August 2016 - GNSO-RPM-WG - lists.icann.org

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group 31 August 2016
by Terri Agnew Aug. 31, 2016

Aug. 31, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call held on Wednesday, 31 August 2016 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/GBSsAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-31aug16-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXz…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/rhiOAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 31 August 2016: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group held on Wednesday, 31 August 2016 at 16:00 UTC Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/GBSsAw Terri Agnew:member page: https://community.icann.org/x/3iWAAw George Kirikos:Hi folks. Jay Chapman:Hi everyone. Hey George Vaibhav Aggarwal:Hey Everyone Greetings from New Delhi George Kirikos:Hey Jay. How's it going? George Kirikos:Welcome, Vaibhav. Vaibhav Aggarwal:Hey George Vaibhav Aggarwal:thnks Paul Tattersfield:Hi All Paul Tattersfield:Is Delhi hot? George Kirikos:Hi Paul. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hi All Vaibhav Aggarwal:Nope Paul Infact Vaibhav Aggarwal:I have a Jeep here and went for a Drive in 50% visibility Vaibhav Aggarwal:it rained today Philip Corwin:Hello all Vaibhav Aggarwal:whole day and its like Air conditioned with Mellowed Humidity Vaibhav Aggarwal:You guys will love it Paul Tattersfield:One day haoepfully Vaibhav Paul Tattersfield:hopefully Vaibhav Aggarwal:I'll be the host Vaibhav Aggarwal::-) Vaibhav Aggarwal:promise George Kirikos:Echo. George Kirikos:Under the "broken" rule, Apple would never release an iPhone 7, as the iPhone 6 is 'good enough'. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):4 was enough George Kirikos::-) Petter Rindforth:Just a note that I thank the Co-Chairs for their Memo, and fully agree. Jeff Neuman:For the record I disagree, but I will explain Jeff Neuman:I think the wrong question was looked at George Kirikos:If it wasn't obvious by my earlier metaphor, I agree with the memo. Darcy Southwell:My apologies for being late. George Kirikos:The "rule of law" is the PDP Charter. Caroline Chicoine:Agree with Petter, and think the PDDRP is a bit unique since we have not yet figured out why no one has used it and think it is wise to not necessarily assume that lack of complaints means no issues/problems. George Kirikos:(which was broad in scope) Lori Schulman:Sorry I am late. David Maher:@jeff +1 Kristin:Agree with Jeff. How will we know if mediation in the PDDRP is a good solution if we haven't identified a problem. Kristin:We need to start with looking for a problem. Perhaps the subteam can start on that? Petter Rindforth:the problem is that this system is not used. Would initial mediation solve this, and make it more useful? Paul Tattersfield:Couldn't we aim to develop a generalized process for topics like mediation that will work across all RPMs? Jeff Neuman:Petter - Why is that a problem? Jeff Neuman:If we foud evidence that there were a lot of bad actor registries and abuse is rampant AND the PPDRP was not being used...that could be a problem Caroline Chicoine:Also, I apologize but cannot always keep track of this stuff, but didn't the survey we are sending out have questions that might shed light on what potential problems there might be with PDDRP? If so, when are those results expected? Kristin:The hypothesis is: unused PDDRP is a problem. Ok, let's investigate that. How can we learn more. Is the unused PDDRP a problem? Data? Anecdotes? Statton Hammock:Lack of use of the PDDRP does not suggest a problem with this RPM. George Kirikos:I think the 'problem' was already identified earlier, as J. Scott pointed out last time, i.e. costs (overall costs, not just fees) being a consideration for why the PDDRP might not have been used. And mediation is one way to reduce costs, for all sides. Jeff Neuman:but stating alone that the PDDRP is ot being used...that is not a problem Georges Nahitchevansky:The problem is that the PDDRP has not been used. there are reasons that have been discussed about this and perhaps mediation would make the procedure more useful Kristin:Also, sorry, some sort of glitch: I'm Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry, for the record. Kristine Dorrain:George: hypothesis: The cost of the PDDRP is a problem. Investigation question: Is the potential cost of a PDDRP (range from $1,500 to $$$$$) a problem? Data? Anecdotes? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Georges why do we need to make it used? Do we have any solid evidence that it needed? Georges Nahitchevansky:That is the problem. Why have a procedure that no one uses. Perhaps the procedure is useless. So why not look at the underlying reasons and options such as mediation Kurt Pritz:I would phrase the rule more positively. RPM modification requires (and this is really rough and needs work): (1) Full understanding of why the existing method is in place (e.g., why wasn't mediation included in the earlier round) (2) Evidence that the existing RPM requires improvement in some way (e.g., evidence of bad behavior that the introduction of mediation would cure a problem) (3) Consideration of negative impacts (e.g., costs of mediation and mediation requests) Petter Rindforth:@Jeff: The question is if we shall keep the PDDRP. Is it necessary? Is it useful? Initial mediation can be one solution, or we come to a conclusion that there is no need (for that specifically, and/or for PDDRP as such...) Too early form my point of view to draw any conclusions. Statton Hammock:+1 Jeff. Let's identify what abuse might be occurring and see if there is truely a failure. Statton Hammock:The PPDRP may not be being used because Registries are toeing the line on their contractual requirements. Jeff Neuman:And some people would have chosen to change their answer to that question Susan Kawaguchi:@ Statton not all of them! Jeff Neuman:I would like to see that surbey question redone Brian Cimbolic:I can tell you I would answer it differently today Denise Michel:I agree with the Co-Chairs position as articulated in this memo George Kirikos:It's not clear to me how optional mediation is so controversial. A party vehemently opposed to it could simply decline to mediate, and go on with the usual procedure. It's just like no one is compelled to settle a case -- they can let the panel (or judge in a court) decide. Statton Hammock:@susan - then you can lame names and explain the violations. Statton Hammock:"name names" Susan Kawaguchi:.xyz, .top and more I am pretty vocal about these Susan Kawaguchi:no problems with your company Jeff Neuman:Lets look at the issues that susan is talking about....not online mediation ?? Statton Hammock:@ susan :-) Thank you! Susan Kawaguchi:.xyz should implement your AUP George Kirikos:@Susan: how do you feel about the latest fee reductions by Donuts, though, where older registrants pay their higher original fees, forever? (i.e. it penalizes rightsholders who 'bought in' early on) Statton Hammock:I am fine with having Susan and others explain what .XYZ and .TOP did that would arguable be a contractual violation subject to PDDRP Kristine Dorrain:How do we know brand owners would use mediation against...let's say .xyz since it's named....if there was mediation? Does it solve the problem of why no one has filed a PDDRP against them. If not, we're chasing mediation as a solution that doesn't even fit the identified problem. Jeff Neuman:+1 Kristine George Kirikos:(see the 2nd last paragraph of http://domainnamewire.com/2016/08/31/donuts-lowering-prices-business-compan… although it was discussed on DomainIncite.com a little while ago too). Brian Cimbolic:@George - isn't that the benefit of the bargain - if they had raised prices, wouldn't the registrants similarly benefited by having lower prices for the duration Susan Kawaguchi:.xyz cramming domain names into registrant's acccounts with no fees but placing our company's information without consent into the Whois Susan Kawaguchi:then overwhelming push and notices to renew the domain names after a year Susan Kawaguchi:it felt like harrassment Kristine Dorrain:We want to solve the problems, if there are any. Let's get behind that. Find the problems, root them out. Investigate them. No one here hates mediation. We just want to find the right solution to whatever problems we find. Jeff Neuman:this is setting a really bad precedent for this group moving forward....it sets the precedent that everything is open for discussion for all RPMs regardless of whether there is an issue. I will state that for the record and still have my objections George Kirikos:@Brian: In my view, there shouldn't be any discrimination at all by creation date. The language of the Registry Agreement with ICANN is unclear if this is even allowed, or was contemplated. I think it was contemplated that prices would be uniform, except for "premiums" who explicitly agreed to a separate pricing schedule. Caroline Chicoine:We are still finalizing follow up questions to Compliance and one of them is what action other than a formal PDDRP complaint can be taken if anyone/working group discover activities by registered parties which are perceived as abusive or beyond the scope of the contract by the community. Terri Agnew:finding the line Susan Kawaguchi:.top increasing the sunrise fee for Facebook.top because we are a famous trademark Darcy Southwell:@Susan, is the XYZ example you give - is that even something that is subject to PDDRP? George Kirikos:lol J. Scott. Susan Kawaguchi:@Darcy at this point I cannot weigh in on that Statton Hammock:@ susan - Is .XYZ's cramming domains something that the PDDRP aimed to cover? PDDRP has to deal with trademarks - not registration tactics Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Susan , is .top doing TMCH sunrise and flat prices? George Kirikos:@Statton: there's probably a high correlation amongst the tactics, though. Susan Kawaguchi:@ Statton it appears that .xyz has targeted famous trademarks for abuse Jeff Neuman:I do believe we should resend the question with the note specifying it is with the PDDRP. George Kirikos:It's like if I target a certain price to "those wearing makeup" -- am I really targeting "make up wearers", or am I really targeting women? George Kirikos:(since most makeup wearers are female) Jeff Neuman:In the future more care needs to be taken with drafting doodle polls as to know what the ramifications would be of answering in the affirmative (or negative) Laurie Anderson:+1 on repeating the doodle poll Brian Cimbolic:@JScott I think that's a good approach Mary Wong:@Jeff, the poll specified the TM-PDDRP and was sent out as follow up to a WG discussion on this topic. Kristine Dorrain:Agree J Scott. I think we need to set up a protocol for how we work. I think we're really excited to get moving, but we're getting ahead of ourselves. Let's set up a checklist. 1. problem list 2. solution set 3. vet problem/solution dynamic. susan payne:@JScott i think the "what problem" approach would be very helpful for the future Jeff Neuman:@Mary - with all due respect the question was very short and no one knew the ramifications of answering the question (namely setting up a group to talk about devising a process) George Kirikos:"Flaw" can be interpreted broadly, though. e.g. policies that omit "modern standards" (of which mediation might be considered a "modern standard") could be considered 'flawed'. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Could we clarify which kind of problem is that ? Mary Wong:@Jeff, understood - but the group idea was based on subsequent WG discussions following the support demonstrated by the poll. Darcy Southwell:@JScott - agree with idenitfy problem(s) and come to consensus on the problem(s) and agree with Kristine we need a standard mechanism to collect data, evaluate, recommend solution(s). Because that will the be case with all RPMs.. Not just this first one. Jeff Neuman:@Mary - not exactly. I missed one call....that was the one that said there should be a doodle poll. George Kirikos:I think "lack of use" wasn't the "problem" -- it was symptomatic of a problem, and "cost" was raised as one of the potential problems. Lori Schulman:Perhaps I am "mis-recalling" but I thought that cost of PDDRP was identified as a problem. George Kirikos:+1 Lori Edward Morris:Lori, I share the same "mis-recalling" Lori Schulman:So offering an alternative lower cost option would be a remedy to problem. Darcy Southwell:Is there data to indicate that the cost of PDDRP is a problem, or is that a perception or guess? Statton Hammock:That would be an extremely helpful list as a starting point, Jeff. Lori Schulman:My members have told me anecdotally that PDDRP costs are potentially prohibitive. Outside counsel don't recommend it. Inside counsel don't use it. Vaibhav Aggarwal:I agree Paul McGrady:Depends on the reason for the predatory pricing. Could be in PDDRP scope, Vaibhav Aggarwal:to that Mary Wong:@Darcy, all - that is something staff is wondering ie how we'd begin to get that sort of data. We can collate WG members' views of the activitiy that is happening (e.g. Susan K's examples) but other than that I'm not sure what else can be gathered as data. Vaibhav Aggarwal:That i not a Allegation Vaibhav Aggarwal:I know of it Kurt Pritz:In order to identify cost as a problem, we need at lease one party to say, "I would have filed a PDDRP except the costs were too high," + evidence that the party had a viable claim and did not just want to use low cost PDDRP as a harrassment tool. Vaibhav Aggarwal:++Jeff Kristine Dorrain:A few people here have a "feeling" that a non-used PDDRP is a problem. A few people here have an equally strong "feeling" that the PDDRP has been a great deterrent. Whose "feeling" wins? Absent data we're just twisting in the wind. George Kirikos:I disagree with Kurt. We should also be looking prospectively, into the future, to look at future prospective complainants. Looking only at past potential complainants is too limiting. Jeff Neuman:Susan/Denise - Can you please send the list of issues to this working group George Kirikos:And for those future complainants, certainly overall cost is always going to be a factor. Paul McGrady:Great question J. Scott. Jeff Neuman:I believe the creation of new