ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
Hi folks, Happy New Year. There was news about ICE seizing over 1 million domain names, see: https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/over-million-websites-seized-global-operat... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181213/18030341224/ice-seizes-over-1-mil... I was curious whether anyone (maybe a registrar, registry, or TM holders who were involved, i.e. the "industry partners") has and can share the complete list of domain names that were seized, as that might be a potential source of data for our work. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Aside from the daunting challenge of analyzing a list of more than one million domain names, if such a list could be assembled I'm not sure it could inform our work in any meaningful way. The new gTLD RPMs are focused on preventing and responding to a very narrow type of trademark infringement -- cybersquatting where the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, where the registrant has no legitimate interest in the DN and the domain is being used in bad faith to infringe trademark. While some of the seized domains referenced in the ICE press release may have met that test, many (likely the majority) probably did not, as the release makes clear that the primary focus was not the domain name but the sale/distribution of counterfeit goods and copyright-infringing material -- More than 1 million copyright-infringing website domain names selling counterfeit automotive parts, electrical components, personal care items and other fake goods were criminally and civilly seized in the past year through the combined efforts of law- enforcement agencies across the world, high-profile industry representatives and anti-counterfeiting associations... The IPR Center, which stands at the forefront of the U.S. government's response to IP theft, worked directly with key international law- enforcement authorities and industry organizations representing the electronics sector, luxury brand-name designers, film and entertainment and several entities specializing in apparel and accessories through the major enforcement effort.... Investigations led by HSI resulted in the removal of copyright-infringing websites that sold counterfeit airbags and integrated sensors, both commodities that present a potential safety hazard. An investigation based in Louisiana led to the seizure of five website domain names - including Chinaseatbelt.com; Airbagpart.com; Chinasafetybelt.com; Fareurope.com; and Far-europe.com - involved in the sale of fake automotive parts. A joint case between HSI and Department of Defense investigative agencies resulted in the removal of PRBlogics.com, a copyright-infringing website offering counterfeit integrated sensors. So the ICANN RPMs are focused on the "apples" of a very specific and narrow type of TM infringement that looks at domain content for evidence of bad faith use, while the government domain seizures do not focus on the domain name but the "oranges" use of the website to distribute counterfeit goods or infringed copyrighted content. Aside from that, assembling the domain names would likely be impossible, given that the release makes clear that the million-plus seizures is a cumulative annual tally based on actions taken by law enforcement agencies around the world. Finally, as the Techdirt blog states, the release is somewhat confusing in regard to what IP infringement was actually involved--- Still, it seems notable that in late November, ICE proudly announced that it had seized over a million websites, though frankly, the press release raises a hell of a lot more questions than it answers. First off, it appears that ICE has no clue that copyright and trademark are entirely different things. More than 1 million copyright-infringing website domain names selling counterfeit automotive parts, electrical components, personal care items and other fake goods were criminally and civilly seized in the past year through the combined efforts of law-enforcement agencies across the world, high-profile industry representatives and anti-counterfeiting associations. "Copyright infringing website domain names" already is a weird description (were the URLs themselves infringing?) but it's made even weirder by saying that these sites were seized because they were selling counterfeits. Counterfeiting is a trademark issue, not a copyright one. Those laws are entirely different. In conclusion, unless we are contemplating expansion of the ICANN RPMs beyond a narrow form of cybersquatting to cover sale of counterfeit goods and websites infringing copyright (a proposition for which consensus could not likely be achieved), even if the million-plus domain names could be obtained their relationship to our work seems tangential at best. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 11:48 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP? Hi folks, Happy New Year. There was news about ICE seizing over 1 million domain names, see: https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/over-million-websites-seized-global-operat... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181213/18030341224/ice-seizes-over-1-mil... I was curious whether anyone (maybe a registrar, registry, or TM holders who were involved, i.e. the "industry partners") has and can share the complete list of domain names that were seized, as that might be a potential source of data for our work. 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
I think Phil has a good point here. Without a meaningful way to distinguish why exactly each domain was seized, the data would not be very useful beyond the mere knowledge that local governments are enforcing local IP laws. Jonathan On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:47 PM Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Aside from the daunting challenge of analyzing a list of more than one million domain names, if such a list could be assembled I'm not sure it could inform our work in any meaningful way.
The new gTLD RPMs are focused on preventing and responding to a very narrow type of trademark infringement -- cybersquatting where the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, where the registrant has no legitimate interest in the DN and the domain is being used in bad faith to infringe trademark.
While some of the seized domains referenced in the ICE press release may have met that test, many (likely the majority) probably did not, as the release makes clear that the primary focus was not the domain name but the sale/distribution of counterfeit goods and copyright-infringing material --
More than 1 million copyright-infringing website domain names selling counterfeit automotive parts, electrical components, personal care items and other fake goods were criminally and civilly seized in the past year through the combined efforts of law- enforcement agencies across the world, high-profile industry representatives and anti-counterfeiting associations... The IPR Center, which stands at the forefront of the U.S. government's response to IP theft, worked directly with key international law- enforcement authorities and industry organizations representing the electronics sector, luxury brand-name designers, film and entertainment and several entities specializing in apparel and accessories through the major enforcement effort.... Investigations led by HSI resulted in the removal of copyright-infringing websites that sold counterfeit airbags and integrated sensors, both co mmodities that present a potential safety hazard. An investigation based in Louisiana led to the seizure of five website domain names - including Chinaseatbelt.com; Airbagpart.com; Chinasafetybelt.com; Fareurope.com; and Far-europe.com - involved in the sale of fake automotive parts. A joint case between HSI and Department of Defense investigative agencies resulted in the removal of PRBlogics.com, a copyright-infringing website offering counterfeit integrated sensors.
So the ICANN RPMs are focused on the "apples" of a very specific and narrow type of TM infringement that looks at domain content for evidence of bad faith use, while the government domain seizures do not focus on the domain name but the "oranges" use of the website to distribute counterfeit goods or infringed copyrighted content.
Aside from that, assembling the domain names would likely be impossible, given that the release makes clear that the million-plus seizures is a cumulative annual tally based on actions taken by law enforcement agencies around the world.
Finally, as the Techdirt blog states, the release is somewhat confusing in regard to what IP infringement was actually involved---
Still, it seems notable that in late November, ICE proudly announced that it had seized over a million websites, though frankly, the press release raises a hell of a lot more questions than it answers. First off, it appears that ICE has no clue that copyright and trademark are entirely different things.
More than 1 million copyright-infringing website domain names selling counterfeit automotive parts, electrical components, personal care items and other fake goods were criminally and civilly seized in the past year through the combined efforts of law-enforcement agencies across the world, high-profile industry representatives and anti-counterfeiting associations.
"Copyright infringing website domain names" already is a weird description (were the URLs themselves infringing?) but it's made even weirder by saying that these sites were seized because they were selling counterfeits. Counterfeiting is a trademark issue, not a copyright one. Those laws are entirely different.
In conclusion, unless we are contemplating expansion of the ICANN RPMs beyond a narrow form of cybersquatting to cover sale of counterfeit goods and websites infringing copyright (a proposition for which consensus could not likely be achieved), even if the million-plus domain names could be obtained their relationship to our work seems tangential at best.
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 11:48 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
Hi folks,
Happy New Year.
There was news about ICE seizing over 1 million domain names, see:
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/over-million-websites-seized-global-operat...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181213/18030341224/ice-seizes-over-1-mil...
I was curious whether anyone (maybe a registrar, registry, or TM holders who were involved, i.e. the "industry partners") has and can share the complete list of domain names that were seized, as that might be a potential source of data for our work.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
_______________________________________________
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 disagree—more information about these seizures could absolutely inform our work. It would be useful to know what percentage of those million-plus domain names were seized for reasons relating to trademark infringement in the domain name itself versus some objectionable content in the website, and whether the claims actually relate to trademark or copyright. Knowing whether ICE seizures are in fact addressing some of the same conduct as the ICANN RPMs, and what if any due process is being afforded, will provide an important basis of comparison, because the RPMs don't operate in a vacuum. Mitch Stoltz Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142 https://www.eff.org/donate | https://act.eff.org/ On 1/2/19 9:58 AM, Jonathan Frost via GNSO-RPM-WG wrote:
I think Phil has a good point here. Without a meaningful way to distinguish why exactly each domain was seized, the data would not be very useful beyond the mere knowledge that local governments are enforcing local IP laws.
Jonathan
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:47 PM Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote:
Aside from the daunting challenge of analyzing a list of more than one million domain names, if such a list could be assembled I'm not sure it could inform our work in any meaningful way.
The new gTLD RPMs are focused on preventing and responding to a very narrow type of trademark infringement -- cybersquatting where the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, where the registrant has no legitimate interest in the DN and the domain is being used in bad faith to infringe trademark.
While some of the seized domains referenced in the ICE press release may have met that test, many (likely the majority) probably did not, as the release makes clear that the primary focus was not the domain name but the sale/distribution of counterfeit goods and copyright-infringing material --
More than 1 million copyright-infringing website domain names selling counterfeit automotive parts, electrical components, personal care items and other fake goods were criminally and civilly seized in the past year through the combined efforts of law- enforcement agencies across the world, high-profile industry representatives and anti-counterfeiting associations... The IPR Center, which stands at the forefront of the U.S. government's response to IP theft, worked directly with key international law- enforcement authorities and industry organizations representing the electronics sector, luxury brand-name designers, film and entertainment and several entities specializing in apparel and accessories through the major enforcement effort.... Investigations led by HSI resulted in the removal of copyright-infringing websites that sold counterfeit airbags and integrated sensors, both co mmodities that present a potential safety hazard. An investigation based in Louisiana led to the seizure of five website domain names - including Chinaseatbelt.com; Airbagpart.com; Chinasafetybelt.com; Fareurope.com; and Far-europe.com - involved in the sale of fake automotive parts. A joint case between HSI and Department of Defense investigative agencies resulted in the removal of PRBlogics.com, a copyright-infringing website offering counterfeit integrated sensors.
So the ICANN RPMs are focused on the "apples" of a very specific and narrow type of TM infringement that looks at domain content for evidence of bad faith use, while the government domain seizures do not focus on the domain name but the "oranges" use of the website to distribute counterfeit goods or infringed copyrighted content.
Aside from that, assembling the domain names would likely be impossible, given that the release makes clear that the million-plus seizures is a cumulative annual tally based on actions taken by law enforcement agencies around the world.
Finally, as the Techdirt blog states, the release is somewhat confusing in regard to what IP infringement was actually involved---
Still, it seems notable that in late November, ICE proudly announced that it had seized over a million websites, though frankly, the press release raises a hell of a lot more questions than it answers. First off, it appears that ICE has no clue that copyright and trademark are entirely different things.
More than 1 million copyright-infringing website domain names selling counterfeit automotive parts, electrical components, personal care items and other fake goods were criminally and civilly seized in the past year through the combined efforts of law-enforcement agencies across the world, high-profile industry representatives and anti-counterfeiting associations.
"Copyright infringing website domain names" already is a weird description (were the URLs themselves infringing?) but it's made even weirder by saying that these sites were seized because they were selling counterfeits. Counterfeiting is a trademark issue, not a copyright one. Those laws are entirely different.
In conclusion, unless we are contemplating expansion of the ICANN RPMs beyond a narrow form of cybersquatting to cover sale of counterfeit goods and websites infringing copyright (a proposition for which consensus could not likely be achieved), even if the million-plus domain names could be obtained their relationship to our work seems tangential at best.
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 11:48 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
Hi folks,
Happy New Year.
There was news about ICE seizing over 1 million domain names, see:
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/over-million-websites-seized-global-operat...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181213/18030341224/ice-seizes-over-1-mil...
