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.