Dear all, This is not intended to take any position on the issue of standing; rather, we as support staff thought the WG might find useful the draft text that was produced for the GNSO Council in 2007 for an alternative dispute resolution procedure (DRP) (attached). As you¹ll recall this was part of the scoping that had been done at the time for an Issue Report which, however, did not lead to any policy work for lack of requisite votes on the GNSO Council. Of particular note is the modification of the UDRP requirements for a complaint and thus a mandatory administrative proceeding under 4(a) of the UDRP to be as follows: "(i) the registration or use, as a domain name, of the name or abbreviation of the complainant that has been communicated under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention is of a nature: (a) to suggest to the public that a connection exists between the domain nameholder and the complainant; or (b) to mislead the public as to the existence of a connection between the domain name holder and the complainant; or (ii) on the ground that the registration or use, as a domain name, of a name or abbreviation of the complainant protected under an international treaty violates the terms of that treaty.² The draft text therefore suggests two alternative grounds for standing in lieu of trademark rights. FWIW the draft text also deals with the sovereign immunity issue by defining ³Mutual Jurisdiction² to be an arbitral tribunal constituted under the rules either of the AAA, ICDR, WIPO or the London Court of International Arbitration (see Definitions under the Rules of Procedure, 3.B.) I hope this is helpful. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org -----Original Message----- From: <Dorrain>, Kristine <kdorrain@adrforum.com> Date: Friday, 12 December 2014 10:09 To: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] - Final SG/C Letter and Questions to Consider
Agree.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 11, 2014, at 5:45 PM, Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>> wrote:
Agree.
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 11, 2014, at 7:34 PM, David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org<mailto:dmaher@pir.org>> wrote:
+1 David W. Maher Senior Vice President Law & Policy Public Interest Registry 312 375 4849
From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Date: Thursday, December 11, 2014 5:14 PM To: Paul Keating <Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] - Final SG/C Letter and Questions to Consider
Generally agree with Paul, and had the same basic feeling: "My reaction to the standing issue is that there is absolutely no reason to even consider it. The UDRP has always been founded on the pre-requisite of a trademark. "
I am curious to hear if anyone could pose any other remotely justifiable basis for standing, other than trademark rights.
Best, Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:15 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>> wrote: Thank you Steve,
Regarding the questions noted below, I wanted to respond to a comment I believe that Peder made during the call regarding the requirement that trademarks were no longer the standing requirement they once were in the UDRP. I believe he used the example of famous people's names. I have not listened to the MP3 recording so, if I am mistaken in attributing the comment to Peder, let me be the first to apologize for my error.
Peder, your comment was entirely incorrect. Those UDRPs involving famous names have turned on whether the complainant's use of the name amounted to a common law trademark right. In cases of mere fame without commercialization, panels have found no t trademarks. In those in which the names were clearly linked to commercial activities (music, books, etc), the panels have found a common law trademark to exist. I know of absolutely no UDRP decision in which the panel found a famous name sufficient without also finding the requisite common law trademark right. If you have one to mind, please share it and I will stand corrected.
My reaction to the standing issue is that there is absolutely no reason to even consider it. The UDRP has always been founded on the pre-requisite of a trademark. The WIPO White Paper was clear that the UDRP should not be a vehicle for the creation or expansion of intellectual proper rights in cyber-space beyond those existing in the "real world". Notwithstanding the clear "identical and confusingly similar" language, panels have watered down the 1st Element to one of mere standing which as I have previously said, is such a low barrier that a worm could easily cross. The panels did so by progressively ignoring the clear language ("identical or confusingly similar") which is a widely recognized and well-honed term of art in trademark infringement to one which is merely a text vs t ext comparison. However, this is not and can never, IMHO be, a reason to ignore the language entirely and permit some other substitution to a registered or common law mark.
Further, to do so would require a wholesale amendment to the UDRP (and URS). This would require an amendment to the ICANN/Registrar agreement AND a change to the Registrar/Registrant agreement.
Finally, although it was within our initial charter to consider amendments, I feel seriously doing so would be impractical. In addition to the above reasons, given that it would require an amendment to the UDRP, I believe that such a task is better left to a Working Group assigned for such purpose because once the suggestion is made to open an amendment process, it will quickly include other and competing views on a variety of subjects.
It is for this reason I suggested our next session focus on the issue of Sovereign Immunity and we leave the issue of rights expansion to January.
Finally, please allow me to apologize once again for not seeming to "get it" with the audio portion of my participation. Someday I will be able to arrange my black box to accurately interact with all of those interconnected tubes in the "web"..:-)
Warmest regards,
Paul
From: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, December 11, 2014 1:26 AM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] - Final SG/C Letter and Questions to Consider
Dear WG Members,
Attached, please find the final version of the letter drafted to solicit input from the stakeholder groups and constituencies; this letter was sent to the chairs of each of the SG/Cs yesterday.
In addition, it was agreed on today¹s call that at least for the moment, the group would not break up into sub groups and would instead work together over the list to debate the following item from the group¹s work plan: "Develop potential considerations (e.g. qualifying requirements, authentication criteria and appeal processes) for IGOs and INGOs that would be relevant to their use of dispute resolution proceedings (existing or new)²
The WG may want to consider the following questions when thinking about this item:
* What might be a justifiable, principled basis for ³standing² other than TM rights, whether under the UDRP, URS or a new dispute resolution procedure? * Assuming for the moment that sovereign immunity is a problem for IGOs (pending responses from the GAC and the IGOs), what type of appeal process other than what is now in the UDRP and URS might be a solution that would still offer adequate protection to registrants?
Best, Steve
Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager
ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886<tel:%2B1.310.301.3886> mobile: +1.310.339.4410<tel:%2B1.310.339.4410> tel: +1.310.301.5800<tel:%2B1.310.301.5800> fax: +1.310.823.8649<tel:%2B1.310.823.8649> _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp