Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Correction to UDRP data on 2-June TM Claims Sub-Team call
George K Again you are trying to sweep a major problem under the rug. First, let me ask you this: Have you ever litigated in court and in particular litigated a case to a full resolution. If you have, the cost of litigating is huge. So, in your world, I register a domain name for $35 US and you then spend hundreds of thousand dollars pursuing me in court. Even if I default and don't oppose your court action, you will end up spending thousands of dollars in the matter. Oh, and by the way if you have to sue in me in certain jurisdictions, we might be litigating together for many years. The court system is certainly one tool to use to resolve these problems, but the UDRP and URS are way faster and more cost effective. Second, you keep talking about the harm as a hill of beans. If you spend any time reviewing the mounds of literature and studies done on cybersquatting, fraud, brand hijacking, counterfeiting, phishing etc perhaps you might realize that what you are arguing is not supportable. The harm is real, is growing and ultimately has an impact on consumers. Your attempt to say that because there are only x number of proceedings in relation to Y number of domain names registered shows this is not a problem is a red herring at best. My car example was meant to illustrate that. If there are hundreds of billions of car rides a year and the total number of accidents due to drunk driving or texting, for example, are less than 0.1% of all car rides, that doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Lastly, your parallel system of justice argument simply does not hold up. If you want to go down that road, then look at all the parallel systems that exist in various areas such as housing, health care, insurance, securities trading, wealth management, trade disputes, car accidents etc. These systems all exist, for example, to deal with specific problems, to streamline processes and provide efficient resolution of specific matters, and to not clog up the courts with thousands upon thousands of additional cases. At this point, I think we have both staked out our positions, so for the sake of the group I do not think further communications on this are necessary. You have made your position clear. Let's just say that we agree to disagree and move on. Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 8:19 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Correction to UDRP data on 2-June TM Claims Sub-Team call Hello, On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
Unfortunately, I think you are going down the wrong rabbit hole and ignoring the big picture problem. The UDRP and URS are not the only aspects of this issue. They are tools that were created to help address problems of cyberquatting -- problems that include myriad ways that fraud, counterfeiting, brand hijacking and other harms have been perpetrated on consumers and brand owners.
Yes, I'm certainly aware that there are other ways to deal with the alleged problem. Fraud, counterfeiting, brand hijacking and other harms also exist in the offline world, and in the online world that don't involve domain names. Somehow, the world hasn't stopped spinning despite the lack of a special "RPM" that parallels the courts for those matters. Explain to me what is so special about domain names that a parallel justice system has arisen for what is at best a "de minimis" problem. Courts are certainly sufficient.
If I registered GeorgeKirikos.xyz and used the domain name to attempt to steal personal information from consumers or sell them junky products, you might have a different view of the issue.
No, not at all. There are courts to handle such situations.
The problem here is far greater than what you try to portray. Every day there are probably thousands of demand letters sent out around the world to try to address these problems, there are thousands of hours spent investigating and addressing these matters etc. The costs, needless to say, are staggering and substantially more than the small registration fee that many cybersquatters pay to get a domain name for the various schemes that we now have seen for over 20 years.
Yet, out of all these alleged cases, only a tiny, tiny fraction amount to more than a hill of beans, and are worth pursuing even using a relatively low cost procedure such as the UDRP. There are many, many personal and contractual disputes between individuals, companies, etc. (unrelated to domain names). By your reasoning "the problem" between those members of society are "far greater" than what appear in the court system. The costs of uploading a copyright infringing song or video are also quite low, in fact less than the cost of a domain name. The cost of sending out a defamatory email, tweet or Facebook post is essentially zero. Yet, there's no parallel system of justice in those cases, and instead bad guys are brought to court in the most egregious cases.
To put things in perspective, there are hundreds of millions of cars in the world and everyday millions if not billions or car rides are taken around the world. The percentage of accidents are relatively small by comparison, and the number of car accident matters that end up in court is even a much much smaller number. The point is that we don't sit around and say their shouldn't be laws that govern driving and/or to use to resolve car accidents, that there shouldn't be arbitration or court regimes for resolving car accidents etc or that we shouldn't have commissions rethinking or discussing the laws or ways to handle car accident matters. We have laws and procedures for handling these issue. The rights protection mechanisms are in the same fashion regimes put in place to help address ongoing problems -- real problems that exist and which by every legitimate study (FBI, Interpol and others) I have seen are growing in scope.