RPMs is within the scope Jeff Neuman:J scott - An example...this group can recommend an overall blocking service or protectled marks list Susan Kawaguchi:We are replying to the survey Mary Wong:Basic WG task, per the Charter: "by the completion of its work, the Working Group will be expected to have also considered the overarching issue as to whether or not all the RPMs collectively fulfill the purposes for which they were created, or whether additional policy recommendations are needed, including to clarify and unify the policy goals." Mary Wong:Oops, sorry for awful formatting Mary Wong:And " If such additional policy recommendations are needed, the Working Group is expected to develop recommendations to address the specific issues identified. The Working Group is also directed to bear in mind that a fundamental underlying intention of conducting a review of all RPMs in all gTLDs is to create a framework for consistent and uniform reviews of these mechanisms in the future." Kurt Pritz:@George: that sort of prospective thinking is good but it occurred in the original development of the RPMs. To use prospective thinking across the Board would mean essentially starting over with the entire program. George Kirikos:An online tool for Mary, to remove extra spaces: http://textmechanic.com/text-tools/basic-text-tools/remove-extra-spaces/ :-) Mary Wong:Sorry, Phil - document is back Mary Wong:Thanks, George :) Mary Wong:It normally doesn't happen so I blame occasional gremlins :) Jeff Neuman:And if we agreed that mediation was good...then you dont necessarily need a subgroup...you could just make the recommendation Jeff Neuman:Agree with Phil that asking whether something is a good idea vs. asking whether we should create a subteam to look at an issue are two very different questions Mary Wong:Just a note from staff - we are not sure what kind of data we can get on this regarding a procedure that has never been used. As noted previously, we can document activity and abuses identified by WG members, but maybe not much else. Jeff Neuman:@Mary - Here is the data I want? What are the preceived abuses that we see are beig engaged in by registry operators that involve intellectual property rights Kristine Dorrain:Agree, the providers have very little insight into how to fix an unused rpm. They can talk all day about problems with used rpms, however. Philip Corwin:In regard to providers' views, they do not carry more wight than that of WG members. We are waiting to hear what providers believe is the import of language in the PDDRP that refers to combined actions. Paul McGrady:at what: reducing consumer confusion and keeping prices low for consumers. Every dollar spent chasing squatters or overspending on second levels because their association with trademarks make the price go up, is a wasted dollar. Lori Schulman:+1 to Paul. Marie Pattullo:Another +1 to Paul. Jeff Neuman:@Susan - Yes! +1 George Kirikos:+1 for Susan's phrasing. Caroline Chicoine:Not sure how it will be finally worded, but I am inclined to be in favor to wait to make any decision until we get more data and then revisit mediation issue at that time. Darcy Southwell:@JScott - thanks for the clarification about the Doodle poll to this group. Should we wait until the survey results come back and then share that input from SO/AC members? Philip Corwin:I would suggest that the co-chairs, informed by this discussion, frame some proposed Doodle questions regarding the PDDRP, run them past the WG to get feedback on wehther they are balanced and comprehensive, and then hold the poll within this group. That will give us a sound basis for acting on whatever the results may be. Mary Wong:We've asked for survey responses by mid-Sept, though depending on number of responses by then the deadline may need to be extended Jeff Neuman:And there is nothing wrong with this group working on a list of "abuses" while we wait for the surveys to come back. We can then update that list to incorporate the list of abuses. Darcy Southwell:Agree we wait. This also goes to prior points that were made to base our decisions on actual data. Philip Corwin:I could support deferring any new poll on PDDRP until we get more data and views back. Meantime we can start gettiing into the TMCH Jeff Neuman:I would love to work on a group to document and coordinate the list of abuses Mary Wong:@Jeff, staff will create a wiki page where members can upload directly OR they can send to staff and we will add. Paul McGrady:Happy to lead a small doodle poll team in the future if/when it comes to this. Jeff Neuman:@Mary - Can I suggest a Google Doc Mary Wong:Sure Lori Schulman:Love the idea of a Google doc. I could examples that I have from my members. Lori Schulman:I meant I could add examples taken from members. Mary Wong:Do we have volunteers for the Google doc? :) Lori Schulman:I volunteer for the Google Doc. George Kirikos:We have a Wiki -- should use that, rather than separate Google Docs. Darcy Southwell:I'm happy to volunteer as well. Lori Schulman:Or the Wiki...whatever... Mary Wong:Thanks, Jeff, Darcy! George Kirikos:(Wikis can be edited by Workgroup members) Paul McGrady:Happy to volunteer for that goup as well. Vaibhav Aggarwal:yes Me Vaibhav Aggarwal::-) Jeff Neuman:Denise? Susan K? Wouuld be great to have you on that group Mary Wong:We'll add a call for volunteers to the Action Items from today's call. Susan Payne:there are pricing abuses. I know is is a challenging issue but there is a point at which pricing potentially circumvents the RPMs Jeff Neuman:All - I know I have been a real pain on this issue, but this is where I had hoped we would be at months ago with this group :) Susan Payne:I can't do tick mark on iPad Justine Chew:I agree too. Vaibhav Aggarwal::-) Terri Agnew:next call: Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Groupis scheduled for Wednesday, 07 September 2016 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. George Kirikos:As an aside, can we do something about getting the Agenda for meetings out in a more timely manner? (i.e. more than 8 hours before the call) e.g. a goal of late Mondays, for a meeting on Wednesday? Mary Wong:@George, we're all trying, but yeah, sometimes it's difficult to be more timely. Susan Kawaguchi:@Jeff leaving on a sabbatical tomorrow so not volunteering at this time George Kirikos:Thanks Mary. Caroline Chicoine:Very helpful discussion! Jeff Neuman:@Susan - Understood. hopefully Denise can then. Enjoy the Sabbatical :) Susan Kawaguchi:Thanks! George Kirikos:Bye everyone. Have a nice long weekend! Denise Michel:thanks Justine Chew:WG +1 Steve Levy:Thanks all Mary Wong:Thanks everyone! Georges Nahitchevansky:Bye everyone Paul Tattersfield:thanks, bye all Paul McGrady:Thanks! Great call. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all Darcy Southwell:Good bye. Thanks, all! Lori Schulman:Thanking for leading an excellent meeting. Laurie Anderson:bye ! Jeff Neuman:On the process point, I just want to make sure that the "broken" memo is not considered final at this point Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Bye all J. Scott Evans:ciao Vaibhav Aggarwal:Have a Good One Team Vaibhav Aggarwal:ciao

