While I have no problem toning down the "blind eye"
references, the proposed language below goes in the other direction by
suggesting that highly automated functions somehow protect registrars and
registries from liability. Courts, however, have found registrars in bad
faith even when they raise the argument that they used an automated
process. See, for example:
Bad faith can and should
be triggered by any number of factors (including those listed in the
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and UDRP) and should not be limited
to situations where the registry fails to perform specific
RPMs.
Sarah
Sarah B.
Deutsch
Vice President & Associate General Counsel
Verizon
Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax:
703-351-3670
sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com
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.