Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action items and updated document following the WG call on 20 July 2016
I have to admit I’m struggling with how to evaluate the effectiveness of a policy that’s never been used ~ like we’re proposing solutions for unidentified problems. I don’t want to suggest that we identify and detail all possible use cases and apply the PDDRP to identify flaws. But when we consider the existing Standards (§6) and Burden of Proof (§17), do we have any concrete examples of when the PDDRP maybe should have been used that would indicate needed improvements? Or maybe the better question is … do we have specific examples of registry behavior that doesn’t meet existing standards but is nonetheless concerning when it comes to profiting from sale of infringing domains? As for a couple of issues discussed on the list and at our last meeting: Mediation Mediation is often a successful way for parties to reach a workable resolution, and I support the concept of non-binding mediation as an option with the PDDRP. If the PDDRP were to allow for the filing of “skeletal” complaints, do we intend that the filing party is the sole determiner of whether the complaint goes to mediation? It seems that the mediation option should be open to both parties to request. In the end, both parties need to be amenable to mediation for it ever have an effective outcome. Class Actions The term “class action” seems problematic because of how it is used in many judicial systems. If what we’re trying to get to is a method for trademark owner to identify prolific abuses by a registry and to then have a more aggressive method for pursuing the registry, is there instead a way to build (1) public disclosure of filings and decisions (the way UDRPs work) and (2) place a burden on panel reviewers to rely on the precedence of prior findings (unlike the UDRP) and take those into account when determining remedies? Thanks, Darcy From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong Date: Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:22 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action items and updated document following the WG call on 20 July 2016 Dear all, Please find attached an updated document containing issues, concerns and suggestions received to date relating to the TM-PDDRP, the first version of which had been circulated on 19 July to the Working Group (see message below). Both documents have also been uploaded to the Working Group wiki space for your convenience: https://community.icann.org/x/9wWbAw. The updated document contains summaries of the discussion during the last call relating to the suggested options for mediation and class action (see the boxed text on Page 2 and Page 4, respectively). Please review the updates and continue discussion of the suggestions on this mailing list (NOTE: the text summaries do not attempt to replicate or summarize the full discussions that took place on the call – please refer to the meeting transcript, recording and Adobe Connect chat transcript for context and additional explanations offered by participating Members on these topics: https://community.icann.org/x/9wWbAw). For the next call, we anticipate that Members will discuss the issues, concerns and suggestions raised in relation to the ease/difficulty of access to/use of the TM-PDDRP (currently listed in the document under Section A.III on Pages 4-6). Members are also requested to continue to send in your thoughts and comments regarding additional questions we can raise with ICANN Compliance, and the advisability/need to develop “use cases” for the TM-PDDRP (see Page 7). 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 From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 18:22 To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: For review & discussion: summary document on TM-PDDRP issues, concerns and suggestions Dear all, Further to the proposed agenda (below), please find attached a document that: (1) compiles the issues, concerns, suggestions received and email discussions to date relating to the TM-PDDRP stemming from the WG’s deliberations up to and in Helsinki; and (2) contains responses received from several WG members regarding the possibility of developing “use cases” and other additional suggestions. We apologize for the late notice, but hopefully Members will be able to review the document even briefly before the WG call tomorrow (Wednesday). 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 From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 14:56 To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Proposed agenda for Working Group meeting of 20 July Dear all, The proposed agenda for the next Working Group call, scheduled for Wednesday 20 July at 1600 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only) and updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discuss identified issues and concerns regarding the TM-PDDRP, including Working Group members’ responses on possible changes to, and things not to change about, the TM-PDDRP 3. Discuss follow up questions for ICANN Compliance and TM-PDDRP Providers, including suggestion for developing use cases 4. Agree on list of additional issues/concerns with the TM-PDDRP based on WG discussions to date 5. Next steps/next meeting A document setting out a framework for the discussion of issues and listing Working Group members’ suggestions will be sent out shortly. 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
Thanks Darcy. I agree that mediation before complaint is a good idea and that the policy should require both sides to consent to it. I think instead of a skeletal complaint, the aggrieved party should do a simple “mediation statement” (which is the normal thing) and then the registry could do a reply statement. I suggest we limit pages to no more than 10 so that this doesn’t become proxy litigation. The mediation (including the statements) should be confidential – in other words nothing shared in mediation while pursuing settlement should be used later by the parties if the complaint goes forward. As for “class actions” I also agree with you on that. Not only do I not think they are feasible in this setting, I will invoke the highest authority on Earth to rebut the entire idea, namely Jimmy Buffett, and simply say as a brand owner “I don’t want other people [people’s lawyers] thinking for me.” Could you imagine the disaster if a brand owner filed a complaint for abuses of its mark only to learn that a “class action” included them and was already lost? It would be Heck on Earth (especially for the poor law firm that “done it”). Yikes. While I understand the desire for efficiency, there is nothing keeping unhappy brand owners from filing a joint complaint to which they consent in advance. Best, Paul From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Darcy Southwell Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 4:38 PM To: Mary Wong; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action items and updated document following the WG call on 20 July 2016 I have to admit I’m struggling with how to evaluate the effectiveness of a policy that’s never been used ~ like we’re proposing solutions for unidentified problems. I don’t