[gnso-rpm-wg] ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018

[George Kirikos]

As Michael correctly noted, *all* cases should have reasons to support
the determination. That's basic quality control that is missing here.

Georges N is trying to mix in panelist remuneration to the debate,
which is not relevant. I'm sure he considers himself a "good"
panelist, but even he makes mistakes in judgment, which isn't
correlated to what he's paid. Case in point is the OpenTime.com UDRP:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2016-2328

which he ordered transferred to the complainant (in a long decision,
which took time to write presumably). As it turns out, this went to
court, and the outcome was that the domain stays with the domain owner
(see attached judgment). So, I don't think "getting it right" is
correlated in any way with the remuneration. You can be paid a lot and
"get it wrong", or you can be paid peanuts but "get it right" -- it's
all about one's standards.

For a given remuneration, panelists are expected to do the job with
diligence, which includes giving reasons so that both sides (and the
public) understand why the determination was made. Panelists shouldn't
cut corners as some form of protest over pay that they willingly
agreed to do for the job. Given how short URS complaints are (500
words max) and typical reading speed (100+ words per minute), the
actual hourly rate of URS panelists is not insignificant (I believe
they are batched in groups of 5 cases per panelist, too). Most
responses start off with a standard template, so it should only take
minutes to do proper reasons in most cases (especially the "slam dunk"
ones).

