June 2017 - GNSO-RPM-WG - lists.icann.org

Agenda for next RPM Working Group call this Wednesday
by Mary Wong June 21, 2017

June 21, 2017

Dear all, The proposed agenda for the next Working Group call, scheduled for this Wednesday at 1700 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect or phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Receive and discuss final reports from the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams 3. Confirm opening and closing dates for Open TMCH Questions poll 4. Discuss co-chairs’ proposed agenda for, and intended outcomes of, 3-hour WG session at ICANN59 5. Next steps For Agenda Item #2, the Sub Teams will be circulating their reports before the call, hopefully on Tuesday (tomorrow). For Agenda Item #3, we hope to be able to publish the poll by the time of the Working Group call, if not before. For Agenda Item #4, please see the following suggested agenda (with the chronological order TBD): 1. Further discussion of reports and suggestions from the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams (up to one hour each) 2. Panel discussion with registry and registrar representatives (up to one hour): * For this session, the co-chairs will be sending an invitation letter to the Chairs of the Registries and Registrars Stakeholder Groups this week, inviting them to send representatives to engage in discussion with our Working Group. Working Group members who are also RySG or RrSG members will be cc’d on the correspondence, as it seems likely they will be involved in their SG discussions. * The scope of the proposed panel discussion is likely to focus on the data collection suggestions that the two Sub Teams (for Sunrise and Trademark Claims) will be proposing (and which the Working Group will have the opportunity to review and discuss this week). Thanks and cheers Mary

3 2

Proposed Questions for Consideration by the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team
by Amr Elsadr June 15, 2017

June 15, 2017

Dear Working Group members, As requested, and noted as an action item for staff, the following documents attached to this email are being recirculated: 1. List of questions for the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team proposed by the WG Co-Chairs 2. List of questions for the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team proposed by the WG Co-Chairs + Nevett/Payne edits Both of these documents are also posted on yesterday’s Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team meeting wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/UU3wAw Thanks. Amr

1 0

Action Items from the GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLD PDP WG Call - 14 June 2017
by Amr Elsadr June 15, 2017

June 15, 2017

Dear Working Group Members, Below are the Action Items from yesterday’s Working Group Call. The notes, recordings/transcripts and call documents are all posted on the Working Group meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/k0bwAw. Thanks. Amr Action Items: * Action Items for Staff: * Staff to send summary of substantive discussion on Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team questions to the Sub Team for consideration, and publish on the Sub Team wiki page * Staff to recirculate proposed Additional Marketplace RPMs questions to both the Sub Team and full WG mailing lists * Action Items for the Sunrise Registrations and Trademark Claims Sub Teams: * Sub Teams to compile questions that could be sent to registries/registrars ahead of ICANN 59, concerning data requirements for Sunrise and Trademark Claims Charter questions

1 0

Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group
by Terri Agnew June 14, 2017

