RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
[with the Adobe Connect down, it seems remote participants can only ask questions via email] For NAF: According to: [A] https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/national-arbitration-forum-settle... "On July 20, 2009, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced that the country’s largest arbitrator of credit-card and consumer-collection disputes would no longer handle consumer arbitrations. The National Arbitration Forum’s decision to end its consumer-arbitration business resulted from a settlement it reached with the State of Minnesota less than a week after Attorney General Swanson sued the company in Ramsey County, Minnesota, accusing the company of violating Minnesota’s consumer-fraud, deceptive-trade-practices, and false-advertising statutes." [B] https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/minnesota-attorney-general-laws... "The lawsuit claims the NAF, the largest arbitration company in the United States, violates state consumer fraud and deceptive trade laws by hiding its financial ties to collection agencies and credit card companies. The lawsuit also claims the company violates false advertising laws by misrepresenting themselves as a neutral organization. " My questions are: (for NAF) (1) In light of [A], how do NAF's business practices in handling domain name disputes differ from those in the consumer-arbitration business which it left, and how can domain name registrants be confident that the same abuses which were alleged in consumer arbitrations are not present in its domain name dispute business? (2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they have any times to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ P.S. Further background info at: https://library.nclc.org/sites/default/files/Arb10_Appx_O-1.pdf https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/arbitrationtrap.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(alternative_dispute_resolution)
Correction, for [2] there was a typo. It should have been: (2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they have any **TIES** to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 8:42 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
[with the Adobe Connect down, it seems remote participants can only ask questions via email]
For NAF:
According to:
[A] https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/national-arbitration-forum-settle...
"On July 20, 2009, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced that the country’s largest arbitrator of credit-card and consumer-collection disputes would no longer handle consumer arbitrations.
The National Arbitration Forum’s decision to end its consumer-arbitration business resulted from a settlement it reached with the State of Minnesota less than a week after Attorney General Swanson sued the company in Ramsey County, Minnesota, accusing the company of violating Minnesota’s consumer-fraud, deceptive-trade-practices, and false-advertising statutes."
[B] https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/minnesota-attorney-general-laws...
"The lawsuit claims the NAF, the largest arbitration company in the United States, violates state consumer fraud and deceptive trade laws by hiding its financial ties to collection agencies and credit card companies. The lawsuit also claims the company violates false advertising laws by misrepresenting themselves as a neutral organization. "
My questions are: (for NAF)
(1) In light of [A], how do NAF's business practices in handling domain name disputes differ from those in the consumer-arbitration business which it left, and how can domain name registrants be confident that the same abuses which were alleged in consumer arbitrations are not present in its domain name dispute business?
(2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they have any times to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
P.S. Further background info at:
https://library.nclc.org/sites/default/files/Arb10_Appx_O-1.pdf https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/arbitrationtrap.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(alternative_dispute_resolution)
Hello George, Thank you for sending your questions to the mailing list. We have noted your questions. Since your questions are specific to FORUM, we will refer your questions to Renee after the session. We will also publish notes of the Q&A with the Providers after the session. Thank you very much! Best Regards, Ariel Liang On 3/15/18, 8:45 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote: Correction, for [2] there was a typo. It should have been: (2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they have any **TIES** to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 8:42 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: > [with the Adobe Connect down, it seems remote participants can only > ask questions via email] > > For NAF: > > According to: > > [A] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__fedsoc.org_commentary_p... > > "On July 20, 2009, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced > that the country’s largest arbitrator of credit-card and > consumer-collection disputes would no longer handle consumer > arbitrations. > > The National Arbitration Forum’s decision to end its > consumer-arbitration business resulted from a settlement it reached > with the State of Minnesota less than a week after Attorney General > Swanson sued the company in Ramsey County, Minnesota, accusing the > company of violating Minnesota’s consumer-fraud, > deceptive-trade-practices, and false-advertising statutes." > > [B] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.creditcards.com_cre... > > "The lawsuit claims the NAF, the largest arbitration company in the > United States, violates state consumer fraud and deceptive trade laws > by hiding its financial ties to collection agencies and credit card > companies. The lawsuit also claims the company violates false > advertising laws by misrepresenting themselves as a neutral > organization. " > > My questions are: (for NAF) > > (1) In light of [A], how do NAF's business practices in handling > domain name disputes differ from those in the consumer-arbitration > business which it left, and how can domain name registrants be > confident that the same abuses which were alleged in consumer > arbitrations are not present in its domain name dispute business? > > (2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they > have any times to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else > that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the > "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization? > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... > > P.S. Further background info at: > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__library.nclc.org_sites_... > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.citizen.org_sites_d... > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_F... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi Ariel, With respect, NAF is by far the largest URS provider, so I'd like the question asked today. If they don't want to answer today, then that should be noted. Accountability and neutrality of providers is an important issue in this PDP, so the questions are within scope. Phil just asked a question (2-part question) specifically to ADNDRC, so I'm certainly entitled to ask a question just to NAF, given that precedent (he's asking while I'm typing this email). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 8:51 AM, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Hello George,
Thank you for sending your questions to the mailing list. We have noted your questions.
