Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call
Hi Susan, Thanks so much for catching that! I tried saving it again as a PDF, but it still comes out truncated; I’m not sure why. In any case, I’ve uploaded it as a Word document and it looks fine that way. I’ve also attached the file. Kind regards, Julie From: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> Date: Friday, December 1, 2017 at 1:35 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call Hi Julie, thanks for these notes from the call. Regarding the revised table – there is a link here (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729948) to a version of the table of 30 November, however only part of the table is displaying (I tried downloading too and it made no difference). Would you mind re-uploading please – assuming this is the revised table? Thanks Susan Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: 30 November 2017 16:51 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call Dear all, The action items noted by staff from the Working Group call held on 30 November are as follows: Suggested Approach from the WG members on the call: To identify topics addressed by the Charter questions and capture high-level questions/data points for each topic. Suggested questions are: 1) Has it been used? 2) What was the original purpose and is it being fulfilled? 3) Bearing in mind the original purpose, have there been any unintended consequences? 4) What changes could better align the mechanism with the original purpose/facilitate it to carry out its purpose? 5) How many managed to prevail? Action Items: Develop a strawman of high-level questions and Charter question topics. (forthcoming) WG to provide comments/thoughts about the proposed approach. If the approach is agreed to, WG to analyze the topics addressed by the Charter questions against the high-level questions. Question 1: Should the ability for defaulting respondents in URS cases to file a reply for an extended period (e.g. up to one year) after the default notice, or even after a default determination is issued (in which case the complaint could be reviewed anew) be changed? Action Item: Staff to look up where the 1-year period for Question 1 originated. Question 2: Should the Response Fee applicable to complainants listing 15 or more disputed domain names by the same registrant be eliminated? Action Item: Staff to look up the origin of the response fee for 15 (and more) domains, and why 15 was chosen as a number. Revised Table: Action Item: Staff will post to the wiki space a revised version of the table with excerpts from the notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The recording, transcript, Adobe Connect chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Thanks Julie. I may have missed it, but I had asked on a prior call that we add a question regarding whether a losing respondent may renew the domain name at issue at all, for one more year (like the complainant), during the pendency of an appeal, or forever. Thanks! Jon
On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Susan,
Thanks so much for catching that! I tried saving it again as a PDF, but it still comes out truncated; I’m not sure why. In any case, I’ve uploaded it as a Word document and it looks fine that way.
I’ve also attached the file.
Kind regards, Julie
From: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> Date: Friday, December 1, 2017 at 1:35 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] RE: Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call
Hi Julie, thanks for these notes from the call. Regarding the revised table – there is a link here (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729948 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729948>) to a version of the table of 30 November, however only part of the table is displaying (I tried downloading too and it made no difference). Would you mind re-uploading please – assuming this is the revised table?
Thanks Susan
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd
E: susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: 30 November 2017 16:51 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call
Dear all,
The action items noted by staff from the Working Group call held on 30 November are as follows:
Suggested Approach from the WG members on the call: To identify topics addressed by the Charter questions and capture high-level questions/data points for each topic. Suggested questions are: 1) Has it been used? 2) What was the original purpose and is it being fulfilled? 3) Bearing in mind the original purpose, have there been any unintended consequences? 4) What changes could better align the mechanism with the original purpose/facilitate it to carry out its purpose? 5) How many managed to prevail? Action Items: Develop a strawman of high-level questions and Charter question topics. (forthcoming) WG to provide comments/thoughts about the proposed approach. If the approach is agreed to, WG to analyze the topics addressed by the Charter questions against the high-level questions.
Question 1: Should the ability for defaulting respondents in URS cases to file a reply for an extended period (e.g. up to one year) after the default notice, or even after a default determination is issued (in which case the complaint could be reviewed anew) be changed? Action Item: Staff to look up where the 1-year period for Question 1 originated.
Question 2: Should the Response Fee applicable to complainants listing 15 or more disputed domain names by the same registrant be eliminated? Action Item: Staff to look up the origin of the response fee for 15 (and more) domains, and why 15 was chosen as a number.
Revised Table: Action Item: Staff will post to the wiki space a revised version of the table with excerpts from the notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The recording, transcript, Adobe Connect chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki.
Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director <URS Sub Team Questions Table - 30 November 2017.docx>_______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
Hi Jon, Thanks for the reminder and apologies for missing that question. We’ll add it to the table. Best, Julie From: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email> Date: Friday, December 1, 2017 at 3:04 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call Thanks Julie. I may have missed it, but I had asked on a prior call that we add a question regarding whether a losing respondent may renew the domain name at issue at all, for one more year (like the complainant), during the pendency of an appeal, or forever. Thanks! Jon On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote: Hi Susan, Thanks so much for catching that! I tried saving it again as a PDF, but it still comes out truncated; I’m not sure why. In any case, I’ve uploaded it as a Word document and it looks fine that way. I’ve also attached the file. Kind regards, Julie From: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> Date: Friday, December 1, 2017 at 1:35 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call Hi Julie, thanks for these notes from the call. Regarding the revised table – there is a link here (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729948) to a version of the table of 30 November, however only part of the table is displaying (I tried downloading too and it made no difference). Would you mind re-uploading please – assuming this is the revised table? Thanks Susan Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: 30 November 2017 16:51 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call Dear all, The action items noted by staff from the Working Group call held on 30 November are as follows: Suggested Approach from the WG members on the call: To identify topics addressed by the Charter questions and capture high-level questions/data points for each topic. Suggested questions are: 1) Has it been used? 2) What was the original purpose and is it being fulfilled? 3) Bearing in mind the original purpose, have there been any unintended consequences? 4) What changes could better align the mechanism with the original purpose/facilitate it to carry out its purpose? 5) How many managed to prevail? Action Items: Develop a strawman of high-level questions and Charter question topics. (forthcoming) WG to provide comments/thoughts about the proposed approach. If the approach is agreed to, WG to analyze the topics addressed by the Charter questions against the high-level questions. Question 1: Should the ability for defaulting respondents in URS cases to file a reply for an extended period (e.g. up to one year) after the default notice, or even after a default determination is issued (in which case the complaint could be reviewed anew) be changed? Action Item: Staff to look up where the 1-year period for Question 1 originated. Question 2: Should the Response Fee applicable to complainants listing 15 or more disputed domain names by the same registrant be eliminated? Action Item: Staff to look up the origin of the response fee for 15 (and more) domains, and why 15 was chosen as a number. Revised Table: Action Item: Staff will post to the wiki space a revised version of the table with excerpts from the notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The recording, transcript, Adobe Connect chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director <URS Sub Team Questions Table - 30 November 2017.docx>_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Jon, I agree with you about having this question/issue considered by our WG and potentially addressed with policy recommendations. I've heard concerns from trademark owners who've had difficulties securing the abusively registered domain that was suspended in the URS procedure after it came up for renewal. For example, there are several URS cases (on the NAF website) that involve alleged phishing activity, where the domain was suspended, and now it appears renewed by the same registrant. This practice is described in greater detail within this blog article: https://domainnamewire.com/2016/11/18/strange-thing-happening- domain-names-suspended-urs/, which states: “The most common thing that happened to these first 50 domains is that they were renewed. Twice. And they still show the original owner who lost the URS in Whois.” Best regards, Claudio On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Jon,
Thanks for the reminder and apologies for missing that question. We’ll add it to the table.
Best,
Julie
*From: *Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email> *Date: *Friday, December 1, 2017 at 3:04 PM *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Cc: *Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call
Thanks Julie. I may have missed it, but I had asked on a prior call that we add a question regarding whether a losing respondent may renew the domain name at issue at all, for one more year (like the complainant), during the pendency of an appeal, or forever.
Thanks!
Jon
On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Susan,
Thanks so much for catching that! I tried saving it again as a PDF, but it still comes out truncated; I’m not sure why. In any case, I’ve uploaded it as a Word document and it looks fine that way.
I’ve also attached the file.
Kind regards,
Julie
*From: *Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> *Date: *Friday, December 1, 2017 at 1:35 PM *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] RE: Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call
Hi Julie, thanks for these notes from the call. Regarding the revised table – there is a link here (https://community.icann.org/ pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729948) to a version of the table of 30 November, however only part of the table is displaying (I tried downloading too and it made no difference). Would you mind re-uploading please – assuming this is the revised table?
Thanks
Susan
*Susan PayneHead of Legal Policy* | *Valideus Ltd* E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 <+44%2020%207421%208255> T: +44 20 7421 8299 <+44%2020%207421%208299> M: +44 7971 661175 <+44%207971%20661175>
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund *Sent:* 30 November 2017 16:51 *To:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call
Dear all,
The action items noted by staff from the Working Group call held on 30 November are as follows:
Suggested Approach from the WG members on the call: To identify topics addressed by the Charter questions and capture high-level questions/data points for each topic. Suggested questions are:
1) Has it been used?
2) What was the original purpose and is it being fulfilled?
3) Bearing in mind the original purpose, have there been any unintended consequences?
4) What changes could better align the mechanism with the original purpose/facilitate it to carry out its purpose?
5) How many managed to prevail?
*Action Items*:
1. Develop a strawman of high-level questions and Charter question topics. (forthcoming) 2. WG to provide comments/thoughts about the proposed approach. 3. If the approach is agreed to, WG to analyze the topics addressed by the Charter questions against the high-level questions.
Question 1: Should the ability for defaulting respondents in URS cases to file a reply for an extended period (e.g. up to one year) after the default notice, or even after a default determination is issued (in which case the complaint could be reviewed anew) be changed?
*Action Item*: Staff to look up where the 1-year period for Question 1 originated.
Question 2: Should the Response Fee applicable to complainants listing 15 or more disputed domain names by the same registrant be eliminated?
*Action Item*: Staff to look up the origin of the response fee for 15 (and more) domains, and why 15 was chosen as a number.