June 14, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/k0bwAw> https://community.icann.org/x/k0bwAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-14jun17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p9kwedy8u36/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=fe4916c8d08a1d57 b6033c272f8baf21b82328e1f63d18ee81e3277664cd772f> https://participate.icann.org/p9kwedy8u36/ 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 ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw> https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Adobe Connect chat transcript for 14 June 2017: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minute duration Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_k 0bwAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ k0bwAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=wYIFaQFK5qEpOY_siDEE6Sr9ZHSh1dpt0kesQAmW_x o&s=Bs1tc2JSLIKJLx_wNa5--y6OzZnvF9g--aF2e_h95wY&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=wYIFaQFK5qEpOY_siDEE6Sr9ZHSh1dpt0kesQAmW_xo&s=Bs 1tc2JSLIKJLx_wNa5--y6OzZnvF9g--aF2e_h95wY&e= George Kirikos:Hi folks. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All George Kirikos:Welcome Maxim. Mary Wong:Welcome, everyone, thanks for your patience! Philip Corwin:Hello all George Kirikos:Welcome Phil. Paul McGrady:Good morning/afternoon/evening George Kirikos:Welcome Paul. Paul Tattersfield:Hello all, sorry I'm late George Kirikos:Hi Paul #2. David McAuley:sorry to be late Terri Agnew:confirm all can remain on the line for sub team, no need to disconnect Steve Levy:Hi all! Jon Nevett:is it me or is Kathy sounding faint to others as well? George Kirikos:Sound is fine here. Terri Agnew:adjusting volume Jon Nevett:thx George Kirikos:Welcome, Jon. Congrats on the deal announced today. Terri Agnew:@Jon, please let me know if a dial out is needed for better audio quality Susan Payne:apologies, I'm on the subteam but could not make the last call Jon Nevett:Thanks George! Volume fine now. Philip Corwin:Aditional REGISTRY RPMs does not cover the extended notification service offered by the TMCH, so I don't thibnk that name works and another of the many choices would be appropriate Mary Wong:I'll type my response - just wanted to say sorry, we have not yet gotten to that Action Item (to extract all the relevant emails and compile them into a single list to send to the Sub Team). We hope we can get to that soonest. Greg Shatan:"Additional Registry/TMCH RPMs"? David McAuley:@Greg - ARTR - a distant cousin of ATRT? Greg Shatan:A third alternative would be to start with Jon's version as the baseline: i.e., start with his version and decide whether any of the additional language that was presented by the co-Chairs should be accepted. WIPO - Brian Beckham:Mary, or someone on staff, would you mind re-sending the link to the approved charter (questions)? Thanks! Amr Elsadr:@Brian: They're on the screen now. Amr Elsadr:And will recirculate on-list. Mary Wong:@Brian, all the questions in the Charter are part of the Charter here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_2 CWAAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ 2CWAAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=wYIFaQFK5qEpOY_siDEE6Sr9ZHSh1dpt0kesQAmW_x o&s=0VN30CbKFj6H7OknNTmOeEqYAirzcsoojp0uAf-IQbM&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=wYIFaQFK5qEpOY_siDEE6Sr9ZHSh1dpt0kesQAmW_xo&s=0V N30CbKFj6H7OknNTmOeEqYAirzcsoojp0uAf-IQbM&e= . Note that these do not include many of the Private Protections questions. Philip Corwin:Questions + data Greg Shatan:Thanks for the clarification. David McAuley:Thanks Amr - look forward to grabbing recirculated doc WIPO - Brian Beckham:Thanks very much Mary! Mary Wong:@David, all - both sets of Private Protections questions (the original ones from the co-chairs, and the edited version by a few WG members) are also on the WG wiki: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_v crRAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ vcrRAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=wYIFaQFK5qEpOY_siDEE6Sr9ZHSh1dpt0kesQAmW_x o&s=ztf3RWut6x7_3CwzZY6Mm4qkNsPKma1lPphh-sGvB4g&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=wYIFaQFK5qEpOY_siDEE6Sr9ZHSh1dpt0kesQAmW_xo&s=zt