want to suggest that we identify and detail all possible use cases and apply the PDDRP to identify flaws. But when we consider the existing Standards (§6) and Burden of Proof (§17), do we have any concrete examples of when the PDDRP maybe should have been used that would indicate needed improvements? Or maybe the better question is … do we have specific examples of registry behavior that doesn’t meet existing standards but is nonetheless concerning when it comes to profiting from sale of infringing domains? As for a couple of issues discussed on the list and at our last meeting: Mediation Mediation is often a successful way for parties to reach a workable resolution, and I support the concept of non-binding mediation as an option with the PDDRP. If the PDDRP were to allow for the filing of “skeletal” complaints, do we intend that the filing party is the sole determiner of whether the complaint goes to mediation? It seems that the mediation option should be open to both parties to request. In the end, both parties need to be amenable to mediation for it ever have an effective outcome. Class Actions The term “class action” seems problematic because of how it is used in many judicial systems. If what we’re trying to get to is a method for trademark owner to identify prolific abuses by a registry and to then have a more aggressive method for pursuing the registry, is there instead a way to build (1) public disclosure of filings and decisions (the way UDRPs work) and (2) place a burden on panel reviewers to rely on the precedence of prior findings (unlike the UDRP) and take those into account when determining remedies? Thanks, Darcy From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong Date: Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:22 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action items and updated document following the WG call on 20 July 2016 Dear all, Please find attached an updated document containing issues, concerns and suggestions received to date relating to the TM-PDDRP, the first version of which had been circulated on 19 July to the Working Group (see message below). Both documents have also been uploaded to the Working Group wiki space for your convenience: https://community.icann.org/x/9wWbAw. The updated document contains summaries of the discussion during the last call relating to the suggested options for mediation and class action (see the boxed text on Page 2 and Page 4, respectively). Please review the updates and continue discussion of the suggestions on this mailing list (NOTE: the text summaries do not attempt to replicate or summarize the full discussions that took place on the call – please refer to the meeting transcript, recording and Adobe Connect chat transcript for context and additional explanations offered by participating Members on these topics: https://community.icann.org/x/9wWbAw). For the next call, we anticipate that Members will discuss the issues, concerns and suggestions raised in relation to the ease/difficulty of access to/use of the TM-PDDRP (currently listed in the document under Section A.III on Pages 4-6). Members are also requested to continue to send in your thoughts and comments regarding additional questions we can raise with ICANN Compliance, and the advisability/need to develop “use cases” for the TM-PDDRP (see Page 7). 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 From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 18:22 To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: For review & discussion: summary document on TM-PDDRP issues, concerns and suggestions Dear all, Further to the proposed agenda (below), please find attached a document that: (1) compiles the issues, concerns, suggestions received and email discussions to date relating to the TM-PDDRP stemming from the WG’s deliberations up to and in Helsinki; and (2) contains responses received from several WG members regarding the possibility of developing “use cases” and other additional suggestions. We apologize for the late notice, but hopefully Members will be able to review the document even briefly before the WG call tomorrow (Wednesday). 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 From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 14:56 To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Proposed agenda for Working Group meeting of 20 July Dear all, The proposed agenda for the next Working Group call, scheduled for Wednesday 20 July at 1600 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only) and updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discuss identified issues and concerns regarding the TM-PDDRP, including Working Group members’ responses on possible changes to, and things not to change about, the TM-PDDRP 3. Discuss follow up questions for ICANN Compliance and TM-PDDRP Providers, including suggestion for developing use cases 4. Agree on list of additional issues/concerns with the TM-PDDRP based on WG discussions to date 5. Next steps/next meeting A document setting out a framework for the discussion of issues and listing Working Group members’ suggestions will be sent out shortly. 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
With regard to class actions, let's remember that we are talking about the PDDRP, which is aimed at a pattern or practice by the Registry and not abuses of a single party's mark. A finding of "no pattern or practice" does not mean that an individual abuse did not occur -- it only means that the Registry's actions did not rise to a pattern or practice of abuse or aiding and abetting abuse. Requiring a complainant seeking to demonstrate a pattern or practice to join every entity whose marks are being identified as part of the pattern or practice will be incredibly unwieldy and further discourage use of the PDDRP. (On the other hand, I agree with Paul that there should be nothing stopping multi-complainant cases from being brought.) It's highly likely that activity constituting a pattern or practice will involve trademarks of dozens or even hundreds or thousands of entities. The PDDRP has to make a complaint about such activity feasible. We can consider safeguards for non-parties so that they could separately bring actions if they identify a pattern or practice (as well as safeguards for Registries so that they are not dealing with innumerable cases over the same activity (consolidation would work if cases are brought at one time; it gets more complicated if cases are brought at significantly different times). But we should not make this into a DRP that can never be used. Greg On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote:
Thanks Darcy.
I agree that mediation before complaint is a good idea and that the policy should require both sides to consent to it. I think instead of a skeletal complaint, the aggrieved party should do a simple “mediation statement” (which is the normal thing) and then the registry could do a reply statement. I suggest we limit pages to no more than 10 so that this doesn’t become proxy litigation. The mediation (including the statements) should be confidential – in other words nothing shared in mediation while pursuing settlement should be used later by the parties if the complaint goes forward.