1 0

Action Items from Working Group members' call of 31 August
by Mary Wong Aug. 31, 2016

Aug. 31, 2016

Dear all, The following Action Items were noted by staff from the Working Group members’ call held earlier today. On exploring a voluntary mediation option for the TM-PDDRP: · In general, there was broad agreement that there first needs to be a clearly defined problem(s) that needs to be addressed, before beginning to discuss possible solutions. This could be through the creation of a problem statement or other documented ways where specific questions can be asked about the existence and nature of the problem(s). Action Items: 1) An updated Doodle poll will be circulated to WG members only, after Community Survey responses are received (Paul McGrady volunteered to lead this effort) NOTE - Possible questions for the poll (to be further discussed by the co-chairs with staff and subject to further input from WG members): (1) Do you think either non-use or cost of the TM-PDDRP is a problem? (2) If so, do you believe a voluntary mediation option is an appropriate solution or response to the problem? (3) For TM owners, if a mediation option had been developed for the existing TM-PDDRP, would it have assisted you in deciding whether or not to initiate a TM-PDDRP complaint? 2) WG to document all perceived abuses that WG members are aware of, for which registry operators are engaging in, and that involve intellectual property rights. Staff to create Google Document to enable WG members to share information, starting with examples provided by Susan Kawaguchi on the call. A group of volunteers will work on the document: so far, Jeff Neuman, Darcy Southwell, Paul McGrady, and Vaibhav Aggarwal have volunteered. Please send further information of such perceived abusive activity by registry operators either to staff or this mailing list for addition to the document. Please also let staff know if you would like to volunteer to join the group working on the document. For next week: · WG will begin its review of the Analysis Group’s Draft Report of the TMCH: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/tmch/draft-services-review-25jul16-en… (staff note - as more public comments are submitted, we will inform the WG: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-tmch-review-25jul16/) Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

1 0

Agenda and Document for RPMs Working Group meeting Wednesday, 31 August 2016 at 16:00
by David Tait Aug. 31, 2016

Aug. 31, 2016

Dear All Staff are pleased to enclose the agenda for today’s meeting of the RPMs WG: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect/phone bridge only) and updates to SOIs 2. Discuss co-chairs’ proposal and agree on way forward with respect to further exploratory work on a voluntary online mediation option 3. Commence discussion of the Analysis Group’s Draft Report on the TMCH 4. Next steps / next meeting Additionally, I attach a memo prepared by the WG Co-Chairs in relation to #2 of the above agenda and for discussion. Kind regards, David David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait(a)icann.org www.icann.org

1 0

Questionable UDRPs & TM applications
by George Kirikos Aug. 25, 2016

Aug. 25, 2016

Hi folks, We're not yet on the UDRP topic, but I thought this story should be bookmarked for our future policy work, as an example of how the UDRP policy can be misused to engage in reverse domain name hijacking: http://domainnamewire.com/2016/08/19/new-trademark-king-domainers-need-watc… which was also covered by two other blogs: http://onlinedomain.com/2016/08/17/domain-name-news/company-filed-udrp-goog… http://domaingang.com/domain-law/trademark-applications-for-tokyo-com-and-r… It is important, in my opinion, to close the loopholes that are driving this kind of behaviour that targets domain name registrants. When very valuable domain names are coveted, but the costs of creating shell companies is low --- in the UK, merely £12: https://www.gov.uk/limited-company-formation/register-your-company and/or the costs of filing TM applications are low (under USD $10 for the Pakistan TM fees), the scale of the problem can be even greater. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

