Dear BC Members, Here are two competing motions that have recently been posted to the Council list for inclusion in the next GNSO Council call: ROPOSED MOTION ON REVIEW OF THE UDRP Made by: Mary Wong (Non-Commercial SG) Seconded by: WHEREAS, on 3 February 2011 the GNSO Council adopted a resolution requesting an Issue Report on the current state of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) from ICANN staff, to include consideration of: (1) how the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process; (2) whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated; and (3) suggestions for how a possible PDP on this issue might be managed; WHEREAS, a Preliminary Issue Report was prepared by ICANN staff and released for public comment from 27 May 2011 to 22 July 2011, for which 24 community comments were received; WHEREAS, further feedback was received in the form of responses by various UDRP providers to a questionnaire issued by ICANN staff, a Webinar conducted by ICANN staff, and two UDRP-related sessions held at the 41st ICANN meeting in Singapore; WHEREAS, a Final Issue Report taking into account the community comments and public feedback received was prepared by ICANN staff and published on 3 October 2011; WHEREAS, the Final Issue Report illustrates a diversity of views among the ICANN community as to a number of UDRP-related issues, such as: (1) the advisability of commencing a PDP at this time rather than when the new rights-protection mechanisms (RPMs) mandated by the new gTLD program (e.g. the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system) are reviewed; (2) whether the UDRP, although improved over time in terms of consistency of application and streamlining of processes, is fair; and (3) other matters such as whether to launch a PDP or form an experts' panel, and whether more formal accreditation or contracts between ICANN and UDRP providers is desirable; WHEREAS, a PDP provides the best means for assessing how to respond to this diversity of views, in particular because a PDP can be designed to address concerns about the size and complexity of the UDRP review, such as: (1) by identifying short-term issues that can be worked on during the launch of the new gTLD program and up to the first review of the URS, and other issues that may require a longer time frame for work, including any process-related or current implementation problems; (2) the formation of Sub-Teams within the Working Group to handle different issues, tasks and timelines; and (3) the division of the PDP into work phases, including possible issues and time frames corresponding to the new gTLD program, if appropriate; WHEREAS, the UDRP is the oldest GNSO policy that has yet to be reviewed, and the further postponement of a PDP is unlikely to improve or correct some of the flaws and problems with the current UDRP that were identified by the ICANN community during the process of preparation of the Final Issue Report; and WHEREAS, the issue of community bandwidth and resource allocation may not diminish even after the launch of the new gTLD program and the new RPMs, and reviewing such a complex policy as the UDRP together with the URS is likely to exert even more pressure on community bandwidth and resources; Be it RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the initiation of a PDP on the UDRP and the establishment of a Working Group on UDRP Review; RESOLVED, further, that the drafting team that will be formed and charged with developing a charter for the Working Group on UDRP Review take into account the diverse possibilities for Working Group modalities and work phasing; and RESOLVED, further, that the charter for the Working Group specifically task the Working Group with considering: (1) related issues and recommendations raised by the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP Working Group, which were adopted by the GNSO Council as recommendations to the ICANN Board of Directors at its meeting on 21 July 2011; and (2) recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP; and (3) such other similar issues and recommendations as it considers appropriate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Competing Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP Made by: Jeff Neuman (Registries SG) Seconded by: Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted a final report the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf), recommending an issue report on the current state of the UDRP considering both (a) How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process, and (b) Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated, and Whereas, on February 3, 2011, the GNSO Council requested an Issues Report in accordance with the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group [LINK], and Whereas, a Preliminary Issue Report was published on 27 May 2011 [LINK] and series of webinars and workshops were held soliciting public comment to allow for the ICANN community to provide feedback on the analysis and recommendations contained therein, and Whereas, a Final Issue Report was published on 3 October 2011 [LINK] in which ICANN staff recommended the GNSO Council consider the "perspective of the majority of the ICANN community, and the advice of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), and the At-Large Advisory Committee" and that "a PDP be delayed until after the New gTLD Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) has been in operation for at least eighteen months. . . [to] allow the policy process to be informed by data regarding the effectiveness of the URS, which was modeled on the UDRP, to address the problem of cybersquatting." RESOLVED, that the GNSO approved the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP. RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited.
A tabular comparison of the two UDRP motions with highlights to make them more convenient to review is attached. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: 10 November 2011 20:19 To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call Dear BC Members, Here are two competing motions that have recently been posted to the Council list for inclusion in the next GNSO Council call: ROPOSED MOTION ON REVIEW OF THE UDRP Made by: Mary Wong (Non-Commercial SG) Seconded by: WHEREAS, on 3 February 2011 the GNSO Council adopted a resolution requesting an Issue Report on the current state of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) from ICANN staff, to include consideration of: (1) how the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process; (2) whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated; and (3) suggestions for how a possible PDP on this issue might be managed; WHEREAS, a Preliminary Issue Report was prepared by ICANN staff and released for public comment from 27 May 2011 to 22 July 2011, for which 24 community comments were received; WHEREAS, further feedback was received in the form of responses by various UDRP providers to a questionnaire issued by ICANN staff, a Webinar conducted by ICANN staff, and two UDRP-related sessions held at the 41st ICANN meeting in Singapore; WHEREAS, a Final Issue Report taking into account the community comments and public feedback received was prepared by ICANN staff and published on 3 October 2011; WHEREAS, the Final Issue Report illustrates a diversity of views among the ICANN community as to a number of UDRP-related issues, such as: (1) the advisability of commencing a PDP at this time rather than when the new rights-protection mechanisms (RPMs) mandated by the new gTLD program (e.g. the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system) are reviewed; (2) whether the UDRP, although improved over time in terms of consistency of application and streamlining of processes, is fair; and (3) other matters such as whether to launch a PDP or form an experts' panel, and whether more formal accreditation or contracts between ICANN and UDRP providers is desirable; WHEREAS, a PDP provides the best means for assessing how to respond to this diversity of views, in particular because a PDP can be designed to address concerns about the size and complexity of the UDRP review, such as: (1) by identifying short-term issues that can be worked on during the launch of the new gTLD program and up to the first review of the URS, and other issues that may require a longer time frame for work, including any process-related or current implementation problems; (2) the formation of Sub-Teams within the Working Group to handle different issues, tasks and timelines; and (3) the division of the PDP into work phases, including possible issues and time frames corresponding to the new gTLD program, if appropriate; WHEREAS, the UDRP is the oldest GNSO policy that has yet to be reviewed, and the further postponement of a PDP is unlikely to improve or correct some of the flaws and problems with the current UDRP that were identified by the ICANN community during the process of preparation of the Final Issue Report; and WHEREAS, the issue of community bandwidth and resource allocation may not diminish even after the launch of the new gTLD program and the new RPMs, and reviewing such a complex policy as the UDRP together with the URS is likely to exert even more pressure on community bandwidth and resources; Be it RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the initiation of a PDP on the UDRP and the establishment of a Working Group on UDRP Review; RESOLVED, further, that the drafting team that will be formed and charged with developing a charter for the Working Group on UDRP Review take into account the diverse possibilities for Working Group modalities and work phasing; and RESOLVED, further, that the charter for the Working Group specifically task the Working Group with considering: (1) related issues and recommendations raised by the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP Working Group, which were adopted by the GNSO Council as recommendations to the ICANN Board of Directors at its meeting on 21 July 2011; and (2) recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP; and (3) such other similar issues and recommendations as it considers appropriate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Competing Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP Made by: Jeff Neuman (Registries SG) Seconded by: Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted a final report the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf), recommending an issue report on the current state of the UDRP considering both (a) How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process, and (b) Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated, and Whereas, on February 3, 2011, the GNSO Council requested an Issues Report in accordance with the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group [LINK], and Whereas, a Preliminary Issue Report was published on 27 May 2011 [LINK] and series of webinars and workshops were held soliciting public comment to allow for the ICANN community to provide feedback on the analysis and recommendations contained therein, and Whereas, a Final Issue Report was published on 3 October 2011 [LINK] in which ICANN staff recommended the GNSO Council consider the "perspective of the majority of the ICANN community, and the advice of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), and the At-Large Advisory Committee" and that "a PDP be delayed until after the New gTLD Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) has been in operation for at least eighteen months. . . [to] allow the policy process to be informed by data regarding the effectiveness of the URS, which was modeled on the UDRP, to address the problem of cybersquatting." RESOLVED, that the GNSO approved the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP. RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited.
