Hi Phil, Brian & RPM-WG:


Thanks for the email.

Please don't misconstrue the fairly & squarely placed question's asked of Brian, as  "personal attacks"  for they are not.

They mirror questions I'd ask of those employed by / funded by "My" Tax Dollar, the equal here being "My" ICANN .COM Domain Name Registration fee.

Simply, when one's travels are paid for; and is funded for the express purpose of representing the Intellectual Property Committee and:  "the views and interests of owners of intellectual property worldwide, with a particular emphasis on {ACPA Marks, Trade Names} trademark, copyright, and related intellectual property rights and their effect and interaction with the DNS."  I reasonably expect that work to be done.

In my opinion, the problem within ICANN, is that both the IPC & BC Committees are overwhelmingly fortified by people who's primary employment is by R[r]egistry / R[r]egistrar groups.

While they're certainly "Businesses" befitting BC, I believe they should stay in their proverbial lane's of RySG / RrSG, being cognizant of the fact the the ".COM" funds ICANN receives are "flow-though" from Domain Name Registrants; and not funds from any other source.

Should either Brian, or the ADR Forum take issue with my questions, they're encouraged to express their thoughts in this WG sphere, where I'll gladly engage.

This is something the WG might want to know too!

In the absence of the American Court doing a proper "Discovery" investigation into my Filing's beginning with  > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/complaint-31jul12-en.pdf <  and all others forward, concluding with  > https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-naming-transition-01dec14/pdf2jYqskzZEs.pdf  <  I'll be using the Canadian Court, where these obligations between USA & Canada are covered by NAFTA.

Should, or when a Canadian Filing be made; the National Arbitration Forum / ADR Forum will be a listed Defendant, for their participation, as they know.

Additionally, to ensure it's not blown-away based on the American transactions, Brian Winterfeldt will be contending with individualized mention, as he's earlier been apprised.


Regards,


Graham Schreiber.
416.803.4678.


On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:

Graham:

 

As Interim Chair of this WG, while I appreciate your participation in it, our work has not yet started, and when it does start our discussions will hopefully be focused on the very substantive and complex work we have before us.

 

While WG members are of course free to use their experience in domain arbitration and related trademark matters in forming their views and opinions that are transmitted within the context of our discussions and deliberations, this mailing list should not be used to argue specific legal or other disputes that particular WG participants are engaged in with one another, or to make statements that may be construed as personal attacks. I hope you can respect that as we move forward.

 

Thank you.

 

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

 

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Graham Schreiber via gnso-rpm-wg
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 1:33 PM
To: Winterfeldt, Brian J.; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] GNSO RPM Working Group Introductions/SOI

 

Hi Brian & RPM WG:   Cc ADR Forum:

 

 

Brain, having now indulged you're love of art, dining and world travel, on the fees ICANN derives from the lowly .COM Domain Name Registrants, to go globetrotting, perhaps you'll tell the Domain Name Registrants participating in this forum why under You're direction & management, You'd have Steptoe LLP inform a Virginia Court that CentralNic's portfolio of FAKE cc.COMs are:  extraterritorial to the Lanham Act?

 

Why too would you simultaneously inform the Court that Network Solutions aren't violating their Contract to / with Domain Name Registrants, when they re-sell { Infringe ~ Dilute & Blur .COM with uk.com ~ eu.COM etc } with their own retail client ~ CentralNic's uk.COM Domain Name.

 

Informed as I well know you to be, how is the conduct of both you're clients, not Contributory Infringement, Dilution & Blurring; and also Racketeering?

 

Perhaps in you're capacity as IPC / TM.com Defendant, here in this group { which you should resign from } to be an active Ry/rSG participant ~ explain why Francis Gurry opted to discharge CentralNic as a client, not so very long ago?

 

The 2nd Part of the question to you, also asks of / includes the "Individual" from the ADR Forum this:   Why I, as a Domain Name Registrant must  "mediate"  with another Domain Name Registrant, who's entire business practice is that of "Inducing" Infringement via SUB.COM Domain's?

 

The ADR Forum should know that when CentralNic "registered" uk.COM with NSI, TLD Registrar Solutions & Demys that their obliged to the same ICANN .COM / RAA rules as all others!  Specifically, 3.7.7.9.