As for “class actions” I also agree with you on that. Not only do I not think they are feasible in this setting, I will invoke the highest authority on Earth to rebut the entire idea, namely Jimmy Buffett, and simply say as a brand owner “I don’t want other people [people’s lawyers] thinking for me.” Could you imagine the disaster if a brand owner filed a complaint for abuses of its mark only to learn that a “class action” included them and was already lost? It would be Heck on Earth (especially for the poor law firm that “done it”). Yikes. While I understand the desire for efficiency, there is nothing keeping unhappy brand owners from filing a joint complaint to which they consent in advance.
Best,
Paul
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Darcy Southwell *Sent:* Friday, July 22, 2016 4:38 PM *To:* Mary Wong; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action items and updated document following the WG call on 20 July 2016
I have to admit I’m struggling with how to evaluate the effectiveness of a policy that’s never been used ~ like we’re proposing solutions for unidentified problems. I don’t want to suggest that we identify and detail all possible use cases and apply the PDDRP to identify flaws. But when we consider the existing Standards (§6) and Burden of Proof (§17), do we have any concrete examples of when the PDDRP maybe should have been used that would indicate needed improvements?
Or maybe the better question is … do we have specific examples of registry behavior that doesn’t meet existing standards but is nonetheless concerning when it comes to profiting from sale of infringing domains?
As for a couple of issues discussed on the list and at our last meeting:
*Mediation*
Mediation is often a successful way for parties to reach a workable resolution, and I support the concept of non-binding mediation as an option with the PDDRP. If the PDDRP were to allow for the filing of “skeletal” complaints, do we intend that the filing party is the sole determiner of whether the complaint goes to mediation? It seems that the mediation option should be open to both parties to request. In the end, both parties need to be amenable to mediation for it ever have an effective outcome.
*Class Actions*
The term “class action” seems problematic because of how it is used in many judicial systems. If what we’re trying to get to is a method for trademark owner to identify prolific abuses by a registry and to then have a more aggressive method for pursuing the registry, is there instead a way to build (1) public disclosure of filings and decisions (the way UDRPs work) and (2) place a burden on panel reviewers to rely on the precedence of prior findings (unlike the UDRP) and take those into account when determining remedies?
Thanks,
Darcy
*From: *<gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong *Date: *Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:22 AM *To: *"gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" *Subject: *[gnso-rpm-wg] Action items and updated document following the WG call on 20 July 2016
Dear all,
Please find attached an updated document containing issues, concerns and suggestions received to date relating to the TM-PDDRP, the first version of which had been circulated on 19 July to the Working Group (see message below). Both documents have also been uploaded to the Working Group wiki space for your convenience: https://community.icann.org/x/9wWbAw.
The updated document contains summaries of the discussion during the last call relating to the suggested options for mediation and class action (see the boxed text on Page 2 and Page 4, respectively). *Please review the updates and continue discussion of the suggestions on this mailing list* (NOTE: the text summaries do not attempt to replicate or summarize the full discussions that took place on the call – please refer to the meeting transcript, recording and Adobe Connect chat transcript for context and additional explanations offered by participating Members on these topics: https://community.icann.org/x/9wWbAw).
For the next call, we anticipate that Members will discuss the issues, concerns and suggestions raised in relation to the ease/difficulty of access to/use of the TM-PDDRP (currently listed in the document under Section A.III on Pages 4-6). Members are also requested to continue to send in your thoughts and comments regarding *additional questions we can raise with ICANN Compliance, and the advisability/need to develop “use cases” for the TM-PDDRP* (see Page 7).
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
*From: *Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> *Date: *Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 18:22 *To: *"gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *For review & discussion: summary document on TM-PDDRP issues, concerns and suggestions
Dear all,
Further to the proposed agenda (below), please find attached a document that: (1) compiles the issues, concerns, suggestions received and email discussions to date relating to the TM-PDDRP stemming from the WG’s deliberations up to and in Helsinki; and (2) contains responses received from several WG members regarding the possibility of developing “use cases” and other additional suggestions.
We apologize for the late notice, but hopefully Members will be able to review the document even briefly before the WG call tomorrow (Wednesday).
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
*From: *Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> *Date: *Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 14:56 *To: *"gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Proposed agenda for Working Group meeting of 20 July
Dear all,
The proposed agenda for the next Working Group call, scheduled for Wednesday 20 July at 1600 UTC, is as follows:
1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only) and updates to Statements of Interest
2. Discuss identified issues and concerns regarding the TM-PDDRP, including Working Group members’ responses on possible changes to, and things not to change about, the TM-PDDRP
3. Discuss follow up questions for ICANN Compliance and TM-PDDRP Providers, including suggestion for developing use cases
4. Agree on list of additional issues/concerns with the TM-PDDRP based on WG discussions to date
5. Next steps/next meeting
A document setting out a framework for the discussion of issues and listing Working Group members’ suggestions will be sent out shortly.
