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

Tue May 5 00:44:45 UTC 2020

Hmm. I’m interested in whether the RPMs HAVE been “enough” from our perspective, given how long it takes to cure pharming schemes executed against big brands like FB. Those need to be taken down in a matter of hours from detection to be of any use at all and we learned in our “scenarios” session with Jamie and James that they take days instead. Setting aside IP issues and focusing on consumer welfare, taking down pharming sites quickly should be paramount, no?

From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net>
Date: Monday, May 4, 2020 at 4:15 PM
To: Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net>
Cc: CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] urgent: RPM issues -- deadline May 4

A few comments interspersed:

Holly

On May 5, 2020, at 1:38 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>> wrote:

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?
I”m not sure how    one would use RPM to address registrant protections.   Further, I am not clear that this is an issue for end users generally.

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.
Agree.  It is not clear to me how RPM is a human rights issue impacting on users generally

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.

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20200505/1191f656/attachment-0001.html>