f3RWut6x7_3CwzZY6Mm4qkNsPKma1lPphh-sGvB4g&e= David McAuley:Thanks Mary George Kirikos:If the F2F can be in the afternoon local time, that would be ideal (makes it in the morning in North America, rather than in the middle of the night). George Kirikos:Time diff between Joburg & NYC = 6 hours. Terri Agnew:RPM ICANN59 on schedule: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann59johannesburg2017 .sched.com_event_B49M_gnso-2Dreview-2Dof-2Dall-2Drights-2Dprotection-2Dmecha nisms-2Drpms-2Din-2Dall-2Dgtlds-2Dpdp-2Dworking-2Dgroup-2Dface-2Dto-2Dface-2 Dmeeting <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann59johannesburg201 7.sched.com_event_B49M_gnso-2Dreview-2Dof-2Dall-2Drights-2Dprotection-2Dmech anisms-2Drpms-2Din-2Dall-2Dgtlds-2Dpdp-2Dworking-2Dgroup-2Dface-2Dto-2Dface- 2Dmeeting&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvS FpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=wYIFaQFK5qEpOY_siDEE6Sr9ZHSh1dpt0kesQAm W_xo&s=onZ5liPxcaFb806vegtFY-hRIw0tlLWBBmZ2OJ-mhUU&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=wYIFaQFK5qEpOY_siDEE6Sr9ZHSh1dpt0kesQAmW_xo&s=on Z5liPxcaFb806vegtFY-hRIw0tlLWBBmZ2OJ-mhUU&e= George Kirikos:That'd be 3 am to 6 am NYC time. Terri Agnew:Thursday, June 29 . 09:00 - 12:00 George Kirikos:Thursday afternoon that day is actually wide open: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann59johannesburg2017 .sched.com_grid_-232017-2D06-2D29 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann59johannesburg201 7.sched.com_grid_-232017-2D06-2D29&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6 sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=wYIFaQFK5qEpOY _siDEE6Sr9ZHSh1dpt0kesQAmW_xo&s=RxLJHr75M6B9PUyf_iCBVrCBYFQVNgxahhGtq-ou4e4& e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=wYIFaQFK5qEpOY_siDEE6Sr9ZHSh1dpt0kesQAmW_xo&s=Rx LJHr75M6B9PUyf_iCBVrCBYFQVNgxahhGtq-ou4e4&e= Michael R Graham:Well, it's only Midnight in Seattle! Georges Nahitchevansky:No way to move this f2F to earlier in the week Susan Payne:has the survey been issued? Mary Wong:@George, there is the GNSO Wrap Up, and note that there is a Cross Community session on Geographial names in the afternoon (and for scheduling purposes we were asked to keep cross community sessions unconflicted) Mary Wong:@Susan, the co-chairs are still finalizing the poll questions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Sending those questions to RySG and RrSG would help Mary Wong:@Georges N, unfortunately not - one piece of feedback we received from Copenhagen and other ICANN meetings was that we should strive to have PDP sessions unconflicted. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):but I think it should be done on behalf of the whole WG, and not subteams on their own David McAuley:I think Susan's suggestion is a good one Philip Corwin:@George K -- Thursday afternoon in Joburg is not open. There is a GNSO meeting until 3 pm followed by a CCWG discussion of Geo names at Top level that is important to many participants Susan Payne:Sure, but in Copenhagen we had two sessions for RPMs so we had more time Susan Payne:Although I'm not objecting to speaking with Ry and Rrs if we have useful questions to discuss with them and they are going to be able to answer them Steve Levy:Can't make a meeting next week. Sorry Marie Pattullo:Nor me. Apologies. George Kirikos:Looks like most people can make it. Susan Payne:I have a partial clash because this meeting had not been scheduled but I will attend so far as possible David McAuley:no objection Lillian Fosteris:Cant make it, but I am fine with holding the meeting. Amr Elsadr:The thinking was that a comprehensive report by the Sub Teams to the full WG would be a good segway for the ICANN face-to-face meeting in ICANN 59. Greg Shatan:FYI, I will be in Johannesburg. Sorry not to register my attendance when called for. George Kirikos:Bye folks. Have a great day. Mary Wong:1700 UTC next Weds Mary Wong:Reminder to Private Protections Sub TEam folks to stay on the line please Mary Wong:No need to call back in Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all Paul Tattersfield:bye all Paul McGrady:I think we need to end this recording and start another Georges Nahitchevansky:Bye all