I was curious whether anyone (maybe a registrar, registry, or TM holders who were involved, i.e. the "industry partners") has and can share the complete list of domain names that were seized, as that might be a potential source of data for our work.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
_______________________________________________
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 <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
Mitch: (Speaking in a non-Chair, personal capacity) --With all respect, even if staff, funding and time were available to do such massive analysis (all of which are likely major stumbling blocks), assuming that the list of one million-plus domains could be aggregated from multiple law enforcement agencies (another big question mark), what useful comparison could be provided? Let’s say that one hundred thousand (10%) of the one million domains had a domain name that was identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, and the website was being used to distribute counterfeit goods and/or infringed copyrighted material related to the trademark owners (bad faith use for UDRP or URS purposes). What useful conclusions could be drawn from such knowledge as regards the operation of and potential changes to ICANN RPMs, which are either preventative in nature or non-judicial remedies to be utilized by trademark owners, and do not require criminal conduct as a predicate? Thanks for any further explanation, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mitch Stoltz Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 2:02 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP? I disagree—more information about these seizures could absolutely inform our work. It would be useful to know what percentage of those million-plus domain names were seized for reasons relating to trademark infringement in the domain name itself versus some objectionable content in the website, and whether the claims actually relate to trademark or copyright. Knowing whether ICE seizures are in fact addressing some of the same conduct as the ICANN RPMs, and what if any due process is being afforded, will provide an important basis of comparison, because the RPMs don't operate in a vacuum. Mitch Stoltz Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142 https://www.eff.org/donate | https://act.eff.org/ On 1/2/19 9:58 AM, Jonathan Frost via GNSO-RPM-WG wrote: I think Phil has a good point here. Without a meaningful way to distinguish why exactly each domain was seized, the data would not be very useful beyond the mere knowledge that local governments are enforcing local IP laws. Jonathan On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:47 PM Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: Aside from the daunting challenge of analyzing a list of more than one million domain names, if such a list could be assembled I'm not sure it could inform our work in any meaningful way. The new gTLD RPMs are focused on preventing and responding to a very narrow type of trademark infringement -- cybersquatting where the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, where the registrant has no legitimate interest in the DN and the domain is being used in bad faith to infringe trademark. While some of the seized domains referenced in the ICE press release may have met that test, many (likely the majority) probably did not, as the release makes clear that the primary focus was not the domain name but the sale/distribution of counterfeit goods and copyright-infringing material -- More than 1 million copyright-infringing website domain names selling counterfeit automotive parts, electrical components, personal care items and other fake goods were criminally and civilly seized in the past year through the combined efforts of law- enforcement agencies across the world, high-profile industry representatives and anti-counterfeiting associations... The IPR Center, which stands at the forefront of the U.S. government's response to IP theft, worked directly with key international law- enforcement authorities and industry organizations representing the electronics sector, luxury brand-name designers, film and entertainment and several entities specializing in apparel and accessories through the major enforcement effort.... Investigations led by HSI resulted in the removal of copyright-infringing websites that sold counterfeit airbags and integrated sensors, both co mmodities that present a potential safety hazard. An investigation based in Louisiana led to the seizure of five website domain names - including Chinaseatbelt.com; Airbagpart.com; Chinasafetybelt.com; Fareurope.com; and Far-europe.com - involved in the sale of fake automotive parts. A joint case between HSI and Department of Defense investigative agencies resulted in the removal of PRBlogics.com, a copyright-infringing website offering counterfeit integrated sensors. So the ICANN RPMs are focused on the "apples" of a very specific and narrow type of TM infringement that looks at domain content for evidence of bad faith use, while the government domain seizures do not focus on the domain name but the "oranges" use of the website to distribute counterfeit goods or infringed copyrighted content. Aside from that, assembling the domain names would likely be impossible, given that the release makes clear that the million-plus seizures is a cumulative annual tally based on actions taken by law enforcement agencies around the world. Finally, as the Techdirt blog states, the release is somewhat confusing in regard to what IP infringement was actually involved--- Still, it seems notable that in late November, ICE proudly announced that it had seized over a million websites, though frankly, the press release raises a hell of a lot more questions than it answers. First off, it appears that ICE has no clue that copyright and trademark are entirely different things. More than 1 million copyright-infringing website domain names selling counterfeit automotive parts, electrical components, personal care items and other fake goods were criminally and civilly seized in the past year through the combined efforts of law-enforcement agencies across the world, high-profile industry representatives and anti-counterfeiting associations. "Copyright infringing website domain names" already is a weird description (were the URLs themselves infringing?) but it's made even weirder by saying that these sites were seized because they were selling counterfeits. Counterfeiting is a trademark issue, not a copyright one. Those laws are entirely different. In conclusion, unless we are contemplating expansion of the ICANN RPMs beyond a narrow form of cybersquatting to cover sale of counterfeit goods and websites infringing copyright (a proposition for which consensus could not likely be achieved), even if the million-plus domain names could be obtained their relationship to our work seems tangential at best. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 11:48 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP? Hi folks, Happy New Year. There was news about ICE seizing over 1 million domain names, see: https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/over-million-websites-seized-global-operat... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181213/18030341224/ice-seizes-over-1-mil... I was curious whether anyone (maybe a registrar, registry, or TM holders who were involved, i.e. the "industry partners") has and can share the complete list of domain names that were seized, as that might be a potential source of data for our work. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ 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<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<mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi folks, As a preliminary matter, either the list of domains exists somewhere, or it doesn't. If it's a publicly available list (or could be obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request, or finding a document in a court's docket), then we could look at it to see how usable it is. So, I posted to the list in the hopes that someone here might have access to it, and could share. It was unclear, as noted in the TechDirt article, as to whether these were merely "copyright infringing", or whether they were in fact TM infringing. If the latter, then it could be of great use to our work. Being able to see the list, we would be able to make that determination relatively rapidly. A list of 1 million domains can be analyzed at different levels. e.g. which TLDs were involved? Or, maybe mostly 1 cent domains bought at a promo? Or maybe many were free .tk domains? Patterns can be determined by looking at the data. Most folks who have pursued expiring domain names in the daily "drops" are quite used to reviewing lists of domain names containing 100,000 or more domains PER DAY (e.g. I used to do this, albeit more than 10 years ago, when the quality of expiring domains was much higher than today). 1 million isn't a huge number. One can use text search, for example, to find matches for "Google" or "Verizon", "Chanel", "Disney", "Amazon" or other famous brands, if they were TM infringing domains. [the Alexa list of top 1 million sites is something I occasionally search on my desktop PC, and I can find matches in under a second for various terms, using a text editor] ICANN RPMs are meant to complement other means of enforcing rights (courts, etc.). The justification for some of these RPMs is that they'd provide lower-cost remedies, more efficient procedures, etc. compared to the courts. If it turns out that there's a "free" option (ICE) that is as effective or more effective than ICANN RPMs, that would certainly be an important thing to note, because, in Mitch's words "RPMs don't operate in a a vacuum." Anyhow, without seeing the data, it's too early to conclude that it's of no value. So, if someone has it and can share it, please do so. It can be debated later whether or not it's helpful or not, as some of us independently dive into it. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 2:02 PM Mitch Stoltz <mitch@eff.org> wrote:
I disagree—more information about these seizures could absolutely inform our work. It would be useful to know what percentage of those million-plus domain names were seized for reasons relating to trademark infringement in the domain name itself versus some objectionable content in the website, and whether the claims actually relate to trademark or copyright. Knowing whether ICE seizures are in fact addressing some of the same conduct as the ICANN RPMs, and what if any due process is being afforded, will provide an important basis of comparison, because the RPMs don't operate in a vacuum.
Mitch Stoltz Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142 https://www.eff.org/donate | https://act.eff.org/
On 1/2/19 9:58 AM, Jonathan Frost via GNSO-RPM-WG wrote:
I think Phil has a good point here. Without a meaningful way to distinguish why exactly each domain was seized, the data would not be very useful beyond the mere knowledge that local governments are enforcing local IP laws.
Jonathan
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:47 PM Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Aside from the daunting challenge of analyzing a list of more than one million domain names, if such a list could be assembled I'm not sure it could inform our work in any meaningful way.
The new gTLD RPMs are focused on preventing and responding to a very narrow type of trademark infringement -- cybersquatting where the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, where the registrant has no legitimate interest in the DN and the domain is being used in bad faith to infringe trademark.
While some of the seized domains referenced in the ICE press release may have met that test, many (likely the majority) probably did not, as the release makes clear that the primary focus was not the domain name but the sale/distribution of counterfeit goods and copyright-infringing material --
More than 1 million copyright-infringing website domain names selling counterfeit automotive parts, electrical components, personal care items and other fake goods were criminally and civilly seized in the past year through the combined efforts of law- enforcement agencies across the world, high-profile industry representatives and anti-counterfeiting associations... The IPR Center, which stands at the forefront of the U.S. government's response to IP theft, worked directly with key international law- enforcement authorities and industry organizations representing the electronics sector, luxury brand-name designers, film and entertainment and several entities specializing in apparel and accessories through the major enforcement effort.... Investigations led by HSI resulted in the removal of copyright-infringing websites that sold counterfeit airbags and integrated sensors, both co mmodities that present a potential safety hazard. An investigation based in Louisiana led to the seizure of five website domain names - including Chinaseatbelt.com; Airbagpart.com; Chinasafetybelt.com; Fareurope.com; and Far-europe.com - involved in the sale of fake automotive parts. A joint case between HSI and Department of Defense investigative agencies resulted in the removal of PRBlogics.com, a copyright-infringing website offering counterfeit integrated sensors.
So the ICANN RPMs are focused on the "apples" of a very specific and narrow type of TM infringement that looks at domain content for evidence of bad faith use, while the government domain seizures do not focus on the domain name but the "oranges" use of the website to distribute counterfeit goods or infringed copyrighted content.
Aside from that, assembling the domain names would likely be impossible, given that the release makes clear that the million-plus seizures is a cumulative annual tally based on actions taken by law enforcement agencies around the world.
Finally, as the Techdirt blog states, the release is somewhat confusing in regard to what IP infringement was actually involved---
Still, it seems notable that in late November, ICE proudly announced that it had seized over a million websites, though frankly, the press release raises a hell of a lot more questions than it answers. First off, it appears that ICE has no clue that copyright and trademark are entirely different things.
More than 1 million copyright-infringing website domain names selling counterfeit automotive parts, electrical components, personal care items and other fake goods were criminally and civilly seized in the past year through the combined efforts of law-enforcement agencies across the world, high-profile industry representatives and anti-counterfeiting associations.
"Copyright infringing website domain names" already is a weird description (were the URLs themselves infringing?) but it's made even weirder by saying that these sites were seized because they were selling counterfeits. Counterfeiting is a trademark issue, not a copyright one. Those laws are entirely different.
In conclusion, unless we are contemplating expansion of the ICANN RPMs beyond a narrow form of cybersquatting to cover sale of counterfeit goods and websites infringing copyright (a proposition for which consensus could not likely be achieved), even if the million-plus domain names could be obtained their relationship to our work seems tangential at best.
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 11:48 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
Hi folks,
Happy New Year.
There was news about ICE seizing over 1 million domain names, see:
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/over-million-websites-seized-global-operat...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181213/18030341224/ice-seizes-over-1-mil...
I was curious whether anyone (maybe a registrar, registry, or TM holders who were involved, i.e. the "industry partners") has and can share the complete list of domain names that were seized, as that might be a potential source of data for our work.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
_______________________________________________
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
I am not sure I understand the relevance of investigating other non-UDRP enforcement activities and how the “list” would Benefit the group - outside of curiosity. These are independent of the UDRP process (just as any other legal proceedings are). Although the laws regarding confiscation are obtuse (to say the least) and slanted in favor of the governmental authority (at least in the US) I still am not seeing how this might impact our work. While it is true that trademark owners may seek relief via the ICE process that is really no different that a group of trademark owners seeking assistance from the FBI. Paul Sent from the road.
On 2 Jan 2019, at 20:02, Mitch Stoltz <mitch@eff.org> wrote:
I disagree—more information about these seizures could absolutely inform our work. It would be useful to know what percentage of those million-plus domain names were seized for reasons relating to trademark infringement in the domain name itself versus some objectionable content in the website, and whether the claims actually relate to trademark or copyright. Knowing whether ICE seizures are in fact addressing some of the same conduct as the ICANN RPMs, and what if any due process is being afforded, will provide an important basis of comparison, because the RPMs don't operate in a vacuum. Mitch Stoltz Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142 https://www.eff.org/donate | https://act.eff.org/
On 1/2/19 9:58 AM, Jonathan Frost via GNSO-RPM-WG wrote: I think Phil has a good point here. Without a meaningful way to distinguish why exactly each domain was seized, the data would not be very useful beyond the mere knowledge that local governments are enforcing local IP laws.
Jonathan
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:47 PM Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote: Aside from the daunting challenge of analyzing a list of more than one million domain names, if such a list could be assembled I'm not sure it could inform our work in any meaningful way.
The new gTLD RPMs are focused on preventing and responding to a very narrow type of trademark infringement -- cybersquatting where the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, where the registrant has no legitimate interest in the DN and the domain is being used in bad faith to infringe trademark.
While some of the seized domains referenced in the ICE press release may have met that test, many (likely the majority) probably did not, as the release makes clear that the primary focus was not the domain name but the sale/distribution of counterfeit goods and copyright-infringing material --
More than 1 million copyright-infringing website domain names selling counterfeit automotive parts, electrical components, personal care items and other fake goods were criminally and civilly seized in the past year through the combined efforts of law- enforcement agencies across the world, high-profile industry representatives and anti-counterfeiting associations... The IPR Center, which stands at the forefront of the U.S. government's response to IP theft, worked directly with key international law- enforcement authorities and industry organizations representing the electronics sector, luxury brand-name designers, film and entertainment and several entities specializing in apparel and accessories through the major enforcement effort.... Investigations led by HSI resulted in the removal of copyright-infringing websites that sold counterfeit airbags and integrated sensors, both co mmodities that present a potential safety hazard. An investigation based in Louisiana led to the seizure of five website domain names - including Chinaseatbelt.com; Airbagpart.com; Chinasafetybelt.com; Fareurope.com; and Far-europe.com - involved in the sale of fake automotive parts. A joint case between HSI and Department of Defense investigative agencies resulted in the removal of PRBlogics.com, a copyright-infringing website offering counterfeit integrated sensors.
So the ICANN RPMs are focused on the "apples" of a very specific and narrow type of TM infringement that looks at domain content for evidence of bad faith use, while the government domain seizures do not focus on the domain name but the "oranges" use of the website to distribute counterfeit goods or infringed copyrighted content.
Aside from that, assembling the domain names would likely be impossible, given that the release makes clear that the million-plus seizures is a cumulative annual tally based on actions taken by law enforcement agencies around the world.
Finally, as the Techdirt blog states, the release is somewhat confusing in regard to what IP infringement was actually involved---
Still, it seems notable that in late November, ICE proudly announced that it had seized over a million websites, though frankly, the press release raises a hell of a lot more questions than it answers. First off, it appears that ICE has no clue that copyright and trademark are entirely different things.
More than 1 million copyright-infringing website domain names selling counterfeit automotive parts, electrical components, personal care items and other fake goods were criminally and civilly seized in the past year through the combined efforts of law-enforcement agencies across the world, high-profile industry representatives and anti-counterfeiting associations.
"Copyright infringing website domain names" already is a weird description (were the URLs themselves infringing?) but it's made even weirder by saying that these sites were seized because they were selling counterfeits. Counterfeiting is a trademark issue, not a copyright one. Those laws are entirely different.