 

Is the ADR Forum unaware that being the:  solution or remedy to a problem created by the person who contracts them, CentralNic, in the fist degree ~ to solve the problem they created, becoming apparent to the Complainant, through the 2nd Degree, not then actively engaging in Racketeering?

 

To all the other participants in this RPM-WG, I presume / reasonably expect, that you'd all know the .COM is subject to VaED Laws.   Given that New Zealander & ICANN'er Mr. Kumar cautions NZ Citizens {and others too} to be aware of their exposure to USA Law, via .COM use.

 

> http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/have-com-web-address-know-legal-risks-ck-113355

 

I'd encourage all the American Attorneys in the group to read SCOTUS 14-1480's "Questions Presented" because above all others, it's You're American Law & American Consumers being "dotCONNED".

 

Stop being scammed by CentralNic; and stop letting them e~VaED proper USA law.    Unless, being the clever con-artists CentralNic are, the've got You Americans charmed, so much so, that the USA has surrender sovereignty to ... The British Empire?!

 

SCOTUS 14-1480.

https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-naming-transition-01dec14/pdf2jYqskzZEs.pdf

 

In closing, lets remember that under US Common Law, our Marks, Trade Names & Trade Marks are protected in Cyberspace ~ 1st in Use ~ and also that the "NEW gTLDs" are a contracted dimension in Cyberspace, from the NTIA, for ICANN to build and manage in the DNS.

 

Therefore .... the Trademark Clearing House is also an ICANN racket, as our .COMs = Madrid System equivalent Marks, Trade Names & Trademarks in Cyberspace = In Use, in / with .COM, which mean the default "clearing house" should be the .COM availability list.

 

 

Regards to all.

 

 

Graham Schreiber. 

416.803.4678.

 

<><><><><><><> 

 

[comments-atrt2-recommendations-21oct13]

<<< Chronological Index >>>        Thread Index >>>

ICANN "agreement(s) for / between CentralNic & WIPO ??

  • To: comments-atrt2-recommendations-21oct13@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: ICANN "agreement(s) for / between CentralNic & WIPO ??
  • From: Graham Schreiber <graham_schreiber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:56:33 -0400
Hello ICANN:        cc:   NTIA, DoC, Jones Day, WIPO, Garth Bruen & Senator 
Leahy.   [[ 4CCA & VAED - for good measure! ]]
 
 
ICANN, c/o Jones Day:    In accordance with your Clients affirmation:  
"Whereas, ICANN is committed to operating in an open and transparent manner"  
and my Civil Lawsuit # 13-1812, against your client, for failing to enforce the 
RAA Sections 3.7.7.3 an 3.7.7.9  ~  I wish to have you oblige my request by 
furnishing the "agreement(s) between CentralNic and ICANN ..."  that WIPO is 
talking about, just below.
 
For the thoughtful consideration of parties outside ICANN, I'd like to 
illustrate that other Companies have been "victimized" by CentralNic's 
"Contributory Infringement" and False Designation ccTLDs, which beyond flaccid 
ICANN Rules, are directly violating a United States Law # 15 USC § 1125 - False 
designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden, 
 
Those four (4) gigantic firms, who've been "fleeced" by WIPO for what amounts 
to a "Racket" system, accepted by ICANN, to protect CentralNic are:
 
WIPO D2009-1741 Coke-a-Cola
WIPO D2013-0746 National Car Rental
WIPO D2011-1416 Oakley Glasses
WIPO D2012-0249 Zippo
 
From Wikipedia:   A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a 
problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, will not be 
affected, or would not otherwise exist.  Particularly, the potential problem 
may be caused by the same party that offers to solve it, although that fact may 
be concealed, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage for this 
party.  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racket_(crime)
 
As a USPTO  "Registered" Trademark Holder, I fully anticipate my  "Day in 
Court"  to be granted  [ Details at 4CCA Case # 13-1812 ]  so that I may bring 
this injustice; and chronic harming too USPTO Brands to an end.
 
Further; and most critically, as catalyst to this information being made 
public, it will help the United States Department of Justice,  prevent further 
"harm to American consumers" from occurring, which is their sole purpose.
 