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/


On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:14 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges
<ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
> The issue of costs is that Panelists get paid a fairly low amount from the
> $300 or so filing.  If you want decent panelists, we  can’t make the process
> so burdensome that folks do not want to get involved.  I recognize that
> being a panelist is more or less pro bono work, but the more requirements
> you impose on the decision the more burdensome it will become (particularly
> as this is an expedited proceeding with a short turn-around time frame).
> The bottom line is that in 93% of the cases (or even your 87% number) there
> were details provided (some more robust than others) – so panelists are as a
> whole providing decisions where the logic can be ascertained.  We just need
> to come up with something easy and workable to address the 7% issue (or 13%
> by your count) in the context of an expedited proceeding.
>
>
>
> Georges Nahitchevansky
> Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
> The Grace Building | 1114 Avenue of the Americas | New York, NY  10036-7703
> office 212 775 8720 | fax 212 775 8820
> ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com | My Profile | vCard
>
> From: Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 4:32 PM
>
>
> To: Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com>; Ariel Liang
> <ariel.liang at icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018
>
>
>
> I would think that the rules should aim for decisions that meet minimal
> standards for everyone, not just for most people.  I have heard cost
> mentioned before, but I'm not sure what makes the 87% of decisions with at
> least a sentence explaining the basis for decision more costly or noticeably
> harder to create (especially if standard forms are provided), since I
> presume that the panelist has a basis for decision in his or her mind and
> thus doesn't need to do more work to generate that reason. Does NAF charge
> more for decisions that specify their reasoning?
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 4:02:07 PM
> To: Tushnet, Rebecca; Ariel Liang; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: RE: ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018
>
>
>
> Thank you for your comments.  Well, while the sky is falling is obviously
> not the standard but saying and acting as though something is a significant
> due process issue, when it isn’t, is quite misleading.  I think we can agree
> that what should be in a decision should be discussed (as noted in the
> documents already), but that has to be tempered by the fees being charged
> for a URS, the fees paid to panelists from such and the time needed to draft
> a decision.  I just thought I would make this clear because some
> editorializing was being thrown out up front.  Your welcome!
>
>
>
> Georges Nahitchevansky
> Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
> The Grace Building | 1114 Avenue of the Americas | New York, NY  10036-7703
> office 212 775 8720 | fax 212 775 8820
> ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com | My Profile | vCard
>
> From: Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 3:35 PM
> To: Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com>; Ariel Liang
> <ariel.liang at icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018
>
>
>
> I'm happy to take this up on the merits (among other things, I don't recall
> saying the sky was falling or understanding that there was consensus that
> sky disaster was the standard for recommending fixes) but I expect we will
> repeat ourselves a lot when we get to the "for WG Discussion" parts. My
> current request is for this suggestion/potential recommendation, which is
> already present in the document, to be repeated or otherwise
> cross-referenced so that it is part of more than Defenses in the main
> document.  Thank you!
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 3:27:09 PM
> To: Tushnet, Rebecca; Ariel Liang; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: RE: ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018
>
>
>
> Rebecca:
>
>
>
> I do not disagree with the notion that we should discuss what a decision
> should contain, but I don’t think we have a consensus as to what that should
> be in the URS context (given the pricing of URS proceedings).  Moreover, a
> review of the URS cases makes your 13% number and comment of “significant
> due process and implementation issues” point questionable.  At NAF for
> example, there were 827 cases that that your research assistants reviewed.
> I found a total of about 103 that your team flagged as having no articulated
> decisions.  I would agree that in 58 cases the decisions lacked details, but
> in 45 cases there were details that sufficiently let you know what the case
> was about and the basis of the resolution.  I am sure we can argue about
> these 45 cases and whether they should say more, but ultimately we are
> really only talking about 58 cases that actually do not have any specific
> details and just provide the standard and a resolution (although I note that
> most of these cases involve domain names based on fairly well known marks
> such as NISSAN, DATSUN, TEXACO, BLOOMBERG, BNP PARIBAS etc., so you pretty
> much know what trademark was involved.).  In all, we are really talking
> about 7% of the cases that have no details, which is not significant.
>
>
>
> Again, we can discuss what the decisions should provide, but I don’t think
> we ought to be qualifying this as a “significant” issue per se (as 93% of
> them have details).  There are other issues being considered in the URS
> review that have better percentage numbers as an issue that are viewed as
> not being significant per se. The point is that the URS looks to be working
> appropriately and there are probably some tweaks and refinements needed but
> this is not sky is falling issue.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Tushnet,
> Rebecca
> Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 1:22 PM
> To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018
>
>
>
> My apologies for missing the meeting.  Comment on the big document:
>
> This is currently only covered under Defenses but I would put it for
> discussion/recommendations under 2. Examiners’ Guide/3. Other Issues because
> it goes beyond defenses: Decisions should contain basic information,
> including what the trademark is, what the finding of abuse is and/or what
> findings are on any defenses—13% of decisions did not, and this raises
> significant due process and implementation issues.
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang
> <ariel.liang at icann.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 3:56:54 PM
> To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM
> PDP WG call held on 08 August 2018 (17:00-18:30 UTC). Staff have posted to
> the wiki space the action items and notes.  Please note that these will be
> high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording. The
> recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at:
> https://community.icann.org/x/uwNpBQ
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Ariel
>
>
>
> Ariel Xinyue Liang
>