In conclusion, unless we are contemplating expansion of the ICANN RPMs beyond a narrow form of cybersquatting to cover sale of counterfeit goods and websites infringing copyright (a proposition for which consensus could not likely be achieved), even if the million-plus domain names could be obtained their relationship to our work seems tangential at best.
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 11:48 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
Hi folks,
Happy New Year.
There was news about ICE seizing over 1 million domain names, see:
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/over-million-websites-seized-global-operat...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181213/18030341224/ice-seizes-over-1-mil...
I was curious whether anyone (maybe a registrar, registry, or TM holders who were involved, i.e. the "industry partners") has and can share the complete list of domain names that were seized, as that might be a potential source of data for our work.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
_______________________________________________
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Agree with Paul. Comparing apples of contractual summary arbitration process with oranges of Article III court litigation tools Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Paul Keating <paul@law.es> Date: 1/5/19 8:54 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Mitch Stoltz <mitch@eff.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP? I am not sure I understand the relevance of investigating other non-UDRP enforcement activities and how the “list” would Benefit the group - outside of curiosity. These are independent of the UDRP process (just as any other legal proceedings are). Although the laws regarding confiscation are obtuse (to say the least) and slanted in favor of the governmental authority (at least in the US) I still am not seeing how this might impact our work. While it is true that trademark owners may seek relief via the ICE process that is really no different that a group of trademark owners seeking assistance from the FBI. Paul Sent from the road. On 2 Jan 2019, at 20:02, Mitch Stoltz <mitch@eff.org<mailto:mitch@eff.org>> wrote: I disagree—more information about these seizures could absolutely inform our work. It would be useful to know what percentage of those million-plus domain names were seized for reasons relating to trademark infringement in the domain name itself versus some objectionable content in the website, and whether the claims actually relate to trademark or copyright. Knowing whether ICE seizures are in fact addressing some of the same conduct as the ICANN RPMs, and what if any due process is being afforded, will provide an important basis of comparison, because the RPMs don't operate in a vacuum. Mitch Stoltz Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142 https://www.eff.org/donate<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.eff.org%2fdonate&c=E,1,Cumh6CZgTi-TvCXtdxZyumTDLGnxQ2rru2H0sD0zpXpdHTQw7AwsLDqj8I9SsVCF-hA0dQ58119YrLf3hOqWpDjkXeUVm-aOA6aAVORmq9yQSYqVkQy9-Q,,&typo=1> | https://act.eff.org/<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fact.eff.org%2f&c=E,1,-stK7H4DLzHglsiM2mSMwJ1f7cxk0mxcIjdHtgFpT0tTFsm1vdK-GKnoVJV5xDYJjkIdKHjuVz0__3p0oOFPd5kr-AvhD2ot6kIgaF20HLo,&typo=1> On 1/2/19 9:58 AM, Jonathan Frost via GNSO-RPM-WG wrote: I think Phil has a good point here. Without a meaningful way to distinguish why exactly each domain was seized, the data would not be very useful beyond the mere knowledge that local governments are enforcing local IP laws. Jonathan On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:47 PM Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: Aside from the daunting challenge of analyzing a list of more than one million domain names, if such a list could be assembled I'm not sure it could inform our work in any meaningful way. The new gTLD RPMs are focused on preventing and responding to a very narrow type of trademark infringement -- cybersquatting where the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, where the registrant has no legitimate interest in the DN and the domain is being used in bad faith to infringe trademark. While some of the seized domains referenced in the ICE press release may have met that test, many (likely the majority) probably did not, as the release makes clear that the primary focus was not the domain name but the sale/distribution of counterfeit goods and copyright-infringing material -- More than 1 million copyright-infringing website domain names selling counterfeit automotive parts, electrical components, personal care items and other fake goods were criminally and civilly seized in the past year through the combined efforts of law- enforcement agencies across the world, high-profile industry representatives and anti-counterfeiting associations... The IPR Center, which stands at the forefront of the U.S. government's response to IP theft, worked directly with key international law- enforcement authorities and industry organizations representing the electronics sector, luxury brand-name designers, film and entertainment and several entities specializing in apparel and accessories through the major enforcement effort.... Investigations led by HSI resulted in the removal of copyright-infringing websites that sold counterfeit airbags and integrated sensors, both co mmodities that present a potential safety hazard. An investigation based in Louisiana led to the seizure of five website domain names - including Chinaseatbelt.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fChinaseatbelt.com&c=E,1,y...>; Airbagpart.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fAirbagpart.com&c=E,1,ny3y...>; Chinasafetybelt.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fChinasafetybelt.com&c=E,1...>; Fareurope.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fFareurope.com&c=E,1,EOYk6...>; and Far-europe.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fFar-europe.com&c=E,1,grU8...> - involved in the sale of fake automotive parts. A joint case between HSI and Department of Defense investigative agencies resulted in the removal of PRBlogics.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fPRBlogics.com&c=E,1,pi8V5...>, a copyright-infringing website offering counterfeit integrated sensors. So the ICANN RPMs are focused on the "apples" of a very specific and narrow type of TM infringement that looks at domain content for evidence of bad faith use, while the government domain seizures do not focus on the domain name but the "oranges" use of the website to distribute counterfeit goods or infringed copyrighted content. Aside from that, assembling the domain names would likely be impossible, given that the release makes clear that the million-plus seizures is a cumulative annual tally based on actions taken by law enforcement agencies around the world. Finally, as the Techdirt blog states, the release is somewhat confusing in regard to what IP infringement was actually involved--- Still, it seems notable that in late November, ICE proudly announced that it had seized over a million websites, though frankly, the press release raises a hell of a lot more questions than it answers. First off, it appears that ICE has no clue that copyright and trademark are entirely different things. More than 1 million copyright-infringing website domain names selling counterfeit automotive parts, electrical components, personal care items and other fake goods were criminally and civilly seized in the past year through the combined efforts of law-enforcement agencies across the world, high-profile industry representatives and anti-counterfeiting associations. "Copyright infringing website domain names" already is a weird description (were the URLs themselves infringing?) but it's made even weirder by saying that these sites were seized because they were selling counterfeits. Counterfeiting is a trademark issue, not a copyright one. Those laws are entirely different. In conclusion, unless we are contemplating expansion of the ICANN RPMs beyond a narrow form of cybersquatting to cover sale of counterfeit goods and websites infringing copyright (a proposition for which consensus could not likely be achieved), even if the million-plus domain names could be obtained their relationship to our work seems tangential at best. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 11:48 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP? Hi folks, Happy New Year. There was news about ICE seizing over 1 million domain names, see: https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/over-million-websites-seized-global-operation<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ice.gov%2fnews%2freleases%2fover-million-websites-seized-global-operation&c=E,1,S2hNQJZmJQ2caOOHZy98gwpXXUwI3IeBZXg1Nrati1iQNhRdqbP6p4KM7vn2jOpPmJ1M8u_mCSIgRqXiYV25u4S8MNBzytRlgO1FO-c4&typo=1> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181213/18030341224/ice-seizes-over-1-mil... I was curious whether anyone (maybe a registrar, registry, or TM holders who were involved, i.e. the "industry partners") has and can share the complete list of domain names that were seized, as that might be a potential source of data for our work. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leap.com%2f&c=E,1,zy3q4K82-mizg8fSkSq--12k0DC7NeV7n0j3DvP8b1TzwBAmvqGcKMk8sCfua0xZajhyWRIhfU3WJfjJtkA5wvd9N3x7VBLObgPY02t-qa8s7b7gEGMrZRTFF3MA&typo=1> _______________________________________________ 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<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<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<mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg This message contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.
I fully agree with Paul. I really do not see the relevance. Even you had a list you would have very little details on the underlying situation and facts involved. More importantly, and as Paul notes, this is a completely different process that is involved and has nothing to do with the URS or UDRP process. To be sure, these governmental seizures typically involve fairly significant situations involving counterfeiting, criminal activity such as sales of illegal substances, illicit gambling, fraud, prostitution etc., terrorism and other nefarious acts. The UK, for example, recently seized 30,000 plus .uk related domains. These were apparently part of a sting involving criminal activity of significance. From: paul@law.es Sent: January 5, 2019 8:54 AM To: mitch@eff.org Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP? I am not sure I understand the relevance of investigating other non-UDRP enforcement activities and how the “list” would Benefit the group - outside of curiosity. These are independent of the UDRP process (just as any other legal proceedings are). Although the laws regarding confiscation are obtuse (to say the least) and slanted in favor of the governmental authority (at least in the US) I still am not seeing how this might impact our work. While it is true that trademark owners may seek relief via the ICE process that is really no different that a group of trademark owners seeking assistance from the FBI. Paul Sent from the road. On 2 Jan 2019, at 20:02, Mitch Stoltz <mitch@eff.org<mailto:mitch@eff.org>> wrote: I disagree—more information about these seizures could absolutely inform our work. It would be useful to know what percentage of those million-plus domain names were seized for reasons relating to trademark infringement in the domain name itself versus some objectionable content in the website, and whether the claims actually relate to trademark or copyright. Knowing whether ICE seizures are in fact addressing some of the same conduct as the ICANN RPMs, and what if any due process is being afforded, will provide an important basis of comparison, because the RPMs don't operate in a vacuum. Mitch Stoltz Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142<tel:4154369333,142> https://www.eff.org/donate | https://act.eff.org/ On 1/2/19 9:58 AM, Jonathan Frost via GNSO-RPM-WG wrote: I think Phil has a good point here. Without a meaningful way to distinguish why exactly each domain was seized, the data would not be very useful beyond the mere knowledge that local governments are enforcing local IP laws. Jonathan On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:47 PM Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: Aside from the daunting challenge of analyzing a list of more than one million domain names, if such a list could be assembled I'm not sure it could inform our work in any meaningful way. The new gTLD RPMs are focused on preventing and responding to a very narrow type of trademark infringement -- cybersquatting where the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, where the registrant has no legitimate interest in the DN and the domain is being used in bad faith to infringe trademark. While some of the seized domains referenced in the ICE press release may have met that test, many (likely the majority) probably did not, as the release makes clear that the primary focus was not the domain name but the sale/distribution of counterfeit goods and copyright-infringing material -- More than 1 million copyright-infringing website domain names selling counterfeit automotive parts, electrical components, personal care items and other fake goods were criminally and civilly seized in the past year through the combined efforts of law- enforcement agencies across the world, high-profile industry representatives and anti-counterfeiting associations... The IPR Center, which stands at the forefront of the U.S. government's response to IP theft, worked directly with key international law- enforcement authorities and industry organizations representing the electronics sector, luxury brand-name designers, film and entertainment and several entities specializing in apparel and accessories through the major enforcement effort.... Investigations led by HSI resulted in the removal of copyright-infringing websites that sold counterfeit airbags and integrated sensors, both co mmodities that present a potential safety hazard. An investigation based in Louisiana led to the seizure of five website domain names - including Chinaseatbelt.com<http://Chinaseatbelt.com>; Airbagpart.com<http://Airbagpart.com>; Chinasafetybelt.com<http://Chinasafetybelt.com>; Fareurope.com<http://Fareurope.com>; and Far-europe.com<http://Far-europe.com> - involved in the sale of fake automotive parts. A joint case between HSI and Department of Defense investigative agencies resulted in the removal of PRBlogics.com<http://PRBlogics.com>, a copyright-infringing website offering counterfeit integrated sensors. So the ICANN RPMs are focused on the "apples" of a very specific and narrow type of TM infringement that looks at domain content for evidence of bad faith use, while the government domain seizures do not focus on the domain name but the "oranges" use of the website to distribute counterfeit goods or infringed copyrighted content. Aside from that, assembling the domain names would likely be impossible, given that the release makes clear that the million-plus seizures is a cumulative annual tally based on actions taken by law enforcement agencies around the world. Finally, as the Techdirt blog states, the release is somewhat confusing in regard to what IP infringement was actually involved--- Still, it seems notable that in late November, ICE proudly announced that it had seized over a million websites, though frankly, the press release raises a hell of a lot more questions than it answers. First off, it appears that ICE has no clue that copyright and trademark are entirely different things. More than 1 million copyright-infringing website domain names selling counterfeit automotive parts, electrical components, personal care items and other fake goods were criminally and civilly seized in the past year through the combined efforts of law-enforcement agencies across the world, high-profile industry representatives and anti-counterfeiting associations. "Copyright infringing website domain names" already is a weird description (were the URLs themselves infringing?) but it's made even weirder by saying that these sites were seized because they were selling counterfeits. Counterfeiting is a trademark issue, not a copyright one. Those laws are entirely different. In conclusion, unless we are contemplating expansion of the ICANN RPMs beyond a narrow form of cybersquatting to cover sale of counterfeit goods and websites infringing copyright (a proposition for which consensus could not likely be achieved), even if the million-plus domain names could be obtained their relationship to our work seems tangential at best. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648<tel:7039484648>/Direct 571-342-7489<tel:5713427489>/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 11:48 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP? Hi folks, Happy New Year. There was news about ICE seizing over 1 million domain names, see: https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/over-million-websites-seized-global-operat... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181213/18030341224/ice-seizes-over-1-mil... I was curious whether anyone (maybe a registrar, registry, or TM holders who were involved, i.e. the "industry partners") has and can share the complete list of domain names that were seized, as that might be a potential source of data for our work. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:4165880269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ 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<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<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<mailto: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.
I agree Georges. I also feel any additional time would be better spent considering some of the individual proposals prior to the publishing of the initial report. Given participation in the two new subgroups is quite light, would there be any support for running a 3rd concurrent subgroup to review the individual proposals? Aside: IndianHotels.com was nicely articulated, good to see. On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 10:19 PM Nahitchevansky, Georges < ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
I fully agree with Paul. I really do not see the relevance. Even you had a list you would have very little details on the underlying situation and facts involved. More importantly, and as Paul notes, this is a completely different process that is involved and has nothing to do with the URS or UDRP process. To be sure, these governmental seizures typically involve fairly significant situations involving counterfeiting, criminal activity such as sales of illegal substances, illicit gambling, fraud, prostitution etc., terrorism and other nefarious acts. The UK, for example, recently seized 30,000 plus .uk related domains. These were apparently part of a sting involving criminal activity of significance.