Thanks Zahid. Curious to hear how the discussion went on the BC call this morning on this issue. I have a feeling I may be a fairly lone voice, but fwiw, I support Mary's motion over Jeff's. Indeed it was a unanimous recommendation of the RAP-WG, including a bunch of IP attorneys and reps (including me), to do a review of the UDRP since it has been in place for ten years and has not been all that effective as a deterrent against cybersquatting. Waiting another 2.5 years, or longer if the newTLD program is stalled, is not going to help anything or anyone other than IP attorneys who charge many thousands of dollars to file or defend UDRP cases (again, including me); . oh, and also the bad guys who abuse the DNS and reputable brands with virtually no trouble and no consequence. Also I am not holding my breath waiting for URS implementation, as it may never happen and even if it does come into some form or another, it is unlikely to be used much if at all, particularly in just the first 18 mos. after the first new TLD. I fail to see how it will impact a review of the decade-old UDRP in any way whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 7:19 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call Dear BC Members, Here are two competing motions that have recently been posted to the Council list for inclusion in the next GNSO Council call: ROPOSED MOTION ON REVIEW OF THE UDRP Made by: Mary Wong (Non-Commercial SG) Seconded by: WHEREAS, on 3 February 2011 the GNSO Council adopted a resolution requesting an Issue Report on the current state of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) from ICANN staff, to include consideration of: (1) how the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process; (2) whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated; and (3) suggestions for how a possible PDP on this issue might be managed; WHEREAS, a Preliminary Issue Report was prepared by ICANN staff and released for public comment from 27 May 2011 to 22 July 2011, for which 24 community comments were received; WHEREAS, further feedback was received in the form of responses by various UDRP providers to a questionnaire issued by ICANN staff, a Webinar conducted by ICANN staff, and two UDRP-related sessions held at the 41st ICANN meeting in Singapore; WHEREAS, a Final Issue Report taking into account the community comments and public feedback received was prepared by ICANN staff and published on 3 October 2011; WHEREAS, the Final Issue Report illustrates a diversity of views among the ICANN community as to a number of UDRP-related issues, such as: (1) the advisability of commencing a PDP at this time rather than when the new rights-protection mechanisms (RPMs) mandated by the new gTLD program (e.g. the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system) are reviewed; (2) whether the UDRP, although improved over time in terms of consistency of application and streamlining of processes, is fair; and (3) other matters such as whether to launch a PDP or form an experts' panel, and whether more formal accreditation or contracts between ICANN and UDRP providers is desirable; WHEREAS, a PDP provides the best means for assessing how to respond to this diversity of views, in particular because a PDP can be designed to address concerns about the size and complexity of the UDRP review, such as: (1) by identifying short-term issues that can be worked on during the launch of the new gTLD program and up to the first review of the URS, and other issues that may require a longer time frame for work, including any process-related or current implementation problems; (2) the formation of Sub-Teams within the Working Group to handle different issues, tasks and timelines; and (3) the division of the PDP into work phases, including possible issues and time frames corresponding to the new gTLD program, if appropriate; WHEREAS, the UDRP is the oldest GNSO policy that has yet to be reviewed, and the further postponement of a PDP is unlikely to improve or correct some of the flaws and problems with the current UDRP that were identified by the ICANN community during the process of preparation of the Final Issue Report; and WHEREAS, the issue of community bandwidth and resource allocation may not diminish even after the launch of the new gTLD program and the new RPMs, and reviewing such a complex policy as the UDRP together with the URS is likely to exert even more pressure on community bandwidth and resources; Be it RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the initiation of a PDP on the UDRP and the establishment of a Working Group on UDRP Review; RESOLVED, further, that the drafting team that will be formed and charged with developing a charter for the Working Group on UDRP Review take into account the diverse possibilities for Working Group modalities and work phasing; and RESOLVED, further, that the charter for the Working Group specifically task the Working Group with considering: (1) related issues and recommendations raised by the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP Working Group, which were adopted by the GNSO Council as recommendations to the ICANN Board of Directors at its meeting on 21 July 2011; and (2) recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP; and (3) such other similar issues and recommendations as it considers appropriate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Competing Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP Made by: Jeff Neuman (Registries SG) Seconded by: Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted a final report the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf), recommending an issue report on the current state of the UDRP considering both (a) How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process, and (b) Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated, and Whereas, on February 3, 2011, the GNSO Council requested an Issues Report in accordance with the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group [LINK], and Whereas, a Preliminary Issue Report was published on 27 May 2011 [LINK] and series of webinars and workshops were held soliciting public comment to allow for the ICANN community to provide feedback on the analysis and recommendations contained therein, and Whereas, a Final Issue Report was published on 3 October 2011 [LINK] in which ICANN staff recommended the GNSO Council consider the "perspective of the majority of the ICANN community, and the advice of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), and the At-Large Advisory Committee" and that "a PDP be delayed until after the New gTLD Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) has been in operation for at least eighteen months. . . [to] allow the policy process to be informed by data regarding the effectiveness of the URS, which was modeled on the UDRP, to address the problem of cybersquatting." RESOLVED, that the GNSO approved the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP. RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited.