13 33

Notes and Actions from the Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group on 24 August 2016
by David Tait Aug. 25, 2016

Aug. 25, 2016

Dear all, Here are the staff notes and action items from the Working Group (WG) call held yesterday. For your convenience, we have categorized them into three main issues, as you’ll see below, these are: (1) Report from Compliance Dashboard Review Sub Team, (2) WG discussion of the timeliness and scope of a Voluntary Online Mediation Sub Team in relation to TM-PDDRP review and (3) Overview of TMCH Sub Team discussion with the Analysis Group. Compliance Dashboard Review Sub Team Data contained within the sub team report relating to complaints regarding cybersquatting may be pertinent but staff and co-chairs will investigate this further to understand. Lack of detail from compliance so not entirely clear if RRDRP statistics relate to actual complaints filed and what type of complaints fall under "Other". ACTION: Staff and sub-team to explore further with ICANN Compliance Voluntary Mediation Sub Team Sub-team looking into how voluntary mediation might be structured, but this investigation of practical structuring does not prejudice a decision to recommend in favour of mediation but rather to create a structure to assist the discussions of the full Working Group which would reach a final determination on this. There was an extended discussion as to whether a basic question should be answered before establishing the sub team, namely: Has there been a demonstrated need to add a mediation component to the PDDRP? ACTION: Co-Chairs to discuss feedback from the WG and determine a route forward on this issue TMCH Sub Team The TMCH sub team has considered further data to be sought from both the analysis group and alternative sources including registrars and registries. Reminder: The next meeting of the WG will take place on 31 August 2016 at 1600 UTC Kind regards, David David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait(a)icann.org www.icann.org

1 0

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group 24 August 2016
by Terri Agnew Aug. 25, 2016