You seem to be arguing my position. I'm arguing that courts and laws are sufficient. Why is a non-profit corporation trying to reinvent the global judicial system? In the 1990s, an immature internet organization was pressured into developing a parallel justice system. 20 years later, the internet is far more mature, and has been incorporated into everyday life. No "special" forums are needed for "internet disputes". There's no need for the adjective "internet" -- they're just disputes, everyday disputes that can be handled by the "everyday" law. It's time to re-think mistakes of the past. If I smash into your car, you can't foist a parallel justice system upon me. And there are far more car accidents than there are domain name disputes.
So, in closing, while I understand that you may have hostility to the notion of RPMs, I would ask that you try to focus on the big picture here of the overall harm that has and is occurring and how best to address it.
And I would ask you to also keep an open mind, and think deeply about why this parallel system of justice exists, and who exactly it is serving. In many ways, it's a small "cottage industry", that serves a tiny percentage of vocal groups that have a selfish stake in perpetuating it. When one looks at the big picture, the world could certainly adjust if it disappeared. 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 ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Hi folks, On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote: (changing the order of paragraphs)
At this point, I think we have both staked out our positions, so for the sake of the group I do not think further communications on this are necessary. You have made your position clear. Let's just say that we agree to disagree and move on.
It's kind of funny you would ask me questions, perpetuate the conversation with new (disputed) points, and "suggest" that "further communications" are not necessary. After listening to yesterday's Comey hearing, I'm wondering if this is akin to Comey's statement that "I hope" was to be interpreted as a command. Rest assured, I would not interpret your suggestion as a command (you could have moved the conversation privately, which at first you did, but then decided to move the discussion back to the public list, by resending the response later to the list, afterwards).
Again you are trying to sweep a major problem under the rug. First, let me ask you this: Have you ever litigated in court and in particular litigated a case to a full resolution. If you have, the cost of litigating is huge. So, in your world, I register a domain name for $35 US and you then spend hundreds of thousand dollars pursuing me in court. Even if I default and don't oppose your court action, you will end up spending thousands of dollars in the matter. Oh, and by the way if you have to sue in me in certain jurisdictions, we might be litigating together for many years. The court system is certainly one tool to use to resolve these problems, but the UDRP and URS are way faster and more cost effective.
Yes, that's the way the court system works (and yes, I've litigated cases to a full resolution, one of which is even listed on WIPO's site). The same applies to copyright cases, car accidents, libel, contract disputes, etc. Again, what is so "special" about domain names? If someone steals a $3 loaf of bread, that also can go through the court system. There are also small claims courts, with streamlined procedures.
Second, you keep talking about the harm as a hill of beans. If you spend any time reviewing the mounds of literature and studies done on cybersquatting, fraud, brand hijacking, counterfeiting, phishing etc perhaps you might realize that what you are arguing is not supportable. The harm is real, is growing and ultimately has an impact on consumers. Your attempt to say that because there are only x number of proceedings in relation to Y number of domain names registered shows this is not a problem is a red herring at best. My car example was meant to illustrate that. If there are hundreds of billions of car rides a year and the total number of accidents due to drunk driving or texting, for example, are less than 0.1% of all car rides, that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
Those same harms, even larger ones, are handled in the court system, without a "CADRP" (Car Accident DRP), etc. .BRAND TLD holder Barclays plead guilty to foreign currency manipulation: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150520_should_barclays_lose_the_barclays_top... with a $2.4 billion fine. Should there be a DRP for that type of crime, where victims could have the option of obtaining relief via a parallel system of internet-delivered justice, instead of the courts? Here's a proposal that I hope all TM lawyers will answer on behalf of their clients: ---- start of proposal -------- Many highly questionable Benelux and Pakistani TMs have been used in UDRPs, TMCH, etc. The standard "refrain" from TM lawyers has been "they are to be assumed to be valid, and if you have a problem, challenge those in court or with the national authorities". Since some TM lawyers seem to believe in a "parallel system" of justice that should apply to the internet, instead of allowing the "everyday laws" to apply, what if there was a "TMDRP", whereby anyone could challenge, via a mandatory "procedure" modeled on the UDRP, a registered TM, and its applicability on the internet? This would, by Georges' reasoning, save lots of money for all parties involved, and have a public interest benefit of cleaning up many of these dubious, "deadwood" or even fraudulent TM registrations which have been used to abuse the legitimate rights of domain name registrants and others. Evidence could include proof of sales, audited financial statements, etc. How about it? If just 0.1% of registered TMs are being "abused", then that's certainly a "problem" that should be addressed? ------ end of proposal --------------
Lastly, your parallel system of justice argument simply does not hold up. If you want to go down that road, then look at all the parallel systems that exist in various areas such as housing, health care, insurance, securities trading, wealth management, trade disputes, car accidents etc. These systems all exist, for example, to deal with specific problems, to streamline processes and provide efficient resolution of specific matters, and to not clog up the courts with thousands upon thousands of additional cases.