*From:* paul@law.es *Sent:* January 5, 2019 8:54 AM *To:* mitch@eff.org *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
I am not sure I understand the relevance of investigating other non-UDRP enforcement activities and how the “list” would Benefit the group - outside of curiosity. These are independent of the UDRP process (just as any other legal proceedings are). Although the laws regarding confiscation are obtuse (to say the least) and slanted in favor of the governmental authority (at least in the US) I still am not seeing how this might impact our work. While it is true that trademark owners may seek relief via the ICE process that is really no different that a group of trademark owners seeking assistance from the FBI.
Paul
Sent from the road.
On 2 Jan 2019, at 20:02, Mitch Stoltz <mitch@eff.org> wrote:
I disagree—more information about these seizures could absolutely inform our work. It would be useful to know what percentage of those million-plus domain names were seized for reasons relating to trademark infringement in the domain name itself versus some objectionable content in the website, and whether the claims actually relate to trademark or copyright. Knowing whether ICE seizures are in fact addressing some of the same conduct as the ICANN RPMs, and what if any due process is being afforded, will provide an important basis of comparison, because the RPMs don't operate in a vacuum.
Mitch Stoltz Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142 <4154369333,142>https://www.eff.org/donate | https://act.eff.org/
On 1/2/19 9:58 AM, Jonathan Frost via GNSO-RPM-WG wrote:
I think Phil has a good point here. Without a meaningful way to distinguish why exactly each domain was seized, the data would not be very useful beyond the mere knowledge that local governments are enforcing local IP laws.
Jonathan
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:47 PM Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Aside from the daunting challenge of analyzing a list of more than one million domain names, if such a list could be assembled I'm not sure it could inform our work in any meaningful way.
The new gTLD RPMs are focused on preventing and responding to a very narrow type of trademark infringement -- cybersquatting where the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, where the registrant has no legitimate interest in the DN and the domain is being used in bad faith to infringe trademark.
While some of the seized domains referenced in the ICE press release may have met that test, many (likely the majority) probably did not, as the release makes clear that the primary focus was not the domain name but the sale/distribution of counterfeit goods and copyright-infringing material --
More than 1 million copyright-infringing website domain names selling counterfeit automotive parts, electrical components, personal care items and other fake goods were criminally and civilly seized in the past year through the combined efforts of law- enforcement agencies across the world, high-profile industry representatives and anti-counterfeiting associations... The IPR Center, which stands at the forefront of the U.S. government's response to IP theft, worked directly with key international law- enforcement authorities and industry organizations representing the electronics sector, luxury brand-name designers, film and entertainment and several entities specializing in apparel and accessories through the major enforcement effort.... Investigations led by HSI resulted in the removal of copyright-infringing websites that sold counterfeit airbags and integrated sensors, both co mmodities that present a potential safety hazard. An investigation based in Louisiana led to the seizure of five website domain names - including Chinaseatbelt.com; Airbagpart.com; Chinasafetybelt.com; Fareurope.com; and Far-europe.com - involved in the sale of fake automotive parts. A joint case between HSI and Department of Defense investigative agencies resulted in the removal of PRBlogics.com, a copyright-infringing website offering counterfeit integrated sensors.
So the ICANN RPMs are focused on the "apples" of a very specific and narrow type of TM infringement that looks at domain content for evidence of bad faith use, while the government domain seizures do not focus on the domain name but the "oranges" use of the website to distribute counterfeit goods or infringed copyrighted content.
Aside from that, assembling the domain names would likely be impossible, given that the release makes clear that the million-plus seizures is a cumulative annual tally based on actions taken by law enforcement agencies around the world.
Finally, as the Techdirt blog states, the release is somewhat confusing in regard to what IP infringement was actually involved---
Still, it seems notable that in late November, ICE proudly announced that it had seized over a million websites, though frankly, the press release raises a hell of a lot more questions than it answers. First off, it appears that ICE has no clue that copyright and trademark are entirely different things.
More than 1 million copyright-infringing website domain names selling counterfeit automotive parts, electrical components, personal care items and other fake goods were criminally and civilly seized in the past year through the combined efforts of law-enforcement agencies across the world, high-profile industry representatives and anti-counterfeiting associations.
"Copyright infringing website domain names" already is a weird description (were the URLs themselves infringing?) but it's made even weirder by saying that these sites were seized because they were selling counterfeits. Counterfeiting is a trademark issue, not a copyright one. Those laws are entirely different.
In conclusion, unless we are contemplating expansion of the ICANN RPMs beyond a narrow form of cybersquatting to cover sale of counterfeit goods and websites infringing copyright (a proposition for which consensus could not likely be achieved), even if the million-plus domain names could be obtained their relationship to our work seems tangential at best.
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648 <7039484648>/Direct
571-342-7489 <5713427489>/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 11:48 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
Hi folks,
Happy New Year.
There was news about ICE seizing over 1 million domain names, see:
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/over-million-websites-seized-global-operat...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181213/18030341224/ice-seizes-over-1-mil...
I was curious whether anyone (maybe a registrar, registry, or TM holders who were involved, i.e. the "industry partners") has and can share the complete list of domain names that were seized, as that might be a potential source of data for our work.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269 <4165880269>
_______________________________________________
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 listGNSO-RPM-WG@icann.orghttps://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
------------------------------
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://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Thanks for the feedback. Again, while I have been stating personal views I don’t see how any analysis, which would likely show that some percentage of the domains targeted by LEA might have been subject to a UDRP or URS, would be relevant to our Charter mission, which is “the overarching issue as to whether or not all the RPMs collectively fulfill the purposes for which they were created, or whether additional policy recommendations are needed, including to clarify and unify the policy goals”. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Tattersfield Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2019 6:12 PM To: Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> Cc: Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP? I agree Georges. I also feel any additional time would be better spent considering some of the individual proposals prior to the publishing of the initial report. Given participation in the two new subgroups is quite light, would there be any support for running a 3rd concurrent subgroup to review the individual proposals? Aside: IndianHotels.com was nicely articulated, good to see. On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 10:19 PM Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>> wrote: I fully agree with Paul. I really do not see the relevance. Even you had a list you would have very little details on the underlying situation and facts involved. More importantly, and as Paul notes, this is a completely different process that is involved and has nothing to do with the URS or UDRP process. To be sure, these governmental seizures typically involve fairly significant situations involving counterfeiting, criminal activity such as sales of illegal substances, illicit gambling, fraud, prostitution etc., terrorism and other nefarious acts. The UK, for example, recently seized 30,000 plus .uk related domains. These were apparently part of a sting involving criminal activity of significance. From: paul@law.es<mailto:paul@law.es> Sent: January 5, 2019 8:54 AM To: mitch@eff.org<mailto:mitch@eff.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP? I am not sure I understand the relevance of investigating other non-UDRP enforcement activities and how the “list” would Benefit the group - outside of curiosity. These are independent of the UDRP process (just as any other legal proceedings are). Although the laws regarding confiscation are obtuse (to say the least) and slanted in favor of the governmental authority (at least in the US) I still am not seeing how this might impact our work. While it is true that trademark owners may seek relief via the ICE process that is really no different that a group of trademark owners seeking assistance from the FBI. Paul Sent from the road. On 2 Jan 2019, at 20:02, Mitch Stoltz <mitch@eff.org<mailto:mitch@eff.org>> wrote: I disagree—more information about these seizures could absolutely inform our work. It would be useful to know what percentage of those million-plus domain names were seized for reasons relating to trademark infringement in the domain name itself versus some objectionable content in the website, and whether the claims actually relate to trademark or copyright. Knowing whether ICE seizures are in fact addressing some of the same conduct as the ICANN RPMs, and what if any due process is being afforded, will provide an important basis of comparison, because the RPMs don't operate in a vacuum. Mitch Stoltz Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142<tel:4154369333,142> https://www.eff.org/donate | https://act.eff.org/ On 1/2/19 9:58 AM, Jonathan Frost via GNSO-RPM-WG wrote: I think Phil has a good point here. Without a meaningful way to distinguish why exactly each domain was seized, the data would not be very useful beyond the mere knowledge that local governments are enforcing local IP laws. Jonathan On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:47 PM Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: Aside from the daunting challenge of analyzing a list of more than one million domain names, if such a list could be assembled I'm not sure it could inform our work in any meaningful way. The new gTLD RPMs are focused on preventing and responding to a very narrow type of trademark infringement -- cybersquatting where the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, where the registrant has no legitimate interest in the DN and the domain is being used in bad faith to infringe trademark. While some of the seized domains referenced in the ICE press release may have met that test, many (likely the majority) probably did not, as the release makes clear that the primary focus was not the domain name but the sale/distribution of counterfeit goods and copyright-infringing material -- More than 1 million copyright-infringing website domain names selling counterfeit automotive parts, electrical components, personal care items and other fake goods were criminally and civilly seized in the past year through the combined efforts of law- enforcement agencies across the world, high-profile industry representatives and anti-counterfeiting associations... The IPR Center, which stands at the forefront of the U.S. government's response to IP theft, worked directly with key international law- enforcement authorities and industry organizations representing the electronics sector, luxury brand-name designers, film and entertainment and several entities specializing in apparel and accessories through the major enforcement effort.... Investigations led by HSI resulted in the removal of copyright-infringing websites that sold counterfeit airbags and integrated sensors, both co mmodities that present a potential safety hazard. An investigation based in Louisiana led to the seizure of five website domain names - including Chinaseatbelt.com<http://Chinaseatbelt.com>; Airbagpart.com<http://Airbagpart.com>; Chinasafetybelt.com<http://Chinasafetybelt.com>; Fareurope.com<http://Fareurope.com>; and Far-europe.com<http://Far-europe.com> - involved in the sale of fake automotive parts. A joint case between HSI and Department of Defense investigative agencies resulted in the removal of PRBlogics.com<http://PRBlogics.com>, a copyright-infringing website offering counterfeit integrated sensors. So the ICANN RPMs are focused on the "apples" of a very specific and narrow type of TM infringement that looks at domain content for evidence of bad faith use, while the government domain seizures do not focus on the domain name but the "oranges" use of the website to distribute counterfeit goods or infringed copyrighted content. Aside from that, assembling the domain names would likely be impossible, given that the release makes clear that the million-plus seizures is a cumulative annual tally based on actions taken by law enforcement agencies around the world. Finally, as the Techdirt blog states, the release is somewhat confusing in regard to what IP infringement was actually involved--- Still, it seems notable that in late November, ICE proudly announced that it had seized over a million websites, though frankly, the press release raises a hell of a lot more questions than it answers. First off, it appears that ICE has no clue that copyright and trademark are entirely different things. More than 1 million copyright-infringing website domain names selling counterfeit automotive parts, electrical components, personal care items and other fake goods were criminally and civilly seized in the past year through the combined efforts of law-enforcement agencies across the world, high-profile industry representatives and anti-counterfeiting associations. "Copyright infringing website domain names" already is a weird description (were the URLs themselves infringing?) but it's made even weirder by saying that these sites were seized because they were selling counterfeits. Counterfeiting is a trademark issue, not a copyright one. Those laws are entirely different. In conclusion, unless we are contemplating expansion of the ICANN RPMs beyond a narrow form of cybersquatting to cover sale of counterfeit goods and websites infringing copyright (a proposition for which consensus could not likely be achieved), even if the million-plus domain names could be obtained their relationship to our work seems tangential at best. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648<tel:7039484648>/Direct 571-342-7489<tel:5713427489>/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 11:48 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP? Hi folks, Happy New Year. There was news about ICE seizing over 1 million domain names, see: https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/over-million-websites-seized-global-operat... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181213/18030341224/ice-seizes-over-1-mil... I was curious whether anyone (maybe a registrar, registry, or TM holders who were involved, i.e. the "industry partners") has and can share the complete list of domain names that were seized, as that might be a potential source of data for our work. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:4165880269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ 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<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<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<mailto: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. _______________________________________________ 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
Hi George, Is a full list going to help us here? ICE is focussed on copyright "issues." Sure we can discuss if they do it correctly or not, but it seems to be out of our scope. Our bylaws are pretty clear, not to mention; https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-police Feel free to correct me, I somewhat lost track of this group, so I apologize in advance. Thanks, Theo Geurts CIPP/E On 2-1-2019 17:48, George Kirikos wrote:
Hi folks,
Happy New Year.
There was news about ICE seizing over 1 million domain names, see:
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/over-million-websites-seized-global-operat...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181213/18030341224/ice-seizes-over-1-mil...
I was curious whether anyone (maybe a registrar, registry, or TM holders who were involved, i.e. the "industry partners") has and can share the complete list of domain names that were seized, as that might be a potential source of data for our work.
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
Hi Theo, If it was only about copyright issues, then the list will likely be useless, as I agree that it's out of our scope. But, it's possible (as per the TechDirt article) that it was actually TM issues too, in which case ICE might have gone after cybersquatting. One will be able to quickly determine things by looking at the actual list of domains. In the last paragraph of the TechDirt article, the author writes: "I've fired off a FOIA request asking for the details of these "seized" domains and the communications with those industry partners. Should ICE ever decide to obey the law and respond to the FOIA, we'll share it here." But, perhaps someone else here already has the list and is allowed to publish it. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:03 PM theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Hi George,
Is a full list going to help us here? ICE is focussed on copyright "issues." Sure we can discuss if they do it correctly or not, but it seems to be out of our scope. Our bylaws are pretty clear, not to mention; https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-police
Feel free to correct me, I somewhat lost track of this group, so I apologize in advance.