1 0

Recirculating Deloitte's response to Working Group follow up questions
by Mary Wong June 14, 2017

June 14, 2017

Hello everyone, At our co-chairs’ request, staff is recirculating the responses we received recently from Deloitte on the follow up questions that our Working Group had sent to them prior to the Copenhagen meeting. You can also find the response, along with the data Deloitte presented to us in Copenhagen, the Analysis Group’s revised report, and other Working Group documents discussing the TMCH at this wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/_pHRAw. Thanks and cheers Mary

3 2

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FW: TMCH data on abandonment
by Paul Keating June 13, 2017

June 13, 2017

"what we don't know probably exceeds what we do² Could NOT agree more. I suggest we focus on what information we need in order to properly analyze and discuss the issue. For this I see us in need of the following: A listing of the marks in the TMCH Information from registrars that may indicate abandonment in the context of the claims notice process. I cannot seriously believe that the registrars do not have this data given its importance in the continued process of refining the UI and maximizing revenues. If it is an issue of confidentiality, I am happy to limit the disclosure of the information to Staff or if that is not acceptable then to a third party who can be retained (and paid) to review and analyze the data for us. Failing that we could perhaps approach several of the larger registrars in this area (new Gtld registrations) and ask that they run a test for a specified period. IF that results in a delay we can defer this issue until we have the data. Paul On 6/9/17, 6:22 PM, "Phil Corwin" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> wrote: >This thread has wound on quite a bit since Brian's original post, but >since my name came up in his let me add a few thoughts. > >Brian's email stated: > > In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on >Friday, 02 > > > June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on >abandonment rates... > > Phil Corwin suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment >rate was 80% then it may > > > be reasonable to conclude that there¹s not a material >difference between > > > those subject to claims notices. > > > > > > Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to >obtain the desired > > > data (a number of reasons, including competitive >(dis-)advantages, were > > > raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us >that ³An average > > > website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.² >A second GoDaddy > > > article suggests it is 67%. > >I haven¹t reviewed the transcript of that call, but I just pulled the 80% >number out of a hat and my intended point was that if there was just a >small difference between abandonment rates of initiated domain >registrations that did and did not generate claims notices then it might >be reasonable to conclude that the received warning was having its >intended targeted effect (deterring cybersquatting) and not causing >significant abandonment of non-infringing domain registrations. > >It appears that the GoDaddy cart abandonment statistics relate to general >ecommerce websites and not specifically to registrar websites so it would >be useful to get data from registrars as to what their general cart >abandonment rate is. But if it is 68% for initiated domain registrations >then the 94.7 abandonment rate measured by the Analysis group would be >39.2% higher and that would seem statistically significant and indicative >that non-infringing registrations may be deterred. (Noting for the record >that we don't know how many of the abandoned registrations measured by AG >were never intended to go to completion but were initiated for other >purposes -- and that of the abandoned attempts that were intended to be >completed we have no way of knowing which were initiated by intentional >cybersquatters and which came from innocent parties with no infringing >intent and whose actual domain use would not have been infringing.) > >We also don't know the effect of a claims warning receipt on an >intentional cybersquatters versus innocent would-be registrants. Just as >warning signs of home security systems may not deter a professional >burglar, intentional cybersquatters may know the risk of detection and >factor it into their business model. On the other hand, outside the ICANN >bubble, most would be domain registrants are unlikely to have a law >degree and upon receiving a notice warning of potential legal >consequences if they complete the transaction may decide they don't wish >to expend half a month's grocery money to consult with a trademark >attorney. > >None of this is to say that the Claims Notice does not have merit or that >we should not consider possible generation of notices, or at least notice >to trademark holders of completed registrations, for some classes of >non-exact matches. But it's clear that we also need more and better data >because what we don't know probably exceeds what we do. > >We should also be mindful that we must maintain a reasonable balance >between the scope of this RPM and its impact on domain registrants with >no infringing intent, especially if their actual use of the domain would >be lawful. Let's take a pragmatic view and recognize that any >policymaking exercise is not an academic but an inherently political >process and that "politics is the art of compromise". Also, as contracted >parties in the business of creating and selling domains make up half the >GNSO Council that must approve our final work product (lest all our work >be for naught) that would suggest that our work should seek to assure >that Claims Notices perform their intended effect of effectively >deterring intended cybersquatting while minimizing the deterrence of >legitimate domain registrations. > >Best, Philip > >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 > > >-----Original Message----- >From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via >gnso-rpm-wg >Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 11:00 AM >To: Volker Greimann; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment > >Volker: > >Thanks for this perspective. I know that my marketing team struggles with >what they call ³stickiness² of a registration process. Specifically, they >are always looking for ways to streamline the registration process >because the ³stickier² the process (the more steps need to complete >registration) leads to a high drop off rate. Your antidotal evidence >certainly aligns with the same type of situation my folks at Adobe find >difficult in selling our subscriptions. > > >J. Scott Evans >408.536.5336 (tel) >345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 >Director, Trademarks >408.709.6162 (cell) >San Jose, CA, 95110, USA >Adobe. Make It an Experience. >jsevans(a)adobe.com >www.adobe.com > > > > >On 6/9/17, 7:52 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of Volker >Greimann" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of >vgreimann(a)key-systems.net> wrote: > > There can be a significant drop-off due the necessity to present this > notice seperate from the purchase process. > > Examples: > > 1) Potential Registrant pre-orders a domain: the notice cannot be > presented at the time of purchase > > 2) Potential Registrant orders the domain through a reseller with its > own front-end: the notice