November 2015 - Gnso-igo-ingo-crp

Another NGO UDRP decision
by Dorrain, Kristine Nov. 13, 2015

Nov. 13, 2015

Institute for Human Rights and Business, Ltd. v Eustace Onuegbu / Institute of Human Rights and Business Africa FA1509001639399 http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1639399.htm Kristine F. Dorrain, Esq. Director of Arbitration Forum P.O. Box 50191 Minneapolis, MN 55405 Phone 952.516.6456 Fax 866.342.0657 Email kdorrain(a)adrforum.com www.adrforum.com This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and attachments

3 2

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

Date of the next WG meeting
by Mary Wong Nov. 4, 2015

Nov. 4, 2015

Dear WG members, Please be informed that the WG co-chairs would like to hold the next WG meeting on Wednesday 2 December. Please note also that due to Daylight Savings Time in some countries, the time of the call will be 1700 UTC (which in effect means the time remains unchanged from the ³regular² meeting time for WG members in many countries). The GNSO Secretariat will send out the usual call-in details and calendar invitations shortly. For your information, ICANN is in the midst of the contracting process with Professor Swaine, the external legal expert, and we hope to have a progress report on his work before the next meeting. 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

Call today?
by Paul＠law.es ZIMBRA Nov. 4, 2015

Nov. 4, 2015

Phil and Mary Am just returning from a WIPO conference in Geneva. I have a calendar item listing a call today but am not sure if it is correct. Can you pls confirm? Paul Keating

4 5