Aug. 25, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call held on Wednesday, 24 August 2016 at 21:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/HQ6sAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-24aug16-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXz…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/rhiOAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 24 August 2016: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group held on Wednesday, 24 August 2016 at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/HQ6sAw George Kirikos:Hi folks. Dominic DeLuca(FORUM):Just a general question. Were the finalized questions for the PDDRP providers going to be sent out this week? Mary Wong:@Dominic, yes, we are plannning to do that Dominic DeLuca(FORUM):Thanks, Mary. VaibhavAggarwal:Evening team Steve Levy:Hello all! Philip Corwin:Hi, Awaiting operator Marina Lewis:Hi everyone Philip Corwin:in now Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All Paul Tattersfield:Hi All Brian Cimbolic:Hi all Terri Agnew:everyone has scroll Terri Agnew:finding the line George Kirikos:*6 to mute/unmute Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):any kind of proof that registries done that? Jeff Neuman:The RRDRP is for the Subsequent Procedures PDP, correct? Mary Wong:@Jeff, I believe so Jeff Neuman:I thought this PDP agreed to forward all RRDRP stuff to the Sub Pro Working group Mary Wong:@Maxim, can you clarify your question? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):We have seen some investigations from Compliance which were not in scope of legal framework, do we know numbers of cases which were not dismissed? Mary Wong:@Jeff, yes - so this isnt about revieiwng the RR-DRP, it's just a note that there were complaints that were about the RR-DRP but none about the TM-PDDRP (illustrative comparison). Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):lack of grounds e.t.c. George Kirikos:Not very granular. Jeff Neuman:ok - IF this Subteam can forward these to the Sub Pro PDP Work Track 2 team, that would be great Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Compliance tend to create self generated cases Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:RRDRP complaints require a filing with ICANN first: Complainants must have filed a claim through the Registry Restriction Problem ReportSystem (RRPRS) to have standing to file an RRDRP. George Kirikos:Yes, we can hear you. Susan Payne:thanks Caroline Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):QUESTION: Could we clarify with the ICANN Compliance - how many cases survived grounds check? Are these numbers reflect all opened cases? Mary Wong:@Jeff, per Caroline, we just have no additional info about the actual complaints to Compliance on RR-DRP, just the number of complaints. J. Scott Evans:sorry to be late. George Kirikos:Usually "other" should be a small proportion of cases (i.e. say under 25%). When "Other" is 3/4 of the cases, there's likely a problem with the categorization. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):then these numbers are not solid, so we can not use it as basis for work Denise Michel:+1 Paul Tattersfield:and the Other Mary Wong:SUGGESTION - We will circulate the updated list of Questions for Compliance (updated based on last week's call), as well as the new suggestions from this report, to everyone for review. The Sub Team can then follow up with Compliance on all the questions at the same time. Mary Wong:@Paul T, are you asking that we also ask for more details about what types of complaints comprise the "Other" category? We can add that to the list if so, unless other WG members object. Susan Payne:Caroline - I think "other" will turn out to be operational issues for registries such as timing of dealing with CZDS requests, data escrow delays, and that sort of thing Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Mary, numbers without clarification of real cases vs. self created/dismissed are misleading in this approach Paul Tattersfield:Yes thank you Mary I think that may be helpful Mary Wong:@Paul T, ok, thanks Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Do we recommend to add clountary mediation to all kind of DRPs? or only to this one? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):*voluntary Mary Wong:Only this one - and that decision hasn't been made yet, it's simply exploratory at this point (or so it was intended) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Why do we need to add additional layer of complexity to something never used? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 @Jeff on no mediation addition George Kirikos:If we go to our Charter, mediation was expressly mentioned: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-09feb16-en.pdf Statton Hammock:Also agree with Jeff and those iin support. George Kirikos:(albeit in the context of the UDRP; but, same logic would apply) Caroline Chicoine:Would the consumer survey we sent out help enlighten what if any need there is so can we postpone until we get results? Statton Hammock:No mediation is needed. Parties can always enter into mediation on their own if they choose. Beth Bacon:+1 Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:+1 Jeff, et. al. Mary Wong:@Reg, all - how we got here is that in early discussions about this, quite a few WG members seemed to think it would be a good idea to add/explore this. This was also indicated by the Doodle poll. That's probably how we got here, though of course it doesn't mean we shouldn't be hearing from those who don't support futher work on this topic right now. Griffin Barnett:@George, not sure the same logic would necessary apply given the difference in use between UDRP vs. PDDRP Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:Agree, Griffin Brian Cimbolic:Agreed Susan George Kirikos:I didn't say "thou shalt go and create a mediation program" -- just pointing out that this PDP had a broad scope. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:Mary, I don't think anyone has said mediation is a bad idea. I think the problem is, we don't know yet what problem mediation is supposed to solve? Jeff Neuman:Yes Phil there was an objection from me Jeff Neuman:I thought the Doodle Poll was not well drafted on the issue Jeff Neuman:and was biased George Kirikos:@Kristine: isn't the "problem" self-evident? i.e. high litigation costs can be reduced by encouraging settlement discussions. Mediation helps get the parties talking. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:No. What high litigation costs? Who said the PDDRP was expensive? No one has used it. Jeff Neuman:thanks J Scott :) Susan Payne:@George - I think you keep conflating the UDRP with the PDDRP. They are not the same thing Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:If there was evidence about the high cost of the PDDRP being a barrier to entry, then I would support discussing mediation. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):when party is not brave enough to go into the litigation ... most probably mediation is useless George Kirikos:Your confusing PDDRP fees (by the ADR provider) with litigation fees (which are much higher, i.e. costs of discovery, costs of lawyers, time of managers, etc.) George Kirikos:*You're, even Statton Hammock:That was helpful J Scott. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:We can't control litigation costs, we're talking only about PDDRP thought. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:*though Mary Wong:@J SCott, yes, that is our recollection as well. George Kirikos:By the logic of "no one has used it", why not go further and ask "We should eliminate the PDDRP entirely?" :-) If it's just there as a deterrent, is there a more effective means of deterrent? Statton Hammock:Move that we adopt the "Neuman Rule" going forward, namely, we should put forward no recommended change in processes, procedures, or mechanisms unless and until we have identified or gathered proof that a problem is evident. Reg Levy - MMX:I agree, that comports with the way that I voted on the Doodle poll. Brian Cimbolic:agreed @Reg and @Jeff Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:Agree Jeff Brian Cimbolic:err @Statton, rather Laurie Anderson:+1 Jeff Mary Wong:@Jeff, the Doodle poll was formulated that way based on the general sense following discussions on that basic question in Helsinki and within the WG up to that point in time, so, yes, it's not the same question but the idea was to base it on discussions that had taken place. Jeff Neuman:LOL: As I told Phil this would be Neuman Rule #2; Neuman Rule #1 is never call a meeting during lunch unless you are serving food. Beth Bacon:+1 Reg and Statton- let's not try to fix problems that don't exist Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:@George: If we have data that supports elimination of the PDDRP then I think it's in our scope to discuss it. We first need data. Mediation is a fantastic solution. But we have no data indicating a problem. Paul McGrady:Does "Review" mean improve without a problem or does it mean "identify and fix" problems. Improve with no known problems sounds like we will finish in 2032... Brian Cimbolic:+1 David J. Scott Evans:well, the one problem we identified is that no one used this policy. Some felt cost was a problem and mediation might be a solution. Laurie Anderson:Agree, Kristine. Unless we have valid data, there's no way to make an informed decision. George Kirikos:Right, J. Scott. I think if you go back to the early calls, that was how things originated. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:@ J Scott, is non-use a problem? OR a sign that registries are on the up and up? I thought we were starting to try to answer that question... George Kirikos:So, if costs are an issue (and they ALWAYS are an issue), then things that reduce overall costs (and mediation is one such thing) *is* in scope. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 @Kristine George Kirikos:Costs are not the same as "fees", as pointed out above. Beth Bacon:+1 Kristine Jeff Neuman:@George - Mediation does not always lower the costs Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:Correct, JEff. Mediation can be very expensive Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George, costs of establishing a registry are way higher , so there should be some barrier to prevent blackmailing George Kirikos:@Maxim: I hope you feel that 'logic' about barriers to blackmailing also applies to other DRPs, such as the URS and UDRP. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George URS is almost useless, so it could be the reason for low numbers even with 375USD price for up to 14 domains Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Geroge, this particular DRP kills business, unlike URS or UDRP George Kirikos:URS and UDRPs also take businesses offline. Registrants are businesses too. Paul Tattersfield:Generally if both sides would voluntarily seek and agree to mediation then it is difficult to see how it can be bad option for any framework to offer. George Kirikos:(that should be an ICANN T-shirt, "Registrants are businesses too!") i.e. registries aren't the only 'business' out there.... Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George, please compare digits and you will see millions vs. thouthands George Kirikos:@Maxim: many domain names are worth more than the $185K ICANN costs of a TLD. Kathy Kleiman:Tx you, Susan! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George, 185k is peanuts to real costs ... multiply by 10 Kathy Kleiman:Others from the TMCH Subgroup should feel free to add to the discussion... George Kirikos:I noticed that in the report, a very high proportion of TMCH applications got "verified", however, as I pointed out over the weekend, in reality there's a big "proof of use" problem. http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2016-August/000474.html George Kirikos:If the USPTO's own audit showed that more than 1/2 the proof of uses were deficient, can we trust that the TMCH applied an equally high standard to their own reviews, where they approved close to 90%? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Geroge +1, we can not :) Lori Schulman:I am not so sure that PTO data is comparable since it is evaluated by International Classificiation under the Paris Convention. A very different standard. George Kirikos:Right, there needs to be an audit of the TMCH "proof of use". The USPTO study was relatively recent (i.e. well after the TMCH was setup). So, it's not a problem policymakers were aware of when it was setup. Jeff Neuman:@George - Have you noticed a problem? Have trademark owners gotten domain name registrations which you believe they should not have gotten because of an insufficient demonstration of use? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:We would love more active participants!!! Jeff Neuman:@Kristine +1 : I am on that small group and we need help ;) George Kirikos:@Jeff: that's something we should survey. Of course, I don't personally register new gTLD domain names. :-) George Kirikos:(plus, it's not just gaining domains; it's also creating claims notifications, which might cause prospective registrants to not register a certain domain) Kathy Kleiman:The TMCH Subgroup meets on Fridays @11am Eastern for an hour. If you would like to join us, feel free to let Mary Wong or David Tait know, or just post in this chat room. Jeff Neuman:@George, you are not required to demonstrate use to be enrolled in the claims service J. Scott Evans:next week Susan Payne:deadline is 3 Sept Marina Lewis:Re USPTO vs TMCH, I think we're talking apples and oranges here. The problem with the USPTO is not that the proof of use itself is deficient, but that many registrants would be unable to prove use for EVERY item in the registration (as required under US law), should they be compelled to do so. TMCH only requires that brand owners submit proof of use for one item of goods/services, and it appears many TMCH users are properly able to do so. Lori Schulman:Marina is exactly right. George Kirikos:Marina: 16% of marks were entirely removed from the USPTO. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):we have seen situations where TMCH was gamed to obtain generic words Mary Wong:Analysis Group will take on board public comments received, update the report if appropriate, and then publish a Final Report. George Kirikos:It wasn't just proving all categories of use. i.e. 16% were so bad, they had to be eliminated. Lori Schulman:There may be use but not the use in the original registration either of exact goods or in the same class, it is a nuanced evaluation. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:Maxim, that would be helpful information to submit to the subteam. Terri Agnew:Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Groupis scheduled for Wednesday, 31 August 2016 at 16:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Mary Wong:The Final Report will be sent to the GAC, who requested the review in the first place, and be available to the community (including our WG) to inform the community work (including our PDP) Paul McGrady:Good call Phil! Mary Wong:Yes Jeff Neuman:@George - I do not believe that our role is to try to change National Trademark laws George Kirikos:Bye folks. Lori Schulman:Bye George. Laurie Anderson:bye all Monica Mitchell:Thank you Jay Chapman:thanks, all Paul Tattersfield:Thanks, bye All. Susan Payne:thanks all Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):good night Greg Shatan:bye all! Marina Lewis:bye all! Steve Levy:Bye for now Lori Schulman:ciao