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
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Greg, First, your comment "A finding of "no pattern or practice" does not mean that an individual abuse did not occur -- it only means that the Registry's actions did not rise to a pattern or practice of abuse or aiding and abetting abuse." is prosecutorial. The failure of proof can mean anything. Your statement lends too much weight to the complaint. That you have structured the conclusion to include only the next lowest level is somewhat dispositive of your thought process. Second, your comment "The PDDRP has to make a complaint about such activity feasible" is misguided, the entire process is contractual and parallel to the law. The goal was to provide a simplified process in which to provide for simplified complaints. It was never intended as a substitute for legal process. My retort to your comment is: while it may be difficult, it is incumbent upon a trademark holder seeking to raise such a claim that they enlist the support of other trademark holders who have suffered similarly. This is not difficult and proceeding together can be accomplished by simple joinder. Your argument seeks to avoid Complainant's having to work to coordinate so as to impose the entire burden upon (a) the responding party and (b) the panel. That many have suffered injury has never been the reason for class actions. For a class to exist, both the underlying facts of how the injury was sustains and the NATURE (not amount) of damage must be identical as to all claimants. This has universally NOT been the case with trademark related claims because the very nature of trademark protection (and thus rights) arises in context - that is the the particular word/phrase is actually used. I mean no offense whatsoever, but as I see it Your argument is this one seeking lowering costs for your constituency and is not founded in the logical application of the law. I am entirely opposed to any for of class action in any aspect of our discussions. Paul Keating
On 23 Jul 2016, at 1:44 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
With regard to class actions, let's remember that we are talking about the PDDRP, which is aimed at a pattern or practice by the Registry and not abuses of a single party's mark. A finding of "no pattern or practice" does not mean that an individual abuse did not occur -- it only means that the Registry's actions did not rise to a pattern or practice of abuse or aiding and abetting abuse. Requiring a complainant seeking to demonstrate a pattern or practice to join every entity whose marks are being identified as part of the pattern or practice will be incredibly unwieldy and further discourage use of the PDDRP. (On the other hand, I agree with Paul that there should be nothing stopping multi-complainant cases from being brought.) It's highly likely that activity constituting a pattern or practice will involve trademarks of dozens or even hundreds or thousands of entities. The PDDRP has to make a complaint about such activity feasible. We can consider safeguards for non-parties so that they could separately bring actions if they identify a pattern or practice (as well as safeguards for Registries so that they are not dealing with innumerable cases over the same activity (consolidation would work if cases are brought at one time; it gets more complicated if cases are brought at significantly different times). But we should not make this into a DRP that can never be used.
Greg
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote: Thanks Darcy.
I agree that mediation before complaint is a good idea and that the policy should require both sides to consent to it. I think instead of a skeletal complaint, the aggrieved party should do a simple “mediation statement” (which is the normal thing) and then the registry could do a reply statement. I suggest we limit pages to no more than 10 so that this doesn’t become proxy litigation. The mediation (including the statements) should be confidential – in other words nothing shared in mediation while pursuing settlement should be used later by the parties if the complaint goes forward.
As for “class actions” I also agree with you on that. Not only do I not think they are feasible in this setting, I will invoke the highest authority on Earth to rebut the entire idea, namely Jimmy Buffett, and simply say as a brand owner “I don’t want other people [people’s lawyers] thinking for me.” Could you imagine the disaster if a brand owner filed a complaint for abuses of its mark only to learn that a “class action” included them and was already lost? It would be Heck on Earth (especially for the poor law firm that “done it”). Yikes. While I understand the desire for efficiency, there is nothing keeping unhappy brand owners from filing a joint complaint to which they consent in advance.
Best,
Paul
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Darcy Southwell Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 4:38 PM To: Mary Wong; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action items and updated document following the WG call on 20 July 2016
I have to admit I’m struggling with how to evaluate the effectiveness of a policy that’s never been used ~ like we’re proposing solutions for unidentified problems. I don’t want to suggest that we identify and detail all possible use cases and apply the PDDRP to identify flaws. But when we consider the existing Standards (§6) and Burden of Proof (§17), do we have any concrete examples of when the PDDRP maybe should have been used that would indicate needed improvements?
Or maybe the better question is … do we have specific examples of registry behavior that doesn’t meet existing standards but is nonetheless concerning when it comes to profiting from sale of infringing domains?
As for a couple of issues discussed on the list and at our last meeting:
Mediation
Mediation is often a successful way for parties to reach a workable resolution, and I support the concept of non-binding mediation as an option with the PDDRP. If the PDDRP were to allow for the filing of “skeletal” complaints, do we intend that the filing party is the sole determiner of whether the complaint goes to mediation? It seems that the mediation option should be open to both parties to request. In the end, both parties need to be amenable to mediation for it ever have an effective outcome.
Class Actions
The term “class action” seems problematic because of how it is used in many judicial systems. If what we’re trying to get to is a method for trademark owner to identify prolific abuses by a registry and to then have a more aggressive method for pursuing the registry, is there instead a way to build (1) public disclosure of filings and decisions (the way UDRPs work) and (2) place a burden on panel reviewers to rely on the precedence of prior findings (unlike the UDRP) and take those into account when determining remedies?