Thanks for this. Can I share these thoughts with Steve and an ongoing discussion about this with CSG Councillors? Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink *** -----Original Message----- From: <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:17:23 To: <bc-gnso@icann.org> Reply-To: <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call Thanks Zahid. Curious to hear how the discussion went on the BC call this morning on this issue. I have a feeling I may be a fairly lone voice, but fwiw, I support Mary's motion over Jeff's. Indeed it was a unanimous recommendation of the RAP-WG, including a bunch of IP attorneys and reps (including me), to do a review of the UDRP since it has been in place for ten years and has not been all that effective as a deterrent against cybersquatting. Waiting another 2.5 years, or longer if the newTLD program is stalled, is not going to help anything or anyone other than IP attorneys who charge many thousands of dollars to file or defend UDRP cases (again, including me); . oh, and also the bad guys who abuse the DNS and reputable brands with virtually no trouble and no consequence. Also I am not holding my breath waiting for URS implementation, as it may never happen and even if it does come into some form or another, it is unlikely to be used much if at all, particularly in just the first 18 mos. after the first new TLD. I fail to see how it will impact a review of the decade-old UDRP in any way whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 7:19 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call Dear BC Members, Here are two competing motions that have recently been posted to the Council list for inclusion in the next GNSO Council call: ROPOSED MOTION ON REVIEW OF THE UDRP Made by: Mary Wong (Non-Commercial SG) Seconded by: WHEREAS, on 3 February 2011 the GNSO Council adopted a resolution requesting an Issue Report on the current state of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) from ICANN staff, to include consideration of: (1) how the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process; (2) whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated; and (3) suggestions for how a possible PDP on this issue might be managed; WHEREAS, a Preliminary Issue Report was prepared by ICANN staff and released for public comment from 27 May 2011 to 22 July 2011, for which 24 community comments were received; WHEREAS, further feedback was received in the form of responses by various UDRP providers to a questionnaire issued by ICANN staff, a Webinar conducted by ICANN staff, and two UDRP-related sessions held at the 41st ICANN meeting in Singapore; WHEREAS, a Final Issue Report taking into account the community comments and public feedback received was prepared by ICANN staff and published on 3 October 2011; WHEREAS, the Final Issue Report illustrates a diversity of views among the ICANN community as to a number of UDRP-related issues, such as: (1) the advisability of commencing a PDP at this time rather than when the new rights-protection mechanisms (RPMs) mandated by the new gTLD program (e.g. the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system) are reviewed; (2) whether the UDRP, although improved over time in terms of consistency of application and streamlining of processes, is fair; and (3) other matters such as whether to launch a PDP or form an experts' panel, and whether more formal accreditation or contracts between ICANN and UDRP providers is desirable; WHEREAS, a PDP provides the best means for assessing how to respond to this diversity of views, in particular because a PDP can be designed to address concerns about the size and complexity of the UDRP review, such as: (1) by identifying short-term issues that can be worked on during the launch of the new gTLD program and up to the first review of the URS, and other issues that may require a longer time frame for work, including any process-related or current implementation problems; (2) the formation of Sub-Teams within the Working Group to handle different issues, tasks and timelines; and (3) the division of the PDP into work phases, including possible issues and time frames corresponding to the new gTLD program, if appropriate; WHEREAS, the UDRP is the oldest GNSO policy that has yet to be reviewed, and the further postponement of a PDP is unlikely to improve or correct some of the flaws and problems with the current UDRP that were identified by the ICANN community during the process of preparation of the Final Issue Report; and WHEREAS, the issue of community bandwidth and resource allocation may not diminish even after the launch of the new gTLD program and the new RPMs, and reviewing such a complex policy as the UDRP together with the URS is likely to exert even more pressure on community bandwidth and resources; Be it RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the initiation of a PDP on the UDRP and the establishment of a Working Group on UDRP Review; RESOLVED, further, that the drafting team that will be formed and charged with developing a charter for the Working Group on UDRP Review take into account the diverse possibilities for Working Group modalities and work phasing; and RESOLVED, further, that the charter for the Working Group specifically task the Working Group with considering: (1) related issues and recommendations raised by the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP Working Group, which were adopted by the GNSO Council as recommendations to the ICANN Board of Directors at its meeting on 21 July 2011; and (2) recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP; and (3) such other similar issues and recommendations as it considers appropriate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Competing Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP Made by: Jeff Neuman (Registries SG) Seconded by: Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted a final report the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf), recommending an issue report on the current state of the UDRP considering both (a) How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process, and (b) Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated, and Whereas, on February 3, 2011, the GNSO Council requested an Issues Report in accordance with the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group [LINK], and Whereas, a Preliminary Issue Report was published on 27 May 2011 [LINK] and series of webinars and workshops were held soliciting public comment to allow for the ICANN community to provide feedback on the analysis and recommendations contained therein, and Whereas, a Final Issue Report was published on 3 October 2011 [LINK] in which ICANN staff recommended the GNSO Council consider the "perspective of the majority of the ICANN community, and the advice of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), and the At-Large Advisory Committee" and that "a PDP be delayed until after the New gTLD Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) has been in operation for at least eighteen months. . . [to] allow the policy process to be informed by data regarding the effectiveness of the URS, which was modeled on the UDRP, to address the problem of cybersquatting." RESOLVED, that the GNSO approved the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP. RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited.