Revised Table:
*Action Item*: Staff will post to the wiki space a revised version of the table with excerpts from the notes. *Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording.* The recording, transcript, Adobe Connect chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki.
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
<URS Sub Team Questions Table - 30 November 2017.docx>____________________ ___________________________ 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
Interesting post. It seems that the domains only showed up as renewed because of administrative issues, however, based on the end of the article, and were not actually under the control of the original respondent. So the phishing concern seems addressed. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. On Dec 5, 2017, at 3:26 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com<mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com>> wrote: Jon, I agree with you about having this question/issue considered by our WG and potentially addressed with policy recommendations. I've heard concerns from trademark owners who've had difficulties securing the abusively registered domain that was suspended in the URS procedure after it came up for renewal. For example, there are several URS cases (on the NAF website) that involve alleged phishing activity, where the domain was suspended, and now it appears renewed by the same registrant. This practice is described in greater detail within this blog article: https://domainnamewire.com/2016/11/18/strange-thing-happening-domain-names-suspended-urs/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__domainnamewire.com_2016_11_18_strange-2Dthing-2Dhappening-2Ddomain-2Dnames-2Dsuspended-2Durs_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=hS2EgpJtnv5LhkpdHHs27fRGRHqXDOVUwU-hZ6XIofk&s=33Z5dZIyXGIeQCUrWuyAIaTyuZiVp5Z8dvEvsekFUXw&e=>, which states: “The most common thing that happened to these first 50 domains is that they were renewed. Twice. And they still show the original owner who lost the URS in Whois.” Best regards, Claudio On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Jon, Thanks for the reminder and apologies for missing that question. We’ll add it to the table. Best, Julie From: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email<mailto:jon@donuts.email>> Date: Friday, December 1, 2017 at 3:04 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call Thanks Julie. I may have missed it, but I had asked on a prior call that we add a question regarding whether a losing respondent may renew the domain name at issue at all, for one more year (like the complainant), during the pendency of an appeal, or forever. Thanks! Jon On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Susan, Thanks so much for catching that! I tried saving it again as a PDF, but it still comes out truncated; I’m not sure why. In any case, I’ve uploaded it as a Word document and it looks fine that way. I’ve also attached the file. Kind regards, Julie From: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> Date: Friday, December 1, 2017 at 1:35 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] RE: Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call Hi Julie, thanks for these notes from the call. Regarding the revised table – there is a link here (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729948<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D58729948&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=hS2EgpJtnv5LhkpdHHs27fRGRHqXDOVUwU-hZ6XIofk&s=2s5QaDhAGJxw-DpMWopm_2UkDAhm5MPrDGV_W3D0sZQ&e=>) to a version of the table of 30 November, however only part of the table is displaying (I tried downloading too and it made no difference). Would you mind re-uploading please – assuming this is the revised table? Thanks Susan Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255<tel:+44%2020%207421%208255> T: +44 20 7421 8299<tel:+44%2020%207421%208299> M: +44 7971 661175<tel:+44%207971%20661175> From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: 30 November 2017 16:51 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call Dear all, The action items noted by staff from the Working Group call held on 30 November are as follows: Suggested Approach from the WG members on the call: To identify topics addressed by the Charter questions and capture high-level questions/data points for each topic. Suggested questions are: 1) Has it been used? 2) What was the original purpose and is it being fulfilled? 3) Bearing in mind the original purpose, have there been any unintended consequences? 4) What changes could better align the mechanism with the original purpose/facilitate it to carry out its purpose? 5) How many managed to prevail? Action Items: 1. Develop a strawman of high-level questions and Charter question topics. (forthcoming) 2. WG to provide comments/thoughts about the proposed approach. 3. If the approach is agreed to, WG to analyze the topics addressed by the Charter questions against the high-level questions. Question 1: Should the ability for defaulting respondents in URS cases to file a reply for an extended period (e.g. up to one year) after the default notice, or even after a default determination is issued (in which case the complaint could be reviewed anew) be changed? Action Item: Staff to look up where the 1-year period for Question 1 originated. Question 2: Should the Response Fee applicable to complainants listing 15 or more disputed domain names by the same registrant be eliminated? Action Item: Staff to look up the origin of the response fee for 15 (and more) domains, and why 15 was chosen as a number. Revised Table: Action Item: Staff will post to the wiki space a revised version of the table with excerpts from the notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The recording, transcript, Adobe Connect chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director <URS Sub Team Questions Table - 30 November 2017.docx>_______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=hS2EgpJtnv5LhkpdHHs27fRGRHqXDOVUwU-hZ6XIofk&s=QNT6WuPxzxziRvUDL6nfaYQ1Sek7UxR0PZHw_LH8H9g&e=> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=hS2EgpJtnv5LhkpdHHs27fRGRHqXDOVUwU-hZ6XIofk&s=QNT6WuPxzxziRvUDL6nfaYQ1Sek7UxR0PZHw_LH8H9g&e=> _______________________________________________ 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
Rebecca, Thanks. I think the article states that some domains were inadvertently renewed by the registrar. It doesn't say the registrant is not able to renew them. In my post, I cited to domains listed on the NAF website that were suspended for alleged phishing, and those domains appear to be renewed because the Whois shows: 1) the same registrant; 2) an update made on the expiration date, extending the registration for one year. All good fodder for our group to consider for possible solutions. Best, Claudio On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:15 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> wrote:
Interesting post. It seems that the domains only showed up as renewed because of administrative issues, however, based on the end of the article, and were not actually under the control of the original respondent. So the phishing concern seems addressed.
Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.
On Dec 5, 2017, at 3:26 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon,
I agree with you about having this question/issue considered by our WG and potentially addressed with policy recommendations.
I've heard concerns from trademark owners who've had difficulties securing the abusively registered domain that was suspended in the URS procedure after it came up for renewal. For example, there are several URS cases (on the NAF website) that involve alleged phishing activity, where the domain was suspended, and now it appears renewed by the same registrant.
This practice is described in greater detail within this blog article: https://domainnamewire.com/2016/11/18/strange-thing-happening-domain-names-s... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__domainnamewire.com_2016...>, which states: “The most common thing that happened to these first 50 domains is that they were renewed. Twice. And they still show the original owner who lost the URS in Whois.”
Best regards, Claudio
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Jon,
Thanks for the reminder and apologies for missing that question. We’ll add it to the table.
Best,
Julie
*From: *Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email> *Date: *Friday, December 1, 2017 at 3:04 PM *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Cc: *Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call
Thanks Julie. I may have missed it, but I had asked on a prior call that we add a question regarding whether a losing respondent may renew the domain name at issue at all, for one more year (like the complainant), during the pendency of an appeal, or forever.
Thanks!
Jon
On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Susan,
Thanks so much for catching that! I tried saving it again as a PDF, but it still comes out truncated; I’m not sure why. In any case, I’ve uploaded it as a Word document and it looks fine that way.
I’ve also attached the file.
Kind regards,
Julie
*From: *Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> *Date: *Friday, December 1, 2017 at 1:35 PM *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] RE: Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call
Hi Julie, thanks for these notes from the call. Regarding the revised table – there is a link here ( https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729948 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pag...>) to a version of the table of 30 November, however only part of the table is displaying (I tried downloading too and it made no difference). Would you mind re-uploading please – assuming this is the revised table?
Thanks
Susan
*Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy* | *Valideus Ltd * E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 <+44%2020%207421%208255> T: +44 20 7421 8299 <+44%2020%207421%208299> M: +44 7971 661175 <+44%207971%20661175>
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund *Sent:* 30 November 2017 16:51 *To:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call
Dear all,
The action items noted by staff from the Working Group call held on 30 November are as follows:
Suggested Approach from the WG members on the call: To identify topics addressed by the Charter questions and capture high-level questions/data points for each topic. Suggested questions are:
1) Has it been used?
2) What was the original purpose and is it being fulfilled?
3) Bearing in mind the original purpose, have there been any unintended consequences?
4) What changes could better align the mechanism with the original purpose/facilitate it to carry out its purpose?
5) How many managed to prevail?
*Action Items*:
1. Develop a strawman of high-level questions and Charter question topics. (forthcoming) 2. WG to provide comments/thoughts about the proposed approach. 3. If the approach is agreed to, WG to analyze the topics addressed by the Charter questions against the high-level questions.
Question 1: Should the ability for defaulting respondents in URS cases to file a reply for an extended period (e.g. up to one year) after the default notice, or even after a default determination is issued (in which case the complaint could be reviewed anew) be changed?
*Action Item*: Staff to look up where the 1-year period for Question 1 originated.
Question 2: Should the Response Fee applicable to complainants listing 15 or more disputed domain names by the same registrant be eliminated?
*Action Item*: Staff to look up the origin of the response fee for 15 (and more) domains, and why 15 was chosen as a number.
Revised Table:
*Action Item*: Staff will post to the wiki space a revised version of the table with excerpts from the notes. *Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording.* The recording, transcript, Adobe Connect chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki.
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
<URS Sub Team Questions Table - 30 November 2017.docx> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
For ease of reference, URS decisions can be searched on the NAF website, see: http://www.adrforum.com/SearchDecisions You can search for the keyword 'phishing' and set the domain status to 'suspended' (for example, see the 2nd domain that is displayed after you run this query in the search box) This domain was registered on: 10/25/16, suspended on 11/25/2016, on 10/25/17 (the expiration date) the Whois was updated, the current expiration is 10/25/18. The current Whois information for this domain matches the Whois listed in the URS complaint. Domains that are suspended through the URS resolve to a webpage that says: "The Domain Name you’ve entered is not available. It has been taken down as a result of dispute resolution proceedings pursuant to the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) or .us Rapid Suspension System (usRS) Procedure and Rules." This domain does not resolve to the URS suspended landing page described above. Rather, my web browser (Chrome) recognizes the IP address as being associated with a potential malware/phishing site and displays a "Dangerous" warning. So in my view, its pretty clear this domain name was renewed. Best regards, Claudio On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:40 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
Rebecca,
Thanks. I think the article states that some domains were inadvertently renewed by the registrar. It doesn't say the registrant is not able to renew them.
