October 2018 - GNSO-RPM-WG - lists.icann.org

Discussion of URS Proposal #13
by George Kirikos Oct. 17, 2018

Oct. 17, 2018

Hi Marie, There were some questions and concerns raised on last week's call about your "Proposal #13", especially regarding implementation challenges, see: https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-rpm-review-10oct18-en.pdf https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003385.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003374.html (starting around page 27 of the transcript, ending around page 35, and you might want to also listen to the recording itself and read the chat room transcript) Since you were unable to attend last week, you might want to address those issues on the mailing list (although, please use this *separate* email thread, as the other thread was about Proposal #12) Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo(a)aim.be> wrote: > Can we maybe get back to discussing RPMs now? My inbox is a little full... > Thanks. > Marie >

2 1

URS Proposal #33 - putting URS providers under contract
by George Kirikos Oct. 16, 2018

Oct. 16, 2018

Hi folks, In preparing for tomorrow's presentation, I stumbled upon the following blog post by Philip Corwin (then of the ICA) in 2013: https://www.internetcommerce.org/urs_truth_breach/ which documented that "the STI-RT unanimously recommended that URS providers be placed under contract, and then the board unanimously adopted all of its recommendations regarding the URS" Steve Crocker (ICANN Chairman at that time), in response to a question, noted that: "Yes, a contract is being developed and additional URS providers will be added." The blog post went on to say: "But to ICANN we give a total FAIL for its disingenuous response to our question about contracts for URS providers. Rest assured, this is a subject on which we do not intend to rest or retreat." I didn't reference this document in my proposal, but did want to put it into the record in advance of our call, to further support the background and rationale of the proposal. Folks may want to read it in its entirety, instead of simply the snippets above. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

3 5

Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Revised Version of URS Proposal #12
by gmlevine＠researchtheworld.com Oct. 16, 2018