> GNSO Policy Support Specialist
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
>
>
> ==
>
> ACTION ITEMS:
>
> Brian Beckham to send to the WG a WIPO FAQ with regard to “Doe Complaint”.
> Renee Fossen to provide more information on HSTS-preloaded domain suspension
> issues in the written responses.
> Staff to recirculate the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document
> WG members to provide substantive comment and raise anything they believe is
> missing on the WG mailing list by COB Tue, 14 Aug. Co-Chairs will then
> discuss among themselves to determine further actions/process.
> WG members to finish reviewing the rest of the Super Consolidated URS Topics
> Table document, including page 24-35, during next week’s call. Later period
> to discuss larger policy issues.
>
>
>
> NOTES:
>
> Review Agenda/Statements of Interest
>
> George Kirikos has become a member of the At-Large Community:
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/George+Kirikos+SOI
>
>
>
> General Comment on the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table Document
>
> The topics in the table were developed by the WG members and deliberated on
> by the WG & URS Sub Teams. Each Sub Team then did very substantial work on
> data collection and reviewing what came back. While the actual Sub Team
> recommendations and suggestions captured in this document are what is
> intended the WG should discuss - to see if it wishes to develop policy or
> operational recommendations - discussion over what should be on the actual
> list of topics should not be reopened unless the WG agrees to do so. We
> encourage all WG members to review all the previous reports from each Sub
> Team, and all the documents they worked on. They are linked in this Super
> Consolidated document (page 2).
> The Super Consolidated document is a summary of findings and suggestions by
> the Sub Teams. The Table does not mean to limit/restrict recommendations
> from the WG members. If there is any issue overlapping with UDRP, can
> possibly be carried over to the phase II of the PDP.
> Is it possible to add additional topics to the Super Consolidated Table? One
> WG member said that access to the Courts, for example, is a topic he raised,
> which isn't in the table. Statute of Limitations, whether URS should apply
> to legacy gTLDs as a consensus policy, are just a few of the topics not in
> the table. He brought it up in November 2017 (see:
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-November/002585.html ) and
> it was reflected in a later document. That's a critical issue for
> registrants. if they don't have access to the courts to challenge a URS
> decision, then it's a huge denial of their rights.
> While the chart is not meant to foreclose further discussion, it is a good
> faith attempt at capturing the work of the sub teams.  The purpose of
> today's, and likely the next few, calls was to make sure this was an
> accurate and comprehensive reflection of our discussions so far.  That said,
> WG members should bear in mind that we are seeking consensus, so items which
> are unlikely to achieve that may not be appropriate to reflect as a
> recommendation, but could be included in public comments on the Initial
> Report.  Also, before adding items to this chart, we will want to work with
> staff to see whether such topics was previously discussed, and if so, the
> level of agreement/consensus.  In other words, it is not necessary final,
> but is equally an opportunity to reintroduce topics which have been
> discussed, but for which consensus is/was not possible.
> Could we create a list of "missing issues" -- a list of issues raised in
> this call (and calls to follow); we can evaluate the nature and weight of
> these ideas later.
> Regarding the Action Items highlighted in column 3 of the table, Providers
> ST will do a first pass of the responses from the Providers to the follow-up
> questions, and then discuss the issues that they identified and proposed
> suggestions with the full WG.
>
>
>
> Limited filing period (page 3)
>
> One WG member believes that there should be limitation for filing period to
> bring URS Complaints, so the domain registered many years ago would not be
> subject to unfair treatment. He said a registrant who owns a domain for 20
> years, for example, shouldn't have to be concerned about a policy that can
> take their domain down with very short time period to respond.
> Other WG members said this was discussed, and did not achieve agreement.
> That would only even be an option if the trademark pre-dated. This is
> unlikely to be a situation in practice where a URS was brought because it
> would probably not be a "slam dunk" case after 20 years unless there had
> been a change of circumstances.
> On the issue of delay and laches - as reported by the Docs Sub Team, the
> data did not provide any basis for which a policy recommendation should be
> made. The Providers and Practitioners Sub Teams also did not uncover any
> specific issues that came to either practitioners' or providers' attention.
>
>
>
> Administrative Review (page 3-4)
>
> One WG member asked whether ICANN should bring Providers into contractual
> relationship in order to enforce the URS Rules & Procedures. Another member
> said it probably need to be ICANN’s legal department to enforce the rules &
> procedure.
> URS Providers have MoU with ICANN. Whether it is ICANN’s compliance
> department or legal department to enforce the rules & procedures, it should
> not be controversial that Providers must abide by them.
> An MOU could be legally enforceable, depending on the circumstances.
>
>
>
> 500-word Complaint limit (page 4-5)
>
> ·        On 500-word Complaint Limit - Practitioners' survey results were
> split (out of 12, 5 agree it's sufficient, 4 disagree); results included
> feedback from some that the word limit was too low: "arbitrary and often
> insufficient" and "should be slightly increased".
>
> ·        One member said he understands and generally agrees with the
> decision not to suggest an expansion of the word limit, he wonders if there
> aren't situations (multi- domain challenges, etc.) where a Complainant or
> Respondent might be given the opportunity to request an expansion. This
> point can be captured for decisional phase.
>
> ·        Another member suggested that perhaps providers can provide stats
> on the average word length of complaints, to see how close to the 500 words
> they are at present. (i.e. a table of distributions, e.g. 10% under 200
> words, 20% between 201 and 300, etc.)
>
>
>
> Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec (page 5-6)
>
> One member believes that 2-3 days might not be a good rule (e.g. weekends,
> time to research, etc.). Maybe 5 business days.
> WIPO’s approach to “doe complaints” has been very helpful and provides some
> comfort that the lack of true registrant/registrant organization data masked
> due to GDPR will not result in a deficient complaint for an omitted
> respondent.
> ACTION ITEM: Brian Beckham to send to the WG a WIPO FAQ with regard to “Doe
> Complaint”.
> Forum is asking for amendment of the complaint in UDRP - under the rules
> that's not allowed in URS.
>
>
>
> SMD Files (page 6-7)
>
> SMD files are used for limited purpose of demonstrating the use.
> Recollection is that SMD files would be passed to the Examiners and relay