I'm in general agreement with the views that Mike stated. While I believe there's a middle ground - of the two competing Resolutions, Mary's is preferable Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 2:33 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; BC Secretariat Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call Thanks for this. Can I share these thoughts with Steve and an ongoing discussion about this with CSG Councillors? Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com<http://www.jamilandjamil.com> *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink *** ________________________________ From: <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:17:23 -0800 To: <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> ReplyTo: <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call Thanks Zahid. Curious to hear how the discussion went on the BC call this morning on this issue. I have a feeling I may be a fairly lone voice, but fwiw, I support Mary's motion over Jeff's. Indeed it was a unanimous recommendation of the RAP-WG, including a bunch of IP attorneys and reps (including me), to do a review of the UDRP since it has been in place for ten years and has not been all that effective as a deterrent against cybersquatting. Waiting another 2.5 years, or longer if the newTLD program is stalled, is not going to help anything or anyone other than IP attorneys who charge many thousands of dollars to file or defend UDRP cases (again, including me); ... oh, and also the bad guys who abuse the DNS and reputable brands with virtually no trouble and no consequence. Also I am not holding my breath waiting for URS implementation, as it may never happen and even if it does come into some form or another, it is unlikely to be used much if at all, particularly in just the first 18 mos. after the first new TLD. I fail to see how it will impact a review of the decade-old UDRP in any way whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 7:19 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call Dear BC Members, Here are two competing motions that have recently been posted to the Council list for inclusion in the next GNSO Council call: ROPOSED MOTION ON REVIEW OF THE UDRP Made by: Mary Wong (Non-Commercial SG) Seconded by: WHEREAS, on 3 February 2011 the GNSO Council adopted a resolution requesting an Issue Report on the current state of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) from ICANN staff, to include consideration of: (1) how the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process; (2) whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated; and (3) suggestions for how a possible PDP on this issue might be managed; WHEREAS, a Preliminary Issue Report was prepared by ICANN staff and released for public comment from 27 May 2011 to 22 July 2011, for which 24 community comments were received; WHEREAS, further feedback was received in the form of responses by various UDRP providers to a questionnaire issued by ICANN staff, a Webinar conducted by ICANN staff, and two UDRP-related sessions held at the 41st ICANN meeting in Singapore; WHEREAS, a Final Issue Report taking into account the community comments and public feedback received was prepared by ICANN staff and published on 3 October 2011; WHEREAS, the Final Issue Report illustrates a diversity of views among the ICANN community as to a number of UDRP-related issues, such as: (1) the advisability of commencing a PDP at this time rather than when the new rights-protection mechanisms (RPMs) mandated by the new gTLD program (e.g. the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system) are reviewed; (2) whether the UDRP, although improved over time in terms of consistency of application and streamlining of processes, is fair; and (3) other matters such as whether to launch a PDP or form an experts' panel, and whether more formal accreditation or contracts between ICANN and UDRP providers is desirable; WHEREAS, a PDP provides the best means for assessing how to respond to this diversity of views, in particular because a PDP can be designed to address concerns about the size and complexity of the UDRP review, such as: (1) by identifying short-term issues that can be worked on during the launch of the new gTLD program and up to the first review of the URS, and other issues that may require a longer time frame for work, including any process-related or current implementation problems; (2) the formation of Sub-Teams within the Working Group to handle different issues, tasks and timelines; and (3) the division of the PDP into work phases, including possible issues and time frames corresponding to the new gTLD program, if appropriate; WHEREAS, the UDRP is the oldest GNSO policy that has yet to be reviewed, and the further postponement of a PDP is unlikely to improve or correct some of the flaws and problems with the current UDRP that were identified by the ICANN community during the process of preparation of the Final Issue Report; and WHEREAS, the issue of community bandwidth and resource allocation may not diminish even after the launch of the new gTLD program and the new RPMs, and reviewing such a complex policy as the UDRP together with the URS is likely to exert even more pressure on community bandwidth and resources; Be it RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the initiation of a PDP on the UDRP and the establishment of a Working Group on UDRP Review; RESOLVED, further, that the drafting team that will be formed and charged with developing a charter for the Working Group on UDRP Review take into account the diverse possibilities for Working Group modalities and work phasing; and RESOLVED, further, that the charter for the Working Group specifically task the Working Group with considering: (1) related issues and recommendations raised by the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP Working Group, which were adopted by the GNSO Council as recommendations to the ICANN Board of Directors at its meeting on 21 July 2011; and (2) recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP; and (3) such other similar issues and recommendations as it considers appropriate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Competing Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP Made by: Jeff Neuman (Registries SG) Seconded by: Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted a final report the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf), recommending an issue report on the current state of the UDRP considering both (a) How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process, and (b) Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated, and Whereas, on February 3, 2011, the GNSO Council requested an Issues Report in accordance with the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group [LINK], and Whereas, a Preliminary Issue Report was published on 27 May 2011 [LINK] and series of webinars and workshops were held soliciting public comment to allow for the ICANN community to provide feedback on the analysis and recommendations contained therein, and Whereas, a Final Issue Report was published on 3 October 2011 [LINK] in which ICANN staff recommended the GNSO Council consider the "perspective of the majority of the ICANN community, and the advice of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), and the At-Large Advisory Committee" and that "a PDP be delayed until after the New gTLD Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) has been in operation for at least eighteen months. . . [to] allow the policy process to be informed by data regarding the effectiveness of the URS, which was modeled on the UDRP, to address the problem of cybersquatting." RESOLVED, that the GNSO approved the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP. RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 www.jamilandjamil.com<http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2092/4007 - Release Date: 11/09/11
MarkMonitor disagree, we support Jeff's proposal. The majority of large business who are our customers tell us that they enjoy the predictability of this tried and tested mechanism. Furthermore, with the dns undergoing so much change they prefer that udrp remains stable and predictable while the community evaluates the effectiveness of proposed new rights protection mechanisms. Sent from my mobile +1(415)606-3733 (please excuse any content I might blame on apple's absurd and comical autocorrect including but not limited to typos) On Nov 10, 2011, at 3:54 PM, "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: I’m in general agreement with the views that Mike stated. While I believe there’s a middle ground - of the two competing Resolutions, Mary’s is preferable Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 2:33 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; BC Secretariat Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call Thanks for this. Can I share these thoughts with Steve and an ongoing discussion about this with CSG Councillors? Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com<http://www.jamilandjamil.com> *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink *** ________________________________ From: <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:17:23 -0800 To: <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> ReplyTo: <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call Thanks Zahid. Curious to hear how the discussion went on the BC call this morning on this issue. I have a feeling I may be a fairly lone voice, but fwiw, I support Mary’s motion over Jeff’s. Indeed it was a unanimous recommendation of the RAP-WG, including a bunch of IP attorneys and reps (including me), to do a review of the UDRP since it has been in place for ten years and has not been all that effective as a deterrent against cybersquatting. Waiting another 2.5 years, or longer if the newTLD program is stalled, is not going to help anything or anyone other than IP attorneys who charge many thousands of dollars to file or defend UDRP cases (again, including me); … oh, and also the bad guys who abuse the DNS and reputable brands with virtually no trouble and no consequence. Also I am not holding my breath waiting for URS implementation, as it may never happen and even if it does come into some form or another, it is unlikely to be used much if at all, particularly in just the first 18 mos. after the first new TLD. I fail to see how it will impact a review of the decade-old UDRP in any way whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 7:19 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call Dear BC Members, Here are two competing motions that have recently been posted to the Council list for inclusion in the next GNSO Council call: ROPOSED MOTION ON REVIEW OF THE UDRP Made by: Mary Wong (Non-Commercial SG) Seconded by: WHEREAS, on 3 February 2011 the GNSO Council adopted a resolution requesting an Issue Report on the current state of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) from ICANN staff, to include consideration of: (1) how the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process; (2) whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated; and (3) suggestions for how a possible PDP on this issue might be managed; WHEREAS, a Preliminary Issue Report was prepared by ICANN staff and released for public comment from 27 May 2011 to 22 July 2011, for which 24 community comments were received; WHEREAS, further feedback was received in the form of responses by various UDRP providers to a questionnaire issued by ICANN staff, a Webinar conducted by ICANN staff, and two UDRP-related sessions held at the 41st ICANN meeting in Singapore; WHEREAS, a Final Issue Report taking into account the community comments and public feedback received was prepared by ICANN staff and published on 3 October 2011; WHEREAS, the Final Issue Report illustrates a diversity of views among the ICANN community as to a number of UDRP-related issues, such as: (1) the advisability of commencing a PDP at this time rather than when the new rights-protection mechanisms (RPMs) mandated by the new gTLD program (e.g. the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system) are reviewed; (2) whether the UDRP, although improved over time in terms of consistency of application and streamlining of processes, is fair; and (3) other matters such as whether to launch a PDP or form an experts’ panel, and whether more formal accreditation or contracts between ICANN and UDRP providers is desirable; WHEREAS, a PDP provides the best means for assessing