Thanks,
Theo Geurts CIPP/E
On 2-1-2019 17:48, George Kirikos wrote:
Hi folks,
Happy New Year.
There was news about ICE seizing over 1 million domain names, see:
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/over-million-websites-seized-global-operat...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181213/18030341224/ice-seizes-over-1-mil...
I was curious whether anyone (maybe a registrar, registry, or TM holders who were involved, i.e. the "industry partners") has and can share the complete list of domain names that were seized, as that might be a potential source of data for our work.
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
aaaz zzazzzzzzzzzzz x Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Date: 1/2/19 4:13 PM (GMT-05:00) To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP? Hi Theo, If it was only about copyright issues, then the list will likely be useless, as I agree that it's out of our scope. But, it's possible (as per the TechDirt article) that it was actually TM issues too, in which case ICE might have gone after cybersquatting. One will be able to quickly determine things by looking at the actual list of domains. In the last paragraph of the TechDirt article, the author writes: "I've fired off a FOIA request asking for the details of these "seized" domains and the communications with those industry partners. Should ICE ever decide to obey the law and respond to the FOIA, we'll share it here." But, perhaps someone else here already has the list and is allowed to publish it. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leap.com%2f&c=E,1,fAR... On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:03 PM theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Hi George,
Is a full list going to help us here? ICE is focussed on copyright "issues." Sure we can discuss if they do it correctly or not, but it seems to be out of our scope. Our bylaws are pretty clear, not to mention; https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-police
Feel free to correct me, I somewhat lost track of this group, so I apologize in advance.
Thanks,
Theo Geurts CIPP/E
On 2-1-2019 17:48, George Kirikos wrote:
Hi folks,
Happy New Year.
There was news about ICE seizing over 1 million domain names, see:
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ice.gov%2fnews%2frel...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181213/18030341224/ice-seizes-over-1-mil...
I was curious whether anyone (maybe a registrar, registry, or TM holders who were involved, i.e. the "industry partners") has and can share the complete list of domain names that were seized, as that might be a potential source of data for our work.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leap.com%2f&c=E,1,pWb... _______________________________________________ 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 This message contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.
I completely agree with Phil's comments. In addition: 1. Can we try to remember that not all rights infringement or enforcement happens in the US or has a US-connection. From ICE's website the mission is "to protect the national security and public safety of the United States by disrupting and dismantling transnational criminal organizations that engage in cross-border crime". 2. Also from ICE's website: "Due to the lapse in federal funding, this website will not be actively managed". Presumably there are also other impacts on ICE activity, and this is hardly the first time this has happened. Let's not argue for replacement of ICANN measures by a so-called "free" option which is not available to all, where any action taken depends on the US's current priorities, and whose funding generally is subject to whatever US political squabble happens to be occurring. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Valideus 28-30 Little Russell Street London WC1A 2HN United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com www.valideus.com Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of Valideus. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Valideus Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and VAT number 272 9057 85. Our registered office is at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN. -----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: 02 January 2019 21:13 To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP? Hi Theo, If it was only about copyright issues, then the list will likely be useless, as I agree that it's out of our scope. But, it's possible (as per the TechDirt article) that it was actually TM issues too, in which case ICE might have gone after cybersquatting. One will be able to quickly determine things by looking at the actual list of domains. In the last paragraph of the TechDirt article, the author writes: "I've fired off a FOIA request asking for the details of these "seized" domains and the communications with those industry partners. Should ICE ever decide to obey the law and respond to the FOIA, we'll share it here." But, perhaps someone else here already has the list and is allowed to publish it. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:03 PM theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Hi George,
Is a full list going to help us here? ICE is focussed on copyright "issues."
Sure we can discuss if they do it correctly or not, but it seems to be
out of our scope.
Our bylaws are pretty clear, not to mention;
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-poli
ce
Feel free to correct me, I somewhat lost track of this group, so I
apologize in advance.
Thanks,
Theo Geurts CIPP/E
On 2-1-2019 17:48, George Kirikos wrote:
Hi folks,
Happy New Year.
There was news about ICE seizing over 1 million domain names, see:
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/over-million-websites-seized-globa
l-operation
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181213/18030341224/ice-seizes-ov
er-1-million-websites-with-no-due-process-apparently-unaware-that-co
pyright-trademark-are-different.shtml
I was curious whether anyone (maybe a registrar, registry, or TM
holders who were involved, i.e. the "industry partners") has and can
share the complete list of domain names that were seized, as that
might be a potential source of data for our work.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
_______________________________________________
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
Thanks for your feedback, Susan. A few additional personal comments- * It appears from the ICE press release that a number of other national law enforcement agencies may have been involved in the seizures. * While the seizure may have been "free" to the trademark owner if the domain was one that met the criteria for bringing a UDRP or URS, there is considerable expenditure of public funds in these efforts. * These law enforcement agency domain actions are directed at criminal activity, whereas the great majority of UDRP and URS actions focus on domains that could be the subject of civil trademark litigation. I would not favor eliminating the availability of self-help to trademark registrants via non-judicial RPMs, but one unintended result of doing so might be to encourage some trademark owners to seek law enforcement actions against domains that previously would have merited the filing of a UDRP or URS. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 5:41 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP? I completely agree with Phil's comments. In addition: 1. Can we try to remember that not all rights infringement or enforcement happens in the US or has a US-connection. From ICE's website the mission is "to protect the national security and public safety of the United States by disrupting and dismantling transnational criminal organizations that engage in cross-border crime". 2. Also from ICE's website: "Due to the lapse in federal funding, this website will not be actively managed". Presumably there are also other impacts on ICE activity, and this is hardly the first time this has happened. Let's not argue for replacement of ICANN measures by a so-called "free" option which is not available to all, where any action taken depends on the US's current priorities, and whose funding generally is subject to whatever US political squabble happens to be occurring. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Valideus 28-30 Little Russell Street London WC1A 2HN United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> www.valideus.com<http://www.valideus.com> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of Valideus. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Valideus Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and VAT number 272 9057 85. Our registered office is at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN. -----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: 02 January 2019 21:13 To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP? Hi Theo, If it was only about copyright issues, then the list will likely be useless, as I agree that it's out of our scope. But, it's possible (as per the TechDirt article) that it was actually TM issues too, in which case ICE might have gone after cybersquatting. One will be able to quickly determine things by looking at the actual list of domains. In the last paragraph of the TechDirt article, the author writes: "I've fired off a FOIA request asking for the details of these "seized" domains and the communications with those industry partners. Should ICE ever decide to obey the law and respond to the FOIA, we'll share it here." But, perhaps someone else here already has the list and is allowed to publish it. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:03 PM theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>> wrote:
Hi George,
Is a full list going to help us here? ICE is focussed on copyright "issues."
Sure we can discuss if they do it correctly or not, but it seems to be
out of our scope.
Our bylaws are pretty clear, not to mention;
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-poli
ce
Feel free to correct me, I somewhat lost track of this group, so I
apologize in advance.
Thanks,
Theo Geurts CIPP/E
On 2-1-2019 17:48, George Kirikos wrote:
Hi folks,
Happy New Year.
There was news about ICE seizing over 1 million domain names, see:
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/over-million-websites-seized-globa
l-operation
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181213/18030341224/ice-seizes-ov
er-1-million-websites-with-no-due-process-apparently-unaware-that-co
pyright-trademark-are-different.shtml
I was curious whether anyone (maybe a registrar, registry, or TM
holders who were involved, i.e. the "industry partners") has and can
share the complete list of domain names that were seized, as that
might be a potential source of data for our work.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
_______________________________________________
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org<mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ 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
Phil: Remind me, what was so special about trademark owners that merit them having non-judicial RPMs? If a party had a dispute with a registrar or registry, that would typically be handled by the courts. e.g. if someone wanted to bring an anti-trust action against Verisign, that would happen in the courts. Are you in favour of the creation of non-judicial alternatives to civil litigation for those other entities and causes of action too, that would expose Verisign to anti-trust decisions outside of courts? If the "justification" for the ICANN-created RPMs is that they're lower cost alternatives to the courts, why not do the same for other causes of actions against registrars and registries, in the name of "self-help" which you appear to argue is desirable? Where are the non-judicial "self-help" remedies for removing entries from the TMCH, for example? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 12:43 PM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks for your feedback, Susan.
A few additional personal comments—
It appears from the ICE press release that a number of other national law enforcement agencies may have been involved in the seizures. While the seizure may have been “free” to the trademark owner if the domain was one that met the criteria for bringing a UDRP or URS, there is considerable expenditure of public funds in these efforts. These law enforcement agency domain actions are directed at criminal activity, whereas the great majority of UDRP and URS actions focus on domains that could be the subject of civil trademark litigation. I would not favor eliminating the availability of self-help to trademark registrants via non-judicial RPMs, but one unintended result of doing so might be to encourage some trademark owners to seek law enforcement actions against domains that previously would have merited the filing of a UDRP or URS.
Best to all,
Philip
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 5:41 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
I completely agree with Phil's comments.
In addition:
1. Can we try to remember that not all rights infringement or enforcement happens in the US or has a US-connection. From ICE's website the mission is "to protect the national security and public safety of the United States by disrupting and dismantling transnational criminal organizations that engage in cross-border crime".
2. Also from ICE's website: "Due to the lapse in federal funding, this website will not be actively managed". Presumably there are also other impacts on ICE activity, and this is hardly the first time this has happened.
Let's not argue for replacement of ICANN measures by a so-called "free" option which is not available to all, where any action taken depends on the US's current priorities, and whose funding generally is subject to whatever US political squabble happens to be occurring.
Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy
Valideus
28-30 Little Russell Street
London WC1A 2HN
United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com
www.valideus.com
Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Valideus.
This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.
Valideus Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and VAT number 272 9057 85. Our registered office is at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN.
-----Original Message-----
From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: 02 January 2019 21:13
To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
Hi Theo,
If it was only about copyright issues, then the list will likely be useless, as I agree that it's out of our scope.
But, it's possible (as per the TechDirt article) that it was actually TM issues too, in which case ICE might have gone after cybersquatting.
One will be able to quickly determine things by looking at the actual list of domains.
In the last paragraph of the TechDirt article, the author writes:
"I've fired off a FOIA request asking for the details of these "seized" domains and the communications with those industry partners.
Should ICE ever decide to obey the law and respond to the FOIA, we'll share it here."
But, perhaps someone else here already has the list and is allowed to publish it.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:03 PM theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Hi George,
Is a full list going to help us here? ICE is focussed on copyright "issues."
Sure we can discuss if they do it correctly or not, but it seems to be
out of our scope.
Our bylaws are pretty clear, not to mention;
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-poli
ce
Feel free to correct me, I somewhat lost track of this group, so I
apologize in advance.
Thanks,
Theo Geurts CIPP/E
On 2-1-2019 17:48, George Kirikos wrote:
Hi folks,
Happy New Year.
There was news about ICE seizing over 1 million domain names, see:
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/over-million-websites-seized-globa
l-operation
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181213/18030341224/ice-seizes-ov
er-1-million-websites-with-no-due-process-apparently-unaware-that-co
pyright-trademark-are-different.shtml
I was curious whether anyone (maybe a registrar, registry, or TM
holders who were involved, i.e. the "industry partners") has and can
share the complete list of domain names that were seized, as that
might be a potential source of data for our work.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
_______________________________________________
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org
_______________________________________________
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org
To George's last point about removing entries from the TMCH, the TMCH provides exactly such a "self-help" mechanism: http://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute#3.3 Best, Griffin -----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 4, 2019 1:08 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP? Phil: Remind me, what was so special about trademark owners that merit them having non-judicial RPMs? If a party had a dispute with a registrar or registry, that would typically be handled by the courts. e.g. if someone wanted to bring an anti-trust action against Verisign, that would happen in the courts. Are you in favour of the creation of non-judicial alternatives to civil litigation for those other entities and causes of action too, that would expose Verisign to anti-trust decisions outside of courts? If the "justification" for the ICANN-created RPMs is that they're lower cost alternatives to the courts, why not do the same for other causes of actions against registrars and registries, in the name of "self-help" which you appear to argue is desirable? Where are the non-judicial "self-help" remedies for removing entries from the TMCH, for example? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 12:43 PM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks for your feedback, Susan.
A few additional personal comments—
It appears from the ICE press release that a number of other national law enforcement agencies may have been involved in the seizures. While the seizure may have been “free” to the trademark owner if the domain was one that met the criteria for bringing a UDRP or URS, there is considerable expenditure of public funds in these efforts. These law enforcement agency domain actions are directed at criminal activity, whereas the great majority of UDRP and URS actions focus on domains that could be the subject of civil trademark litigation. I would not favor eliminating the availability of self-help to trademark registrants via non-judicial RPMs, but one unintended result of doing so might be to encourage some trademark owners to seek law enforcement actions against domains that previously would have merited the filing of a UDRP or URS.
Best to all,
Philip
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 5:41 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
I completely agree with Phil's comments.
In addition:
1. Can we try to remember that not all rights infringement or enforcement happens in the US or has a US-connection. From ICE's website the mission is "to protect the national security and public safety of the United States by disrupting and dismantling transnational criminal organizations that engage in cross-border crime".
2. Also from ICE's website: "Due to the lapse in federal funding, this website will not be actively managed". Presumably there are also other impacts on ICE activity, and this is hardly the first time this has happened.
Let's not argue for replacement of ICANN measures by a so-called "free" option which is not available to all, where any action taken depends on the US's current priorities, and whose funding generally is subject to whatever US political squabble happens to be occurring.
Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy
Valideus
28-30 Little Russell Street
London WC1A 2HN
United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com
www.valideus.com
Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Valideus.
