Hi Mary & Others: Re: UDRP Review ~ Phase 2 ~ January 2018. Thank you for the email and attachment. I have but one (1) question, *relating to the Attachment*. If the UDRP Review is going to begin as Phase 2, in January 2018, does that mean that our current WG Member, "SD"'s question / request of Monday, December 09, 2002 must remain un-asked formally & un-answered for ... *ONLY 15 years & 11 months. ??* In all seriousness, icann tell you that's not "accountability" by any standard; and the NTIA needs to explain why, given ".COM" remains within their purview. *FYI NTIA: If the United States wants Canada [and other Nations] to "ratify" the TPP, then ICANN needs to be "accountable;" b**ecause, **Section 18, Article 18.28: Domain Names has ICANN as a "service provider" of sorts to the Government of Canada.* *SD's attachment of 2002, quote's:* "I'd like to alert the Task Force to a new issue that has been discussed within the BC concerning infringement problems arising in the .uk.com" and *"I would like to propose that the Task Force engage in further discussion on how the UDRP can potentially address this problem." which* also states *"Currently, neither the UDRP nor Nominet provide any form of alternative dispute resolution for this extension, which has, not surprisingly, resulted in a host of new infringement problems for owners of well known marks."* These are questions that "GS" MUST ADDRESS quickly, given ".COM" Registrants are funding IPC working travel via ICANN's ".COM" revenue. 1. Why wouldn't a Verizon Attorney "know" that a ".COM" Domain Name purchased from Network Solutions, by a retail Client, being CentralNic, as a Domain Name Registrant, isn't, or wasn't then, subject to the ICANN RAA at Section 3.7.7.9? *2. *Why did this problem exist, after Network Solutions became aware of CentralNic's antics earlier? History records Network Solutions FORMALLY making the discovery at WIPO's inquiry regarding: J C Bamford Excavators Limited, as Case No. D2001-1484.

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-1484.html <

Perhaps, ICANN's former IPC Member, "BW" can explain, having represented Network Solutions, from as far back as Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, having done work for them in 2004 can explain. [ ICANN Wiki says employed between 2002 - 2005 ]

http://surftheboard.azurewebsites.net/SiteMap/Docs/ttabvue-76172057-EXT-24 <

3. Did CentralNic ~ *even then* ~ manage to confuse Verizon? As "Verizon" says: "*nor Nominet " *who by that time were well established, as what is now a ccNSO, ccTLD Registry for .UK. Much less, as an American Corporation, why didn't they know then, that the well established Lanham Act had been revised / expanded as the ACPA, to include Domain Names of ".COM" where issues where under American Law? In Rem / In Personum. As history also records, the British Public were apprised of CentralNic's pursuit, as written about in The Guardian on September, 10th, 2000.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2000/sep/10/money.efinance <

The members of the NTIA, emailed, should make themselves aware, that the article linked of Sepember, 10th, 2000, *PREDATES* the email attached of December 09, 2002; and worse still, it *PREDATES* when J C Bamford Excavators Limited were "*harmed*" by CentralNic, as the WIPO date lists the Case as being in the 2001 Files, per: Case No. D2001-1484. Thank you all for You're collective attention, immediate discussion; and resolution of this long festering problem. Regards, Graham Schreiber. *GNSO RPM WG MEMBER.* *See SOI Link: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Graham+Schreiber+SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Graham+Schreiber+SOI> * On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:

Dear all,

Please find attached an initial draft Work Plan for Phase One of our PDP, for your review and discussion on the WG call scheduled for later today with WG Members. Please note that while the co-chairs have made initial comments on the draft, they may have additional comments and observations that they will elaborate on during our upcoming call with WG Members. Of course, following the call, we will also update the draft as necessary to reflect changes and edits agreed on during the call. Further, as we move along with the work in this Phase One, it is possible that additional changes – especially to the estimated timelines – will need to be made.

Thanks and cheers Mary

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

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