cannot be presented by the registrar in the > purchase process > > Result => Notice has to be presented after the order is received but > before it is executed in an alternate process, usually email. While >we > have not at the time measured the actual rate, we did note a >significant > drop-off between the numbers of registrants directed to visit a >website > where the notice could be presented and confirmed and the number of > mails sent. The drop-off between the number of customers visiting the > site, seeing the notice and then deciding not to pursue the >registration > was smaller. > > Conclusion: The current noticeconfirmation process that is supposed >to > be in the registration path does not work well in real life for many > industry sales channel. > > Best, > > Volker > > > Am 09.06.2017 um 16:28 schrieb J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg: > > Brain. Point taken. I don¹t mean to be flippant. That said, I am >growing increasing tired of there always being a negative inference from >behaviors from those that are overall hostile to RPMs in general. My >point is that as a proponent of RPMs and someone who worked diligently >for over 9 months to come up with these RPMs that the abandonment rate >does not automatically indicate that the system is not working as >intended. > > > > > > J. Scott Evans > > 408.536.5336 (tel) > > 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 > > Director, Trademarks > > 408.709.6162 (cell) > > San Jose, CA, 95110, USA > > Adobe. Make It an Experience. > > jsevans(a)adobe.com > > www.adobe.com > > > > > > > > > > On 6/9/17, 7:24 AM, "Brian F. Cimbolic" <BCimbolic(a)pir.org> wrote: > > > > J. Scott, respectfully, what evidence is there that the Claims >notice provided to registrants is not having a chilling effect for those >with no intention to infringe? I understand there is not direct evidence >on either side of the issue, but to say decisively that it is "Not so" >about the chilling effect without providing some evidence seems >unnecessarily flippant. > > > > Brian Cimbolic > > Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry > > Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| > > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.pir.org&data=02%7C0 >1%7C%7C01683e8ee1db418bc47108d4af4346a4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1 >%7C0%7C0%7C636326150869181271&sdata=h8qAN8le9SbhQvR0IawnyuRDu%2Fb1%2Bv2fpf >bG6MNipug%3D&reserved=0 | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube > > > > > > Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public >Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then >delete. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via >gnso-rpm-wg > > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:19 AM > > To: Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet(a)law.georgetown.edu>; >Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int> > > Cc: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment > > Importance: High > > > > I will remind the group that Abandonment is the point. The TM >Claims notice is designed to inform would-be innocent infringers that >there is an issue. A high abandonment rate show that the system is >working. I realize those hostile to the TM Claims feel that a high >abandonment rate is proof that the Claims notice is overreaching. Not so. > > > > J. Scott > > > > > > J. Scott Evans > > 408.536.5336 (tel) > > 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 > > Director, Trademarks > > 408.709.6162 (cell) > > San Jose, CA, 95110, USA > > Adobe. Make It an Experience. > > jsevans(a)adobe.com > > www.adobe.com > > > > > > > > > > On 6/9/17, 7:16 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf >of Rebecca Tushnet" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of >Rebecca.Tushnet(a)law.georgetown.edu> wrote: > > > > I agree with Paul K. Unfortunately, we need better >information than > > that--we need to know about, of attempts that reached the >stage at > > which a notice would be provided, how many were abandoned. > It's my > > understanding--though I'd be happy to learn more--that the >notice > > wouldn't come when the shopping cart was filled but at >checkout. > > > > If we just don't have the data, then it may be that our >only > > recommendation must be to get the data. > > Rebecca Tushnet > > Georgetown Law > > 703 593 6759 > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Beckham, Brian ><brian.beckham(a)wipo.int> wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > > > > > I¹m not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the >sub-group, of which I am > > > not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it >is offered merely to > > > help fill out some of the questions/discussion around >seeking various > > > TMCH/Claims-related data. > > > > > > > > > > > > In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims >call on Friday, 02 > > > June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on >abandonment rates. In > > > summary: Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful >to compare > > > non-TMCH-related abandonment vs ³regular² abandonment. >Jeff Neuman recalled > > > that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment. > Phil Corwin > > > suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate >was 80% then it may > > > be reasonable to conclude that there¹s not a material >difference between > > > those subject to claims notices. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to >obtain the desired > > > data (a number of reasons, including competitive >(dis-)advantages, were > > > raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us >that ³An average > > > website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.² >A second GoDaddy > > > article suggests it is 67%. > > > > > > > > > > > > See > > > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godad >dy.com%2Fgarage%2Fsmallbusiness%2Fmarket%2Feffective-strategies-to-boost-a >bandoned-cart-email-conversion-rates%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5323a61f9cb343c0 >017d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326145971 >754867&sdata=PtxSnnbDMNsumNMyaHdzoZZY0jowSqg1LeeFXqplKq4%3D&reserved=0 > > > and > > > > > > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godad >dy.com%2Fgarage%2Findustry%2Fretail%2Fecommerce%2Fwant-to-to-increase-sale >s-reduce-shopping-cart-abandonment%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5323a61f9cb343c001 >7d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63632614597175 >4867&sdata=aOJ1E7T6ITmYfP4bMNsvQ7dJAj3QrswMl4YK42BQp6c%3D&reserved=0. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are many articles on this topic with varying >figures, but they tended > > > to generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%. > > > > > > > > > > > > The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here >in the WG, while > > > different/higher, are arguably not materially different >than e-commerce > > > statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by >Phil Corwin as > > > signaling ³a significant difference in the completion of >registration.²). > > > > > > > > > > > > It is important here to recall too that many members of >the WG have noted > > > that (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars, >and registrants may > > > have been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing >the data upwards. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > > > > > Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution >Section | WIPO Arbitration > > > and Mediation Center > > > 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | >T +4122 338 8247 | > > > E brian.beckham(a)wipo.int | >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wipo.int&data=02%7C >01%7C%7C5323a61f9cb343c0017d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee >1%7C0%7C0%7C636326145971754867&sdata=lenvIEKAPus7F2zCjYUJaxaYKhFe8%2B8rBpf >ZriFt75Y%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > > > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > > > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann. >org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5323a61f9cb343c00 >17d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363261459717 >54867&sdata=uS2vBiv2CKXZWjfp3QvSJDUUIZFpOCXlbaqpWca83yI%3D&reserved=0 > > _______________________________________________ > > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann. >org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5323a61f9cb343c00 >17d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363261459717 >54867&sdata=uS2vBiv2CKXZWjfp3QvSJDUUIZFpOCXlbaqpWca83yI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann. >org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C01683e8ee1db418bc >47108d4af4346a4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363261508691 >81271&sdata=ma0nDH%2FEJQFyw1WraCvCRa7PfRNCUnmMJvZhZGoIKMk%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann. >org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05 >a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363261672996 >36350&sdata=4A94L2iwoH4V%2B4AxZA%2B3CHNCYXxC2CBQEtDmlr8O7rc%3D&reserved=0 > > -- > Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen, > > Volker A. Greimann > - Rechtsabteilung - > > Key-Systems GmbH > Im Oberen Werk 1 > 66386 St. Ingbert > Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 > Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 > Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net > > Web: >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.key-systems.net&dat >a=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c1 >78decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299636350&sdata=O7GYi6gY6APoVPhRT4hwqA5bYqrcJF >cjKFIPndRvG5s%3D&reserved=0 / >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.RRPproxy.net&data=0 >2%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178d >ecee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299636350&sdata=IlooHlulVb9zrLGZNpG5QoKOEBZnxEzhh >TnKAAp9IOg%3D&reserved=0 > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.domaindiscount24.co >m&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794a >ed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299636350&sdata=XEmSKo62nO3XoTmDdA0%2FzjG >yP0JzWmK8BJmWy17uVoE%3D&reserved=0 / >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.BrandShelter.com&da >ta=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c >178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299636350&sdata=2bbhuhwhf2XotsRuCZUPyz9K9gXXM >LTFurT83TZXiug%3D&reserved=0 > > Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.facebook.com%2FKeyS >ystems&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3443 >8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299636350&sdata=7jTA8d6MzALwTq10Bfly >8Wnn%2FYyIH%2BMrEcTbabYX4S4%3D&reserved=0 > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.twitter.com%2Fkey_s >ystems&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3443 >8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=%2Btn8qlKO1yJ0NMM8yX >4TmzqRabJQNcQ2yyu3xHMNDto%3D&reserved=0 > > Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin > Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken > Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 > > Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.keydrive.lu&data=02 >%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de >cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=YVpDJuVJOBKjm6uNoha%2FOi0LV8A35gVL >wMyUD0heZ2c%3D&reserved=0 > > Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den >angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, >Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist >unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten >wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. > > -------------------------------------------- > > Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to >contact us. > > Best regards, > > Volker A. Greimann > - legal department - > > Key-Systems GmbH > Im Oberen Werk 1 > 66386 St. Ingbert > Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 > Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 > Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net > > Web: >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.key-systems.net&dat >a=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c1 >78decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=lzBW0gmVS%2B2UiQP%2F5JbtAH0kYu >ORcuSconBPi71nSXc%3D&reserved=0 / >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.RRPproxy.net&data=0 >2%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178d >ecee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=h%2FZhphjPah4DyM%2FwgLEclR3CwJSHq >ir1%2BwgU2iY6zoo%3D&reserved=0 > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.domaindiscount24.co >m&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794a >ed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=sQ08paL2jRlhPaKbLexcKYaUs >rq%2FN%2FZYvIWh2t8ijso%3D&reserved=0 / >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.BrandShelter.com&da >ta=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c >178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=G%2BqbUbYGk%2Bq%2FP5bxZ52Td97 >g8ohhviWTKMc68ParqJg%3D&reserved=0 > > Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay >updated: > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.facebook.com%2FKeyS >ystems&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3443 >8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=hnOE%2FO0fDsYe6Hl5ai >4pKcmbZ0IqvL%2BywEMsM6lNeAU%3D&reserved=0 > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.twitter.com%2Fkey_s >ystems&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3443 >8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=%2Btn8qlKO1yJ0NMM8yX >4TmzqRabJQNcQ2yyu3xHMNDto%3D&reserved=0 > > CEO: Alexander Siffrin > Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken > V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 > > Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.keydrive.lu&data=02 >%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de >cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=YVpDJuVJOBKjm6uNoha%2FOi0LV8A35gVL >wMyUD0heZ2c%3D&reserved=0 > > This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to >whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any >content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on >this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this >e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting >us by telephone. > > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann. >org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05 >a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363261672996 >46355&sdata=bwo8MiYipFMZb2OmjkIO00acK%2FnIxdmexwt%2BwHc8lkE%3D&reserved=0 > >_______________________________________________ >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