In my post, I cited to domains listed on the NAF website that were suspended for alleged phishing, and those domains appear to be renewed because the Whois shows: 1) the same registrant; 2) an update made on the expiration date, extending the registration for one year.
All good fodder for our group to consider for possible solutions.
Best, Claudio
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:15 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> wrote:
Interesting post. It seems that the domains only showed up as renewed because of administrative issues, however, based on the end of the article, and were not actually under the control of the original respondent. So the phishing concern seems addressed.
Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.
On Dec 5, 2017, at 3:26 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon,
I agree with you about having this question/issue considered by our WG and potentially addressed with policy recommendations.
I've heard concerns from trademark owners who've had difficulties securing the abusively registered domain that was suspended in the URS procedure after it came up for renewal. For example, there are several URS cases (on the NAF website) that involve alleged phishing activity, where the domain was suspended, and now it appears renewed by the same registrant.
This practice is described in greater detail within this blog article: https://domainnamewire.com/2016/11/18/strange-thing-happening- domain-names-suspended-urs/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__domainnamewire.com_2016...>, which states: “The most common thing that happened to these first 50 domains is that they were renewed. Twice. And they still show the original owner who lost the URS in Whois.”
Best regards, Claudio
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Jon,
Thanks for the reminder and apologies for missing that question. We’ll add it to the table.
Best,
Julie
*From: *Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email> *Date: *Friday, December 1, 2017 at 3:04 PM *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Cc: *Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call
Thanks Julie. I may have missed it, but I had asked on a prior call that we add a question regarding whether a losing respondent may renew the domain name at issue at all, for one more year (like the complainant), during the pendency of an appeal, or forever.
Thanks!
Jon
On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Susan,
Thanks so much for catching that! I tried saving it again as a PDF, but it still comes out truncated; I’m not sure why. In any case, I’ve uploaded it as a Word document and it looks fine that way.
I’ve also attached the file.
Kind regards,
Julie
*From: *Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> *Date: *Friday, December 1, 2017 at 1:35 PM *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] RE: Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call
Hi Julie, thanks for these notes from the call. Regarding the revised table – there is a link here (https://community.icann.org/ pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729948 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pag...>) to a version of the table of 30 November, however only part of the table is displaying (I tried downloading too and it made no difference). Would you mind re-uploading please – assuming this is the revised table?
Thanks
Susan
*Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy* | *Valideus Ltd * E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 <+44%2020%207421%208255> T: +44 20 7421 8299 <+44%2020%207421%208299> M: +44 7971 661175 <+44%207971%20661175>
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund *Sent:* 30 November 2017 16:51 *To:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call
Dear all,
The action items noted by staff from the Working Group call held on 30 November are as follows:
Suggested Approach from the WG members on the call: To identify topics addressed by the Charter questions and capture high-level questions/data points for each topic. Suggested questions are:
1) Has it been used?
2) What was the original purpose and is it being fulfilled?
3) Bearing in mind the original purpose, have there been any unintended consequences?
4) What changes could better align the mechanism with the original purpose/facilitate it to carry out its purpose?
5) How many managed to prevail?
*Action Items*:
1. Develop a strawman of high-level questions and Charter question topics. (forthcoming) 2. WG to provide comments/thoughts about the proposed approach. 3. If the approach is agreed to, WG to analyze the topics addressed by the Charter questions against the high-level questions.
Question 1: Should the ability for defaulting respondents in URS cases to file a reply for an extended period (e.g. up to one year) after the default notice, or even after a default determination is issued (in which case the complaint could be reviewed anew) be changed?
*Action Item*: Staff to look up where the 1-year period for Question 1 originated.
Question 2: Should the Response Fee applicable to complainants listing 15 or more disputed domain names by the same registrant be eliminated?
*Action Item*: Staff to look up the origin of the response fee for 15 (and more) domains, and why 15 was chosen as a number.
Revised Table:
*Action Item*: Staff will post to the wiki space a revised version of the table with excerpts from the notes. *Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording.* The recording, transcript, Adobe Connect chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki.