Oct. 16, 2018

Thanks George, I meant to send this to the entire list. Gml -----Original Message----- From: George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 12:06 PM To: gmlevine <gmlevine(a)researchtheworld.com> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Revised Version of URS Proposal #12 (your email wasn't to the entire list, so I'm replying privately; if you'd like, can send this to the mailing list, or happy to talk by phone to discuss further; it's an interesting debate) Hi Gerald, Replying out of sequence: 3. Yes, but they still made that finding with regards to the third limb, had it come to that. 2. They disclaimed the clause because they can't claim exclusive use over that true statement. 1. It's not just "agreements by private parties". Definitions change over time, and domain names are now recognized as (non-traditional) intellectual property, as shown by many SEC filings as well as ordinary usage. While some might want to exclude it from the 'traditional list", times change. Here's a sample of some other examples: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/naming-and-registering-governmen… "7. Naming strategy Organisations with, or planning to have, an Internet presence should adopt and exercise a centralised approach to planning the acquisition, management and use of appropriate domain names. A ****domain name is intellectual property**** and has both financial and strategic value." (emphasis added, that's the UK government website!) https://shop.astonmartin.com/terms-of-use "Aston Martin trade marks: The Aston Martin trade marks included on our site and the domain name www.shop.astonmartin.com and all related domain names and sub-domain names are intellectual property rights belonging to Aston Martin Lagonda Limited which are licensed to cyber-Heidelberg GmbH. You are not permitted to use them without the consent of Aston Martin Lagonda Limited." https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1447669/000110465918062222/a18-3672… " “Intellectual Property Rights” means all (i) patents, patent applications (including divisions, continuations, continuation-in-part, renewal applications, provisionals, extensions, reexaminations and supplementary protection certifications), and invention disclosures; (ii) trademarks, trade names, service marks, brand names, trade dress, ***domain names***, Internet addresses, and universal resource locator (URL) names and other indicia of origin, including the goodwill associated therewith, (iii) copyrights, works of authorship, design rights, mask works, (iv) trade secrets, confidential or proprietary information, (v) information, compositions, methods, techniques, tools, specifications, designs, data, databases, metadata, compilations, processes, methods, inventions, algorithms, schematics, technology, Software, interfaces, development tools, know-how, documentation, and other intellectual property rights and other similar proprietary rights, (vi) all rights under any registrations or applications for registration of any of the foregoing; and (vii) all rights to seek remedies against infringement of any of the foregoing and rights of protection of interest therein under the laws of all jurisdictions (including, but not limited to, rights to recover for past, present and future violations thereof)." (page 78, emphasis added) https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1239819/000123981918000071/ex21-ass… "“Intellectual Property” means any and all of the following in any jurisdiction throughout the world and all rights in, arising out of, or associated therewith: (a) Patents; (b) Trademarks; (c) Copyrights; (d) ****internet domain names**** and social media account or user names (including “handles”), whether or not Trademarks, all associated web addresses, URLs, websites and web pages, social media accounts and pages, and all content and data thereon or relating thereto, whether or not Copyrights; (e) mask works, and all registrations, applications for registration, and renewals thereof; (f) Trade Secrets; (g) Software; and (h) any other intellectual or industrial property." (emphasis added) https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1451505/000155837018007708/rig-2018… "“Intellectual Property” means all intellectual property rights, whether protected, created or arising under any jurisdiction throughout the world, including the following: (i) trademarks, service marks, trade names, ****domain names****, trade dress or any other similar type of brand names, logos, corporate names, certification marks, and other indications of origin, the goodwill associated with the foregoing and registrations in any jurisdiction of, and applications in any jurisdiction to register, the foregoing, including any extension, modification or renewal of any such registration or application, (ii) inventions, discoveries and improvements, whether patentable or not, in any jurisdiction patents, applications for patents (including utility, divisions, continuations, continuations-in-part and provisional applications), and any renewals, reexaminations, extensions or reissues thereof, in any jurisdiction, (iii) works of authorship, mask works and any and all copyright rights, whether registered or not and registrations or applications for registration of copyrights in any jurisdiction, and any renewals or extensions thereof, (iv) computer software, databases, data compilations and data, (v) Trade Secrets, (vi) moral rights, database rights, shop rights, design rights, industrial property rights, publicity rights and privacy rights and (vii) any similar proprietary rights." (page A-9, emphasis added) https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1631282/000161577418010894/s110869_… "For the purpose of this agreement, "intellectual property" refers to the registered and unregistered copyright and related rights, patents subject to pending registration, patent application right, trademark, service mark, logo, image, product appearance, trade name, ****Internet domain names****, design rights, copyright (including the copyright of computer software), database rights and proprietary technology, semiconductor design right, utility model, trade secrets, inventions (whether or not protected by patent law) and other patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property rights protected by the laws, regardless of the form and carrier." (Annex 4, emphasis added) If I'm creating a list of "Furniture", and say "Furniture includes chairs, tables, etc", to enumerate subsets, I'm not going to suddenly include "fish", "horses", etc. People include "domain names" in the list of "intellectual property" because domain names *are* a subset of intellectual property these days. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:50 AM, <gmlevine(a)researchtheworld.com> wrote: > George, taking your "proof" seriatim: > > 1 Agreements by private parties as to what is included in the term "intellectual property" does not make domain names intellectual property even if they're included in the definition. > 2. Registering a name for trademark that includes the clause "Domain Names are Intellectual Property" does not make domain names intellectual property. The applicant disclaimed the clause apart from the mark as shown. > 3. In the Virtual Dates case, Complainant failed on the first limb because no right accrues for having a mark registered on the Supplemental Register. > > My view is that in construing the Policy the panelists got the balance right. > > Gml > > -----Original Message----- > From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of George > Kirikos > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 11:20 AM > To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> > Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Revised Version of URS Proposal #12 > > Hi Gerald, > > Domain name are intellectual property. As I cited in the proposal itself: > > https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1645194/000119312515394008/d30 > 149dex99h4.htm > > " “Intellectual Property” shall mean all (a) trademarks, service > marks, ****domain names****, trade dress, logos and trade names and > registrations and applications for registration thereof, (b) > copyrights and registrations and applications for registration > thereof, (c) trade secrets and confidential business information, > including data, methodologies and algorithms relating to market > indices, and (d) other proprietary rights relating to any of the > foregoing. " (emphasis added) > > I'm happy to provide you with more citations, if you'd like. Here's a particularly fun one: > > http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=78352055&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchTy > pe=statusSearch > > Mark: LADASDOMAINS DOMAIN NAMES ARE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY > > :-) > > As for the Voyuer.com case, the following finding is the relevant part: > > "As to Respondent’s right to the mark, since Respondent has demonstrated conclusively that it registered its domain name before a registration of the trademark was ever attempted. " > > The registration of the trademark was attempted on the application filing date, December 15, 1998: > > http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75605968&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchTy > pe=statusSearch > > Xedoc Holdings acquired the domain name in dispute, Voyuer.com in January of 2005, from the prior owner, and the domain's creation date was in 1997. > > Thus, the panel's finding that it "registered its domain name before a registration of the trademark was ever attempted" is true only if "registered its domain name" refers to the creation date (in 1997), since we've already established that the trademark was filed on December 15, 1998. The panel clearly did not find that January 2005 was the time it "registered its domain name" for the purpose of the relevant bad faith test. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > http://www.leap.com/ > > > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:02 AM, <gmlevine(a)researchtheworld.com> wrote: >> Domain names, valuable or not, are not intellectual property. The >> referenced Virtual Dates (Forum 2005) decision did not rest on a >> finding that the new owner was a successor in interest. GmLevine >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of George >> Kirikos >> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 10:36 AM >> To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org>; Ariel Liang >> <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> >> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Revised Version of URS Proposal #12 >> >> [re-sending from my correct email address] >> >> Hi folks, >> >> Attached is the revised version of URS Proposal #12, after discussions with Rebecca on how to handle the unintended consequences she identified in the original proposal. Many thanks to Rebecca for identifying the issue and the solution. >> >> 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 > >