Thanks,
Darcy
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong Date: Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:22 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action items and updated document following the WG call on 20 July 2016
Dear all,
Please find attached an updated document containing issues, concerns and suggestions received to date relating to the TM-PDDRP, the first version of which had been circulated on 19 July to the Working Group (see message below). Both documents have also been uploaded to the Working Group wiki space for your convenience: https://community.icann.org/x/9wWbAw.
The updated document contains summaries of the discussion during the last call relating to the suggested options for mediation and class action (see the boxed text on Page 2 and Page 4, respectively). Please review the updates and continue discussion of the suggestions on this mailing list (NOTE: the text summaries do not attempt to replicate or summarize the full discussions that took place on the call – please refer to the meeting transcript, recording and Adobe Connect chat transcript for context and additional explanations offered by participating Members on these topics: https://community.icann.org/x/9wWbAw).
For the next call, we anticipate that Members will discuss the issues, concerns and suggestions raised in relation to the ease/difficulty of access to/use of the TM-PDDRP (currently listed in the document under Section A.III on Pages 4-6). Members are also requested to continue to send in your thoughts and comments regarding additional questions we can raise with ICANN Compliance, and the advisability/need to develop “use cases” for the TM-PDDRP (see Page 7).
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
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 18:22 To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: For review & discussion: summary document on TM-PDDRP issues, concerns and suggestions
Dear all,
Further to the proposed agenda (below), please find attached a document that: (1) compiles the issues, concerns, suggestions received and email discussions to date relating to the TM-PDDRP stemming from the WG’s deliberations up to and in Helsinki; and (2) contains responses received from several WG members regarding the possibility of developing “use cases” and other additional suggestions.
We apologize for the late notice, but hopefully Members will be able to review the document even briefly before the WG call tomorrow (Wednesday).
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
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 14:56 To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Proposed agenda for Working Group meeting of 20 July
Dear all,
The proposed agenda for the next Working Group call, scheduled for Wednesday 20 July at 1600 UTC, is as follows:
1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only) and updates to Statements of Interest
2. Discuss identified issues and concerns regarding the TM-PDDRP, including Working Group members’ responses on possible changes to, and things not to change about, the TM-PDDRP
3. Discuss follow up questions for ICANN Compliance and TM-PDDRP Providers, including suggestion for developing use cases
4. Agree on list of additional issues/concerns with the TM-PDDRP based on WG discussions to date
5. Next steps/next meeting
A document setting out a framework for the discussion of issues and listing Working Group members’ suggestions will be sent out shortly.
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
_______________________________________________ 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
I agree with Darcy that we are trying to fixed something that no one has said was broken. I strongly favor asking registries for their input (have they even received complaints, etc.). I also strongly favor asking trademark holders if they have any instance of issues. Otherwise I suggest leaving this alone. I am in favor of mediation. My only issue is my experience shows that 90% of complaints are not serious or are seeking opportunistic settlement. As much as I like to avoid costs, it is important that complaints provide a formal complaint WITH EVIDENCE. I don't care how many pages it is. The idea is to require seriousness and avoid fishing expeditions. This can be accomplished. Y a rule that says if mediation fails the complaint filed will be the complaint for the dispute with any amendment being subject to th discretion of the arbitrators (and not favored). The response in turn should be formal and with evidence. This prevents gamesmanship by respondent. The law of jurisdiction MUST be established. We need to eliminate the convent of a "universal" law. Paul Keating
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote: Thanks Darcy.
I agree that mediation before complaint is a good idea and that the policy should require both sides to consent to it. I think instead of a skeletal complaint, the aggrieved party should do a simple “mediation statement” (which is the normal thing) and then the registry could do a reply statement. I suggest we limit pages to no more than 10 so that this doesn’t become proxy litigation. The mediation (including the statements) should be confidential – in other words nothing shared in mediation while pursuing settlement should be used later by the parties if the complaint goes forward.
As for “class actions” I also agree with you on that. Not only do I not think they are feasible in this setting, I will invoke the highest authority on Earth to rebut the entire idea, namely Jimmy Buffett, and simply sayas a brand owner “I don’t want other people [people’s lawyers] thinking for me.” Could you imagine the disaster if a brand owner filed a complaint for abuses of its mark only to learn that a “class action” included them and was already lost? It would be Heck on Earth (especially for the poor law firm that “done it”). Yikes. While I understand the desire for efficiency, there is nothing keeping unhappy brand owners from filing a joint complaint to which they consent in advance.
Best,
Paul
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Darcy Southwell Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 4:38 PM To: Mary Wong; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action items and updated document following the WG call on 20 July 2016
I have to admit I’m struggling with how to evaluate the effectiveness of a policy that’s never been used ~ like we’re proposing solutions for unidentified problems. I don’t want to suggest that we identify and detail all possible use cases and apply the PDDRP to identify flaws. But when we consider the existing Standards (§6) and Burden of Proof (§17), do we have any concrete examples of when the PDDRP maybe should have been used that would indicate needed improvements?
Or maybe the better question is … do we have specific examples of registry behavior that doesn’t meet existing standards but is nonetheless concerning when it comes to profiting from sale of infringing domains?