Since your questions are specific to FORUM, we will refer your questions to Renee after the session. We will also publish notes of the Q&A with the Providers after the session.
Thank you very much!
Best Regards, Ariel Liang
On 3/15/18, 8:45 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
Correction, for [2] there was a typo. It should have been:
(2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they have any **TIES** to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c...
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 8:42 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: > [with the Adobe Connect down, it seems remote participants can only > ask questions via email] > > For NAF: > > According to: > > [A] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__fedsoc.org_commentary_p... > > "On July 20, 2009, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced > that the country’s largest arbitrator of credit-card and > consumer-collection disputes would no longer handle consumer > arbitrations. > > The National Arbitration Forum’s decision to end its > consumer-arbitration business resulted from a settlement it reached > with the State of Minnesota less than a week after Attorney General > Swanson sued the company in Ramsey County, Minnesota, accusing the > company of violating Minnesota’s consumer-fraud, > deceptive-trade-practices, and false-advertising statutes." > > [B] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.creditcards.com_cre... > > "The lawsuit claims the NAF, the largest arbitration company in the > United States, violates state consumer fraud and deceptive trade laws > by hiding its financial ties to collection agencies and credit card > companies. The lawsuit also claims the company violates false > advertising laws by misrepresenting themselves as a neutral > organization. " > > My questions are: (for NAF) > > (1) In light of [A], how do NAF's business practices in handling > domain name disputes differ from those in the consumer-arbitration > business which it left, and how can domain name registrants be > confident that the same abuses which were alleged in consumer > arbitrations are not present in its domain name dispute business? > > (2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they > have any times to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else > that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the > "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization? > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... > > P.S. Further background info at: > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__library.nclc.org_sites_... > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.citizen.org_sites_d... > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_F... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hello George, Given the number of topics and material that the three providers plan to cover in the session today, we are hoping that questions to be read out today can be specific to the URS, whether those be about a particular provider's practice or procedures, or directed to all three. As Ariel noted, we will be publishing notes of all questions that were asked, and we will certainly draw Renee's attention to your question - this way, there will be a full published record of all questions, responses and discussions that took place in and around this session. Thanks and cheers Mary On 3/15/18, 08:57, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote: Hi Ariel, With respect, NAF is by far the largest URS provider, so I'd like the question asked today. If they don't want to answer today, then that should be noted. Accountability and neutrality of providers is an important issue in this PDP, so the questions are within scope. Phil just asked a question (2-part question) specifically to ADNDRC, so I'm certainly entitled to ask a question just to NAF, given that precedent (he's asking while I'm typing this email). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 8:51 AM, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote: > Hello George, > > Thank you for sending your questions to the mailing list. We have noted your questions. > > Since your questions are specific to FORUM, we will refer your questions to Renee after the session. We will also publish notes of the Q&A with the Providers after the session. > > Thank you very much! > > Best Regards, > Ariel Liang > > > On 3/15/18, 8:45 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote: > > Correction, for [2] there was a typo. It should have been: > > (2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they > have any **TIES** to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else > that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the > "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization? > > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... > > > > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 8:42 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: > > [with the Adobe Connect down, it seems remote participants can only > > ask questions via email] > > > > For NAF: > > > > According to: > > > > [A] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__fedsoc.org_commentary_p... > > > > "On July 20, 2009, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced > > that the country’s largest arbitrator of credit-card and > > consumer-collection disputes would no longer handle consumer > > arbitrations. > > > > The National Arbitration Forum’s decision to end its > > consumer-arbitration business resulted from a settlement it reached > > with the State of Minnesota less than a week after Attorney General > > Swanson sued the company in Ramsey County, Minnesota, accusing the > > company of violating Minnesota’s consumer-fraud, > > deceptive-trade-practices, and false-advertising statutes." > > > > [B] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.creditcards.com_cre... > > > > "The lawsuit claims the NAF, the largest arbitration company in the > > United States, violates state consumer fraud and deceptive trade laws > > by hiding its financial ties to collection agencies and credit card > > companies. The lawsuit also claims the company violates false > > advertising laws by misrepresenting themselves as a neutral > > organization. " > > > > My questions are: (for NAF) > > > > (1) In light of [A], how do NAF's business