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
<URS Sub Team Questions Table - 30 November 2017.docx> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi Claudio, Are you talking about the domain beginning with c, and which also contains a hyphen? I'll link to the current WHOIS at DomainTools of the domain name it seems to be, instead of the domain itself: https://whois.domaintools.com/client-boursorama.frl According to the WHOIS, the nameservers are: Name Server: ursns1.adrforum.com Name Server: ursns2.adrforum.com It appears that the domain name did get renewed, but it didn't matter (except to the extent it saves the complainant registration fees to register it itself), as it's still on a registry lock/hold, see: Domain Status: serverDeleteProhibited https://icann.org/epp#serverDeleteProhibited Domain Status: clientHold https://icann.org/epp#clientHold Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited Domain Status: serverTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#serverTransferProhibited Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited Domain Status: serverUpdateProhibited https://icann.org/epp#serverUpdateProhibited So, it's not being misused at present. Chrome might be using an outdated domain blocking list (i.e. no one got it to update the list, presumably, to have it removed from the list). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:18 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
For ease of reference, URS decisions can be searched on the NAF website, see: http://www.adrforum.com/SearchDecisions
You can search for the keyword 'phishing' and set the domain status to 'suspended' (for example, see the 2nd domain that is displayed after you run this query in the search box)
This domain was registered on: 10/25/16, suspended on 11/25/2016, on 10/25/17 (the expiration date) the Whois was updated, the current expiration is 10/25/18. The current Whois information for this domain matches the Whois listed in the URS complaint.
Domains that are suspended through the URS resolve to a webpage that says: "The Domain Name you’ve entered is not available. It has been taken down as a result of dispute resolution proceedings pursuant to the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) or .us Rapid Suspension System (usRS) Procedure and Rules."
This domain does not resolve to the URS suspended landing page described above. Rather, my web browser (Chrome) recognizes the IP address as being associated with a potential malware/phishing site and displays a "Dangerous" warning. So in my view, its pretty clear this domain name was renewed.
Best regards, Claudio
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:40 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
Rebecca,
Thanks. I think the article states that some domains were inadvertently renewed by the registrar. It doesn't say the registrant is not able to renew them.
In my post, I cited to domains listed on the NAF website that were suspended for alleged phishing, and those domains appear to be renewed because the Whois shows: 1) the same registrant; 2) an update made on the expiration date, extending the registration for one year.
All good fodder for our group to consider for possible solutions.
Best, Claudio
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:15 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> wrote:
Interesting post. It seems that the domains only showed up as renewed because of administrative issues, however, based on the end of the article, and were not actually under the control of the original respondent. So the phishing concern seems addressed.
Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.
On Dec 5, 2017, at 3:26 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon,
I agree with you about having this question/issue considered by our WG and potentially addressed with policy recommendations.
I've heard concerns from trademark owners who've had difficulties securing the abusively registered domain that was suspended in the URS procedure after it came up for renewal. For example, there are several URS cases (on the NAF website) that involve alleged phishing activity, where the domain was suspended, and now it appears renewed by the same registrant.
This practice is described in greater detail within this blog article: https://domainnamewire.com/2016/11/18/strange-thing-happening-domain-names-s..., which states: “The most common thing that happened to these first 50 domains is that they were renewed. Twice. And they still show the original owner who lost the URS in Whois.”
Best regards, Claudio
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Jon,
Thanks for the reminder and apologies for missing that question. We’ll add it to the table.
Best,
Julie
From: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email> Date: Friday, December 1, 2017 at 3:04 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call
Thanks Julie. I may have missed it, but I had asked on a prior call that we add a question regarding whether a losing respondent may renew the domain name at issue at all, for one more year (like the complainant), during the pendency of an appeal, or forever.
Thanks!
Jon
On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Susan,
Thanks so much for catching that! I tried saving it again as a PDF, but it still comes out truncated; I’m not sure why. In any case, I’ve uploaded it as a Word document and it looks fine that way.
I’ve also attached the file.
Kind regards,
Julie
From: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> Date: Friday, December 1, 2017 at 1:35 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call
Hi Julie, thanks for these notes from the call. Regarding the revised table – there is a link here (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729948) to a version of the table of 30 November, however only part of the table is displaying (I tried downloading too and it made no difference). Would you mind re-uploading please – assuming this is the revised table?
Thanks
Susan
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd
E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: 30 November 2017 16:51 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call
Dear all,
The action items noted by staff from the Working Group call held on 30 November are as follows:
Suggested Approach from the WG members on the call: To identify topics addressed by the Charter questions and capture high-level questions/data points for each topic. Suggested questions are:
1) Has it been used?
2) What was the original purpose and is it being fulfilled?
3) Bearing in mind the original purpose, have there been any unintended consequences?
4) What changes could better align the mechanism with the original purpose/facilitate it to carry out its purpose?
5) How many managed to prevail?
Action Items:
Develop a strawman of high-level questions and Charter question topics. (forthcoming) WG to provide comments/thoughts about the proposed approach. If the approach is agreed to, WG to analyze the topics addressed by the Charter questions against the high-level questions.
Question 1: Should the ability for defaulting respondents in URS cases to file a reply for an extended period (e.g. up to one year) after the default notice, or even after a default determination is issued (in which case the complaint could be reviewed anew) be changed?
Action Item: Staff to look up where the 1-year period for Question 1 originated.
Question 2: Should the Response Fee applicable to complainants listing 15 or more disputed domain names by the same registrant be eliminated?
Action Item: Staff to look up the origin of the response fee for 15 (and more) domains, and why 15 was chosen as a number.
