reality and experience, I can’t see why we’re not utilising this Bylaws provision:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">Section 13.1. EXTERNAL EXPERT ADVICE<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">(a) Purpose. The purpose of seeking external expert advice is to allow the policy-development process within ICANN to
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">take advantage of existing expertise that resides in the public or private sector but outside of ICANN</span>. In those cases where there are relevant public bodies with expertise, or where access to private
expertise could be helpful, the Board and constituent bodies <span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">
should be encouraged to seek advice from such expert bodies</span> or individuals.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">We have WIPO (who wrote it in the first place and do it every single day). They’re global, independent, and expert. We have the other providers. Should we not be asking the experts for what actually
happens and asking them to produce this PSR, or at the very least have a working group of them and staff?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">Looking forward to discussing this later,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black">Marie<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black"><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="color:black">From:</span></b><span style="color:black"> council <<a href="mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org">council-bounces@gnso.icann.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Julie Hedlund via council<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, 14 September 2021 02:50<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [council] Resend Re: FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Agenda Item 5 -- GNSO Update on the Framework for the Policy Status Report on the UDRP<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Dear all,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Please see the corrected attached version of the slides per below.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Julie<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">council <<a href="mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org">council-bounces@gnso.icann.org</a>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund via council
<<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Reply-To: </b>Julie Hedlund <<a href="mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org">julie.hedlund@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, September 13, 2021 at 6:39 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>"<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[council] FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Agenda Item 5 -- GNSO Update on the Framework for the Policy Status Report on the UDRP<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Dear GNSO Councilors,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Per the following item from the agenda below, please see the attached slides for your consideration.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GDS Update on the Framework for the Policy Status Report Framework on the UDRP (30 minutes)</span></b><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Julie<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Julie Hedlund, Policy Director</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Confidentiality Notice</strong><br>
This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee,
you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and delete all copies
of this message.</p>
</body>
</html>