practices in handling > > domain name disputes differ from those in the consumer-arbitration > > business which it left, and how can domain name registrants be > > confident that the same abuses which were alleged in consumer > > arbitrations are not present in its domain name dispute business? > > > > (2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they > > have any times to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else > > that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the > > "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization? > > > > Sincerely, > > > > George Kirikos > > 416-588-0269 > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... > > > > P.S. Further background info at: > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__library.nclc.org_sites_... > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.citizen.org_sites_d... > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_F... > _______________________________________________ > 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
Mary, With respect, the questions (plural, there are 2) should be asked today. They even go directly to slide #3, NAF's "About Us" (and didn't need to wait until the end). I understand they are "difficult" questions, but ICANN staff shouldn't be shielding NAF from the tough questions. No one else who is "live" in San Juan is having their questions screened or censored. Why are remote participants second-class citizens, being treated differently? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:12 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Hello George,
Given the number of topics and material that the three providers plan to cover in the session today, we are hoping that questions to be read out today can be specific to the URS, whether those be about a particular provider's practice or procedures, or directed to all three. As Ariel noted, we will be publishing notes of all questions that were asked, and we will certainly draw Renee's attention to your question - this way, there will be a full published record of all questions, responses and discussions that took place in and around this session.
Thanks and cheers Mary
On 3/15/18, 08:57, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi Ariel,
With respect, NAF is by far the largest URS provider, so I'd like the question asked today. If they don't want to answer today, then that should be noted. Accountability and neutrality of providers is an important issue in this PDP, so the questions are within scope.
Phil just asked a question (2-part question) specifically to ADNDRC, so I'm certainly entitled to ask a question just to NAF, given that precedent (he's asking while I'm typing this email).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c...
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 8:51 AM, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote: > Hello George, > > Thank you for sending your questions to the mailing list. We have noted your questions. > > Since your questions are specific to FORUM, we will refer your questions to Renee after the session. We will also publish notes of the Q&A with the Providers after the session. > > Thank you very much! > > Best Regards, > Ariel Liang > > > On 3/15/18, 8:45 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote: > > Correction, for [2] there was a typo. It should have been: > > (2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they > have any **TIES** to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else > that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the > "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization? > > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... > > > > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 8:42 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: > > [with the Adobe Connect down, it seems remote participants can only > > ask questions via email] > > > > For NAF: > > > > According to: > > > > [A] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__fedsoc.org_commentary_p... > > > > "On July 20, 2009, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced > > that the country’s largest arbitrator of credit-card and > > consumer-collection disputes would no longer handle consumer > > arbitrations. > > > > The National Arbitration Forum’s decision to end its > > consumer-arbitration business resulted from a settlement it reached > > with the State of Minnesota less than a week after Attorney General > > Swanson sued the company in Ramsey County, Minnesota, accusing the > > company of violating Minnesota’s consumer-fraud, > > deceptive-trade-practices, and false-advertising statutes." > > > > [B] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.creditcards.com_cre... > > > > "The lawsuit claims the NAF, the largest arbitration company in the > > United States, violates state consumer fraud and deceptive trade laws > > by hiding its financial ties to collection agencies and credit card > > companies. The lawsuit also claims the company violates false > > advertising laws by misrepresenting themselves as a neutral > > organization. " > > > > My questions are: (for NAF) > > > > (1) In light of [A], how do NAF's business practices in handling > > domain name disputes differ from those in the consumer-arbitration > > business which it left, and how can domain name registrants be > > confident that the same abuses which were alleged in consumer > > arbitrations are not present in its domain name dispute business? > > > > (2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they > > have any times to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else > > that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the > > "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization? > > > > Sincerely, > > > > George Kirikos > > 416-588-0269 > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... > > > > P.S. Further background info at: > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__library.nclc.org_sites_... > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.citizen.org_sites_d... > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_F... > _______________________________________________ > 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