Revised Table:
Action Item: Staff will post to the wiki space a revised version of the table with excerpts from the notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The recording, transcript, Adobe Connect chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki.
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
<URS Sub Team Questions Table - 30 November 2017.docx>_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
George, Yes, that is the domain. My point being, this domain was renewed after it was suspended for phishing. I referred to the Chrome browser display as evidence that it was in fact renewed (you are correct though, there doesn't appear to be another phishing site back up and running at the moment, with that said I didn't check the MX records to see if email was being exploited)...although there is nothing in the URS policy that prevents that from happening as far I as understand. Also, the trademark owner may have other remedies available, but assuming no appeal, does it make sense to require the trademark owner to file another dispute, i.e. a UDRP, to recover the same domain that was suspended under the higher burden of proof required in URS proceedings? Best regards, Claudio On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:37 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi Claudio,
Are you talking about the domain beginning with c, and which also contains a hyphen? I'll link to the current WHOIS at DomainTools of the domain name it seems to be, instead of the domain itself:
https://whois.domaintools.com/client-boursorama.frl
According to the WHOIS, the nameservers are:
Name Server: ursns1.adrforum.com Name Server: ursns2.adrforum.com
It appears that the domain name did get renewed, but it didn't matter (except to the extent it saves the complainant registration fees to register it itself), as it's still on a registry lock/hold, see:
Domain Status: serverDeleteProhibited https://icann.org/epp#serverDeleteProhibited Domain Status: clientHold https://icann.org/epp#clientHold Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited Domain Status: serverTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#serverTransferProhibited Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited Domain Status: serverUpdateProhibited https://icann.org/epp#serverUpdateProhibited
So, it's not being misused at present. Chrome might be using an outdated domain blocking list (i.e. no one got it to update the list, presumably, to have it removed from the list).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:18 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
For ease of reference, URS decisions can be searched on the NAF website, see: http://www.adrforum.com/SearchDecisions
You can search for the keyword 'phishing' and set the domain status to 'suspended' (for example, see the 2nd domain that is displayed after you run this query in the search box)
This domain was registered on: 10/25/16, suspended on 11/25/2016, on 10/25/17 (the expiration date) the Whois was updated, the current expiration is 10/25/18. The current Whois information for this domain matches the Whois listed in the URS complaint.
Domains that are suspended through the URS resolve to a webpage that says: "The Domain Name you’ve entered is not available. It has been taken down as a result of dispute resolution proceedings pursuant to the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) or .us Rapid Suspension System (usRS) Procedure and Rules."
This domain does not resolve to the URS suspended landing page described above. Rather, my web browser (Chrome) recognizes the IP address as being associated with a potential malware/phishing site and displays a "Dangerous" warning. So in my view, its pretty clear this domain name was renewed.
Best regards, Claudio
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:40 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
Rebecca,
Thanks. I think the article states that some domains were inadvertently renewed by the registrar. It doesn't say the registrant is not able to
renew
them.
In my post, I cited to domains listed on the NAF website that were suspended for alleged phishing, and those domains appear to be renewed because the Whois shows: 1) the same registrant; 2) an update made on the expiration date, extending the registration for one year.
All good fodder for our group to consider for possible solutions.
Best, Claudio
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:15 PM Tushnet, Rebecca < rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> wrote:
Interesting post. It seems that the domains only showed up as renewed because of administrative issues, however, based on the end of the
article,
and were not actually under the control of the original respondent. So the phishing concern seems addressed.
Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.
On Dec 5, 2017, at 3:26 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon,
I agree with you about having this question/issue considered by our WG and potentially addressed with policy recommendations.
I've heard concerns from trademark owners who've had difficulties securing the abusively registered domain that was suspended in the URS procedure after it came up for renewal. For example, there are several URS cases (on the NAF website) that involve alleged phishing activity, where the domain was suspended, and now it appears renewed by the same registrant.
This practice is described in greater detail within this blog article:
https://domainnamewire.com/2016/11/18/strange-thing-happening-domain-names-s... ,
which states: “The most common thing that happened to these first 50 domains is that they were renewed. Twice. And they still show the original owner who lost the URS in Whois.”
Best regards, Claudio
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org
wrote:
Hi Jon,
Thanks for the reminder and apologies for missing that question.
We’ll
add it to the table.
Best,
Julie
From: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email> Date: Friday, December 1, 2017 at 3:04 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call
Thanks Julie. I may have missed it, but I had asked on a prior call that we add a question regarding whether a losing respondent may renew the domain name at issue at all, for one more year (like the complainant), during the pendency of an appeal, or forever.
Thanks!
Jon
On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Susan,
Thanks so much for catching that! I tried saving it again as a PDF, but it still comes out truncated; I’m not sure why. In any case, I’ve uploaded it as a Word document and it looks fine that way.
I’ve also attached the file.
Kind regards,
Julie
From: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> Date: Friday, December 1, 2017 at 1:35 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call
Hi Julie, thanks for these notes from the call. Regarding the revised table – there is a link here (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729948) to a version of the table of 30 November, however only part of the table is displaying (I tried downloading too and it made no difference). Would you mind re-uploading please – assuming this is the revised table?