See above. Let's have a TMDRP, to have a mandatory procedure to challenge registered TMs, decided by an internet-based "panel", that is cheaper, streamlined, and more expeditious than those afforded by national authorities and the courts. What are the reasons for/against such a TMDRP, and how do those reasons not also apply to the UDRP/URS/TMCH and any other "special program" that's justified "just because it's the internet"? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
George K We get it that you are hostile to RPMS. Your arguments miss the point and I am afraid that you are not going to accept the reality of the situation as it exists and/or the harms that exist no matter how much evidence is put in front of you. . If you want to pursue an alternative universe and facts that is your choice, but this back and forth is not productive. You have made your points. I diagree and have countered. Further communications on the same issue is pointless as we will just keep repeating the same things. Have a nice weekend. Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 9:59 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Correction to UDRP data on 2-June TM Claims Sub-Team call Hi folks, On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote: (changing the order of paragraphs)
At this point, I think we have both staked out our positions, so for the sake of the group I do not think further communications on this are necessary. You have made your position clear. Let's just say that we agree to disagree and move on.
It's kind of funny you would ask me questions, perpetuate the conversation with new (disputed) points, and "suggest" that "further communications" are not necessary. After listening to yesterday's Comey hearing, I'm wondering if this is akin to Comey's statement that "I hope" was to be interpreted as a command. Rest assured, I would not interpret your suggestion as a command (you could have moved the conversation privately, which at first you did, but then decided to move the discussion back to the public list, by resending the response later to the list, afterwards).
Again you are trying to sweep a major problem under the rug. First, let me ask you this: Have you ever litigated in court and in particular litigated a case to a full resolution. If you have, the cost of litigating is huge. So, in your world, I register a domain name for $35 US and you then spend hundreds of thousand dollars pursuing me in court. Even if I default and don't oppose your court action, you will end up spending thousands of dollars in the matter. Oh, and by the way if you have to sue in me in certain jurisdictions, we might be litigating together for many years. The court system is certainly one tool to use to resolve these problems, but the UDRP and URS are way faster and more cost effective.
Yes, that's the way the court system works (and yes, I've litigated cases to a full resolution, one of which is even listed on WIPO's site). The same applies to copyright cases, car accidents, libel, contract disputes, etc. Again, what is so "special" about domain names? If someone steals a $3 loaf of bread, that also can go through the court system. There are also small claims courts, with streamlined procedures.