Hello again George, Please understand that staff is in no way shielding FORUM or anyone, nor are we censoring questions. We are merely trying to facilitate the session which is focused on the providers' rules and practices as regards the URS. As mentioned, your question will be referred to Renee and included in the record of this session. Staff cannot speak for the co-chairs but it may also be possible to come back to it at the end of the session if time permits. Thank you. Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry On 3/15/18, 09:16, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com> wrote: Mary, With respect, the questions (plural, there are 2) should be asked today. They even go directly to slide #3, NAF's "About Us" (and didn't need to wait until the end). I understand they are "difficult" questions, but ICANN staff shouldn't be shielding NAF from the tough questions. No one else who is "live" in San Juan is having their questions screened or censored. Why are remote participants second-class citizens, being treated differently? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIFaQ&c... On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:12 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: > Hello George, > > Given the number of topics and material that the three providers plan to cover in the session today, we are hoping that questions to be read out today can be specific to the URS, whether those be about a particular provider's practice or procedures, or directed to all three. As Ariel noted, we will be publishing notes of all questions that were asked, and we will certainly draw Renee's attention to your question - this way, there will be a full published record of all questions, responses and discussions that took place in and around this session. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary > > On 3/15/18, 08:57, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote: > > Hi Ariel, > > With respect, NAF is by far the largest URS provider, so I'd like the > question asked today. If they don't want to answer today, then that > should be noted. Accountability and neutrality of providers is an > important issue in this PDP, so the questions are within scope. > > Phil just asked a question (2-part question) specifically to ADNDRC, > so I'm certainly entitled to ask a question just to NAF, given that > precedent (he's asking while I'm typing this email). > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... > > > > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 8:51 AM, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote: > > Hello George, > > > > Thank you for sending your questions to the mailing list. We have noted your questions. > > > > Since your questions are specific to FORUM, we will refer your questions to Renee after the session. We will also publish notes of the Q&A with the Providers after the session. > > > > Thank you very much! > > > > Best Regards, > > Ariel Liang > > > > > > On 3/15/18, 8:45 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote: > > > > Correction, for [2] there was a typo. It should have been: > > > > (2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they > > have any **TIES** to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else > > that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the > > "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization? > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > George Kirikos > > 416-588-0269 > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 8:42 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: > > > [with the Adobe Connect down, it seems remote participants can only > > > ask questions via email] > > > > > > For NAF: > > > > > > According to: > > > > > > [A] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__fedsoc.org_commentary_p... > > > > > > "On July 20, 2009, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced > > > that the country’s largest arbitrator of credit-card and > > > consumer-collection disputes would no longer handle consumer > > > arbitrations. > > > > > > The National Arbitration Forum’s decision to end its > > > consumer-arbitration business resulted from a settlement it reached > > > with the State of Minnesota less than a week after Attorney General > > > Swanson sued the company in Ramsey County, Minnesota, accusing the > > > company of violating Minnesota’s consumer-fraud, > > > deceptive-trade-practices, and false-advertising statutes." > > > > > > [B] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.creditcards.com_cre... > > > > > > "The lawsuit claims the NAF, the largest arbitration company in the > > > United States, violates state consumer fraud and deceptive trade laws > > > by hiding its financial ties to collection agencies and credit card > > > companies. The lawsuit also claims the company violates false > > > advertising laws by misrepresenting themselves as a neutral > > > organization. " > > > > > > My questions are: (for NAF) > > > > > > (1) In light of [A], how do NAF's business practices in handling > > > domain name disputes differ from those in the consumer-arbitration > > > business which it left, and how can domain name registrants be > > > confident that the same abuses which were alleged in consumer > > > arbitrations are not present in its domain name dispute business? > > > > > > (2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they > > > have any times to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else > > > that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the > > > "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization? > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > George Kirikos > > > 416-588-0269 > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... > > > > > > P.S. Further background info at: > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__library.nclc.org_sites_... > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.citizen.org_sites_d... > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_F... > > _______________________________________________ > > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg >
Hi George, this is going to be a "last 10 minute" question. That's the space reserved for additional questions. Best, Kathy On 3/15/2018 8:42 AM, George Kirikos wrote:
[with the Adobe Connect down, it seems remote participants can only ask questions via email]
For NAF:
According to:
[A] https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/national-arbitration-forum-settle...
