[gnso-rpm-wg] RPM WG questions directed at me

Wed May 9 16:34:00 UTC 2018

Thanks, Brian, I appreciate your engagement and response to my query.

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:28 PM, BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int>
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> I appreciate the chance to answer some of your questions.
>
>
>
> I also appreciate that time is near for our call, but I would like to
> share the following:
>
>
>
> George asked about WIPO’s “Select UDRP-related Court Cases” page, and why
> WIPO had not included certain cases on that page, and then why it was
> updated it as it was.
>
>
>
> After discussing this internally, and based inter alia on assessment of a
> number of reasoned discussions made on this very list as to the various
> range of factors involved in court‑sanctioned settled cases, it seemed
> clear that certain types of cases may or may not have probative value that
> speaks to the merits of the UDRP case.  Illustrative of the fact that this
> assessment was applied in a neutral manner in terms of not including
> certain cases on this page, as you can see, the “lawsociety” case was also
> removed.  As to why it was initially put up, I could not say;  as you can
> see, nearly all of the content on that page predates my current role.  I
> also understand from my Francophone colleagues that the Moobitalk case
> involves a complex trademark-jurisdictional question decided on distinct
> grounds from the UDRP case.  Moreover, while we are facing record volumes
> of cases in recent years, with respect, on the few occasions where a third
> party brings a case to our attention, rather than simply post it on WIPO’s
> public webpage automatically, we prefer to take the necessary time to make
> a reasoned assessment before potentially doing so.
>
>
>
> Michael asked about my suggestions on a question in the Providers subteam
> survey.
>
>
>
> *As has already been clarified on the email list by staff*, the reason I
> reached out to staff is that I had put a suggestion on the list (on 26-Apr)
> with a suggestion to use more neutral language (i.e., that found in the URS
> Rules regarding impartiality requirements).  Although there was subsequent
> discussion on the list about this, I was not aware that a resolution had
> been reached.  However, on a call on 4-May, Kathy represented that the
> relevant subteam questions were finalized.  I wrote to staff merely to see
> if they would be able to clarify whether this was the case; in their reply
> to me, they shared the subteam-agreed wording on that particular question.
> Since I understood that the subteam was seeking to close this work off by
> COB that Friday I sought to provide some very targeted feedback along the
> same lies of my original email of 26-Apr, and as I made clear to staff I
> would have been happy to raise the very same point in the full WG – I
> merely thought it would be more efficient to share my thoughts in advance
> with the subteam, via staff in this case.  Anyone who know or has worked
> with me can attest that I try when possible to approach such matters with
> an efficient and solution-oriented mindset.  Since I understood that these
> questions in any event would need to be cleared by the full WG, I merely
> thought this approach (occasioned if you recall by my asking for a
> procedural clarification) fit that mold.
>
>
>
> Martin asked about my role in WIPO, the GAC, and my Statement of Interest
> stating that I am representing my employer.
>
>
>
> At WIPO, I am responsible for day-to-day management and oversight of
> domain name operations (this includes a range of tasks such as HR,
> administration, finance, and IT), and also related IP and DNS policy
> activities (e.g., this working group).  If you will allow me a brief word
> about WIPO (whose mission relates to “the development of a balanced and
> effective international intellectual property (IP) system that enables
> innovation and creativity for the benefit of all”), by definition, we, the
> staff here, are the “secretariat” to WIPO’s Member States.  What this means
> is that we act in a neutral manner without taking substantive views.  A
> recent example of this is my participation at our Standing Committee on
> the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT)
> <http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=46435> where
> issues such as trademarks and GIs on the Internet were discussed.  While I
> might have personal views on international legal norms in these areas, our
> role is to provide a platform for Member State discussions – very much like
> the co-chair role envisaged for this particular ICANN working group.  As
> for the GAC, WIPO, as a Member State-constituted organization, is an
> official observer.  Frankly, we are not involved in the majority of GAC
> discussions, but seek where relevant to share our experience e.g., with
> administering dispute resolution systems, or where there are relevant
> Member State decisions relating to IP norms – a good example is that during
> discussions on the TMCH “proof of use” requirement, we shared with GAC
> colleagues a WIPO SCT survey that had been conducted on the registration
> office practices of Member States.  As to any WG review of UDRP providers,
> at the recent Puerto Rico meeting, Mr. Kirikos raised some questions for
> the NAF, and while WIPO has written to ICANN about provider accreditation
> choices over the years, I did not intervene in that particular discussion;
> had I done so, I would have made it clear whether I was doing so in a
> non-chair capacity (assuming for argument’s sake that I would be in that
> role, to complete this example).  It is of course true the WIPO is the
> leading UDRP provider, and I am honored to contribute to its work in this
> respect; WIPO (operating on a not-for-profit basis) believes that the UDRP
> is a positive international contribution for all DNS stakeholders, and
> WIPO’s interest is in its healthy functioning as a system that saves
> parties the time and expense of going to court, acts as a safe harbor by
> keeping registration authorities out of court/disputes, provides
> predictability in a domain name aftermarket, and protects consumers.
>
>
>
> Thanks for the opportunity to provide you all with these answers.
>
>
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO
> Arbitration and Mediation Center
> 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247
> | E brian.beckham at wipo.int | www.wipo.int
>
>
>
>
>
> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic
> message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected
> information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please
> immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its
> attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses
> prior to opening or using.
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180509/fd69ca6b/attachment.html>