October 2015 - Gnso-igo-ingo-crp

Number of UDRPs being "targeted" by WIPO as a performance metric
by George Kirikos Nov. 7, 2015

Nov. 7, 2015

Hi folks, There was an interesting article at IP-Watch last week that mentioned various performance targets set by WIPO, see: http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/10/12/wipo-reports-on-domain-name-disputes-set… In particular, there are references to the budget document at: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/govbody/en/a_55/a_55_5_rev.pdf (see pages 62-65) I'm particularly concerned about how, on page 64, that "Effective Intellectual Property Protection in the gTLDs and the ccTLDs) is being measured using "No. of UDRP based gTLD and ccTLD cases administered by the Center". They have targets of 3,000 gTLD cases in the 2016/17 budget period, despite *never* having had so many cases in the past, see: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/casesx/all.html Year Cases ============== 2008: 2,009 2009: 1,804 2010: 2,295 2011: 2,323 2012: 2,549 2013: 2,257 2014: 2,288 2015: 1,869** (as of October 21, 2015) To me, it seems that if IP Protection is effective, one should be seeing *fewer* UDRPs, not more of them! Just like if we're measuring traffic safety, fewer traffic court cases would be a sign that drivers are obeying the law. In my opinion, this reveals a huge disconnect between WIPO and the rest of society. It seems that WIPO is displeased if the number of domain name disputes is falling or drops to zero, presumably because it cuts into their "business". Indeed, they're targeting increases in the number of cases far higher than have existed in the history of the UDRP program (2012 was the all-time high, with 2,549 cases). On page 63, they consider one of the "Major Risks" to be a "Decrease in UDRP filing", and suggest that they will mitigate that by "Increasing user-friendliness; Adjusting UDRP procedures (where ICANN-tolerated); continued Uniform Rapid Suspension (i.e.(URS)) monitoring; participating in ICANN UDRP review; more regular partnering with IP and related associations; prioritizing case administration and policy development resources to strike balance between “staying in the market” and adding specific WIPO value." This really demonstrates the risks of "forum shopping". Courts and tribunals are supposed to be neutral, and should not be actively encouraging disputes. Those that see UDRP as a "business" that has growing "performance targets" will try to influence policies and change their behaviour to increase the number of complaints, regardless of the actual incidence of bad behaviour by domain name registrants. There are some companies, for example, that are in the business of building jails, and try to influence the laws so that more and more people are incarcerated, independent of the actual level of crime in society. Indeed, if crime is falling, they need more and more non-crimes to be reclassified as "crimes" in order to keep the jails full. This appears to be the path that WIPO is taking, with its budgetary targets and statements. Ayn Rand warned about this in "Atlas Shrugged" "Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. " This working group should resist the efforts of those who have an interest in increasing the number of disputes, because it helps their "business" that cashes in on "guilt." Our duty should be to look at existing laws, and not create new ones that help those whose businesses rely upon an ever-expanding definition of "crime." Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

4 3

URDP decision involving (INGO) member of the IGO-INGO PDP WG
by Paul Tattersfield Oct. 29, 2015

Oct. 29, 2015

International Electrotechnical Commission sort UDRP determination for IEC.com http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2015-1469 Best regards, Paul.

1 0

No WG meetings on 28 October & 4 November
by Mary Wong Oct. 24, 2015

Oct. 24, 2015

Dear WG members, We hope that those members who came to ICANN54 in Dublin had a productive meeting and wish you all a pleasant journey home. Please note that, as is customary following an ICANN Public Meeting, there will be no WG meeting on Wednesday 28 October. In addition, as staff finalizes the contracting process with Professor Swaine and follow up on the status of the IGO ³small group² work, it is anticipated that there will also be no WG meeting on Wednesday 4 November. Staff will update the WG on the progress of these two work items as much as we are able in the intervening period. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

1 0

WG open meeting in Dublin
by Mary Wong Oct. 21, 2015

Oct. 21, 2015

Dear WG members, Please note that due to overall schedule changes and some session clashes affecting a number of GNSO constituencies/groups, the WG¹s open community session at ICANN54 in Dublin will be this Thursday, 22 October, at 0900-1000 Dublin time. Remote participation details and location can be found here: https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/thu-igo-ingo-crp-access. Thank you. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

3 2

- Legal Expert - Edward Swaine
by Steve Chan Oct. 6, 2015

Oct. 6, 2015

Dear WG Members, Per the email sent to the WG on 23 September 2015, staff has been in contact with Edward Swaine as a possible candidate to provide expertise to this WG¹s efforts. Mr. Swaine has expressed interest in assisting the WG, is able to perform the work in a reasonable timeframe, and provided a quote that falls within budget. Please see the attached document which provides his response in full, although his quoted amount has been redacted since we do not have his express consent to share at this time. Staff and the co-chairs ask that you all review his qualifications and provide your feedback by CoB on 5 October 2015, in regards to whether staff should proceed with the contracting process. Here is a link to his George Washington University faculty page, which includes his CV and other materials for review: http://www.law.gwu.edu/Faculty/profile.aspx?id=10968 Best, Steve Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649

3 3