George, all,

Personally, I don't believe WIPO is doing anything wrong by not publishing your specific list of post-UDRP cases, which is not a requirement for Providers. From my perspective, it looks like they have posted some of these cases as a nice gesture to the community.

The webpage on which these cases are published clearly states these are "select" cases and there is no intent to create a comprehensive, updated running list of all post-UDPR actions. 

Moreover, in taking a quick glance at some of the cases you highlighted:

<Soundstop.com> - the court case settled; it doesn't appear the court issued a holding that is generally applicable to other UDRP proceedings.

<sdt.com> - it looks like the UDRP panel terminated the proceeding to let the court case run its course. 

<Moobitalk.com> -   the decision of the appeals court was based on a legal principle (territoriality) that is not a required element under the UDRP. This seems to be a relatively unique case and publishing this decision may confuse some readers in terms of the general applicability of UDRP jurisprudence.

---

In terms of Brian's nomination, I am very grateful that he is willing to serve and dedicate the time needed to take on this role.  As mentioned by Zak and other's, I believe he is preeminently qualified and has the natural leadership skills that will greatly benefit our team.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
Claudio



On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:47 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
With regards to Brian Beckham of WIPO being one of the co-chairs, I'm
relatively indifferent, as long as the co-chairs comply with the
working group guidelines which place constraints on their behaviour
(i.e. neutrality, not pushing their own agenda, etc.). It's meant to
be an administrative/clerical task, essentially.

I think Brian would go a long way towards demonstrating his commitment
towards that required neutrality if he would get WIPO to update their
"Court Challenged Cases" page at:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/

with cases that have been **repeatedly** brought to their attention in
the past, including:

1. Soundstop.com --
http://domainnamewire.com/2016/07/21/mike-mann-overturns-udrp-decision-court/
https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/soundstop-1.pdf

2. AustinPain.com --
http://ia601008.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.cod.147273/gov.uscourts.cod.147273.23.0.pdf

3. SDT.com --
http://domainnamewire.com/2015/07/22/50000-penalty-for-filing-a-frivolous-udrp/
https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/SDT-settlement1.pdf

4. Moobitalk.com --
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5899d5f9-3bbc-416e-a9a5-7233a147b62c
https://www.legalis.net/jurisprudences/cour-dappel-de-paris-pole-5-ch-1-arret-du-8-novembre-2016/
(actual decision)

It looks bad on WIPO's part that all of these successful challenges
are not being reflected on that page. WIPO is quick to assert "record
cybersquatting" exists, yet they fail to mention the other side of the
coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the
court cases that are required to achieve justice. If Brian would get
that page updated before an election, that would be wonderful.

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