9 9

Agenda for next RPM Working Group call
by Mary Wong June 12, 2017

June 12, 2017

Dear all, The proposed agenda for the next RPM Working Group call is as follows; please note that this call has been planned to take place in two parts – Part 1 (which should take no longer than 45 minutes, possibly less) will be the usual meeting of the full Working Group, while Part 2 (which will take up the remainder of the call time) will be the first meeting of the new “Private Protections/Additional Registry RPMs” Sub Team. As such, Sub Team members who cannot make the call this week are kindly requested to let staff know, via email to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Agenda for Part 1 (Working Group meeting): 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Brief progress reports from Sunrise and Claims Sub Teams 3. Confirm scope of work/mandate of new Sub Team for Additional Registry RPMs 4. Review updated Work Plan (draft circulated by staff for the last meeting, and posted at https://community.icann.org/x/wBeOAw) 5. Discuss Working Group suggestions for possible agenda for the 3-hour Working Group meeting at ICANN59 6. Next steps/next meeting Agenda for Part 2 (“Private Protections/Additional Registry RPMs” Sub Team meeting): 1. Roll call 2. Election/selection of Sub Team chair(s) 3. Agree on which version of the Sub Team questions to use for discussion (i.e. original co-chairs’ list, or list as edited subsequently by several Working Group members – both documents posted at https://community.icann.org/x/vcrRAw) 4. [if time permits] Commence discussion of questions 5. Next meeting (agree on date, time, recurrence) Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

REMINDER: Announcement: Pre-ICANN59 Policy Update Webinar Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew June 12, 2017

June 12, 2017

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-05-22-en Please RSVP via <https://goo.gl/forms/LTVbnZ8zXIBp5fFm1> this form by 13 June 2017. You will receive remote participation details the week of 12 June 2017. The ICANN Policy Development Support Team will host a Policy Update Webinar on Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 10:00 and 19:00 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), in preparation for the upcoming ICANN59 Policy Forum in Johannesburg, South Africa. The purpose of the webinar is to summarize policy activities across the ICANN policy development community and to brief the community on the Empowered Community consultation and cross-community sessions taking place in Johannesburg. Briefings on the Empowered Community Consultation and Cross-Community Sessions: * Special session on the Proposed Fundamental Bylaws Amendments * Next-Generation Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Registration Directory Services (RDS) policy requirements * General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) * Geographic names * Operational side of ICANN's Operating Plan and Budget * Who sets ICANN's priorities? Updates on Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees: * Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and regional Internet registries (RIR) policy development * Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) * Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) * At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and At-Large Community * Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) * Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) * Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session runs in English for 90 minutes. The webinar will be conducted via Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, participants may submit questions using the chat function in Adobe Connect. Recordings of the webinars will be made available <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/presentations-2012-08-27-en> here. The Policy Development Support Team is always available to answer any questions via email at <mailto:policyinfo@icann.org> policyinfo(a)icann.org. Please RSVP via <https://goo.gl/forms/LTVbnZ8zXIBp5fFm1> this form by 13 June 2017. You will receive remote participation details the week of 12 June 2017. Ozan Sahin Community Engagement Support Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6218 Mobile: +90.533.641.0007 Email: ozan.sahin(a)icann.org <mailto:ozan.sahin@icann.org> Skype: ozan.sahin.icann www.icann.org

1 0

Private Protections Sub Team - Sub Team Name and Members List
by Amr Elsadr June 10, 2017

June 10, 2017

Dear Working Group Members, During the last WG call on Thursday, 8 June, there was a request to circulate the current list of members signed-up for the Private Protections Sub Team. You will find the updated list of members posted here: https://community.icann.org/x/tcrRAw. If you would like to be added to this Sub Team, please contact Mary, myself or the GNSO Secretariat. Additionally, I’d like to remind everyone that there is still an open action item from the 31 May Working Group call to suggest/discuss, and agree on a different name for this Sub Team. Thanks, and have a good weekend. Amr

1 1

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Correction to UDRP data on 2-June TM Claims Sub-Team call
by Nahitchevansky, Georges June 9, 2017