Second, you keep talking about the harm as a hill of beans. If you spend any time reviewing the mounds of literature and studies done on cybersquatting, fraud, brand hijacking, counterfeiting, phishing etc perhaps you might realize that what you are arguing is not supportable. The harm is real, is growing and ultimately has an impact on consumers. Your attempt to say that because there are only x number of proceedings in relation to Y number of domain names registered shows this is not a problem is a red herring at best. My car example was meant to illustrate that. If there are hundreds of billions of car rides a year and the total number of accidents due to drunk driving or texting, for example, are less than 0.1% of all car rides, that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
Those same harms, even larger ones, are handled in the court system, without a "CADRP" (Car Accident DRP), etc. .BRAND TLD holder Barclays plead guilty to foreign currency manipulation: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150520_should_barclays_lose_the_barclays_top... with a $2.4 billion fine. Should there be a DRP for that type of crime, where victims could have the option of obtaining relief via a parallel system of internet-delivered justice, instead of the courts? Here's a proposal that I hope all TM lawyers will answer on behalf of their clients: ---- start of proposal -------- Many highly questionable Benelux and Pakistani TMs have been used in UDRPs, TMCH, etc. The standard "refrain" from TM lawyers has been "they are to be assumed to be valid, and if you have a problem, challenge those in court or with the national authorities". Since some TM lawyers seem to believe in a "parallel system" of justice that should apply to the internet, instead of allowing the "everyday laws" to apply, what if there was a "TMDRP", whereby anyone could challenge, via a mandatory "procedure" modeled on the UDRP, a registered TM, and its applicability on the internet? This would, by Georges' reasoning, save lots of money for all parties involved, and have a public interest benefit of cleaning up many of these dubious, "deadwood" or even fraudulent TM registrations which have been used to abuse the legitimate rights of domain name registrants and others. Evidence could include proof of sales, audited financial statements, etc. How about it? If just 0.1% of registered TMs are being "abused", then that's certainly a "problem" that should be addressed? ------ end of proposal --------------
Lastly, your parallel system of justice argument simply does not hold up. If you want to go down that road, then look at all the parallel systems that exist in various areas such as housing, health care, insurance, securities trading, wealth management, trade disputes, car accidents etc. These systems all exist, for example, to deal with specific problems, to streamline processes and provide efficient resolution of specific matters, and to not clog up the courts with thousands upon thousands of additional cases.
See above. Let's have a TMDRP, to have a mandatory procedure to challenge registered TMs, decided by an internet-based "panel", that is cheaper, streamlined, and more expeditious than those afforded by national authorities and the courts. What are the reasons for/against such a TMDRP, and how do those reasons not also apply to the UDRP/URS/TMCH and any other "special program" that's justified "just because it's the internet"? 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 ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Amen J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com On 6/9/17, 7:11 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Nahitchevansky, Georges" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote: George K We get it that you are hostile to RPMS. Your arguments miss the point and I am afraid that you are not going to accept the reality of the situation as it exists and/or the harms that exist no matter how much evidence is put in front of you. . If you want to pursue an alternative universe and facts that is your choice, but this back and forth is not productive. You have made your points. I diagree and have countered. Further communications on the same issue is pointless as we will just keep repeating the same things. Have a nice weekend. Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 9:59 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Correction to UDRP data on 2-June TM Claims Sub-Team call Hi folks, On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote: (changing the order of paragraphs) > At this point, I think we have both staked out our positions, so for the sake of the group I do not think further communications on this are necessary. You have made your position clear. Let's just say that we agree to disagree and move on. It's kind of funny you would ask me questions, perpetuate the conversation with new (disputed) points, and "suggest" that "further communications" are not necessary. After listening to yesterday's Comey hearing, I'm wondering if this is akin to Comey's statement that "I hope" was to be interpreted as a command. Rest assured, I would not interpret your suggestion as a command (you could have moved the conversation privately, which at first you did, but then decided to move the discussion back to the public list, by resending the response later to the list, afterwards). > Again you are trying to sweep a major problem under the rug. First, let me ask you this: Have you ever litigated in court and in particular litigated a case to a full resolution. If you have, the cost of litigating is huge. So, in your world, I register a domain name for $35 US and you then spend hundreds of thousand dollars pursuing me in court. Even if I default and don't oppose your court action, you will end up spending thousands of dollars in the matter. Oh, and by the way if you have to sue in me in certain jurisdictions, we might be litigating together for many years. The court system is certainly one tool to use to resolve these problems, but the UDRP and URS are way faster and more cost effective. Yes, that's the way the court system works (and yes, I've litigated cases to a full resolution, one of which is even listed on WIPO's site). The same applies to copyright cases, car accidents, libel, contract disputes, etc. Again, what is so "special" about domain names? If someone steals a $3 loaf of bread, that also can go through the court system. There are also small claims courts, with streamlined procedures. > Second, you keep talking about the harm as a hill of