Gnso-rpm-protection

Download

gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org

January 2018

4 participants
1 discussions

Re: [Gnso-rpm-protection] [gnso-rpm-wg] Food for Thought: DMCA procedure at YouTube contrast with URS/UDRP
by claudio di gangi Jan. 8, 2018

Jan. 8, 2018

Paul, I don't have the exact numbers. Anecdotally, it appears a non-trivial portion of the suspended domains are being renewed by the losing registrant; see this blog article: https://domainnamewire.com/2016/11/18/strange-thing-happening-domain-names-… >From the domains I've researched, a much smaller subset are being put back into use by redelegating the Name Servers. I previously sent around reference to a domain that was suspended, and the registrant took back control and the domain is being offered for sale. Best regards, Claudio On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Has there ever been an instance where someone has made a nuisance of > themselves by re-registering and abusing names that they have had suspended > under a URS determination? > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 3:26 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> George, all, >> >> Thanks for this note. >> >> Just for clarification on the last point, as I understand the current >> remedies available under the URS does not include cancellation of the >> domain. >> >> As a result, upon expiry the suspended domain can be renewed and used >> (including for abusive purposes) by the losing registrant of the URS >> decision. >> >> To address this issue we can consider adding cancellation as a remedy (or >> otherwise modifying the URS) to minimize the need for repeated, serial >> enforcement against previously suspended domains. >> >> Best regards, >> Claudio >> >> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 8:09 AM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Paul, >>> >>> Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that they are different. Just >>> pointing out that there are other systems out there that don't have >>> that role reversal feature. >>> >>> Also, I believe some folks had mused about the possibility of a single >>> DRP that integrated the URS and UDRP. The issue of creation of a >>> "Notice of Dispute", that preceded the actual dispute, also has >>> arisen. If such a system also handled the high number of defaults >>> differently than today, then one result might be a much lower cost >>> procedure in the case of defaults (i.e. it could be very lightweight >>> like the YouTube procedure), and then reference to the courts for the >>> disputes when both sides show up and are heavily contesting the >>> matter. >>> >>> In terms of integration, one way to look at the URS is that it's very >>> similar to a UDRP where the Complainant (TM holder) asks only for >>> cancellation, albeit that the URS cancellation happens with a delay >>> (under the UDRP, the cancellation would happen almost immediately, >>> after allowing for the appeal to the courts) >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> George Kirikos >>> 416-588-0269 >>> http://www.leap.com/ >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 6:30 AM, Paul Keating <Paul(a)law.es> wrote: >>> > George, >>> > >>> > I know that a response has already been posted but I wanted to add my >>> > quick thoughts. >>> > >>> > I agree that the DMCA and the UDRP/URS are not identical. In fact the >>> > roles remain reversed throughout the UDRP/URS process. The DMCA merely >>> > provides a notice, take-down followed by the opportunity to revive the >>> > posting. Once reposting occurs the issue remains as it was before the >>> > notice - the copyright owner must proceed with litigation. The >>> UDRP/URS >>> > however, results in the domain being transferred/suspended or not. In >>> the >>> > case of transfer, it is the registrant that must file. In the case the >>> > complaint is denied then the trademark owner has that burden (like the >>> > copyright owner in the DMCA example). >>> > >>> > PRK >>> > >>> > On 1/6/18, 12:23 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos" >>> > <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of icann(a)leap.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >>Hi folks, >>> >> >>> >>There was an interesting article published today about a copyright >>> >>dispute involving "white noise" videos on YouTube: >>> >> >>> >>https://gizmodo.com/man-s-youtube-video-of-white-noise-hit >>> -with-five-copyr >>> >>i-1821804093 >>> >> >>> >>which linked to the dispute procedure that YouTube follows: >>> >> >>> >>https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454 >>> >> >>> >>Going through the various links, it was very interesting that they >>> >>even have a "Copyright School", see: >>> >> >>> >>https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000 >>> >> >>> >>(expand the "How to resolve a copyright strike" to see the link to >>> >>it), which is quite interesting, given how often the education aspect >>> >>for registrants has come up in our PDP's work. >>> >> >>> >>Also of interest is the section on "Counter Notification Basics": >>> >> >>> >>https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684 >>> >> >>> >>where importantly it says: >>> >> >>> >>"After we process your counter notification by forwarding it to the >>> >>claimant, the claimant has 10 business days to provide us with >>> >>evidence that they have initiated a court action to keep the content >>> >>down." >>> >> >>> >>and it's the content creator who posts the relevant jurisdiction: >>> >> >>> >>https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919 >>> >> >>> >>""I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the >>> >>district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside >>> >>of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is >>> >>located, and will accept service of process from the claimant." >>> >> >>> >>As noted in prior threads, various issues arise under the URS (and >>> >>UDRP) when the natural role of plaintiffs vs. defendants (had the >>> >>URS/UDRP not existed) gets reversed (e.g. the Yoyo.email UK "cause of >>> >>action issue", as well as IGO and other groups' claimed "sovereign >>> >>immunity"). >>> >> >>> >>With the dispute resolution procedure followed by YouTube, instead the >>> >>onus is on the copyright owner (the "claimant") to file the lawsuit, >>> >>in the same natural way that would exist had that dispute resolution >>> >>procedure not existed. Thus, none of the issues due to reversal of >>> >>plaintiff/defendant arise. >>> >> >>> >>I thought it would be of interest, especially as it also might also >>> >>give insights as to how "defaults" are handled. >>> >> >>> >>Food for thought. >>> >> >>> >>Sincerely, >>> >> >>> >>George Kirikos >>> >>416-588-0269 >>> >>http://www.leap.com/ >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>> >>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>> >>gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org >>> >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>> gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >> gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg >> > >

4 6