This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.
Valideus Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and VAT number 272 9057 85. Our registered office is at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN.
-----Original Message-----
From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: 02 January 2019 21:13
To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
Hi Theo,
If it was only about copyright issues, then the list will likely be useless, as I agree that it's out of our scope.
But, it's possible (as per the TechDirt article) that it was actually TM issues too, in which case ICE might have gone after cybersquatting.
One will be able to quickly determine things by looking at the actual list of domains.
In the last paragraph of the TechDirt article, the author writes:
"I've fired off a FOIA request asking for the details of these "seized" domains and the communications with those industry partners.
Should ICE ever decide to obey the law and respond to the FOIA, we'll share it here."
But, perhaps someone else here already has the list and is allowed to publish it.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:03 PM theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Hi George,
Is a full list going to help us here? ICE is focussed on copyright "issues."
Sure we can discuss if they do it correctly or not, but it seems to be
out of our scope.
Our bylaws are pretty clear, not to mention;
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-po li
ce
Feel free to correct me, I somewhat lost track of this group, so I
apologize in advance.
Thanks,
Theo Geurts CIPP/E
On 2-1-2019 17:48, George Kirikos wrote:
Hi folks,
Happy New Year.
There was news about ICE seizing over 1 million domain names, see:
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/over-million-websites-seized-glo ba
l-operation
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181213/18030341224/ice-seizes- ov
er-1-million-websites-with-no-due-process-apparently-unaware-that- co
pyright-trademark-are-different.shtml
I was curious whether anyone (maybe a registrar, registry, or TM
holders who were involved, i.e. the "industry partners") has and can
share the complete list of domain names that were seized, as that
might be a potential source of data for our work.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
_______________________________________________
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org
_______________________________________________
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
Thanks, Griffin, although that's not exactly the dispute scenario I was envisioning. (the more important scenario is one where there's a live TM actually registered in some obscure jurisdiction with lax rules that hands them out like candy, to game the sunrises; in the past, it's been argued that one has to go to that jurisdiction and get the TM invalidated, etc.) Might be interesting to see the stats and public decisions for that 3.3 procedure, though. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 1:18 PM Griffin Barnett <Griffin@winterfeldt.law> wrote:
To George's last point about removing entries from the TMCH, the TMCH provides exactly such a "self-help" mechanism:
http://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute#3.3
Best,
Griffin
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 4, 2019 1:08 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
Phil:
Remind me, what was so special about trademark owners that merit them having non-judicial RPMs?
If a party had a dispute with a registrar or registry, that would typically be handled by the courts. e.g. if someone wanted to bring an anti-trust action against Verisign, that would happen in the courts. Are you in favour of the creation of non-judicial alternatives to civil litigation for those other entities and causes of action too, that would expose Verisign to anti-trust decisions outside of courts? If the "justification" for the ICANN-created RPMs is that they're lower cost alternatives to the courts, why not do the same for other causes of actions against registrars and registries, in the name of "self-help" which you appear to argue is desirable?
Where are the non-judicial "self-help" remedies for removing entries from the TMCH, for example?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 12:43 PM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks for your feedback, Susan.
A few additional personal comments—
It appears from the ICE press release that a number of other national law enforcement agencies may have been involved in the seizures. While the seizure may have been “free” to the trademark owner if the domain was one that met the criteria for bringing a UDRP or URS, there is considerable expenditure of public funds in these efforts. These law enforcement agency domain actions are directed at criminal activity, whereas the great majority of UDRP and URS actions focus on domains that could be the subject of civil trademark litigation. I would not favor eliminating the availability of self-help to trademark registrants via non-judicial RPMs, but one unintended result of doing so might be to encourage some trademark owners to seek law enforcement actions against domains that previously would have merited the filing of a UDRP or URS.
Best to all,
Philip
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 5:41 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
I completely agree with Phil's comments.
In addition:
1. Can we try to remember that not all rights infringement or enforcement happens in the US or has a US-connection. From ICE's website the mission is "to protect the national security and public safety of the United States by disrupting and dismantling transnational criminal organizations that engage in cross-border crime".
2. Also from ICE's website: "Due to the lapse in federal funding, this website will not be actively managed". Presumably there are also other impacts on ICE activity, and this is hardly the first time this has happened.
Let's not argue for replacement of ICANN measures by a so-called "free" option which is not available to all, where any action taken depends on the US's current priorities, and whose funding generally is subject to whatever US political squabble happens to be occurring.
Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy
Valideus
28-30 Little Russell Street
London WC1A 2HN
United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com
www.valideus.com
Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Valideus.
This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.
Valideus Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and VAT number 272 9057 85. Our registered office is at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN.
-----Original Message-----
From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: 02 January 2019 21:13
To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
Hi Theo,
If it was only about copyright issues, then the list will likely be useless, as I agree that it's out of our scope.
But, it's possible (as per the TechDirt article) that it was actually TM issues too, in which case ICE might have gone after cybersquatting.
One will be able to quickly determine things by looking at the actual list of domains.
In the last paragraph of the TechDirt article, the author writes:
"I've fired off a FOIA request asking for the details of these "seized" domains and the communications with those industry partners.
Should ICE ever decide to obey the law and respond to the FOIA, we'll share it here."
But, perhaps someone else here already has the list and is allowed to publish it.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:03 PM theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Hi George,
Is a full list going to help us here? ICE is focussed on copyright "issues."
Sure we can discuss if they do it correctly or not, but it seems to be
out of our scope.
Our bylaws are pretty clear, not to mention;
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-po li
ce
Feel free to correct me, I somewhat lost track of this group, so I
apologize in advance.
Thanks,
Theo Geurts CIPP/E
On 2-1-2019 17:48, George Kirikos wrote:
Hi folks,
Happy New Year.
There was news about ICE seizing over 1 million domain names, see:
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/over-million-websites-seized-glo ba
l-operation
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181213/18030341224/ice-seizes- ov
er-1-million-websites-with-no-due-process-apparently-unaware-that- co
pyright-trademark-are-different.shtml
I was curious whether anyone (maybe a registrar, registry, or TM
holders who were involved, i.e. the "industry partners") has and can
share the complete list of domain names that were seized, as that
might be a potential source of data for our work.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
_______________________________________________
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org
_______________________________________________
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
I was not involved with ICANN until late 2006, so I was not PrticipNT in the discussions that led to the UDRP being established at its inception. Other members of this WG likely were and could knowledgeably respond to your initial question. While this WG's Charter requires it to consider whether URS should become an ICANN Consensus Policy, UDRP already has that status and I take it as a given that there is unlikely to ever be consensus within the ICANN community to do away with it. I therefore believe that our Phase 2 efforts will be better focused on improving it. As to the provision of non-judicial alternatives to resolution of other types of legal disputes, I would note that UDRP is not applicable to all types of trademark disputes concerning domains, but only one narrow and rather simple type of trademark dispute that can be resolved quickly and without personal appearances, discovery, or other attributes of full judicial process. Complex civil disputes do not lend themselves to that type of approach; antitrust/competition law disputes, for example, involve exceedingly complex legal and econometric analysis and extended discovery and other procedural attributes, and generally extend for years between initial filing and final appeals. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 1:08 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP? Phil: Remind me, what was so special about trademark owners that merit them having non-judicial RPMs? If a party had a dispute with a registrar or registry, that would typically be handled by the courts. e.g. if someone wanted to bring an anti-trust action against Verisign, that would happen in the courts. Are you in favour of the creation of non-judicial alternatives to civil litigation for those other entities and causes of action too, that would expose Verisign to anti-trust decisions outside of courts? If the "justification" for the ICANN-created RPMs is that they're lower cost alternatives to the courts, why not do the same for other causes of actions against registrars and registries, in the name of "self-help" which you appear to argue is desirable? Where are the non-judicial "self-help" remedies for removing entries from the TMCH, for example? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 12:43 PM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks for your feedback, Susan.
A few additional personal comments—
It appears from the ICE press release that a number of other national law enforcement agencies may have been involved in the seizures. While the seizure may have been “free” to the trademark owner if the domain was one that met the criteria for bringing a UDRP or URS, there is considerable expenditure of public funds in these efforts. These law enforcement agency domain actions are directed at criminal activity, whereas the great majority of UDRP and URS actions focus on domains that could be the subject of civil trademark litigation. I would not favor eliminating the availability of self-help to trademark registrants via non-judicial RPMs, but one unintended result of doing so might be to encourage some trademark owners to seek law enforcement actions against domains that previously would have merited the filing of a UDRP or URS.
Best to all,
Philip
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 5:41 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
I completely agree with Phil's comments.
In addition:
1. Can we try to remember that not all rights infringement or enforcement happens in the US or has a US-connection. From ICE's website the mission is "to protect the national security and public safety of the United States by disrupting and dismantling transnational criminal organizations that engage in cross-border crime".
2. Also from ICE's website: "Due to the lapse in federal funding, this website will not be actively managed". Presumably there are also other impacts on ICE activity, and this is hardly the first time this has happened.
Let's not argue for replacement of ICANN measures by a so-called "free" option which is not available to all, where any action taken depends on the US's current priorities, and whose funding generally is subject to whatever US political squabble happens to be occurring.
Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy
Valideus
28-30 Little Russell Street
London WC1A 2HN
United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com
www.valideus.com
Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Valideus.
This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.
Valideus Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and VAT number 272 9057 85. Our registered office is at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN.
-----Original Message-----
From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: 02 January 2019 21:13
To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
Hi Theo,
If it was only about copyright issues, then the list will likely be useless, as I agree that it's out of our scope.
But, it's possible (as per the TechDirt article) that it was actually TM issues too, in which case ICE might have gone after cybersquatting.
One will be able to quickly determine things by looking at the actual list of domains.
In the last paragraph of the TechDirt article, the author writes:
"I've fired off a FOIA request asking for the details of these "seized" domains and the communications with those industry partners.
Should ICE ever decide to obey the law and respond to the FOIA, we'll share it here."
But, perhaps someone else here already has the list and is allowed to publish it.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:03 PM theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Hi George,
Is a full list going to help us here? ICE is focussed on copyright "issues."
Sure we can discuss if they do it correctly or not, but it seems to be
out of our scope.
Our bylaws are pretty clear, not to mention;
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-po li
ce
Feel free to correct me, I somewhat lost track of this group, so I
apologize in advance.
Thanks,
Theo Geurts CIPP/E
On 2-1-2019 17:48, George Kirikos wrote:
Hi folks,
Happy New Year.
There was news about ICE seizing over 1 million domain names, see:
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/over-million-websites-seized-glo ba
l-operation
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181213/18030341224/ice-seizes- ov
er-1-million-websites-with-no-due-process-apparently-unaware-that- co
pyright-trademark-are-different.shtml
I was curious whether anyone (maybe a registrar, registry, or TM
holders who were involved, i.e. the "industry partners") has and can
share the complete list of domain names that were seized, as that
might be a potential source of data for our work.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
_______________________________________________
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org
_______________________________________________
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
Errata -- First sentence should read, " I was not involved with ICANN until late 2006, so I was not a participant in the discussions that led to the UDRP being established at its inception." Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 2:29 PM To: icann@leap.com; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP? I was not involved with ICANN until late 2006, so I was not PrticipNT in the discussions that led to the UDRP being established at its inception. Other members of this WG likely were and could knowledgeably respond to your initial question. While this WG's Charter requires it to consider whether URS should become an ICANN Consensus Policy, UDRP already has that status and I take it as a given that there is unlikely to ever be consensus within the ICANN community to do away with it. I therefore believe that our Phase 2 efforts will be better focused on improving it. As to the provision of non-judicial alternatives to resolution of other types of legal disputes, I would note that UDRP is not applicable to all types of trademark disputes concerning domains, but only one narrow and rather simple type of trademark dispute that can be resolved quickly and without personal appearances, discovery, or other attributes of full judicial process. Complex civil disputes do not lend themselves to that type of approach; antitrust/competition law disputes, for example, involve exceedingly complex legal and econometric analysis and extended discovery and other procedural attributes, and generally extend for years between initial filing and final appeals. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 1:08 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP? Phil: Remind me, what was so special about trademark owners that merit them having non-judicial RPMs? If a party had a dispute with a registrar or registry, that would typically be handled by the courts. e.g. if someone wanted to bring an anti-trust action against Verisign, that would happen in the courts. Are you in favour of the creation of non-judicial alternatives to civil litigation for those other entities and causes of action too, that would expose Verisign to anti-trust decisions outside of courts? If the "justification" for the ICANN-created RPMs is that they're lower cost alternatives to the courts, why not do the same for other causes of actions against registrars and registries, in the name of "self-help" which you appear to argue is desirable? Where are the non-judicial "self-help" remedies for removing entries from the TMCH, for example? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 12:43 PM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks for your feedback, Susan.
A few additional personal comments—
It appears from the ICE press release that a number of other national law enforcement agencies may have been involved in the seizures. While the seizure may have been “free” to the trademark owner if the domain was one that met the criteria for bringing a UDRP or URS, there is considerable expenditure of public funds in these efforts. These law enforcement agency domain actions are directed at criminal activity, whereas the great majority of UDRP and URS actions focus on domains that could be the subject of civil trademark litigation. I would not favor eliminating the availability of self-help to trademark registrants via non-judicial RPMs, but one unintended result of doing so might be to encourage some trademark owners to seek law enforcement actions against domains that previously would have merited the filing of a UDRP or URS.
Best to all,
Philip
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 5:41 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
I completely agree with Phil's comments.
In addition:
1. Can we try to remember that not all rights infringement or enforcement happens in the US or has a US-connection. From ICE's website the mission is "to protect the national security and public safety of the United States by disrupting and dismantling transnational criminal organizations that engage in cross-border crime".