how to respond to this diversity of views, in particular because a PDP can be designed to address concerns about the size and complexity of the UDRP review, such as: (1) by identifying short-term issues that can be worked on during the launch of the new gTLD program and up to the first review of the URS, and other issues that may require a longer time frame for work, including any process-related or current implementation problems; (2) the formation of Sub-Teams within the Working Group to handle different issues, tasks and timelines; and (3) the division of the PDP into work phases, including possible issues and time frames corresponding to the new gTLD program, if appropriate; WHEREAS, the UDRP is the oldest GNSO policy that has yet to be reviewed, and the further postponement of a PDP is unlikely to improve or correct some of the flaws and problems with the current UDRP that were identified by the ICANN community during the process of preparation of the Final Issue Report; and WHEREAS, the issue of community bandwidth and resource allocation may not diminish even after the launch of the new gTLD program and the new RPMs, and reviewing such a complex policy as the UDRP together with the URS is likely to exert even more pressure on community bandwidth and resources; Be it RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the initiation of a PDP on the UDRP and the establishment of a Working Group on UDRP Review; RESOLVED, further, that the drafting team that will be formed and charged with developing a charter for the Working Group on UDRP Review take into account the diverse possibilities for Working Group modalities and work phasing; and RESOLVED, further, that the charter for the Working Group specifically task the Working Group with considering: (1) related issues and recommendations raised by the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP Working Group, which were adopted by the GNSO Council as recommendations to the ICANN Board of Directors at its meeting on 21 July 2011; and (2) recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP; and (3) such other similar issues and recommendations as it considers appropriate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Competing Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP Made by: Jeff Neuman (Registries SG) Seconded by: Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted a final report the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf), recommending an issue report on the current state of the UDRP considering both (a) How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process, and (b) Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated, and Whereas, on February 3, 2011, the GNSO Council requested an Issues Report in accordance with the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group [LINK], and Whereas, a Preliminary Issue Report was published on 27 May 2011 [LINK] and series of webinars and workshops were held soliciting public comment to allow for the ICANN community to provide feedback on the analysis and recommendations contained therein, and Whereas, a Final Issue Report was published on 3 October 2011 [LINK] in which ICANN staff recommended the GNSO Council consider the “perspective of the majority of the ICANN community, and the advice of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), and the At-Large Advisory Committee” and that “a PDP be delayed until after the New gTLD Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) has been in operation for at least eighteen months. . . [to] allow the policy process to be informed by data regarding the effectiveness of the URS, which was modeled on the UDRP, to address the problem of cybersquatting.” RESOLVED, that the GNSO approved the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP. RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 www.jamilandjamil.com<http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2092/4007 - Release Date: 11/09/11
+1 Given comments made in the board/GAC open session in Dakar, it would appear that there are a number of open, operational issues related to the new gTLD process. Opening UDRP at this time would further complicate matters. On Nov 11, 2011, at 8:32 AM, Frederick Felman wrote:
MarkMonitor disagree, we support Jeff's proposal.
The majority of large business who are our customers tell us that they enjoy the predictability of this tried and tested mechanism. Furthermore, with the dns undergoing so much change they prefer that udrp remains stable and predictable while the community evaluates the effectiveness of proposed new rights protection mechanisms.
Sent from my mobile +1(415)606-3733
(please excuse any content I might blame on apple's absurd and comical autocorrect including but not limited to typos)
On Nov 10, 2011, at 3:54 PM, "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
I’m in general agreement with the views that Mike stated. While I believe there’s a middle ground - of the two competing Resolutions, Mary’s is preferable
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 2:33 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; BC Secretariat Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call
Thanks for this. Can I share these thoughts with Steve and an ongoing discussion about this with CSG Councillors?
Sincerely,
Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com<http://www.jamilandjamil.com>
*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink *** ________________________________ From: <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:17:23 -0800 To: <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> ReplyTo: <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call
Thanks Zahid. Curious to hear how the discussion went on the BC call this morning on this issue.
I have a feeling I may be a fairly lone voice, but fwiw, I support Mary’s motion over Jeff’s. Indeed it was a unanimous recommendation of the RAP-WG, including a bunch of IP attorneys and reps (including me), to do a review of the UDRP since it has been in place for ten years and has not been all that effective as a deterrent against cybersquatting. Waiting another 2.5 years, or longer if the newTLD program is stalled, is not going to help anything or anyone other than IP attorneys who charge many thousands of dollars to file or defend UDRP cases (again, including me); … oh, and also the bad guys who abuse the DNS and reputable brands with virtually no trouble and no consequence.
Also I am not holding my breath waiting for URS implementation, as it may never happen and even if it does come into some form or another, it is unlikely to be used much if at all, particularly in just the first 18 mos. after the first new TLD. I fail to see how it will impact a review of the decade-old UDRP in any way whatsoever.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 7:19 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call
Dear BC Members,
Here are two competing motions that have recently been posted to the Council list for inclusion in the next GNSO Council call:
ROPOSED MOTION ON REVIEW OF THE UDRP
Made by: Mary Wong (Non-Commercial SG)
Seconded by:
WHEREAS, on 3 February 2011 the GNSO Council adopted a resolution requesting an Issue Report on the current state of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) from ICANN staff, to include consideration of: (1) how the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process; (2) whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated; and (3) suggestions for how a possible PDP on this issue might be managed;
WHEREAS, a Preliminary Issue Report was prepared by ICANN staff and released for public comment from 27 May 2011 to 22 July 2011, for which 24 community comments were received;
WHEREAS, further feedback was received in the form of responses by various UDRP providers to a questionnaire issued by ICANN staff, a Webinar conducted by ICANN staff, and two UDRP-related sessions held at the 41st ICANN meeting in Singapore;
WHEREAS, a Final Issue Report taking into account the community comments and public feedback received was prepared by ICANN staff and published on 3 October 2011;
WHEREAS, the Final Issue Report illustrates a diversity of views among the ICANN community as to a number of UDRP-related issues, such as: (1) the advisability of commencing a PDP at this time rather than when the new rights-protection mechanisms (RPMs) mandated by the new gTLD program (e.g. the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system) are reviewed; (2) whether the UDRP, although improved over time in terms of consistency of application and streamlining of processes, is fair; and (3) other matters such as whether to launch a PDP or form an experts’ panel, and whether more formal accreditation or contracts between ICANN and UDRP providers is desirable;
WHEREAS, a PDP provides the best means for assessing how to respond to this diversity of views, in particular because a PDP can be designed to address concerns about the size and complexity of the UDRP review, such as: (1) by identifying short-term issues that can be worked on during the launch of the new gTLD program and up to the first review of the URS, and other issues that may require a longer time frame for work, including any process-related or current implementation problems; (2) the formation of Sub-Teams within the Working Group to handle different issues, tasks and timelines; and (3) the division of the PDP into work phases, including possible issues and time frames corresponding to the new gTLD program, if appropriate;
WHEREAS, the UDRP is the oldest GNSO policy that has yet to be reviewed, and the further postponement of a PDP is unlikely to improve or correct some of the flaws and problems with the current UDRP that were identified by the ICANN community during the process of preparation of the Final Issue Report; and
WHEREAS, the issue of community bandwidth and resource allocation may not diminish even after the launch of the new gTLD program and the new RPMs, and reviewing such a complex policy as the UDRP together with the URS is likely to exert even more pressure on community bandwidth and resources;
Be it RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the initiation of a PDP on the UDRP and the establishment of a Working Group on UDRP Review;
RESOLVED, further, that the drafting team that will be formed and charged with developing a charter for the Working Group on UDRP Review take into account the diverse possibilities for Working Group modalities and work phasing; and
RESOLVED, further, that the charter for the Working Group specifically task the Working Group with considering: (1) related issues and recommendations raised by the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP Working Group, which were adopted by the GNSO Council as recommendations to the ICANN Board of Directors at its meeting on 21 July 2011; and (2) recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP; and (3) such other similar issues and recommendations as it considers appropriate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Competing Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP
Made by: Jeff Neuman (Registries SG)
Seconded by:
Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted a final report the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf), recommending an issue report on the current state of the UDRP considering both (a) How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process, and (b) Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated, and
Whereas, on February 3, 2011, the GNSO Council requested an Issues Report in accordance with the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group [LINK], and
Whereas, a Preliminary Issue Report was published on 27 May 2011 [LINK] and series of webinars and workshops were held soliciting public comment to allow for the ICANN community to provide feedback on the analysis and recommendations contained therein, and
Whereas, a Final Issue Report was published on 3 October 2011 [LINK] in which ICANN staff recommended the GNSO Council consider the “perspective of the majority of the ICANN community, and the advice of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), and the At-Large Advisory Committee” and that “a PDP be delayed until after the New gTLD Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) has been in operation for at least eighteen months. . . [to] allow the policy process to be informed by data regarding the effectiveness of the URS, which was modeled on the UDRP, to address the problem of cybersquatting.”