As for a couple of issues discussed on the list and at our last meeting:
Mediation
Mediation is often a successful way for parties to reach a workable resolution, and I support the concept of non-binding mediation as an option with the PDDRP. If the PDDRP were to allow for the filing of “skeletal” complaints, do we intend that the filing party is the sole determiner of whether the complaint goes to mediation? It seems that the mediation option should be open to both parties to request. In the end, both parties need to be amenable to mediation for it ever have an effective outcome.
Class Actions
The term “class action” seems problematic because of how it is used in many judicial systems. If what we’re trying to get to is a method for trademark owner to identify prolific abuses by a registry and to then have a more aggressive method for pursuing the registry, is there instead a way to build (1) public disclosure of filings and decisions (the way UDRPs work) and (2) place a burden on panel reviewers to rely on the precedence of prior findings (unlike the UDRP) and take those into account when determining remedies?
Thanks,
Darcy
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong Date: Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:22 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action items and updated document following the WG call on 20 July 2016
Dear all,
Please find attached an updated document containing issues, concerns and suggestions received to date relating to the TM-PDDRP, the first version of which had been circulated on 19 July to the Working Group (see message below). Both documents have also been uploaded to the Working Group wiki space for your convenience: https://community.icann.org/x/9wWbAw.
The updated document contains summaries of the discussion during the last call relating to the suggested options for mediation and class action (see the boxed text on Page 2 and Page 4, respectively). Please review the updates and continue discussion of the suggestions on this mailing list (NOTE: the text summaries do not attempt to replicate or summarize the full discussions that took place on the call – please refer to the meeting transcript, recording and Adobe Connect chat transcript for context and additional explanations offered by participating Members on these topics: https://community.icann.org/x/9wWbAw).
For the next call, we anticipate that Members will discuss the issues, concerns and suggestions raised in relation to the ease/difficulty of access to/use of the TM-PDDRP (currently listed in the document under Section A.III on Pages 4-6). Members are also requested to continue to send in your thoughts and comments regarding additional questions we can raise with ICANN Compliance, and the advisability/need to develop “use cases” for the TM-PDDRP (see Page 7).
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
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 18:22 To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: For review & discussion: summary document on TM-PDDRP issues, concerns and suggestions
Dear all,
Further to the proposed agenda (below), please find attached a document that: (1) compiles the issues, concerns, suggestions received and email discussions to date relating to the TM-PDDRP stemming from the WG’s deliberations up to and in Helsinki; and (2) contains responses received from several WG members regarding the possibility of developing “use cases” and other additional suggestions.
We apologize for the late notice, but hopefully Members will be able to review the document even briefly before the WG call tomorrow (Wednesday).
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
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 14:56 To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Proposed agenda for Working Group meeting of 20 July
Dear all,
The proposed agenda for the next Working Group call, scheduled for Wednesday 20 July at 1600 UTC, is as follows:
1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only) and updates to Statements of Interest
2. Discuss identified issues and concerns regarding the TM-PDDRP, including Working Group members’ responses on possible changes to, and things not to change about, the TM-PDDRP
3. Discuss follow up questions for ICANN Compliance and TM-PDDRP Providers, including suggestion for developing use cases
4. Agree on list of additional issues/concerns with the TM-PDDRP based on WG discussions to date
5. Next steps/next meeting
A document setting out a framework for the discussion of issues and listing Working Group members’ suggestions will be sent out shortly.
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
_______________________________________________ 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 All, I echo on the support for mediation. And, of course, independently of which party that has requested mediation, it must be accepted by the other party (as in all normal mediation procedures). The mediation part must be confidential. If it fails, the “arbitration part” of the dispute shall not be handled by the same panelist that dealt with the mediation and the documents & comments filed through the mediation phase shall not be available for the panelist/s handling the full PDDRP. As to Paul’s comments on evidence: I don’t think any panelists, independently of the dispute resolution policy, accept a simple statement from the complainant that “we have trademark rights”, or accept “evidence” of that just in the form of a list of protected trademarks. Even in cases where the domain holder does not reply, you will lose your case if you cannot prove your trademark rights with further documentation, such a copies of valid Certificate of registrations, etc. Best, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you 23 juli 2016 20:40:33 +02:00, skrev Paul@law.es ZIMBRA <paul@law.es>:
I agree with Darcy that we are trying to fixed something that no one has said was broken. I strongly favor asking registries for their input (have they even received complaints, etc.). I also strongly favor asking trademark holders if they have any instance of issues. Otherwise I suggest leaving this alone.
I am in favor of mediation. My only issue is my experience shows that 90% of complaints are not serious or are seeking opportunistic settlement.
As much as I like to avoid costs, it is important that complaints provide a formal complaint WITH EVIDENCE. I don't care how many pages it is. The idea is to require seriousness and avoid fishing expeditions. This can be accomplished. Y a rule that says if mediation fails the complaint filed will be the complaint for the dispute with any amendment being subject to th discretion of the arbitrators (and not favored).
The response in turn should be formal and with evidence. This prevents gamesmanship by respondent.
The law of jurisdiction MUST be established. We need to eliminate the convent of a "universal" law.
Paul Keating
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Paul McGrady <<policy@paulmcgrady.com>> wrote:
Thanks Darcy.