> the critical information related to the TM registration. That's why some
> people are surprised by the limited info SMD files would provide.
> The SMD files contain some basic human-readable information, with the rest
> of the information coded. For example, the trademark itself is
> human-readable but the applicable Nice classification is coded. A SMD file
> is used by registries/registrars for validation, and as Greg noted, to
> demonstrate use. From the TMCH provider:
> http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/help/faq/which-information-does-smd-file-contain
> If the intent of the STI was that the SMD file would be a file summary, that
> got lost somewhere along the way, way before the SMD file was designed by
> the TMCH providers.
> Rules 3(b)(v) Specify the trademark(s) or service mark(s) on which the
> complaint is based and the goods or services with which the mark is used
> including evidence of use –which can be a declaration and a specimen of
> current use in commerce - submitted directly or by including a relevant SMD
> (Signed Mark Data) from the Trademark Clearinghouse
> It might be useful to look at the spec that they relied on.  But the real
> question is how should the examiner get the relevant data about the
> Complainant’s mark. The SMD file is probably not the answer, if it was ever
> intended to be.
> the Examiner is not required to second-guess the SMD file. Its existence is
> sufficient that the mark has had use validated by the TMCH.
>
>
>
> Other Topics (page 7-8)
>
> These are policy proposals can be brought up when WG members are proposing
> changes to the URS policy itself. Charter asks us to address the question
> whether the URS should become a consensus policy applicable to legacy
> domains. Charter is not specific regarding whether such discussion should
> occur in phase I or phase II. This feedback illustrates that the ST didn't
> get to propose policy changes, it is for the WG to discuss and propose
> changes.
> when we reference the STI and IRT reports, we need to keep in mind they only
> had about 1-2 months to complete their work and produce a report; they were
> not standard PDP working groups and had limited charters and mandates, which
> were set by the Board
> This is feedback from one Provider, who may want to grow their business.
> Practitioners survey are from Complaints' side. Need to have a balanced
> solution when considering the input.
> There were plenty of practitioners that represent registrants in the
> Subgroup, although their experience was largely with the UDRP.
>
>
>
> Duration of response period (Page 11)
>
> One member believes that if the URS continues in its current form, it would
> affect valuable domain names. The ones the registrants that do want to
> defend them, 14 days are not sufficient. 20 days may be more appropriate. It
> should be based on the age of the domain name. If a domain is 3 months, it
> will have a shorter period to respond. If you own a domain name for 5-10
> years, response period would be longer so less urgency.
> Several other WG members disagree. The URS is supposed to be an expedited
> proceeding so increasing the length of time of a streamlined proceeding
> defeats the purpose.  At most, there could be an additional 3 or 4 days
> extension period for cause. The point is that there are enough circumstances
> that give rise to the URS 'quick response' that we should NOT make
> assumptions into policy.  It is an assumption that an "aged" domain would
> not require a fast response. In Mexico, we have not been able to file a
> domain name case due to Courts ignorance about the subject and also, because
> it could take years to be solved. We're spinning out fo control - extending
> the time to respond to URS cases just because a domain registration is not
> new defeats the purpose of fast action to take down an infringing domain
> once it's discovered. The URS is meant to address clear and convincing cases
> of infringement. A person registers a domain name for less than $50 and
> brand owner find out about at some point and then files an injunction in
> court for tens of thousands of dollars.  Where is the balance.
>
>
>
> Examiners Guide (page 13)
>
> The WIPO guidance for examiners took 1500 hours to develop.
> The WIPO guidance is relevant to the URS, the elements are shown are the
> same and the differences include the burden of proof, word limit, etc. A lot
> of WIPO guidance goes to the shade of grey issues. URS is for clear
> black/white cases, so if there is a URS guidance it would likely be
> abbreviated.
>
>
>
> Duration of Suspension Period & Review of Implementation (page 21-23)
>
> One WG member suggests to find out how much cost for registries & registrars
> to comply with the URS rules and procedures. Need to get data/feedback from
> the registries/registrars.
> Other WG members are not sure "cost of implementation of URS" for
> Registries/Registrars is relevant to effectiveness of URS. We don't need to
> do a cost/benefit analysis (the costs & benefits aren't ICANN's), the
> providers, registrars, registries need to be asked if they are overburdened
> by the costs of compliance.
> There is an action item to contact the registries/registrars about these
> issues. Timing TBD due to Sunrise & Claims survey launch.
>
>
>
> Other topics (page 23-24)
>
> One WG member thinks the HSTS issue is not difficult to fix. The Providers
> need to improve their technical applicability to resolve the issue. Renee
> Fossen from Forum disagrees.
> ACTION ITEM: Renee Fossen to provide more information on HSTS-preloaded
> domain suspension issues in the written responses.
>
>
>
>
>
> NEXT STEPS
>
> ACTION ITEM: Staff to recirculate the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table
> document and ask all WG members to provide substantive comment and raise
> anything they believe is missing on the WG mailing list by COB Tue, 14 Aug.
> Co-Chairs will then discuss among themselves to determine further
> actions/process.
> ACTION ITEM: WG to finish reviewing the rest of the Super Consolidated URS
> Topics Table document, including page 24-35. Later period to discuss larger
> policy issues.
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> Confidentiality Notice:
> This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the
> meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
> 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by
> the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may
> contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney
> work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
> copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or
> attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us
> immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original
> transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax
> advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
> avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
> marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
> addressed herein.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenTime-dot-com-court-case.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 60717 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180809/0dcc363e/OpenTime-dot-com-court-case-0001.pdf>