RESOLVED, that the GNSO approved the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP.
RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD.
Sincerely,
Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 www.jamilandjamil.com<http://www.jamilandjamil.com/>
Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited.
________________________________
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2092/4007 - Release Date: 11/09/11
MarkMonitor disagree, we support Jeff's proposal. The majority of large business who are our customers tell us that they enjoy the predictability of this tried and tested mechanism. Furthermore, with the dns undergoing so much change they prefer that udrp remains stable and predictable while the community evaluates the effectiveness of proposed new rights protection mechanisms. Sent from my mobile +1(415)606-3733 (please excuse any content I might blame on apple's absurd and comical autocorrect including but not limited to typos) On Nov 10, 2011, at 3:54 PM, "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: I’m in general agreement with the views that Mike stated. While I believe there’s a middle ground - of the two competing Resolutions, Mary’s is preferable Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 2:33 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; BC Secretariat Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call Thanks for this. Can I share these thoughts with Steve and an ongoing discussion about this with CSG Councillors? Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com<http://www.jamilandjamil.com> *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink *** ________________________________ From: <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:17:23 -0800 To: <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> ReplyTo: <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call Thanks Zahid. Curious to hear how the discussion went on the BC call this morning on this issue. I have a feeling I may be a fairly lone voice, but fwiw, I support Mary’s motion over Jeff’s. Indeed it was a unanimous recommendation of the RAP-WG, including a bunch of IP attorneys and reps (including me), to do a review of the UDRP since it has been in place for ten years and has not been all that effective as a deterrent against cybersquatting. Waiting another 2.5 years, or longer if the newTLD program is stalled, is not going to help anything or anyone other than IP attorneys who charge many thousands of dollars to file or defend UDRP cases (again, including me); … oh, and also the bad guys who abuse the DNS and reputable brands with virtually no trouble and no consequence. Also I am not holding my breath waiting for URS implementation, as it may never happen and even if it does come into some form or another, it is unlikely to be used much if at all, particularly in just the first 18 mos. after the first new TLD. I fail to see how it will impact a review of the decade-old UDRP in any way whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 7:19 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call Dear BC Members, Here are two competing motions that have recently been posted to the Council list for inclusion in the next GNSO Council call: ROPOSED MOTION ON REVIEW OF THE UDRP Made by: Mary Wong (Non-Commercial SG) Seconded by: WHEREAS, on 3 February 2011 the GNSO Council adopted a resolution requesting an Issue Report on the current state of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) from ICANN staff, to include consideration of: (1) how the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process; (2) whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated; and (3) suggestions for how a possible PDP on this issue might be managed; WHEREAS, a Preliminary Issue Report was prepared by ICANN staff and released for public comment from 27 May 2011 to 22 July 2011, for which 24 community comments were received; WHEREAS, further feedback was received in the form of responses by various UDRP providers to a questionnaire issued by ICANN staff, a Webinar conducted by ICANN staff, and two UDRP-related sessions held at the 41st ICANN meeting in Singapore; WHEREAS, a Final Issue Report taking into account the community comments and public feedback received was prepared by ICANN staff and published on 3 October 2011; WHEREAS, the Final Issue Report illustrates a diversity of views among the ICANN community as to a number of UDRP-related issues, such as: (1) the advisability of commencing a PDP at this time rather than when the new rights-protection mechanisms (RPMs) mandated by the new gTLD program (e.g. the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system) are reviewed; (2) whether the UDRP, although improved over time in terms of consistency of application and streamlining of processes, is fair; and (3) other matters such as whether to launch a PDP or form an experts’ panel, and whether more formal accreditation or contracts between ICANN and UDRP providers is desirable; WHEREAS, a PDP provides the best means for assessing how to respond to this diversity of views, in particular because a PDP can be designed to address concerns about the size and complexity of the UDRP review, such as: (1) by identifying short-term issues that can be worked on during the launch of the new gTLD program and up to the first review of the URS, and other issues that may require a longer time frame for work, including any process-related or current implementation problems; (2) the formation of Sub-Teams within the Working Group to handle different issues, tasks and timelines; and (3) the division of the PDP into work phases, including possible issues and time frames corresponding to the new gTLD program, if appropriate; WHEREAS, the UDRP is the oldest GNSO policy that has yet to be reviewed, and the further postponement of a PDP is unlikely to improve or correct some of the flaws and problems with the current UDRP that were identified by the ICANN community during the process of preparation of the Final Issue Report; and WHEREAS, the issue of community bandwidth and resource allocation may not diminish even after the launch of the new gTLD program and the new RPMs, and reviewing such a complex policy as the UDRP together with the URS is likely to exert even more pressure on community bandwidth and resources; Be it RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the initiation of a PDP on the UDRP and the establishment of a Working Group on UDRP Review; RESOLVED, further, that the drafting team that will be formed and charged with developing a charter for the Working Group on UDRP Review take into account the diverse possibilities for Working Group modalities and work phasing; and RESOLVED, further, that the charter for the Working Group specifically task the Working Group with considering: (1) related issues and recommendations raised by the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP Working Group, which were adopted by the GNSO Council as recommendations to the ICANN Board of Directors at its meeting on 21 July 2011; and (2) recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP; and (3) such other similar issues and recommendations as it considers appropriate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Competing Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP Made by: Jeff Neuman (Registries SG) Seconded by: Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted a final report the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf), recommending an issue report on the current state of the UDRP considering both (a) How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process, and (b) Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated, and Whereas, on February 3, 2011, the GNSO Council requested an Issues Report in accordance with the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group [LINK], and Whereas, a Preliminary Issue Report was published on 27 May 2011 [LINK] and series of webinars and workshops were held soliciting public comment to allow for the ICANN community to provide feedback on the analysis and recommendations contained therein, and Whereas, a Final Issue Report was published on 3 October 2011 [LINK] in which ICANN staff recommended the GNSO Council consider the “perspective of the majority of the ICANN community, and the advice of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), and the At-Large Advisory Committee” and that “a PDP be delayed until after the New gTLD Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) has been in operation for at least eighteen months. . . [to] allow the policy process to be informed by data regarding the effectiveness of the URS, which was modeled on the UDRP, to address the problem of cybersquatting.” RESOLVED, that the GNSO approved the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP. RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 www.jamilandjamil.com<http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2092/4007 - Release Date: 11/09/11