1 0

Agenda and documents for Working Group meeting on 24 August
by Mary Wong Aug. 24, 2016

Aug. 24, 2016

Dear Working Group members, The proposed agenda for the next Working Group call, scheduled for Wednesday 24 August at 2100 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect/phone bridge only)/Update to SOIs 2. Update from staff on follow up with TM-PDDRP Providers and the Community Survey 3. Report from Compliance Dashboard Review Sub Team (see attached document) 4. WG discussion of the timeliness and scope of a Voluntary Online Mediation Sub Team in relation to TM-PDDRP review 5. Overview of TMCH Sub Team discussion with the Analysis Group (see updated TMCH Sub Team Initial Report from 9 August, circulated previously and available on the Working Group wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/VAmsAw) 6. [if time permits] WG identification of specific issues or concerns arising from WG members’ review of the Analysis Group’s Draft Report on the TMCH (published on 25 July and available at https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/tmch/draft-services-review-25jul16-en…) 7. Next steps/next meeting Thanks and cheers Mary gnsoMary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

2 2

Call for volunteers - RPMs Working Group, Mediation sub-team
by David Tait Aug. 23, 2016

Aug. 23, 2016

Dear Working Group members At its meeting on 17 August 2016 the Working Group concluded that there was a need to convene a sub-team to review the issue of Optional mediation and put forward an outline proposal for consideration by WG. Staff would therefore invite those who would be interested in participating in this sub-team to respond to this email and we will begin the process of establishing the sub-team. We would kindly request that you send us any responses by 0900 UTC 24 August 2016 Please note that Petter Rindforth has already kindly volunteered for this sub-team. Kind regards, David Tait David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait(a)icann.org www.icann.org

16 34

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Notes and Actions from the Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group on 17 August 2016
by David Tait Aug. 23, 2016