Thank you very much.
 
 
Sincerely, 
 
Graham Schreiber, Pro Se.

 

 

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Winterfeldt, Brian J. via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

Dear all:

 

I am an intellectual property attorney and partner in a large international law firm (Mayer Brown LLP), and generally divide my time between our New York and Washington DC offices.  My practice primarily focuses on domestic and international trademark law, Internet governance, and domain name matters including both brand protection and advising new gTLD registry operators (including of both .Brand and open generic new gTLDs).  Our firm is an authorized Trademark Clearinghouse agent, and we frequently represent clients in a range of industries on internet related matters, including domain name disputes, such as the UDRP and various ccTLD domain dispute processes.  

 

I am a member of the ICANN Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC), for which I recently concluded a four year term as a GNSO Councilor, and have previously served as the IPC Treasurer.   I currently also serve on the Board of Directors of the International Trademark Association (INTA), am a member of the project team for the 2016 INTA Annual Meeting, serve as special advisor for INTA’s Internet Committee and previously served four years as co-chair of INTA’s Trademark Administrators Committee Internet Project Team. 

 

I have authored and co-authored numerous articles in the fields of trademark law, domain name issues, and Internet governance, and speak frequently on these issues.

 

My full professional biography can be found here, and my ICANN Statement of Interest can be found here.

 

I very much look forward to working with you all in the context of this Working Group.

 

Best regards,

 

Brian

 

Brian J. Winterfeldt

Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice

Mayer Brown LLP

bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com

1999 K Street, NW

Washington, DC  20006-1101

202.263.3284 direct dial

202.830.0330 fax

 

1221 Avenue of the Americas

New York, New York  10020-1001

212.506.2345 direct dial

 

 


On Mar 25, 2016, at 10:04 AM, Mary Wong via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

Thank you so much, George, and hello everybody, welcome to the Policy Development Process Working Group that’s been chartered by the GNSO Council to review all the rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) that have been developed for all gTLDs!

Staff will be working with our interim WG chair and Council liaison, Philip Corwin, to set up the first meeting of the Working Group, currently anticipated to be sometime around mid-April. Some of you will have already participated in previous GNSO Working Groups, while others may be less familiar with the procedures and expectations, so staff will also be scheduling a webinar at around the same time to go over the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) and the GNSO’s Working Group Guidelines.

In the meantime, given that there are indeed a large number of members and observers to this Working Group, it will be helpful if others follow George’s lead and take the opportunity to introduce yourselves, your expertise and interest in this PDP, to everyone via this email list. As with all GNSO mailing lists, all messages are publicly archived so you will be able to look up others’ (and your own) information and postings.

Finally, if you haven’t already filled in your Statement of Interest - which is one of the few requirements for participation in a GNSO Working Group - we would greatly appreciate it if you can do so at your earliest convenience. Please follow this link to either create a new SOI or update an existing one: https://community.icann.org/x/cYLg.



Thanks and cheers
Mary

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
Telephone: +1-603-5744889







On 3/25/16, 12:53, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of George Kirikos via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

Just to followup on my earlier "introduction" email, it appears that

this working group is up to 129 participants (and counting), see:

 

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729950

 

(92 members + 37 observers) It's great to see some familiar names, and

some new ones too.

 

As folks relax over this long holiday weekend, you might want to take

a moment to introduce yourself to your fellow working group

participants with a short email to the list, for what I hope will be a

very productive PDP.

 

Best regards,

 

George Kirikos

416-588-0269

http://www.leap.com/

 

 

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 5:15 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:

Hi folks,

 

(resending the email from this morning, as the mailing list now

appears to be working properly)

 

I've followed ICANN for many years, and am volunteering on this

working group as an independent. My Statement of Interest is at:

 

https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/George+Kirikos+SOI

 

I look forward to a review and reform of RPMs in such a manner that >

the interests of domain name registrants and due process are

understood, represented, and reflected in the final

analysis/recommendations.

 

Sincerely,

 

George Kirikos

416-588-0269

http://www.leap.com/

_______________________________________________

gnso-rpm-wg mailing list

gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

__________________________________________________________________________

 

This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

 


_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

 

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4540/11804 - Release Date: 03/12/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.