I agree that mediation before complaint is a good idea and that the policy should require both sides to consent to it. I think instead of a skeletal complaint, the aggrieved party should do a simple “mediation statement” (which is the normal thing) and then the registry could do a reply statement. I suggest we limit pages to no more than 10 so that this doesn’t become proxy litigation. The mediation (including the statements) should be confidential – in other words nothing shared in mediation while pursuing settlement should be used later by the parties if the complaint goes forward.
As for “class actions” I also agree with you on that. Not only do I not think they are feasible in this setting, I will invoke the highest authority on Earth to rebut the entire idea, namely Jimmy Buffett, and simply sayas a brand owner “I don’t want other people [people’s lawyers] thinking for me.” Could you imagine the disaster if a brand owner filed a complaint for abuses of its mark only to learn that a “class action” included them and was already lost? It would be Heck on Earth (especially for the poor law firm that “done it”). Yikes. While I understand the desire for efficiency, there is nothing keeping unhappy brand owners from filing a joint complaint to which they consent in advance. Best, Paul
From:<gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:<gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf OfDarcy Southwell Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 4:38 PM To: Mary Wong; <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action items and updated document following the WG call on 20 July 2016
I have to admit I’m struggling with how to evaluate the effectiveness of a policy that’s never been used ~ like we’re proposing solutions for unidentified problems. I don’t want to suggest that we identify and detail all possible use cases and apply the PDDRP to identify flaws. But when we consider the existing Standards (§6) and Burden of Proof (§17), do we have any concrete examples of when the PDDRP maybe should have been used that would indicate needed improvements?
Or maybe the better question is … do we have specific examples of registry behavior that doesn’t meet existing standards but is nonetheless concerning when it comes to profiting from sale of infringing domains?
As for a couple of issues discussed on the list and at our last meeting:
Mediation Mediation is often a successful way for parties to reach a workable resolution, and I support the concept of non-binding mediation as an option with the PDDRP. If the PDDRP were to allow for the filing of “skeletal” complaints, do we intend that the filing party is the sole determiner of whether the complaint goes to mediation? It seems that the mediation option should be open to both parties to request. In the end, both parties need to be amenable to mediation for it ever have an effective outcome.
Class Actions The term “class action” seems problematic because of how it is used in many judicial systems. If what we’re trying to get to is a method for trademark owner to identify prolific abuses by a registry and to then have a more aggressive method for pursuing the registry, is there instead a way to build (1) public disclosure of filings and decisions (the way UDRPs work) and (2) place a burden on panel reviewers to rely on the precedence of prior findings (unlike the UDRP) and take those into account when determining remedies?
Thanks, Darcy
From:<<gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong Date:Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:22 AM To:"<gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" Subject:[gnso-rpm-wg] Action items and updated document following the WG call on 20 July 2016
Dear all,
Please find attached an updated document containing issues, concerns and suggestions received to date relating to the TM-PDDRP, the first version of which had been circulated on 19 July to the Working Group (see message below). Both documents have also been uploaded to the Working Group wiki space for your convenience: <https://community.icann.org/x/9wWbAw>.
The updated document contains summaries of the discussion during the last call relating to the suggested options for mediation and class action (see the boxed text on Page 2 and Page 4, respectively). Please review the updates and continue discussion of the suggestions on this mailing list (NOTE: the text summaries do not attempt to replicate or summarize the full discussions that took place on the call – please refer to the meeting transcript, recording and Adobe Connect chat transcript for context and additional explanations offered by participating Members on these topics: <https://community.icann.org/x/9wWbAw)>.
For the next call, we anticipate that Members will discuss the issues, concerns and suggestions raised in relation to the ease/difficulty of access to/use of the TM-PDDRP (currently listed in the document under Section A.III on Pages 4-6). Members are also requested to continue to send in your thoughts and comments regarding additional questions we can raise with ICANN Compliance, and the advisability/need to develop “use cases” for the TM-PDDRP (see Page 7).
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 <tel:%2B1-603-5744889>
From:Mary Wong <<mary.wong@icann.org>> Date:Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 18:22 To:"<gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <<gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject:For review & discussion: summary document on TM-PDDRP issues, concerns and suggestions
Dear all,
Further to the proposed agenda (below), please find attached a document that: (1) compiles the issues, concerns, suggestions received and email discussions to date relating to the TM-PDDRP stemming from the WG’s deliberations up to and in Helsinki; and (2) contains responses received from several WG members regarding the possibility of developing “use cases” and other additional suggestions.
We apologize for the late notice, but hopefully Members will be able to review the document even briefly before the WG call tomorrow (Wednesday).
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 <tel:%2B1-603-5744889>
From:Mary Wong <<mary.wong@icann.org>> Date:Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 14:56 To:"<gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <<gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject:Proposed agenda for Working Group meeting of 20 July
Dear all,
The proposed agenda for the next Working Group call, scheduled for Wednesday 20 July at 1600 UTC, is as follows:
1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only) and updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discuss identified issues and concerns regarding the TM-PDDRP, including Working Group members’ responses on possible changes to, and things not to change about, the TM-PDDRP 3. Discuss follow up questions for ICANN Compliance and TM-PDDRP Providers, including suggestion for developing use cases 4. Agree on list of additional issues/concerns with the TM-PDDRP based on WG discussions to date 5. Next steps/next meeting
A document setting out a framework for the discussion of issues and listing Working Group members’ suggestions will be sent out shortly.