"On July 20, 2009, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced that the country’s largest arbitrator of credit-card and consumer-collection disputes would no longer handle consumer arbitrations.
The National Arbitration Forum’s decision to end its consumer-arbitration business resulted from a settlement it reached with the State of Minnesota less than a week after Attorney General Swanson sued the company in Ramsey County, Minnesota, accusing the company of violating Minnesota’s consumer-fraud, deceptive-trade-practices, and false-advertising statutes."
[B] https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/minnesota-attorney-general-laws...
"The lawsuit claims the NAF, the largest arbitration company in the United States, violates state consumer fraud and deceptive trade laws by hiding its financial ties to collection agencies and credit card companies. The lawsuit also claims the company violates false advertising laws by misrepresenting themselves as a neutral organization. "
My questions are: (for NAF)
(1) In light of [A], how do NAF's business practices in handling domain name disputes differ from those in the consumer-arbitration business which it left, and how can domain name registrants be confident that the same abuses which were alleged in consumer arbitrations are not present in its domain name dispute business?
(2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they have any times to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
P.S. Further background info at:
https://library.nclc.org/sites/default/files/Arb10_Appx_O-1.pdf https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/arbitrationtrap.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(alternative_dispute_resolution) _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Actually I think we should take the opportunity of having the providers with us (whether in person or by phone) to get as much information about their processes) That is what they were asked to prepare for and they have clearly spent time doing so. It is very discourteous to MSFD and ADNDC to curtail their time in order to direct questions to Forum which are not directly related to what the three providers were asked to present on. And indeed discourteous to the WG members who would like to hear from them. I say that not because I want to shield Forum - in fact I suspect Renee would appreciate the opportunity to put this long past history to bed - but because this is clearly something which can be done as a follow up and it is not directly within the scope of the purpose of this meeting with all three providers. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: 15 March 2018 09:24 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos Hi George, this is going to be a "last 10 minute" question. That's the space reserved for additional questions. Best, Kathy On 3/15/2018 8:42 AM, George Kirikos wrote:
[with the Adobe Connect down, it seems remote participants can only ask questions via email]
For NAF:
According to:
[A] https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/national-arbitration-forum- settlement-with-minnesota-attorney-general
"On July 20, 2009, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced that the country’s largest arbitrator of credit-card and consumer-collection disputes would no longer handle consumer arbitrations.
The National Arbitration Forum’s decision to end its consumer-arbitration business resulted from a settlement it reached with the State of Minnesota less than a week after Attorney General Swanson sued the company in Ramsey County, Minnesota, accusing the company of violating Minnesota’s consumer-fraud, deceptive-trade-practices, and false-advertising statutes."
[B] https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/minnesota-attorney-genera l-lawsuit-national-arbitration-forum-1282.php
"The lawsuit claims the NAF, the largest arbitration company in the United States, violates state consumer fraud and deceptive trade laws by hiding its financial ties to collection agencies and credit card companies. The lawsuit also claims the company violates false advertising laws by misrepresenting themselves as a neutral organization. "
My questions are: (for NAF)
(1) In light of [A], how do NAF's business practices in handling domain name disputes differ from those in the consumer-arbitration business which it left, and how can domain name registrants be confident that the same abuses which were alleged in consumer arbitrations are not present in its domain name dispute business?
