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

Tue May 5 00:53:10 UTC 2020

There really is no RPM that is designed  (or even useful) to go after
pharming, spearphishing and other types of cyberattacks and illegal
behavior that leverage trademarks as a way to fool people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*Greg Shatan | President, ISOC-NY*
greg at isoc-ny.org

*"The Internet is for everyone"*

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 8:45 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
wrote:

> 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> 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
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> 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/20200504/d580bc88/attachment.html>