2. Also from ICE's website: "Due to the lapse in federal funding, this website will not be actively managed". Presumably there are also other impacts on ICE activity, and this is hardly the first time this has happened.
Let's not argue for replacement of ICANN measures by a so-called "free" option which is not available to all, where any action taken depends on the US's current priorities, and whose funding generally is subject to whatever US political squabble happens to be occurring.
Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy
Valideus
28-30 Little Russell Street
London WC1A 2HN
United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com
www.valideus.com
Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Valideus.
This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.
Valideus Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and VAT number 272 9057 85. Our registered office is at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN.
-----Original Message-----
From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: 02 January 2019 21:13
To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
Hi Theo,
If it was only about copyright issues, then the list will likely be useless, as I agree that it's out of our scope.
But, it's possible (as per the TechDirt article) that it was actually TM issues too, in which case ICE might have gone after cybersquatting.
One will be able to quickly determine things by looking at the actual list of domains.
In the last paragraph of the TechDirt article, the author writes:
"I've fired off a FOIA request asking for the details of these "seized" domains and the communications with those industry partners.
Should ICE ever decide to obey the law and respond to the FOIA, we'll share it here."
But, perhaps someone else here already has the list and is allowed to publish it.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:03 PM theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Hi George,
Is a full list going to help us here? ICE is focussed on copyright "issues."
Sure we can discuss if they do it correctly or not, but it seems to be
out of our scope.
Our bylaws are pretty clear, not to mention;
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-po li
ce
Feel free to correct me, I somewhat lost track of this group, so I
apologize in advance.
Thanks,
Theo Geurts CIPP/E
On 2-1-2019 17:48, George Kirikos wrote:
Hi folks,
Happy New Year.
There was news about ICE seizing over 1 million domain names, see:
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/over-million-websites-seized-glo ba
l-operation
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181213/18030341224/ice-seizes- ov
er-1-million-websites-with-no-due-process-apparently-unaware-that- co
pyright-trademark-are-different.shtml
I was curious whether anyone (maybe a registrar, registry, or TM
holders who were involved, i.e. the "industry partners") has and can
share the complete list of domain names that were seized, as that
might be a potential source of data for our work.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
_______________________________________________
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org
_______________________________________________
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
Thanks for your reply, Phil, as I'm trying to understand your point of view. Unlike yourself, I don't "take it as a given" as to what future consensus decisions of this PDP might be.
From my perspective (and perhaps others might share my point of view), extrajudicial and non-judicial procedures are inherently dangerous, as they don't have the same due process protections as courts. In my view, there should be an appropriate test with a high hurdle to determine whether they should be created in the first place, and ongoing tests to determine whether they should be retained, as they can outlive their initial justification/purpose. What might have been appropriate two decades ago might not be appropriate today, given the maturity and evolution of the courts in handling internet-related disputes, and the availability of more streamlined options (e.g. availability of online courts in China, as noted previously on this mailing list, see: https://www.chinalawblog.com/2018/12/chinas-internet-courts-are-spreading-on... which didn't exist in the past).
I'm a little bit confused by your explanation though, as you appear to be asserting that the UDRP/URS involve only "simple" trademark disputes. Is it your perspective that non-judicial or extra-judicial procedures should be limited only to the "simple" disputes?? If that's the case, then, had these "simple" disputes been brought to court, wouldn't they have been disposed of rather quickly and at low cost, given that you are saying they were really simple disputes? I put forth proposals in the URS stage of our work, for example, to help ensure that certain types of more "complex" disputes (e.g. domains created more than 2 years from the time of the dispute, via a limitation period) would be prevented from being brought, but faced some opposition from others. I hope you will be an ally in ensuring that, if the URS and UDRP survive as mandatory policies, that they be restricted only to simple and clearcut cases of cybersquatting. As a counterexample, last August I posted about the OpenTime.com UDRP case: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-August/003219.html https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2016-2328 whose incorrect decision was appealed in court by the domain name registrant (see court judgment as the PDF attachment at the bottom of that email). If you read that UDRP decision, the panelist (Georges Nahitchevansky) was confronted with a complex dispute, where the registrant/respondent was the owner of its own competing Japanese trademark. Rather than taking the position that "this dispute belongs in the courts as it is complex", the panelist in a long decision (demonstrating the complexity of the underlying dispute!) made a judgment call, a flawed one, picking one side's rights over another party's rights. There have been other disputes brought besides that one, where panelists are overstepping their authority in complex cases, for example, claiming in decisions that logos appear similar (when they're not) or determining that certain valuations are incorrect, e.g. the infamous ADO.com decision: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2017-1661 http://www.circleid.com/posts/20180212_whats_so_outrageous_asking_high_price... http://www.circleid.com/posts/20180301_ica_statement_on_adocom_udrp_decision... https://domainnamewire.com/2018/02/05/wipo-panel-screws-domaining-com-owner-... https://domainnamewire.com/2018/02/13/much-ado-ado-com-carrillo-sues-bus-com... Indeed, I posted about the historical development of the UDRP in October: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003444.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003449.html and the original Whitepaper even said: "Further, it should be clear that whatever dispute resolution mechanism is put in place by the new corporation, that mechanism should be directed toward disputes about cybersquatting and cyberpiracy and not to settling the disputes between two parties with legitimate competing interests in a particular mark. ****Where legitimate competing rights are concerned, disputes are rightly settled in an appropriate court.**** (emphasis added) Yet, the OpenTime.com UDRP panelist at WIPO took it upon himself to disregard the fact there were legitimate competing rights, i.e. a more complex dispute (and not the "simple" dispute you wrote about). Anyhow, if you'd like to explain your reasoning further, so working group members can better understand your perspective, please do, although we've gone off on a tangent somewhat (as the initial post of this thread was intended to seek out data on the recent ICE domain seizures, which may be of assistance in our research/review). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 2:33 PM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Errata -- First sentence should read, " I was not involved with ICANN until late 2006, so I was not a participant in the discussions that led to the UDRP being established at its inception."
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 2:29 PM To: icann@leap.com; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
I was not involved with ICANN until late 2006, so I was not PrticipNT in the discussions that led to the UDRP being established at its inception. Other members of this WG likely were and could knowledgeably respond to your initial question. While this WG's Charter requires it to consider whether URS should become an ICANN Consensus Policy, UDRP already has that status and I take it as a given that there is unlikely to ever be consensus within the ICANN community to do away with it. I therefore believe that our Phase 2 efforts will be better focused on improving it.
As to the provision of non-judicial alternatives to resolution of other types of legal disputes, I would note that UDRP is not applicable to all types of trademark disputes concerning domains, but only one narrow and rather simple type of trademark dispute that can be resolved quickly and without personal appearances, discovery, or other attributes of full judicial process. Complex civil disputes do not lend themselves to that type of approach; antitrust/competition law disputes, for example, involve exceedingly complex legal and econometric analysis and extended discovery and other procedural attributes, and generally extend for years between initial filing and final appeals.
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 1:08 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
Phil:
Remind me, what was so special about trademark owners that merit them having non-judicial RPMs?
If a party had a dispute with a registrar or registry, that would typically be handled by the courts. e.g. if someone wanted to bring an anti-trust action against Verisign, that would happen in the courts. Are you in favour of the creation of non-judicial alternatives to civil litigation for those other entities and causes of action too, that would expose Verisign to anti-trust decisions outside of courts? If the "justification" for the ICANN-created RPMs is that they're lower cost alternatives to the courts, why not do the same for other causes of actions against registrars and registries, in the name of "self-help" which you appear to argue is desirable?
Where are the non-judicial "self-help" remedies for removing entries from the TMCH, for example?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 12:43 PM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks for your feedback, Susan.
A few additional personal comments—
It appears from the ICE press release that a number of other national law enforcement agencies may have been involved in the seizures. While the seizure may have been “free” to the trademark owner if the domain was one that met the criteria for bringing a UDRP or URS, there is considerable expenditure of public funds in these efforts. These law enforcement agency domain actions are directed at criminal activity, whereas the great majority of UDRP and URS actions focus on domains that could be the subject of civil trademark litigation. I would not favor eliminating the availability of self-help to trademark registrants via non-judicial RPMs, but one unintended result of doing so might be to encourage some trademark owners to seek law enforcement actions against domains that previously would have merited the filing of a UDRP or URS.
Best to all,
Philip
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 5:41 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
I completely agree with Phil's comments.
In addition:
1. Can we try to remember that not all rights infringement or enforcement happens in the US or has a US-connection. From ICE's website the mission is "to protect the national security and public safety of the United States by disrupting and dismantling transnational criminal organizations that engage in cross-border crime".
2. Also from ICE's website: "Due to the lapse in federal funding, this website will not be actively managed". Presumably there are also other impacts on ICE activity, and this is hardly the first time this has happened.
Let's not argue for replacement of ICANN measures by a so-called "free" option which is not available to all, where any action taken depends on the US's current priorities, and whose funding generally is subject to whatever US political squabble happens to be occurring.
Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy
Valideus
28-30 Little Russell Street
London WC1A 2HN
United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com
www.valideus.com
Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Valideus.
This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.
Valideus Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and VAT number 272 9057 85. Our registered office is at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN.
-----Original Message-----
From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: 02 January 2019 21:13
To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
Hi Theo,
If it was only about copyright issues, then the list will likely be useless, as I agree that it's out of our scope.
But, it's possible (as per the TechDirt article) that it was actually TM issues too, in which case ICE might have gone after cybersquatting.
One will be able to quickly determine things by looking at the actual list of domains.
In the last paragraph of the TechDirt article, the author writes:
"I've fired off a FOIA request asking for the details of these "seized" domains and the communications with those industry partners.
Should ICE ever decide to obey the law and respond to the FOIA, we'll share it here."
But, perhaps someone else here already has the list and is allowed to publish it.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:03 PM theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Hi George,
Is a full list going to help us here? ICE is focussed on copyright "issues."
Sure we can discuss if they do it correctly or not, but it seems to be
out of our scope.
Our bylaws are pretty clear, not to mention;
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-po li
ce
Feel free to correct me, I somewhat lost track of this group, so I
apologize in advance.
Thanks,
Theo Geurts CIPP/E
On 2-1-2019 17:48, George Kirikos wrote:
Hi folks,
Happy New Year.
There was news about ICE seizing over 1 million domain names, see:
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/over-million-websites-seized-glo ba
l-operation
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181213/18030341224/ice-seizes- ov
er-1-million-websites-with-no-due-process-apparently-unaware-that- co
pyright-trademark-are-different.shtml
I was curious whether anyone (maybe a registrar, registry, or TM
holders who were involved, i.e. the "industry partners") has and can
share the complete list of domain names that were seized, as that
might be a potential source of data for our work.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
_______________________________________________
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org
_______________________________________________
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
It seems unlikely that a single list exists, since agencies from 26 countries plus Europol and Interpol were involved in the criminal seizures, and an untold number of entities were involved in the civil seizures. We can glean some information from the latest ICE press release, as well as previous press releases. The domain names cited in the latest press release were chinaseatbelt.com, airbagpart.com, chinasafetybelt.com, fareurope.com, far-Europe.com, and PRBlogics.com. The first three domains appear to be using these terms in their generic meanings, while the next two are the domains based on the name of the company operating the websites (selling counterfeit seatbelt and airbag parts) found at the first three domains. PRBlogics.com is derived from the name of the company selling counterfeit chips (primarily field programmable gate arrays, apparently). None of these domain names has relevance to ICANN RPMs. We can also see that the target of Operatio In Our Sites is the sale and distribution of counterfeit goods — not the domain names per se. That is a major distinction from RPMs. Of course, it’s possible that some of the websites selling counterfeit goods had trademark-infringing domain names, too (in prior iterations, both cheapjerseysite.net and cheapnfljerseys.com were seized, along with 300+ other domains). But given the focus on counterfeit goods in Operation In Our Sites, these actions are clearly not a substitute for ICANN RPMs. Looking at prior descriptions In Our Sites efforts, they specifically discuss “websites which closely mimicked legitimate websites” — in other words “copyright-infringing websites.” So, IP claims involved here may be: (1) trademark, based on the trademark being used on counterfeit goods, (2) copyright, based on copying of legitimate website content, (3) copyright, based on copyright in the goods themselves (e.g., movies, music, software, games, decorative goods, etc.) and (4) trademark, based on an infringing domain name. Only the last is actionable under the RPMs we’re charged with reviewing. Prior descriptions also note that websites using domains with ccTLDs are part of the target group, so this is another area of non-overlap with the ICANN RPMs. I would take issue with the idea that this all takes place in a way that is “free” to the victimized companies. There are all sorts of costs attached to the ICE efforts that fall on the companies involved. First, there are the civil seizures noted in the press release; these are the financial responsibility of the companies, at a high multiple to the cost of a URS or UDRP. Second, coordination between the victimized companies and the multiple government agencies, necessary to support the criminal investigations, comes at a cost as well. Third, there are underlying costs in maintaining systems, processes and staff dedicated to stopping counterfeiting. Finally, it is clear that there are a variety of ways to deal with trademark-infringing domain names, in isolation or in combination with other civil or criminal legal violations, and as a primary consideration or as a sideshow. These ICE-coordinated actions and ICANN RPMs are only two of them. Some may involve criminal enforcement, others civil court litigation, still others administrative remedies, others alternate dispute resolution mechanisms, and others involve private resolutions. It is not uncommon to use more than one, either serially or in parallel, depending on the circumstances. But these methods are not fungible, and certain methods will fit certain problems better. Operation In Our Sites is significantly different in numerous ways from ICANN RPMs, and is simply not a replacement for the URS or UDRP; at best, it is a complement. As such, it would not seem fruitful or a good use of resources to open up a major new line of inquiry, unless we have developed an undue fondness for rabbit-holes. Best regards, Greg On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 2:33 PM Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Errata -- First sentence should read, " I was not involved with ICANN until late 2006, so I was not a participant in the discussions that led to the UDRP being established at its inception."