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Friday, 12 October 2018 at 17:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Oct. 12, 2018

Oct. 12, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC Chat attached to this email, and the MP3 & AC recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Friday, 12 October 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/oQK8BQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-12oct18-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p3yuosna0le/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind Regards, Michelle DeSmyter

1 0

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 12 October 2018
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 12, 2018

Oct. 12, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 12 October 2018 (17:00-19:00 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-12+Review+of+all+R…. See also the proposals at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Proposals. In addition, the schedule for ICANN63 is attached and will be sent separately. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Chair: Phil Corwin 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates: No updates 2. Discussion of Individual URS Proposals (See: https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ) George Kirikos (#23): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-23.p… Discussion: -- Provider opposed to the proposal. Not just the fee, but also the cost of the system. -- Don't support including in the Initial Report. -- Cost of doing business. Providers are absorbing costs already. -- Question: Clarify ICANN's role. Would open up a Pandora's box with ICANN subsidizing the cost of doing business. -- Question: Why should the rights of a trademark owner depend on the non-payment of fees and is there a danger that registrars might deliberately not collect those fees. -- Support the proposal. The providers get paid for their work; as a matter of equity this proposal makes sense. -- Support putting the proposal out for public comment. -- If it does go out for public comment we should be careful what we are asking. -- The registrars and registries are not parties to the URS and UDRP, but that they may be involved in tracking down customers. Response: -- It was suggested why don't the registrars charge the registrant? GoDaddy is attempting to charge registrants because they can't charge the URS provider. This creates an additional burden on a registrant. George Kirikos (#32): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-32.p… Discussion: -- Opposed to the proposal; concern is not with the proposal itself -- will the proposal be included as is, or also secondary facts? -- Okay to send for public comment but it is out of scope. -- Support to include for public comment, but think it is in scope. -- In what format will these go out for public comment, but if the case should be maintained for retaining URS that should be included. Response: -- Put this out for public comment to see what the public thinks. George Kirikos (#33): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-33.p… Discussion: -- URS is not consensus policy. -- Question: An MOU is a contract so what is the problem we are trying to solve? What are the terms that are not being met? -- STI Report was not consensus policy so its recommendation didn't go into the AGB. -- Not in favor of going out for public comment because based on a false premise, that an MOU is not a contract and not enforceable. Also, it is an implementation question. -- Could revise as a proposal that there should be further requirements on providers. -- Would like to see regular review of the providers and support putting out for public comment. -- Favor for public comment. -- Favor formal contracts. -- Favor putting out for comment. Response: -- Issue whether having them under contract is very important. George Kirikos and Zak Muscovitch (#34): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-34.p… Discussion: -- As it is written it is the language of wherever the registrant is located so not sure how that helps the registrant; also what about the time required? -- How to translate form cover documents? How much time required? Response: -- Timing could be taken into consideration in changes to the policy. -- How UDRP handles language is reflected in this proposal. There is nothing new. -- Registrants are protected because panelists would have to be prepared to appoint panelists in the language of the registration. -- Translation costs are same as for the UDRP. For Initial Report for public comment: -- Low bar of adequate support. Staff is reviewing chats and transcripts and Co-Chairs will share a draft of whether/how proposals will be included in the Initial Report. -- We are looking for people to chime in to make proposals better. -- After Initial Report and public comment if proposals have substantial opposition or lack of consensus will not go into the Final Report. 3. ICANN63 Schedule (see attached)

