<html><head></head><body>Very well said George and I agree whole heartedly with those concerns; with particular appreciation to the Ayn Rand reference and its implication to this subject.<br>
<br>
The objective is all wrong. If there were zero disputes that would be a tremendous success from the eyes of the community and society at large; whose interests ICANN is tasked with representing. However, the incentive is clearly there for WIPO to pursue just the opposite.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
Andrew Rosener<br>
<br>
<br>
Andrew Rosener<br>
Media Options S.A.<br>
SKYPE: mediaoptionsinc<br>
USA: +1.786.231.5178<br>
PTY: +507.6232.7496<br>
Panama City, Panama<br>
www.MediaOptions.com <br>
<br>
------------------------------------------------<br>
Confidentiality Statement:<br>
<br>
This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately.<br>
<br>
On Oct 21, 2015, at 11:44 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:<br>
<br>
Hi folks,<br>
<br>
There was an interesting article at IP-Watch last week that mentioned<br>
various performance targets set by WIPO, see:<br>
<br>
http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/10/12/wipo-reports-on-domain-name-disputes-sets-new-targets/<br>
<br>
In particular, there are references to the budget document at:<br>
<br>
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/govbody/en/a_55/a_55_5_rev.pdf<br>
<br>
(see pages 62-65) I'm particularly concerned about how, on page 64,<br>
that "Effective Intellectual Property Protection in the gTLDs and the<br>
ccTLDs) is being measured using "No. of UDRP based gTLD and ccTLD<br>
cases administered by the Center". They have targets of 3,000 gTLD<br>
cases in the 2016/17 budget period, despite *never* having had so many<br>
cases in the past, see:<br>
<br>
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/casesx/all.html<br>
<br>
Year Cases<br>
==============<br>
2008: 2,009<br>
2009: 1,804<br>
2010: 2,295<br>
2011: 2,323<br>
2012: 2,549<br>
2013: 2,257<br>
2014: 2,288<br>
2015: 1,869** (as of October 21, 2015)<br>
<br>
To me, it seems that if IP Protection is effective, one should be<br>
seeing *fewer* UDRPs, not more of them! Just like if we're measuring<br>
traffic safety, fewer traffic court cases would be a sign that drivers<br>
are obeying the law.<br>
<br>
In my opinion, this reveals a huge disconnect between WIPO and the<br>
rest of society. It seems that WIPO is displeased if the number of<br>
domain name disputes is falling or drops to zero, presumably because<br>
it cuts into their "business". Indeed, they're targeting increases in<br>
the number of cases far higher than have existed in the history of the<br>
UDRP program (2012 was the all-time high, with 2,549 cases).<br>
<br>
On page 63, they consider one of the "Major Risks" to be a "Decrease<br>
in UDRP filing", and suggest that they will mitigate that by<br>
"Increasing user-friendliness; Adjusting UDRP procedures (where<br>
ICANN-tolerated); continued Uniform Rapid Suspension (i.e.(URS))<br>
monitoring; participating in ICANN UDRP review; more regular<br>
partnering with IP and related associations; prioritizing case<br>
administration and policy development resources to strike balance<br>
between “staying in the market” and adding specific WIPO value."<br>
<br>
This really demonstrates the risks of "forum shopping". Courts and<br>
tribunals are supposed to be neutral, and should not be actively<br>
encouraging disputes. Those that see UDRP as a "business" that has<br>
growing "performance targets" will try to influence policies and<br>
change their behaviour to increase the number of complaints,<br>
regardless of the actual incidence of bad behaviour by domain name<br>
registrants.<br>
<br>
There are some companies, for example, that are in the business of<br>
building jails, and try to influence the laws so that more and more<br>
people are incarcerated, independent of the actual level of crime in<br>
society. Indeed, if crime is falling, they need more and more<br>
non-crimes to be reclassified as "crimes" in order to keep the jails<br>
full. This appears to be the path that WIPO is taking, with its<br>
budgetary targets and statements.<br>
<br>
Ayn Rand warned about this in "Atlas Shrugged"<br>
<br>
"Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares<br>
so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to<br>
live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding<br>
citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of<br>
laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively<br>
interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you<br>
cash in on guilt. "<br>
<br>
This working group should resist the efforts of those who have an<br>
interest in increasing the number of disputes, because it helps their<br>
"business" that cashes in on "guilt." Our duty should be to look at<br>
existing laws, and not create new ones that help those whose<br>
businesses rely upon an ever-expanding definition of "crime."<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
George Kirikos<br>
416-588-0269<br>
http://www.leap.com/<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list<br>
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<br>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp<br>
<br>
<img src="http://t.sidekickopen01.com/e1t/o/5/f18dQhb0S7ks8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9gXrN7sKj6v5dz0zMRs66bd75FgW5v_SkH2zlZNzTJmfx1k1H6H0?si=5728135040991232&pi=BC803ECE-1127-4452-A1C0-390622064427" width="1" height="1" style="display:none!important"></body></html>