[CPWG] urgent: RPM issues -- deadline May 4

[Marita Moll]

Hello CPWG members. Last week, Greg Shatan presented a slide deck with 
proposed At Large responses to the review of Rights Protection 
Mechanisms in all GTLDs working group phase 1 initial report. There was 
no time for discussion -- but some of the items that could be 
interesting are presented here for your consideration. Please send any 
comments to the list today (May 4) as today is the deadline for 
submitting comments on this topic. Apologies for the last minute mail out.

Slides # 23, 24, 25 -- Overarching Charter questions

182. General Overarching Charter #Q1. Do the RPMs collectively fulfil 
the objectives for their creation,

namely “to provide trademark holders with either preventative or

curative protections against cybersquatting and other abusive uses of 
their legally-

recognized trademarks?” In other words, have all the RPMs, in the 
aggregate, been

sufficient to meet their objectives or do new or additional mechanisms, 
or changes to

existing RPMs, need to be developed?

*Proposed response: Overall, the RPMs have been sufficient to meet their 
objectives. We *

**

*see no need for new or additional mechanisms, or changes beyond those 
proposed by *

**

*the Working Group. Our primary concern is with preventing various forms 
of DNS *

**

*Abuse, and with improving consumer trust and safety on the Internet.*

**


183. General Overarching Charter #Q2a. Should any of the New gTLD 
Program RPMs

(such as the URS), like the UDRP, be Consensus Policies applicable to 
all gTLDs?

*Discussion: This primarily concerns URS. The ALAC view here should be 
consistent with *

**

*prior views on the use of the 2013 Registry Agreement with legacy TLDs. 
Sunrise has no *

**

*application to legacy gTLDs. The question of whether there should be 
Trademark Claims *

**

*Notices in legacy gTLDs is a Pandora’s Box not worth opening*

**


184. General Overarching Charter #Q2b. If so, what are the transitional 
issues that

would have to be dealt with as a consequence?

*Proposed Response. Addition of URS (which is largely complete) to all 
legacy gTLDs *

**

*would not raise any significant transitional issues.*

**

**

185. General Overarching Charter #Q3a. Will changes to one RPM need to 
be offset

by concomitant changes to the others?

*No proposed response. This is really too abstract to be worth exploring 
at this juncture.*

**

**

187. Additional Overarching Charter #Q1. Do the RPMs adequately address 
issues of registrant

protection (such as freedom of expression and fair use)?

*Question: Fascinating question, but is there a narrative we could 
develop or a consistent position for ALAC to take here?*

**

**

188. Additional Overarching Charter #Q2. Is the recent and strong ICANN 
work seeking to understand

and incorporate Human Rights into the policy considerations of ICANN 
relevant to the UDRP or any of the RPMs?

*Proposed response: As a general matter, incorporating Human Rights 
consideration into ICANN policy development is *

**

*relevant to all ICANN policies, including RPMs. The question of how 
that should be taken into account, *

**

*both generally and with regard to any or all RPMs, is beyond the scope 
of these responses and deserving *

**

*of a process unto itself.*

**

**

189. Additional Overarching Charter #Q3. How can costs be lowered so end 
users can easily access

RPMs?

*Proposed response: While this is phrased as a general “end user” 
question, it is primarily relevant to end users *

**

*with trademarks – individuals, businesses, non-profits, bands, etc. 
Many individuals and *

**

*smaller businesses, as well as brand-owners in developing economies, 
have the same *

**

*concerns as larger or better-financed trademark holders but may not 
have the experience *

**

*and wherewithal to make use of the RPMs. The facile answer is that 
there could be financial *

**

*supports or subsidies to open the RPMs to these end-users. Beyond that, 
there are also non-*

**

*financial supports that have the effect of lowering costs for these 
end-users, some of which *

**

*are discussed in the Recommendations. These include increasing 
offerings of translations, *

**

*translation services, educational materials, model submissions, 
helplines or chats, and even *

**

*pro bono legal representation.*

**

**


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20200504/457cd736/attachment.html>