Thanks
Susan
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd
E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: 30 November 2017 16:51 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call
Dear all,
The action items noted by staff from the Working Group call held on 30 November are as follows:
Suggested Approach from the WG members on the call: To identify topics addressed by the Charter questions and capture high-level questions/data points for each topic. Suggested questions are:
1) Has it been used?
2) What was the original purpose and is it being fulfilled?
3) Bearing in mind the original purpose, have there been any unintended consequences?
4) What changes could better align the mechanism with the original purpose/facilitate it to carry out its purpose?
5) How many managed to prevail?
Action Items:
Develop a strawman of high-level questions and Charter question topics. (forthcoming) WG to provide comments/thoughts about the proposed approach. If the approach is agreed to, WG to analyze the topics addressed by the Charter questions against the high-level questions.
Question 1: Should the ability for defaulting respondents in URS cases to file a reply for an extended period (e.g. up to one year) after the default notice, or even after a default determination is issued (in which case the complaint could be reviewed anew) be changed?
Action Item: Staff to look up where the 1-year period for Question 1 originated.
Question 2: Should the Response Fee applicable to complainants listing 15 or more disputed domain names by the same registrant be eliminated?
Action Item: Staff to look up the origin of the response fee for 15 (and more) domains, and why 15 was chosen as a number.
Revised Table:
Action Item: Staff will post to the wiki space a revised version of the table with excerpts from the notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The recording, transcript, Adobe Connect chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki.
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
<URS Sub Team Questions Table - 30 November 2017.docx>_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi Claudio, On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 6:17 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
I referred to the Chrome browser display as evidence that it was in fact renewed (you are correct though, there doesn't appear to be another phishing site back up and running at the moment, with that said I didn't check the MX records to see if email was being exploited)...although there is nothing in the URS policy that prevents that from happening as far I as understand.
The Chrome browser "evidence" is not proof of anything, except that Chrome is intercepting the domain name before it attempts to resolve a site. WHOIS is better evidence. There'd be no MX records at present given the name appears to not even be in the zone file, i.e. do a "dig EXAMPLE.COM NS" but change "EXAMPLE.COM to the relevant domain name --- no nameservers at present. Also, even if the name was in the zone file, it would have adrforum.com (NAF) namesevers, i.e. from WHOIS:
Name Server: ursns1.adrforum.com Name Server: ursns2.adrforum.com
So it would presumably have the same URS Suspension webpage, had it been resolving, and presumably NAF isn't exploiting incoming emails to suspended domains. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
hi George, Whether that domain has active MX records was not really germane to my larger point. Let's use another example of a domain I just researched on the NAF site: <XXXXXXXXXXXX.top> (I redacted the second level domain); if you want to research the specific domain on the NAF website, it is Case Number: 1621938 This domain: 1) was registered on May 23, 2015; 2) was suspended on June 21, 2015; 3) had its Whois updated on March 28, 2017; 4) is still registered, and not set to expire until May 23, 2018; 5) is still sponsored by the same registrar (that appears in the URS decision); 6) is still registered to the same registrant (that appears in the URS decision); 7) the registrant has control over the Name Servers, i.e. the Name Servers are a well known 3rd party, and not associated the NAF's servers; 8) the Whois reflects the domain status is: "Domain Status: ok https://icann.org/epp#OK"; 9) the domain is offered for sale online for $1000. Going back to Jon's original question (which I agree with), I think we need to make an assessment on 1) to what extent does the URS permit renewal and/or continued use of a previously suspended domain, and 2) to what extent is renewal and/or continued use of a previously suspended domain consistent with the intended purpose of the URS; and 3) to the extent it is inconsistent, whether any policy recommendations should be implemented to address the inconsistency. Best regards, Claudio On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 6:30 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi Claudio,
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 6:17 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
I referred to the Chrome browser display as evidence that it was in fact renewed (you are correct though, there doesn't appear to be another phishing site back up and running at the moment, with that said I didn't check the MX records to see if email was being exploited)...although there is nothing in the URS policy that prevents that from happening as far I as understand.
The Chrome browser "evidence" is not proof of anything, except that Chrome is intercepting the domain name before it attempts to resolve a site. WHOIS is better evidence. There'd be no MX records at present given the name appears to not even be in the zone file, i.e. do a "dig EXAMPLE.COM NS" but change "EXAMPLE.COM to the relevant domain name --- no nameservers at present. Also, even if the name was in the zone file, it would have adrforum.com (NAF) namesevers, i.e. from WHOIS:
Name Server: ursns1.adrforum.com Name Server: ursns2.adrforum.com
So it would presumably have the same URS Suspension webpage, had it been resolving, and presumably NAF isn't exploiting incoming emails to suspended domains.
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
participants (5)
-
claudio di gangi -
George Kirikos -
Jon Nevett -
Julie Hedlund -
Tushnet, Rebecca