I don’t disagree with either Sarah’s or Mike’s
comments on Steve’s proposal. But in terms of getting something
through that will work for all parties down the road, do we want to consider
perhaps softening the language a bit? Perhaps change
Registry operations for
adding new names [DEL should be] ARE OFTEN a highly-automated function, and the
failure of a registry to take affirmative steps to assess whether a domain name
violates trademark laws [DEL should not] MAY NOT ALWAYS in itself
constitute bad faith or systemic infringement. However, a registry
operator who fails to perform the specific rights protection mechanisms
enumerated in its Registry
Operator’s Agreement should be subject to PDDM claims, as set forth in
the IRT Final Report.
Understand that may still not be close enough to other positions
on the committee, so just throwing out ideas. USCIB does not have an
official position on this.
Chris
From:
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike
Rodenbaugh
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 2:57 PM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper
Hi Steve,
BC members might disagree with most of your first
sentence. Specifically, the BC appears to have reached consensus that
registry operators and/or registrars should do lookups against the
Clearinghouse database, and provide appropriate notices to all domain
registration applicants. ALAC and other constituencies are of the same
view, though some registrars and registries appear to resist. Those
registries and/or registrars that choose to ignore this lookup and notice
capability (for whatever reason) ought not be relieved from liability for that
choice, and might be considered a bad faith contributor to systemic infringement,
if not a direct infringer.
I support your second sentence though!
Thanks,
Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
From:
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve
DelBianco
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 11:25 AM
To: Zahid Jamil; 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper
Thank-you,
Zahid, for your exhaustive efforts on the rights protection mechanisms.
As you requested, here’s one comment on the draft BC position on Post
Delegation Dispute Mechanism (PDDM):
Twice in your draft you express concern about Registry Operators turning a
“blind eye” to infringements. I’m a fan of clever
phrases such as “turn a blind eye”, but in this case I think the
rhetoric may go too far.
One of my registry members reminded me in Seoul that registry operations are
highly automated processes. There is no human “eye” looking
at registration Add records as they come in from registrars. Accordingly,
I suggest replacing the two “blind eye” concerns in the BC comments
with this statement:
Registry operations for
adding new names should be a highly-automated function, and the failure of a
registry to take affirmative steps to assess whether a domain name violates
trademark laws should not in itself constitute bad faith or systemic
infringement. However, a registry operator who fails to perform the
specific rights protection mechanisms enumerated in its Registry Operator’s Agreement should be subject
to PDDM claims, as set forth in the IRT Final Report.
Again, thanks for working this on our behalf.
--
Steve DelBianco
Executive Director
NetChoice
http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
+1.202.420.7482
On 11/4/09 12:37 PM, "Zahid Jamil" <zahid@dndrc.com>
wrote:
Would like to ask members that if there are any comments on the draft BC
position on RPMs that was sent out earlier? If I don’t hear
anything on whether there will be comments and that I should hold sending this
out to the GNSO, I will send it out by tomorrow to both the GNSO and the STI.