1 0

The Modality of Mortality in Domain Names - research by Farsight Security
by George Kirikos Oct. 12, 2018

Oct. 12, 2018

Hi folks, Paul Vixie and Pawel Foremski of Farsight Security published a study recently: https://www.farsightsecurity.com/assets/media/download/VB2018-study.pdf looking at domain lifetimes for abusive domains, and how abusive domains are **already** being taken down within minutes, hours or just a few days (much faster than the URS). Their conclusions: "We presented a systematic study of the lifetime of newly observed domain names. We found that, on average, 9.3% of new domains effectively died in their first seven days, with a median time of just four hours and 16 minutes." This research reinforces URS proposal #32 (elimination of the URS) being presented later today, as the marginal benefits over and above the existing procedures (like section 3.18 of the 2013 RAA, complaints to ISPs, blocking mechanisms such as Google's safebrowsing and anti-spam blacklists) are small. And, consistent with my own thoughts, they point to better policy alternatives to focus upon, such as delaying the resolution of newly-registered domains for some time (rather than allowing them to go live immediately): "Thus, a sensible DNS policy should block access to new domains for a few hours after detection, a few days, or even a week for maximum protection." Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 10 October 2018
by Michelle DeSmyter Oct. 10, 2018

Oct. 10, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC Chat attached to this email, and the MP3 & AC recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Wednesday, 10 October 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/qwqrBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-10oct18-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p4xl9dbzat8/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind Regards, Michelle DeSmyter

1 0

Agenda and Materials for 12 October Working Group Meeting 1700 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 10, 2018

Oct. 10, 2018

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, On behalf of the Co-Chairs, please see the draft agenda below for the Working Group meeting on Friday, 12 October at 1700 UTC for 120 minutes (meeting may not require the full 120 minutes). Per Co-Chairs’ Proposed Procedure, for this next meeting, the Working Group will continue discussion of the Individual URS Proposals. According to the timeline published on the wiki the order of the presentation is as follows. WG members are requested to review the presentations prior to Wednesday’s meeting. George Kirikos (#23): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-23.p… George Kirikos (#32): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-32.p… George Kirikos (#33): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-33.p… George Kirikos and Zak Muscovitch (#34): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-34.p… NOTE FOR WG MEMBERS REVISING PROPOSALS: If WG members have revised/combined proposals the Co-Chairs request that they send them to the WG list as soon as possible and be ready to present them during the meeting on Friday, 12 October. Staff have updated the numberings displayed on the proposals to be consistent with the numberings on the wiki. The wiki page also includes a document that consolidates all URS proposals from individual members to facilitate viewing/reference. Per the procedure, please also note the following time requirements for the presentations: When a proposal is up for discussion, its proponent will be accorded a maximum of five (5) minutes to orally present the proposal, rationale, and supporting evidence. The floor will then be open to other Working Group members to comment on the proposal for a maximum of two (2) minutes each, with total discussion limited to twenty (20) minutes. However, if there is exceptionally high interest in a topic, the Co-Chairs would have discretion to increase the discussion time. At the end of twenty (20) minutes, or when there are no more commenters in queue, the proponent will have up to four (4) minutes to respond and/or propose a modification of the proposal based upon the discussion. Depending on the actual progress during the Wednesday meeting, if a proposal cannot be presented due to time limitation, the presentation should be deferred to the meeting on 12 October. Draft Agenda: Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates Discussion of Individual URS Proposals (See: wiki) ICANN63 Schedule (see attached) AOB Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie On Behalf of the RPM PDP WG Co-Chairs

1 0

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 10 October 2018
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 10, 2018

