Paul,

It seems unlikely to me that bad faith could be proven in the absence of use.  I think this is a much tougher standard than likelihood of confusion. I can’t see how you make a bad faith case more easily when there is no use yet.  It does seem that much depends on the answers given to Question 18 and to specific descriptions of the new services to be offered.  In Track 4, we are still discussing the requirement to list any new services to be offered in the application phase.

 

There are some in Work Track 4 who favor getting rid of that requirement in favor of using post-launch RSEP instead.  Some have even proposed deleting Question 18 entirely.  Again, how can one make a case for either bad faith or infringement if there is no specific answer to the intended purpose and use question set forth in Question 18?

 

I definitely do not favor switching the standard for the LRO to a need to prove bad faith.

 

Anne

 

Anne

 

 

 

Hi Anne,

 

It might show likelihood of infringement, but without use, there can be no infringement.  Additionally, it seems unlikely that someone would disclose an intent to infringe in an application.  For example, it seems highly unlikely that a party would state affirmatively that they would use a .apple to sell computer parts.  However, a failure to disclaim such an intent and to propose a process for the registry to monitor and stop such uses, could show an inference of bad faith.

 

Bad faith is not a significant change from the policy.  The GNSO Council policy does not require an infringement analysis nor does it exclude a bad faith based policy. 

 

Best,

Paul

 

 

 

 

My note on this would be that the description of the purpose and the proposed use of the TLD (Question 18) could certainly demonstrate infringement without a showing of bad faith per se.  Bad faith is a hard standard to meet and a very big change in policy.

 

Anne

 

 

 

Thanks Karen.

 

I’m concerned that with current workload and the LA GNSO Council followed immediately by the NCPH Intercessional (also in LA) that I am not going to have time anytime soon to get into producing a line by line rationale which correspond to the detailed discussion this I already had with this group.  If there are specific questions on the proposal, I will do my best to deal with them on the list.  Please feel free to pass those on.  As far as the overall reasoning, it is that the version in the AGB is an infringement-based policy and infringement requires use.  I don’t know how you can “use” an application.  The Policy isn’t fit for purpose.  My proposal is that we move to a bad-faith based policy (the UDRP is an example of a bad-faith based policy, not an infringement based policy). 

 

Best,

Paul

 

 

 

 

Thank you Terri. I remember now that it was determined this would be too expensive.

Anne

 

 

 

Hi all,

 

As a reminder, we do not record transcription for WT3 meetings, only Adobe Connect and MP3 recording are provided.

 

Kind regards,

 

Terri

 

 

Hi Paul and Karen,

Have not been able to locate the transcript of the call but the mp3 and Chat records are attached for Paul’s consideration.

Anne

 

 

 

Dear Paul

 

On our WT3 call this past week we again reviewed the strawman modifications to the Legal Rights Objection[community.icann.org] sections of the AGB which you had presented to the group for our consideration.   Since you were not able to join us on the call, the members wanted to ask if you could please provide to the us, via the email list, a written explanation for the overall reasoning for making changes to the LRO, as well as rationale for each of your red lines.    

 

As you will see from the notes and chat transcript, in almost every instance members wanted to know if there had been specific occurrences in the 2012 round which prompted your request for that particular change.  If so, they would like to know the details of what those incidents were. 

 

The members felt that having a good understanding of the foundation for your recommendations was essential to the group being able to continue to refine our thoughts and positions on the LRO.

 

If I can be of any assistance or if you have any questions back while preparing your responses, please don’t hesitate to let me know.

 

Thanks,

Karen

 

 

____________________________

Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP

Brand Protection & Registry Operations Manager

Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ Mobile: + 1 919-599-4356 ▪ karen.day@sas.com

SAS Institute Inc.▪ SAS Campus Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA

www.sas.com[sas.com]

 

 

 

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

 

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

 

The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.

 

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.