beans. If you spend any time reviewing the mounds of literature and studies done on cybersquatting, fraud, brand hijacking, counterfeiting, phishing etc perhaps you might realize that what you are arguing is not supportable. The harm is real, is growing and ultimately has an impact on consumers. Your attempt to say that because there are only x number of proceedings in relation to Y number of domain names registered shows this is not a problem is a red herring at best. My car example was meant to illustrate that. If there are hundreds of billions of car rides a year and the total number of accidents due to drunk driving or texting, for example, are less than 0.1% of all car rides, that doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Those same harms, even larger ones, are handled in the court system, without a "CADRP" (Car Accident DRP), etc. .BRAND TLD holder Barclays plead guilty to foreign currency manipulation: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.circleid... with a $2.4 billion fine. Should there be a DRP for that type of crime, where victims could have the option of obtaining relief via a parallel system of internet-delivered justice, instead of the courts? Here's a proposal that I hope all TM lawyers will answer on behalf of their clients: ---- start of proposal -------- Many highly questionable Benelux and Pakistani TMs have been used in UDRPs, TMCH, etc. The standard "refrain" from TM lawyers has been "they are to be assumed to be valid, and if you have a problem, challenge those in court or with the national authorities". Since some TM lawyers seem to believe in a "parallel system" of justice that should apply to the internet, instead of allowing the "everyday laws" to apply, what if there was a "TMDRP", whereby anyone could challenge, via a mandatory "procedure" modeled on the UDRP, a registered TM, and its applicability on the internet? This would, by Georges' reasoning, save lots of money for all parties involved, and have a public interest benefit of cleaning up many of these dubious, "deadwood" or even fraudulent TM registrations which have been used to abuse the legitimate rights of domain name registrants and others. Evidence could include proof of sales, audited financial statements, etc. How about it? If just 0.1% of registered TMs are being "abused", then that's certainly a "problem" that should be addressed? ------ end of proposal -------------- > Lastly, your parallel system of justice argument simply does not hold up. If you want to go down that road, then look at all the parallel systems that exist in various areas such as housing, health care, insurance, securities trading, wealth management, trade disputes, car accidents etc. These systems all exist, for example, to deal with specific problems, to streamline processes and provide efficient resolution of specific matters, and to not clog up the courts with thousands upon thousands of additional cases. See above. Let's have a TMDRP, to have a mandatory procedure to challenge registered TMs, decided by an internet-based "panel", that is cheaper, streamlined, and more expeditious than those afforded by national authorities and the courts. What are the reasons for/against such a TMDRP, and how do those reasons not also apply to the UDRP/URS/TMCH and any other "special program" that's justified "just because it's the internet"? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
Hi folks, On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:13 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com> wrote:
Amen
Is "Amen", sent to the entire list: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-June/002096.html the new "+1", designed to route around: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-May/001949.html "1. Please refrain from sending an email that lacks any new content and/or simply repeats positions heard from other WG members. In particular, if you feel compelled to send a “+1” or “Agree” message please just hit “Reply” and not “Reply All”. That way the sender of the original message will know of your support without the other 150-plus members of the WG having to take time away from their other work. Of course, if you want to add additional facts and arguments concerning why you agree or disagree with another member’s statement please go ahead as we welcome such substantive contributions." That message was from the "Co-Chairs", and so J. Scott certainly was aware of it. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
There are actually a plethora of alternative dispute resolution systems in place in different industry sectors. Many of them are non-governmental in nature (in addition, there are various administrative proceedings that are more lightweight and targeted than civil litigation). The UDRP is not unique (nor are we supposed to be talking about the UDRP this year) -- it's not even unique in the domain world where many ccTLDs have adopted similar DRPs (and some not so similar ). For instance, in the US, false advertising disputes can be brought to the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Better Business Bureau. Complaints about stockbrokers can go to an SEC administrative proceeding. Etc. As far as what's being "proved" by the "math": Mark Twain once said, there are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies, and statistics. Have a great weekend, all! Greg On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:21 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:13 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com> wrote:
Amen
Is "Amen", sent to the entire list:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-June/002096.html
the new "+1", designed to route around:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-May/001949.html
"1. Please refrain from sending an email that lacks any new content and/or simply repeats positions heard from other WG members. In particular, if you feel compelled to send a “+1” or “Agree” message please just hit “Reply” and not “Reply All”. That way the sender of the original message will know of your support without the other 150-plus members of the WG having to take time away from their other work. Of course, if you want to add additional facts and arguments concerning why you agree or disagree with another member’s statement please go ahead as we welcome such substantive contributions."
That message was from the "Co-Chairs", and so J. Scott certainly was aware of it.
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 (4)
-
George Kirikos -
Greg Shatan -
J. Scott Evans -
Nahitchevansky, Georges