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 2:29 PM To: icann@leap.com; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
I was not involved with ICANN until late 2006, so I was not PrticipNT in the discussions that led to the UDRP being established at its inception. Other members of this WG likely were and could knowledgeably respond to your initial question. While this WG's Charter requires it to consider whether URS should become an ICANN Consensus Policy, UDRP already has that status and I take it as a given that there is unlikely to ever be consensus within the ICANN community to do away with it. I therefore believe that our Phase 2 efforts will be better focused on improving it.
As to the provision of non-judicial alternatives to resolution of other types of legal disputes, I would note that UDRP is not applicable to all types of trademark disputes concerning domains, but only one narrow and rather simple type of trademark dispute that can be resolved quickly and without personal appearances, discovery, or other attributes of full judicial process. Complex civil disputes do not lend themselves to that type of approach; antitrust/competition law disputes, for example, involve exceedingly complex legal and econometric analysis and extended discovery and other procedural attributes, and generally extend for years between initial filing and final appeals.
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 1:08 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
Phil:
Remind me, what was so special about trademark owners that merit them having non-judicial RPMs?
If a party had a dispute with a registrar or registry, that would typically be handled by the courts. e.g. if someone wanted to bring an anti-trust action against Verisign, that would happen in the courts. Are you in favour of the creation of non-judicial alternatives to civil litigation for those other entities and causes of action too, that would expose Verisign to anti-trust decisions outside of courts? If the "justification" for the ICANN-created RPMs is that they're lower cost alternatives to the courts, why not do the same for other causes of actions against registrars and registries, in the name of "self-help" which you appear to argue is desirable?
Where are the non-judicial "self-help" remedies for removing entries from the TMCH, for example?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 12:43 PM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks for your feedback, Susan.
A few additional personal comments—
It appears from the ICE press release that a number of other national
law enforcement agencies may have been involved in the seizures.
While the seizure may have been “free” to the trademark owner if the domain was one that met the criteria for bringing a UDRP or URS, there is considerable expenditure of public funds in these efforts. These law enforcement agency domain actions are directed at criminal activity, whereas the great majority of UDRP and URS actions focus on domains that could be the subject of civil trademark litigation. I would not favor eliminating the availability of self-help to trademark registrants via non-judicial RPMs, but one unintended result of doing so might be to encourage some trademark owners to seek law enforcement actions against domains that previously would have merited the filing of a UDRP or URS.
Best to all,
Philip
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 5:41 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
I completely agree with Phil's comments.
In addition:
1. Can we try to remember that not all rights infringement or enforcement happens in the US or has a US-connection. From ICE's website the mission is "to protect the national security and public safety of the United States by disrupting and dismantling transnational criminal organizations that engage in cross-border crime".
2. Also from ICE's website: "Due to the lapse in federal funding, this website will not be actively managed". Presumably there are also other impacts on ICE activity, and this is hardly the first time this has happened.
Let's not argue for replacement of ICANN measures by a so-called "free" option which is not available to all, where any action taken depends on the US's current priorities, and whose funding generally is subject to whatever US political squabble happens to be occurring.
Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy
Valideus
28-30 Little Russell Street
London WC1A 2HN
United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com
www.valideus.com
Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Valideus.
This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.
Valideus Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and VAT number 272 9057 85. Our registered office is at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN.
-----Original Message-----
From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: 02 January 2019 21:13
To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
Hi Theo,
If it was only about copyright issues, then the list will likely be useless, as I agree that it's out of our scope.
But, it's possible (as per the TechDirt article) that it was actually TM issues too, in which case ICE might have gone after cybersquatting.
One will be able to quickly determine things by looking at the actual list of domains.
In the last paragraph of the TechDirt article, the author writes:
"I've fired off a FOIA request asking for the details of these "seized" domains and the communications with those industry partners.
Should ICE ever decide to obey the law and respond to the FOIA, we'll share it here."
But, perhaps someone else here already has the list and is allowed to publish it.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:03 PM theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Hi George,
Is a full list going to help us here? ICE is focussed on copyright "issues."
Sure we can discuss if they do it correctly or not, but it seems to be
out of our scope.
Our bylaws are pretty clear, not to mention;
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-po li
ce
Feel free to correct me, I somewhat lost track of this group, so I
apologize in advance.
Thanks,
Theo Geurts CIPP/E
On 2-1-2019 17:48, George Kirikos wrote:
Hi folks,
Happy New Year.
There was news about ICE seizing over 1 million domain names, see:
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/over-million-websites-seized-glo ba
l-operation
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181213/18030341224/ice-seizes- ov
er-1-million-websites-with-no-due-process-apparently-unaware-that- co
pyright-trademark-are-different.shtml
I was curious whether anyone (maybe a registrar, registry, or TM
holders who were involved, i.e. the "industry partners") has and can
share the complete list of domain names that were seized, as that
might be a potential source of data for our work.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
_______________________________________________
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org
_______________________________________________
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 _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
I would suggest that the discussion of The Origin of the Universe and All Things In It should be forked into a different thread, since it is an admitted “tangent” to this thread. Going down a rabbit-hole is bad enough; going into a rabbit-Tardis is much worse. Greg On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 4:15 PM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
It seems unlikely that a single list exists, since agencies from 26 countries plus Europol and Interpol were involved in the criminal seizures, and an untold number of entities were involved in the civil seizures.
We can glean some information from the latest ICE press release, as well as previous press releases.
The domain names cited in the latest press release were chinaseatbelt.com, airbagpart.com, chinasafetybelt.com, fareurope.com, far-Europe.com, and PRBlogics.com. The first three domains appear to be using these terms in their generic meanings, while the next two are the domains based on the name of the company operating the websites (selling counterfeit seatbelt and airbag parts) found at the first three domains. PRBlogics.com is derived from the name of the company selling counterfeit chips (primarily field programmable gate arrays, apparently). None of these domain names has relevance to ICANN RPMs.
We can also see that the target of Operatio In Our Sites is the sale and distribution of counterfeit goods — not the domain names per se. That is a major distinction from RPMs. Of course, it’s possible that some of the websites selling counterfeit goods had trademark-infringing domain names, too (in prior iterations, both cheapjerseysite.net and cheapnfljerseys.com were seized, along with 300+ other domains). But given the focus on counterfeit goods in Operation In Our Sites, these actions are clearly not a substitute for ICANN RPMs.
Looking at prior descriptions In Our Sites efforts, they specifically discuss “websites which closely mimicked legitimate websites” — in other words “copyright-infringing websites.” So, IP claims involved here may be: (1) trademark, based on the trademark being used on counterfeit goods, (2) copyright, based on copying of legitimate website content, (3) copyright, based on copyright in the goods themselves (e.g., movies, music, software, games, decorative goods, etc.) and (4) trademark, based on an infringing domain name. Only the last is actionable under the RPMs we’re charged with reviewing.
Prior descriptions also note that websites using domains with ccTLDs are part of the target group, so this is another area of non-overlap with the ICANN RPMs.
I would take issue with the idea that this all takes place in a way that is “free” to the victimized companies. There are all sorts of costs attached to the ICE efforts that fall on the companies involved. First, there are the civil seizures noted in the press release; these are the financial responsibility of the companies, at a high multiple to the cost of a URS or UDRP. Second, coordination between the victimized companies and the multiple government agencies, necessary to support the criminal investigations, comes at a cost as well. Third, there are underlying costs in maintaining systems, processes and staff dedicated to stopping counterfeiting.
Finally, it is clear that there are a variety of ways to deal with trademark-infringing domain names, in isolation or in combination with other civil or criminal legal violations, and as a primary consideration or as a sideshow. These ICE-coordinated actions and ICANN RPMs are only two of them. Some may involve criminal enforcement, others civil court litigation, still others administrative remedies, others alternate dispute resolution mechanisms, and others involve private resolutions. It is not uncommon to use more than one, either serially or in parallel, depending on the circumstances. But these methods are not fungible, and certain methods will fit certain problems better. Operation In Our Sites is significantly different in numerous ways from ICANN RPMs, and is simply not a replacement for the URS or UDRP; at best, it is a complement. As such, it would not seem fruitful or a good use of resources to open up a major new line of inquiry, unless we have developed an undue fondness for rabbit-holes.
Best regards,
Greg
On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 2:33 PM Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Errata -- First sentence should read, " I was not involved with ICANN until late 2006, so I was not a participant in the discussions that led to the UDRP being established at its inception."
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 2:29 PM To: icann@leap.com; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
I was not involved with ICANN until late 2006, so I was not PrticipNT in the discussions that led to the UDRP being established at its inception. Other members of this WG likely were and could knowledgeably respond to your initial question. While this WG's Charter requires it to consider whether URS should become an ICANN Consensus Policy, UDRP already has that status and I take it as a given that there is unlikely to ever be consensus within the ICANN community to do away with it. I therefore believe that our Phase 2 efforts will be better focused on improving it.
As to the provision of non-judicial alternatives to resolution of other types of legal disputes, I would note that UDRP is not applicable to all types of trademark disputes concerning domains, but only one narrow and rather simple type of trademark dispute that can be resolved quickly and without personal appearances, discovery, or other attributes of full judicial process. Complex civil disputes do not lend themselves to that type of approach; antitrust/competition law disputes, for example, involve exceedingly complex legal and econometric analysis and extended discovery and other procedural attributes, and generally extend for years between initial filing and final appeals.
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 1:08 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
Phil:
Remind me, what was so special about trademark owners that merit them having non-judicial RPMs?
If a party had a dispute with a registrar or registry, that would typically be handled by the courts. e.g. if someone wanted to bring an anti-trust action against Verisign, that would happen in the courts. Are you in favour of the creation of non-judicial alternatives to civil litigation for those other entities and causes of action too, that would expose Verisign to anti-trust decisions outside of courts? If the "justification" for the ICANN-created RPMs is that they're lower cost alternatives to the courts, why not do the same for other causes of actions against registrars and registries, in the name of "self-help" which you appear to argue is desirable?
Where are the non-judicial "self-help" remedies for removing entries from the TMCH, for example?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 12:43 PM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks for your feedback, Susan.
A few additional personal comments—
It appears from the ICE press release that a number of other national
law enforcement agencies may have been involved in the seizures.
While the seizure may have been “free” to the trademark owner if the domain was one that met the criteria for bringing a UDRP or URS, there is considerable expenditure of public funds in these efforts. These law enforcement agency domain actions are directed at criminal activity, whereas the great majority of UDRP and URS actions focus on domains that could be the subject of civil trademark litigation. I would not favor eliminating the availability of self-help to trademark registrants via non-judicial RPMs, but one unintended result of doing so might be to encourage some trademark owners to seek law enforcement actions against domains that previously would have merited the filing of a UDRP or URS.
Best to all,
Philip
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 5:41 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
I completely agree with Phil's comments.
In addition:
1. Can we try to remember that not all rights infringement or enforcement happens in the US or has a US-connection. From ICE's website the mission is "to protect the national security and public safety of the United States by disrupting and dismantling transnational criminal organizations that engage in cross-border crime".
2. Also from ICE's website: "Due to the lapse in federal funding, this website will not be actively managed". Presumably there are also other impacts on ICE activity, and this is hardly the first time this has happened.
Let's not argue for replacement of ICANN measures by a so-called "free" option which is not available to all, where any action taken depends on the US's current priorities, and whose funding generally is subject to whatever US political squabble happens to be occurring.
Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy
Valideus
28-30 Little Russell Street
London WC1A 2HN
United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com
www.valideus.com
Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Valideus.
This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.
Valideus Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and VAT number 272 9057 85. Our registered office is at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN.
-----Original Message-----
From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: 02 January 2019 21:13
To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICE domain name seizures -- potential source of data for RPM PDP?
Hi Theo,
If it was only about copyright issues, then the list will likely be useless, as I agree that it's out of our scope.
But, it's possible (as per the TechDirt article) that it was actually TM issues too, in which case ICE might have gone after cybersquatting.
One will be able to quickly determine things by looking at the actual list of domains.
In the last paragraph of the TechDirt article, the author writes:
"I've fired off a FOIA request asking for the details of these "seized" domains and the communications with those industry partners.
Should ICE ever decide to obey the law and respond to the FOIA, we'll share it here."
But, perhaps someone else here already has the list and is allowed to publish it.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:03 PM theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Hi George,
Is a full list going to help us here? ICE is focussed on copyright "issues."
Sure we can discuss if they do it correctly or not, but it seems to be
out of our scope.
Our bylaws are pretty clear, not to mention;
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-po li
ce
Feel free to correct me, I somewhat lost track of this group, so I
apologize in advance.
Thanks,
Theo Geurts CIPP/E
On 2-1-2019 17:48, George Kirikos wrote:
Hi folks,
Happy New Year.
There was news about ICE seizing over 1 million domain names, see:
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/over-million-websites-seized-glo ba
l-operation
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181213/18030341224/ice-seizes- ov
er-1-million-websites-with-no-due-process-apparently-unaware-that- co
pyright-trademark-are-different.shtml
I was curious whether anyone (maybe a registrar, registry, or TM
holders who were involved, i.e. the "industry partners") has and can
share the complete list of domain names that were seized, as that
might be a potential source of data for our work.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
_______________________________________________
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org
_______________________________________________
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 _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
participants (12)
-
Corwin, Philip -
George Kirikos -
Greg Shatan -
Griffin Barnett -
Jonathan Frost -
Mitch Stoltz -
Nahitchevansky, Georges -
Paul Keating -
Paul Tattersfield -
Scott Austin -
Susan Payne -
theo geurts