June 9, 2017

‎George K Again you are trying to sweep a major problem under the rug. First, let me ask you this: Have you ever litigated in court and in particular litigated a case to a full resolution. If you have, the cost of litigating is huge. So, in your world, I register a domain name for $35 US and you then spend hundreds of thousand dollars pursuing me in court. Even if I default and don't oppose your court action, you will end up spending thousands of dollars in the matter. Oh, and by the way if you have to sue in me in certain jurisdictions, we might be litigating together for many years. The court system is certainly one tool to use to resolve these problems, but the UDRP and URS are way faster and more cost effective. Second, you keep talking about the harm as a hill of beans‎. If you spend any time reviewing the mounds of literature and studies done on cybersquatting, fraud, brand hijacking, counterfeiting, phishing etc perhaps you might realize that what you are arguing is not supportable. The harm is real, is growing and ultimately has an impact on consumers. Your attempt to say that because there are only x number of proceedings in relation to Y number of domain names registered shows this is not a problem is a red herring at best. My car example was meant to illustrate that. If there are hundreds of billions of car rides a year and the total number of accidents due to drunk driving or texting, for example, are less than 0.1% of all car rides, that doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Lastly, your parallel system of justice argument simply does not hold up. If you want to go down that road, then look at all the parallel systems that exist in various areas such as housing, health care, insurance, securities trading, wealth management, ‎trade disputes, car accidents etc. These systems all exist, for example, to deal with specific problems, to streamline processes and provide efficient resolution of specific matters, and to not clog up the courts with thousands upon thousands of additional cases. At this point, I think we have both staked out our positions, so for the sake of the group I do not think further communications on this are necessary. You have made your position clear. Let's just say that we agree to disagree and move on. Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 8:19 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Correction to UDRP data on 2-June TM Claims Sub-Team call Hello, On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn(a)kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote: > Unfortunately, I think you are going down the wrong rabbit hole and ignoring the big picture problem. The UDRP and URS are not the only aspects of this issue. They are tools that were created to help address problems of cyberquatting -- problems that include myriad ways that fraud, counterfeiting, brand hijacking and other harms have been perpetrated on consumers and brand owners. Yes, I'm certainly aware that there are other ways to deal with the alleged problem. Fraud, counterfeiting, brand hijacking and other harms also exist in the offline world, and in the online world that don't involve domain names. Somehow, the world hasn't stopped spinning despite the lack of a special "RPM" that parallels the courts for those matters. Explain to me what is so special about domain names that a parallel justice system has arisen for what is at best a "de minimis" problem. Courts are certainly sufficient. > If I registered GeorgeKirikos.xyz and used the domain name to attempt to steal ‎personal information from consumers or sell them junky products, you might have a different view of the issue. No, not at all. There are courts to handle such situations. > The problem here is far greater than what you try to portray. Every day there are probably thousands of demand letters sent out around the world to try to address these problems‎, there are thousands of hours spent investigating and addressing these matters etc. The costs, needless to say, are staggering and substantially more than the small registration fee that many cybersquatters pay to get a domain name for the various schemes that we now have seen for over 20 years. Yet, out of all these alleged cases, only a tiny, tiny fraction amount to more than a hill of beans, and are worth pursuing even using a relatively low cost procedure such as the UDRP. There are many, many personal and contractual disputes between individuals, companies, etc. (unrelated to domain names). By your reasoning "the problem" between those members of society are "far greater" than what appear in the court system. The costs of uploading a copyright infringing song or video are also quite low, in fact less than the cost of a domain name. The cost of sending out a defamatory email, tweet or Facebook post is essentially zero. Yet, there's no parallel system of justice in those cases, and instead bad guys are brought to court in the most egregious cases. > To put things in perspective, there are hundreds of millions of cars in the world and everyday millions if not billions or car rides are taken around the world. The percentage of accidents are relatively small by comparison, and the number of car accident matters that end up in court is even a much much smaller number. The point is that we don't sit around and say their shouldn't be laws that govern driving and/or to use to resolve car accidents, that there shouldn't be arbitration or court regimes for resolving car accidents etc or that we shouldn't have commissions rethinking or discussing the laws or ways to handle car accident matters. We have laws and procedures for handling these issue. The rights protection mechanisms are in the same fashion regimes put in place to help address ongoing problems -- real problems that exist and which by every legitimate study (FBI, Interpol and others) I have seen are growing in scope. You seem to be arguing my position. I'm arguing that courts and laws are sufficient. Why is a non-profit corporation trying to reinvent the global judicial system? In the 1990s, an immature internet organization was pressured into developing a parallel justice system. 20 years later, the internet is far more mature, and has been incorporated into everyday life. No "special" forums are needed for "internet disputes". There's no need for the adjective "internet" -- they're just disputes, everyday disputes that can be handled by the "everyday" law. It's time to re-think mistakes of the past. If I smash into your car, you can't foist a parallel justice system upon me. And there are far more car accidents than there are domain name disputes. > So, in closing, while I understand that you may have hostility to the notion of RPMs, I would ask that you try to focus on the big picture here of the overall harm that has and is occurring and how best to address it. And I would ask you to also keep an open mind, and think deeply about why this parallel system of justice exists, and who exactly it is serving. In many ways, it's a small "cottage industry", that serves a tiny percentage of vocal groups that have a selfish stake in perpetuating it. When one looks at the big picture, the world could certainly adjust if it disappeared. 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 ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

4 5