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 <tel:%2B1-603-5744889>
_______________________________________________ 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>
_______________________________________________ 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>
+1 Darcy Agreed, If it has not been used then why try to fix it? Mediation, the Dutch Registry SIDN provides this service for over, I think 8 years now. I do not have the numbers (can ask), but they are pretty happy with it. Trademark holders have an extremely low entry to get disputes settled at no cost. Best regards, Theo Geurts On 22-7-2016 23:37, Darcy Southwell wrote:
I have to admit I’m struggling with how to evaluate the effectiveness of a policy that’s never been used ~ like we’re proposing solutions for unidentified problems. I don’t want to suggest that we identify and detail all possible use cases and apply the PDDRP to identify flaws. But when we consider the existing Standards (§6) and Burden of Proof (§17), do we have any concrete examples of when the PDDRP maybe should have been used that would indicate needed improvements?
Or maybe the better question is … do we have specific examples of registry behavior that doesn’t meet existing standards but is nonetheless concerning when it comes to profiting from sale of infringing domains?
As for a couple of issues discussed on the list and at our last meeting:
_Mediation**_
Mediation is often a successful way for parties to reach a workable resolution, and I support the concept of non-binding mediation as an option with the PDDRP. If the PDDRP were to allow for the filing of “skeletal” complaints, do we intend that the filing party is the sole determiner of whether the complaint goes to mediation? It seems that the mediation option should be open to both parties to request. In the end, both parties need to be amenable to mediation for it ever have an effective outcome.
_Class Actions**_
The term “class action” seems problematic because of how it is used in many judicial systems. If what we’re trying to get to is a method for trademark owner to identify prolific abuses by a registry and to then have a more aggressive method for pursuing the registry, is there instead a way to build (1) public disclosure of filings and decisions (the way UDRPs work) and (2) place a burden on panel reviewers to rely on the precedence of prior findings (unlike the UDRP) and take those into account when determining remedies?
Thanks,
Darcy
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong Date: Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:22 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action items and updated document following the WG call on 20 July 2016
Dear all,
Please find attached an updated document containing issues, concerns and suggestions received to date relating to the TM-PDDRP, the first version of which had been circulated on 19 July to the Working Group (see message below). Both documents have also been uploaded to the Working Group wiki space for your convenience: https://community.icann.org/x/9wWbAw.
The updated document contains summaries of the discussion during the last call relating to the suggested options for mediation and class action (see the boxed text on Page 2 and Page 4, respectively). _Please review the updates and continue discussion of the suggestions on this mailing list_ (NOTE: the text summaries do not attempt to replicate or summarize the full discussions that took place on the call – please refer to the meeting transcript, recording and Adobe Connect chat transcript for context and additional explanations offered by participating Members on these topics: https://community.icann.org/x/9wWbAw) <https://community.icann.org/x/9wWbAw%29>.
For the next call, we anticipate that Members will discuss the issues, concerns and suggestions raised in relation to the ease/difficulty of access to/use of the TM-PDDRP (currently listed in the document under Section A.III on Pages 4-6). Members are also requested to continue to send in your thoughts and comments regarding _additional questions we can raise with ICANN Compliance, and the advisability/need to develop “use cases” for the TM-PDDRP_ (see Page 7).
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
Telephone: +1-603-5744889
*From: *Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> *Date: *Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 18:22 *To: *"gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *For review & discussion: summary document on TM-PDDRP issues, concerns and suggestions
Dear all,
Further to the proposed agenda (below), please find attached a document that: (1) compiles the issues, concerns, suggestions received and email discussions to date relating to the TM-PDDRP stemming from the WG’s deliberations up to and in Helsinki; and (2) contains responses received from several WG members regarding the possibility of developing “use cases” and other additional suggestions.
We apologize for the late notice, but hopefully Members will be able to review the document even briefly before the WG call tomorrow (Wednesday).
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
Telephone: +1-603-5744889
*From: *Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> *Date: *Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 14:56 *To: *"gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *Proposed agenda for Working Group meeting of 20 July
Dear all,
The proposed agenda for the next Working Group call, scheduled for Wednesday 20 July at 1600 UTC, is as follows:
1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only) and updates to Statements of Interest
2. Discuss identified issues and concerns regarding the TM-PDDRP, including Working Group members’ responses on possible changes to, and things not to change about, the TM-PDDRP
3. Discuss follow up questions for ICANN Compliance and TM-PDDRP Providers, including suggestion for developing use cases
4. Agree on list of additional issues/concerns with the TM-PDDRP based on WG discussions to date
5. Next steps/next meeting
A document setting out a framework for the discussion of issues and listing Working Group members’ suggestions will be sent out shortly.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
Telephone: +1-603-5744889
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
participants (6)
-
Darcy Southwell -
Greg Shatan -
Paul McGrady -
Paul＠law.es ZIMBRA -
Petter Rindforth -
theo geurts