On behalf of News Corp, David and I agree with Fred/MarkMonitor. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Frederick Felman Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 11:36 AM To: Phil Corwin; bc-gnso@icann.org Cc: zahid@dndrc.com; Mike Rodenbaugh; BC Secretariat Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call MarkMonitor disagree, we support Jeff's proposal. The majority of large business who are our customers tell us that they enjoy the predictability of this tried and tested mechanism. Furthermore, with the dns undergoing so much change they prefer that udrp remains stable and predictable while the community evaluates the effectiveness of proposed new rights protection mechanisms. Sent from my mobile +1(415)606-3733 (please excuse any content I might blame on apple's absurd and comical autocorrect including but not limited to typos) On Nov 10, 2011, at 3:54 PM, "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: I'm in general agreement with the views that Mike stated. While I believe there's a middle ground - of the two competing Resolutions, Mary's is preferable Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 2:33 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; BC Secretariat Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call Thanks for this. Can I share these thoughts with Steve and an ongoing discussion about this with CSG Councillors? Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com<http://www.jamilandjamil.com> *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink *** ________________________________ From: <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:17:23 -0800 To: <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> ReplyTo: <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call Thanks Zahid. Curious to hear how the discussion went on the BC call this morning on this issue. I have a feeling I may be a fairly lone voice, but fwiw, I support Mary's motion over Jeff's. Indeed it was a unanimous recommendation of the RAP-WG, including a bunch of IP attorneys and reps (including me), to do a review of the UDRP since it has been in place for ten years and has not been all that effective as a deterrent against cybersquatting. Waiting another 2.5 years, or longer if the newTLD program is stalled, is not going to help anything or anyone other than IP attorneys who charge many thousands of dollars to file or defend UDRP cases (again, including me); ... oh, and also the bad guys who abuse the DNS and reputable brands with virtually no trouble and no consequence. Also I am not holding my breath waiting for URS implementation, as it may never happen and even if it does come into some form or another, it is unlikely to be used much if at all, particularly in just the first 18 mos. after the first new TLD. I fail to see how it will impact a review of the decade-old UDRP in any way whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 7:19 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call Dear BC Members, Here are two competing motions that have recently been posted to the Council list for inclusion in the next GNSO Council call: ROPOSED MOTION ON REVIEW OF THE UDRP Made by: Mary Wong (Non-Commercial SG) Seconded by: WHEREAS, on 3 February 2011 the GNSO Council adopted a resolution requesting an Issue Report on the current state of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) from ICANN staff, to include consideration of: (1) how the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process; (2) whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated; and (3) suggestions for how a possible PDP on this issue might be managed; WHEREAS, a Preliminary Issue Report was prepared by ICANN staff and released for public comment from 27 May 2011 to 22 July 2011, for which 24 community comments were received; WHEREAS, further feedback was received in the form of responses by various UDRP providers to a questionnaire issued by ICANN staff, a Webinar conducted by ICANN staff, and two UDRP-related sessions held at the 41st ICANN meeting in Singapore; WHEREAS, a Final Issue Report taking into account the community comments and public feedback received was prepared by ICANN staff and published on 3 October 2011; WHEREAS, the Final Issue Report illustrates a diversity of views among the ICANN community as to a number of UDRP-related issues, such as: (1) the advisability of commencing a PDP at this time rather than when the new rights-protection mechanisms (RPMs) mandated by the new gTLD program (e.g. the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system) are reviewed; (2) whether the UDRP, although improved over time in terms of consistency of application and streamlining of processes, is fair; and (3) other matters such as whether to launch a PDP or form an experts' panel, and whether more formal accreditation or contracts between ICANN and UDRP providers is desirable; WHEREAS, a PDP provides the best means for assessing how to respond to this diversity of views, in particular because a PDP can be designed to address concerns about the size and complexity of the UDRP review, such as: (1) by identifying short-term issues that can be worked on during the launch of the new gTLD program and up to the first review of the URS, and other issues that may require a longer time frame for work, including any process-related or current implementation problems; (2) the formation of Sub-Teams within the Working Group to handle different issues, tasks and timelines; and (3) the division of the PDP into work phases, including possible issues and time frames corresponding to the new gTLD program, if appropriate; WHEREAS, the UDRP is the oldest GNSO policy that has yet to be reviewed, and the further postponement of a PDP is unlikely to improve or correct some of the flaws and problems with the current UDRP that were identified by the ICANN community during the process of preparation of the Final Issue Report; and WHEREAS, the issue of community bandwidth and resource allocation may not diminish even after the launch of the new gTLD program and the new RPMs, and reviewing such a complex policy as the UDRP together with the URS is likely to exert even more pressure on community bandwidth and resources; Be it RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the initiation of a PDP on the UDRP and the establishment of a Working Group on UDRP Review; RESOLVED, further, that the drafting team that will be formed and charged with developing a charter for the Working Group on UDRP Review take into account the diverse possibilities for Working Group modalities and work phasing; and RESOLVED, further, that the charter for the Working Group specifically task the Working Group with considering: (1) related issues and recommendations raised by the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP Working Group, which were adopted by the GNSO Council as recommendations to the ICANN Board of Directors at its meeting on 21 July 2011; and (2) recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP; and (3) such other similar issues and recommendations as it considers appropriate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Competing Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP Made by: Jeff Neuman (Registries SG) Seconded by: Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted a final report the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf), recommending an issue report on the current state of the UDRP considering both (a) How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process, and (b) Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated, and Whereas, on February 3, 2011, the GNSO Council requested an Issues Report in accordance with the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group [LINK], and Whereas, a Preliminary Issue Report was published on 27 May 2011 [LINK] and series of webinars and workshops were held soliciting public comment to allow for the ICANN community to provide feedback on the analysis and recommendations contained therein, and Whereas, a Final Issue Report was published on 3 October 2011 [LINK] in which ICANN staff recommended the GNSO Council consider the "perspective of the majority of the ICANN community, and the advice of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), and the At-Large Advisory Committee" and that "a PDP be delayed until after the New gTLD Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) has been in operation for at least eighteen months. . . [to] allow the policy process to be informed by data regarding the effectiveness of the URS, which was modeled on the UDRP, to address the problem of cybersquatting." RESOLVED, that the GNSO approved the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP. RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 www.jamilandjamil.com<http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2092/4007 - Release Date: 11/09/11 This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of News America Incorporated or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.