Aug. 23, 2016

Dear Dawahi Staff’s understanding is that both preexistent decisions and hypotheticals could be useful in this case. It would then before the Working Group to consider all of these for whether or not they should be included in the final version sent to compliance. Kind regards, David From: Dawahi Khouloud <khoulouddaouahi(a)gmail.com> Date: Sunday, 21 August 2016 at 01:02 To: David Tait <david.tait(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Notes and Actions from the Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group on 17 August 2016 A question @David when it comes to action '' i. WG members to provide scenarios to illustrate bad faith/abusive conduct in question to ICANN Compliance by next week's call" I think it is very important indeed .So should we look for ambigious situation regarding this matter in some preexistant arbitration decisions or conceive a situation ? On Aug 17, 2016 7:55 PM, "David Tait" <david.tait(a)icann.org> wrote: Dear all, Here are the staff notes and action items from the Working Group (WG) call held earlier today. For your convenience, we have categorized them into four main issues, as you’ll see below: these are (1) TMCH provider questions and proposed community survey, (2) Questions for ICANN Compliance, (3) Issues/Concerns/Suggestions regarding the TM-PDDRP and (4) the next meeting. 1) TMCH Provider questions and community survey ACTION: WG members to review document of provider questions and community Survey previously circulated by MW by CoB Friday; 2) Questions for ICANN Compliance The WG considered questions to be submitted to ICANN Compliance. ACTION: i. WG members to provide scenarios to illustrate bad faith/abusive conduct in question to ICANN Compliance by next week's call; ii. Staff to prepare revised questions for compliance in relation to the handling of complaints from third-parties regarding abusive conduct; iii. WG Volunteers to review existing, publicly available metrics published by ICANN Compliance. 3) Consideration of Issues/Concerns/Suggestions regarding the TM-PDDRP Doodle poll shows no support for continuing discussion regarding burden of proof at this point, however, in the event of new concerns emerging or a demand to revisit the topic arising it would be possible to revisit this topic; Remedies – Consideration of this issue is to be paused until more input has been received from the Community survey i. ACTION: Staff to prepare a specific question to the registries regarding vagueness of remedies to be sent alongside other requests for information for consideration by WG Optional Mediation- The WG considered that there was a need to convene a sub-team to review the issue of Optional mediation and put forward an outline proposal for consideration by WG. ii. ACTION: (Staff to issue call for volunteers on the list before next meeting) 4) Next meeting The next meeting of the WG to take place at 2100 UTC Wednesday 24 August ACTION: WG members to be prepared to discuss Analysis Group report. Kind regards, David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait(a)icann.org www.icann.org _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

2 1

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Inadvertent Error on PDDRP Survey
by Paul McGrady Aug. 23, 2016

Aug. 23, 2016

Thanks Thomas. I agree that similarity is only one factor in the normal U.S. based infringement analysis, as is scienter. There are a raft of other factors as well. However, I still ask whether or not “infringement” is defined anywhere in this ICANN policy or if we are all just assuming into it a U.S. understanding of what that word means. Do we also mean to include dilution and other brand abuses in “infringement”? Is the Indian definition different in any meaningful way and, if so, what ways? Russian, EU? Of course, applying infringement theory in the domain name context is a bit of a misfit, since infringement requires use on similar goods and services, which is why the US Congress brought the US the ACPA which has its own elements and factors. Let’s us a hypothetical example. Let’s assume the existence of a hypothetical registry for .Mark. If .Mark charged $10 for Kratos.Mark but $10,000 for Nike.Mark, it would seem that the value being extracted was tied to the trademark nature of “nike” rather than to any reference to Greek mythology (or else we would see a similar price for Kratos.Mark). But a second level domain name is not shoes, so would “infringement” ever apply? So, I think we should examine on an upcoming call what “infringement” is meant to mean in this context. It could be that it is meant to mean a US based notion of “infringement” (marks applied to goods and services) – in which case we may have diagnosed why there haven’t been any PDDRP filings to date. Best, Paul From: Thomas Brackey II [mailto:tbrackey@freundandbrackey.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 10:32 AM To: Paul McGrady <policy(a)paulmcgrady.com> Cc: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>; Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Inadvertent Error on PDDRP Survey A letter string, or word, by itself is not “infringing” even if it is identical to a famous mark. Only a tribunal of competent jurisdiction can determine whether, under the particular circumstances of each case, a second level domain is infringing. It seems to me the way to frame the issue is to determine whether a Registry has engaged in a pattern or practice of selling domain names that are later judged to be infringing in an adversarial proceeding. Liability under the PDDRP would then turn on the Registry’s knowledge, scienter and/or reaction once it has been determined that the names in question have been used in a manner giving rise to a finding of infringement. Of course once a TLD reaches a certain scale, there are bound to be instances of second level domains used in an infringing manner. One need look no further than .com. Thomas A. Brackey II FREUND & BRACKEY LLP 427 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 USA tel: 310-247-2165, ext. 26 fax: 310-247-2190 tbrackey(a)freundandbrackey.com <mailto:tbrackey@freundandbrackey.com> On Aug 23, 2016, at 8:11 AM, Paul McGrady <policy(a)paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> > wrote: Is “infringement” defined anywhere? Would it include dilution and other acts of using brands to obtain payments for second levels that otherwise would have very little value but for their identicalness or confusing similarity to brands? Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady, Jr. <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> policy(a)paulmcgrady.com From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:40 AM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Inadvertent Error on PDDRP Survey Thank you Mary. Clearly, profiting from the sale of second level domains is not and should not be a cause of action for any RPMs, Our concern is intentional TM infringement. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [ <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 9:44 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Inadvertent Error on PDDRP Survey Thank you, Jeff - our apologies to all for the inadvertent omission. We will fix it as soon as we can and resend the link to all community group chairs with a short explanatory note. Cheers Mary Sent from my iPhone On Aug 23, 2016, at 09:36, Jeff Neuman < <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> wrote: All, A Registry just pointed out to me that we have an error in question 7 of the PDDRP Survey that just went out which we can easily fix, but definitely need to fix. Question 7 currently states: “7. Has there been any conduct by new gTLD registry operators that you believe constitutes a “substantial pattern or practice of specific bad faith intent to profit” from the sale of domain names at the second level?” However, the PDDRP only applies where it constitutes a “substantial pattern or practice of specific bad faith intent to profit” from the sale of trademark infringing domain names at the second level. [The Underlined portion was left out]. The portion that was left out is KEY to the cause of action. As he jokingly put it, some believe that the sale of all second level domains constitute a bad faith intent to profit :) However, at this point the PDDRP does not apply in any situations other than selling trademark infringing domain names. Can we please fix and reissue the survey? Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com or <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com/> www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7752 / Virus Database: 4633/12811 - Release Date: 08/15/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

3 2