Thanks for the input, Brian, and duly noted. 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: Beckham, Brian [mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 3:31 AM To: Phil Corwin; Jon Nevett; Greg Shatan Cc: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Thanks Jon and Phil for recapping this as it relates to the PDDRP. Without wishing to reopen discussions on that RPM, I would merely like to suggest here that the final report of this working group at least include a placeholder for possible future reassessment of the PDDRP (particularly in terms of, but not necessarily limited to, substantive criteria such as “affirmative conduct” vs “willful blindness”) based on observed abuse practices (whether fee-occasioned or otherwise) and rights protection experiences over time in new gTLDs. Thanks for noting. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 10:20 PM To: Jon Nevett; Greg Shatan Cc: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History As our PDDRP review disclosed, a successful action requires proof that a registry operator either directly infringed or encouraged registrants to infringe at the second level. And we decided to leave that standard unchanged. I have several personal concerns about the impact of very low and no fee domain registrations that are offered by some new registries, absent a showing that a registry operator actively encouraged low/no cost registrations as an inexpensive way to infringe or engage in other malicious and harmful behavior I don’t see low pricing alone sustaining a PDDRP. 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> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 3:05 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Greg: Without evidence that the .XYZ registry itself was acting in concert with the registrant, I don't see how the PDDRP would apply. Absent evidence that the registry actively participated in the infringement, it would be no different than if someone registered 474 names in .com and used them for infringement. It shouldn't matter whether it was 474 names or much greater or less. The PDDRP was developed to go after the registry when it actively participated with the infringing registrant not based on the amount of infringement in the registry. Another distinction between these names and infringing names in .com is that this brand holder had the ability to use the URS and a brand holder facing infringement in .com wouldn't have the URS arrow in its quiver. Best, jon On Jan 3, 2017, at 2:34 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: As to whether something is "working", it's probably dangerous to extrapolate from a sample of 1. I don't think this shows much, other than that the URS worked in this instance. It would be interesting to know more about how the claimant felt this worked (and as Jon points out, why they chose URS over UDRP). From the point of view of this group, an interesting aspect of the case is that all 474 domain names were registered in .xyz. This type of wholesale registration may indicate that the Claims Notices are not working. It's likely that the registrant received few if any claims notices since their domains are almost all "mark+" domains. It would probably make more sense for Claims Notices to go out whenever the registered string appears in the domain string, not only when the registered string matches the domain string. It's also interesting to think about what would happen if the claimant here wanted to initiate a PDDRP against .xyz. While 474 domains is huge in the context of a single URS proceeding, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the 6 million (and dropping) domains registered in .xyz. Is 474 domains enough to file a PDDRP claim? Enough to win? What else would be needed, if this is not enough to win (or to file)? Greg On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:16 PM, jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net<mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net>> wrote: I totally agree. The blog post was interesting read, but really is a distraction from the issues. [Image removed by sender.]<http://riskiq.com/> jonathan matkowsky, vp – ip & brand security usa:: 1.347.467.1193<tel:(347)%20467-1193> | office:: +972-(0)8-926-2766<tel:+972%208-926-2766> emergency mobile:: +972-(0)54-924-0831<tel:+972%2054-924-0831> company reg. no. 514805332<http://havarot.justice.gov.il/CompaniesDetails.aspx?id=514805332> 11/1 nachal chever, modiin israel [Image removed by sender.]<https://twitter.com/riskiq>[Image removed by sender.]<https://www.facebook.com/pages/RiskIQ/555939994512820>[Image removed by sender.]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/riskiq_2>[Image removed by sender.]<https://plus.google.com/+Riskiq/posts> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 9:12 PM, <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> wrote: I don't see how it signifies anything - it's just one decision. Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020<tel:%28312%29%20456-1020> Mobile (773) 677-3305<tel:%28773%29%20677-3305> On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Reg Levy <reg@mmx.co<mailto:reg@mmx.co><mailto:reg@mmx.co<mailto:reg@mmx.co>>> wrote: My point was that a matter was successfully brought under the RPMs (my point would stand for matters unsuccessfully brought under the RPMs). That cybersquatting exists is not in dispute. Nor is it our—or ICANN’s—job to cause cybersquatting to no longer exist. The matter was a URS, which was a new-to-new-gTLDs RPM and (supposedly) cheaper than the UDRP. If this does not signify that RPMs work, does it signify that they do not? Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135<tel:%2B1-310-963-7135> S: RegLevy2 Current UTC offset: -8 On 3 Jan 2017, at 10:30, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>>> wrote: Agree with Doug and Marc, I would be curious to understand the thinking further. Also, it will be interesting to see what happens to all of these names when the suspension period is over. K Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:27 AM, "trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com><mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>>" <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com><mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>>> wrote: Agreed. How does one large URS filling indicate that the RPMs are working? Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020<tel:%28312%29%20456-1020> Mobile (773) 677-3305<tel:%28773%29%20677-3305> On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Doug Isenberg <disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com><mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>><mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>>> wrote: As the author of the blog post that Phil shared, I disagree with Reg’s conclusion below (and am quite unsure how that conclusion was reached). This URS case is interesting because its size makes it unusual (and, indeed, unprecedented). It is not indicative of any trend about RPMs in general or the URS in particular. If anything, it is a reminder that there are many domain name registrants – even in the new gTLDs – who continue to engage in cybersquatting on a large-scale, despite the RPMs such as the URS. Sincerely yours, Douglas M. Isenberg Attorney at Law <image001.png><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...> “When your brand is on the line, The GigaLaw Firm protects your brand online.” Learn more: www.GigaLaw.com<http://www.gigalaw.com/><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.GigaLaw.com&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s=2EuoR5I7h2Xn6TFKTv9MuhDFQ3usqxsVL-6CMVpyfbc&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:56 PM To: Philip S. Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Which seems to indicate that the current RPMs are working. Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135<tel:%2B1-310-963-7135> S: RegLevy2 Current UTC offset: -8 On 3 Jan 2017, at 09:34, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>> wrote: FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing. For more background see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2...> and https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s=C63MXdBt_K8Fa9WBaWkBP18-jViVNJ0I44HimAc_21I&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=...> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com><mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>>, and do not use or disseminate such information. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