As the resident renegade/cynic, I'll ask: Why do we accept and perpetuate a system that requires resolutions to establish a group that will develop a charter whose group-specific content is almost certainly shorter than the resolution to create the group? Presumably this charter must then go back to the group (Council) that chartered the first group (Drafting Team) for approval, and no doubt requires a similarly lengthy resolution to establish the group to perform whatever work was originally desired. It seems to me that we're process heavy and in a manner that is not bottoms-up. On Nov 10, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Phil Corwin wrote: I’m in general agreement with the views that Mike stated. While I believe there’s a middle ground - of the two competing Resolutions, Mary’s is preferable Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 2:33 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; BC Secretariat Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call Thanks for this. Can I share these thoughts with Steve and an ongoing discussion about this with CSG Councillors? Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com<http://www.jamilandjamil.com> *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink *** ________________________________ From: <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:17:23 -0800 To: <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> ReplyTo: <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call Thanks Zahid. Curious to hear how the discussion went on the BC call this morning on this issue. I have a feeling I may be a fairly lone voice, but fwiw, I support Mary’s motion over Jeff’s. Indeed it was a unanimous recommendation of the RAP-WG, including a bunch of IP attorneys and reps (including me), to do a review of the UDRP since it has been in place for ten years and has not been all that effective as a deterrent against cybersquatting. Waiting another 2.5 years, or longer if the newTLD program is stalled, is not going to help anything or anyone other than IP attorneys who charge many thousands of dollars to file or defend UDRP cases (again, including me); … oh, and also the bad guys who abuse the DNS and reputable brands with virtually no trouble and no consequence. Also I am not holding my breath waiting for URS implementation, as it may never happen and even if it does come into some form or another, it is unlikely to be used much if at all, particularly in just the first 18 mos. after the first new TLD. I fail to see how it will impact a review of the decade-old UDRP in any way whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 7:19 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call Dear BC Members, Here are two competing motions that have recently been posted to the Council list for inclusion in the next GNSO Council call: ROPOSED MOTION ON REVIEW OF THE UDRP Made by: Mary Wong (Non-Commercial SG) Seconded by: WHEREAS, on 3 February 2011 the GNSO Council adopted a resolution requesting an Issue Report on the current state of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) from ICANN staff, to include consideration of: (1) how the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process; (2) whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated; and (3) suggestions for how a possible PDP on this issue might be managed; WHEREAS, a Preliminary Issue Report was prepared by ICANN staff and released for public comment from 27 May 2011 to 22 July 2011, for which 24 community comments were received; WHEREAS, further feedback was received in the form of responses by various UDRP providers to a questionnaire issued by ICANN staff, a Webinar conducted by ICANN staff, and two UDRP-related sessions held at the 41st ICANN meeting in Singapore; WHEREAS, a Final Issue Report taking into account the community comments and public feedback received was prepared by ICANN staff and published on 3 October 2011; WHEREAS, the Final Issue Report illustrates a diversity of views among the ICANN community as to a number of UDRP-related issues, such as: (1) the advisability of commencing a PDP at this time rather than when the new rights-protection mechanisms (RPMs) mandated by the new gTLD program (e.g. the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system) are reviewed; (2) whether the UDRP, although improved over time in terms of consistency of application and streamlining of processes, is fair; and (3) other matters such as whether to launch a PDP or form an experts’ panel, and whether more formal accreditation or contracts between ICANN and UDRP providers is desirable; WHEREAS, a PDP provides the best means for assessing how to respond to this diversity of views, in particular because a PDP can be designed to address concerns about the size and complexity of the UDRP review, such as: (1) by identifying short-term issues that can be worked on during the launch of the new gTLD program and up to the first review of the URS, and other issues that may require a longer time frame for work, including any process-related or current implementation problems; (2) the formation of Sub-Teams within the Working Group to handle different issues, tasks and timelines; and (3) the division of the PDP into work phases, including possible issues and time frames corresponding to the new gTLD program, if appropriate; WHEREAS, the UDRP is the oldest GNSO policy that has yet to be reviewed, and the further postponement of a PDP is unlikely to improve or correct some of the flaws and problems with the current UDRP that were identified by the ICANN community during the process of preparation of the Final Issue Report; and WHEREAS, the issue of community bandwidth and resource allocation may not diminish even after the launch of the new gTLD program and the new RPMs, and reviewing such a complex policy as the UDRP together with the URS is likely to exert even more pressure on community bandwidth and resources; Be it RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the initiation of a PDP on the UDRP and the establishment of a Working Group on UDRP Review; RESOLVED, further, that the drafting team that will be formed and charged with developing a charter for the Working Group on UDRP Review take into account the diverse possibilities for Working Group modalities and work phasing; and RESOLVED, further, that the charter for the Working Group specifically task the Working Group with considering: (1) related issues and recommendations raised by the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP Working Group, which were adopted by the GNSO Council as recommendations to the ICANN Board of Directors at its meeting on 21 July 2011; and (2) recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP; and (3) such other similar issues and recommendations as it considers appropriate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Competing Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP Made by: Jeff Neuman (Registries SG) Seconded by: Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted a final report the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf), recommending an issue report on the current state of the UDRP considering both (a) How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process, and (b) Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated, and Whereas, on February 3, 2011, the GNSO Council requested an Issues Report in accordance with the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group [LINK], and Whereas, a Preliminary Issue Report was published on 27 May 2011 [LINK] and series of webinars and workshops were held soliciting public comment to allow for the ICANN community to provide feedback on the analysis and recommendations contained therein, and Whereas, a Final Issue Report was published on 3 October 2011 [LINK] in which ICANN staff recommended the GNSO Council consider the “perspective of the majority of the ICANN community, and the advice of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), and the At-Large Advisory Committee” and that “a PDP be delayed until after the New gTLD Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) has been in operation for at least eighteen months. . . [to] allow the policy process to be informed by data regarding the effectiveness of the URS, which was modeled on the UDRP, to address the problem of cybersquatting.” RESOLVED, that the GNSO approved the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP. RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 www.jamilandjamil.com<http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2092/4007 - Release Date: 11/09/11
participants (6)
-
Frederick Felman -
icann＠rodenbaugh.com -
O'Callaghan, Janet -
Phil Corwin -
Smith, Bill -
Zahid Jamil