Oct. 10, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 10 October 2018 (17:00-19:00 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-10+Review+of+all+R…. See also the proposals at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Proposals. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Chair: Kathy Kleiman 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates: No updates 2. Discussion of Individual URS Proposals (See: https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ) 1. George Kirikos (#5): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-5.pd… Discussion: -- Statute of limitations is based on known or should have known. -- Question: How does this proposal deal with issues of continuing harm? How to deal with the issue of known or should have known? -- Worth getting public comments on. -- Put into the Initial Report for discussion. There is support for and against. -- There has been no survey of national law. -- This would create an exception that could blow a hole in the policy. -- Worthy for further review and discussion. -- Needs to be put on the table for discussion. -- Ripe for discussion. Response: -- Didn't make a latches proposal because it is more complicated to prove. -- Useful to survey national law. -- Re: "submarine registration" it is a possibility but they would have to be paying renewal costs in the mean time. -- Still a recourse to the courts for all other disputes. 2. George Kirikos (#7): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-7.pd… Discussion: -- Support including the proposal in the Initial Report.. -- No legal contact right now in the WHOIS. Requirement for everyone is high burden. -- Revise proposal to say, "If a legal contact is required then in that case..."? -- Seems like we would be making recommendations where other parts of the community are working. -- Think it is okay to make recommendations for other groups. Response: -- Isn't meant to force someone to have a legal contact if they don't want one. It is just another means of contact in the WHOIS. 3. George Kirikos (#8): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-8.pd… Discussion: -- Don't know what this proposal does that doesn't already exist in the URS. -- Don't know how the three days would equate to more than what they can already do. -- The issue with actual notice not sure if you drag it out for 3 more days’ notice will be achieved. -- Seems to be effectively a limitation period. -- Would increase the time (contrary to "rapid). -- In the Sub Team analysis there was no evidence of people missing the notifications. Response: -- Having the additional time period would reduce incidences of default and suspensions. -- Seems like rapid doesn't apply to bringing complaint. -- High rate of default is evidence of the problem. 4. Marie Pattullo (staff to present on behalf of Marie) (#13): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-13.p… Discussion: -- Good intention, but could be problematic to implement. Could be impossible for a registrar to handle on its own. Interested in how to overcome the technical problems. -- Would be interested in the evidence. Is it happening? Does it happen often? Check with Berry Cobb re: evidence of a losing registrant re-registering. -- Sufficient merit for going into the Initial Report. -- Creative proposal. Need to distinguish implementation changes from policy challenges. -- Costly monitoring burden on the trademark holder. -- Strongly oppose putting out for public comment when it is impossible to implement. Cannot distinguish between registrants even within the same registrar. -- Seems to be unbalanced. Response: Staff will convey the discussion from the transcript and the chat for Marie to respond to. 5. George Kirikos (#12): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-12.p… Discussion: -- Strongly opposed. Challenge: If you transfer a trademark to a new owner and they do something different with it then the clock does reset. -- Support including it in the Initial Report. -- In the UDRP there is a lot of ambiguity of what the creation date represents. Ambiguity if a domain is deleted and then re-registered. Area worthy of further discussion. -- Interesting but needs further development. -- It's binary -- either it exists or it does not. Response: -- Overriding concern is that we want to have safe harbors for when a TM is transfered. -- Conceivably a domain name could not be fully deleted. -- Statute of limitations would be another way to handle it. 6. George Kirikos (#18): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-18.p… Discussion: -- Needs to be reworked. Not sure it is universally applicable. -- This has been extensively debated in the IGO/INGO. -- Real problem if the policies are worded in a way that courts aren't allowing it. -- There is no real problem here -- it is an outlier case. -- Not sure in favor of the proposals as currently written. There are -- Worth getting community feedback. Response: -- There were at least 2 cases in the UK and also in Australia. 7. George Kirikos (#19): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-19.p… Discussion: -- Does address the concern among some WG members that ICANN cannot decide what case a court will here. This proposal would be able to effect how courts deal with subsequent action following URS. -- In the URS there are multiple avenues for appeal. The registrant does have avenues for recourse. Response: -- Not fair to say that there are multiple avenues for recourse in the URS since it doesn't have the same recourses as a court. 8. George Kirikos (#20): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-20.p… Discussion: See the chat.

1 0

GNSO Policy Briefing
by Terri Agnew Oct. 10, 2018

Oct. 10, 2018

Dear all, Please find the GNSO Policy Briefing: http://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing With kind regards, Terri --- Terri Agnew Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: terri.agnew(a)icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org> Skype ID: terri.agnew.icann Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ [learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icann…> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_&d=Dw…>

1 0