(2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they have any times to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
P.S. Further background info at:
https://library.nclc.org/sites/default/files/Arb10_Appx_O-1.pdf https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/arbitrationtrap.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(alternative_dispute_resolution) _______________________________________________ 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
Since we have no chat: @Susan +1 Best regards, Scott Please click below to use my booking calendar to schedule: a 15-minute call a 30-minute call a 60-minute call Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney | VLP Law Group LLP 101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 | SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 9:44 AM To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos Importance: High Actually I think we should take the opportunity of having the providers with us (whether in person or by phone) to get as much information about their processes) That is what they were asked to prepare for and they have clearly spent time doing so. It is very discourteous to MSFD and ADNDC to curtail their time in order to direct questions to Forum which are not directly related to what the three providers were asked to present on. And indeed discourteous to the WG members who would like to hear from them. I say that not because I want to shield Forum - in fact I suspect Renee would appreciate the opportunity to put this long past history to bed - but because this is clearly something which can be done as a follow up and it is not directly within the scope of the purpose of this meeting with all three providers. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: 15 March 2018 09:24 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos Hi George, this is going to be a "last 10 minute" question. That's the space reserved for additional questions. Best, Kathy On 3/15/2018 8:42 AM, George Kirikos wrote:
[with the Adobe Connect down, it seems remote participants can only ask questions via email]
For NAF:
According to:
[A] https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publicat... settlement-with-minnesota-attorney-general
"On July 20, 2009, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced that the country’s largest arbitrator of credit-card and consumer-collection disputes would no longer handle consumer arbitrations.
The National Arbitration Forum’s decision to end its consumer-arbitration business resulted from a settlement it reached with the State of Minnesota less than a week after Attorney General Swanson sued the company in Ramsey County, Minnesota, accusing the company of violating Minnesota’s consumer-fraud, deceptive-trade-practices, and false-advertising statutes."
[B] https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://www.creditcards.com/credit-car... l-lawsuit-national-arbitration-forum-1282.php
"The lawsuit claims the NAF, the largest arbitration company in the United States, violates state consumer fraud and deceptive trade laws by hiding its financial ties to collection agencies and credit card companies. The lawsuit also claims the company violates false advertising laws by misrepresenting themselves as a neutral organization. "
My questions are: (for NAF)
(1) In light of [A], how do NAF's business practices in handling domain name disputes differ from those in the consumer-arbitration business which it left, and how can domain name registrants be confident that the same abuses which were alleged in consumer arbitrations are not present in its domain name dispute business?
(2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they have any times to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://www.leap.com/&c=E,1,ybJKZoZH6UY...
P.S. Further background info at:
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://library.nclc.org/sites/default... https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(alternative_dispute_resolution) _______________________________________________ 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 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.
Agree with Susan as well. NAF could certainly respond to George's question in writing. Lori Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy INTA +1(202)704-0408 On Mar 15, 2018, at 9:47 AM, Scott Austin <SAustin@vlplawgroup.com<mailto:SAustin@vlplawgroup.com>> wrote: Since we have no chat: @Susan +1 Best regards, Scott Please click below to use my booking calendar to schedule: a 15-minute call a 30-minute call a 60-minute call Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney | VLP Law Group LLP 101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 | SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com<mailto:SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com> -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 9:44 AM To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos Importance: High Actually I think we should take the opportunity of having the providers with us (whether in person or by phone) to get as much information about their processes) That is what they were asked to prepare for and they have clearly spent time doing so. It is very discourteous to MSFD and ADNDC to curtail their time in order to direct questions to Forum which are not directly related to what the three providers were asked to present on. And indeed discourteous to the WG members who would like to hear from them. I say that not because I want to shield Forum - in fact I suspect Renee would appreciate the opportunity to put this long past history to bed - but because this is clearly something which can be done as a follow up and it is not directly within the scope of the purpose of this meeting with all three providers. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: 15 March 2018 09:24 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos Hi George, this is going to be a "last 10 minute" question. That's the space reserved for additional questions. Best, Kathy On 3/15/2018 8:42 AM, George Kirikos wrote:
[with the Adobe Connect down, it seems remote participants can only ask questions via email]
For NAF:
According to:
[A] https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publicat... settlement-with-minnesota-attorney-general
"On July 20, 2009, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced that the country’s largest arbitrator of credit-card and consumer-collection disputes would no longer handle consumer arbitrations.
The National Arbitration Forum’s decision to end its consumer-arbitration business resulted from a settlement it reached with the State of Minnesota less than a week after Attorney General Swanson sued the company in Ramsey County, Minnesota, accusing the company of violating Minnesota’s consumer-fraud, deceptive-trade-practices, and false-advertising statutes."
[B] https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://www.creditcards.com/credit-car... l-lawsuit-national-arbitration-forum-1282.php
"The lawsuit claims the NAF, the largest arbitration company in the United States, violates state consumer fraud and deceptive trade laws by hiding its financial ties to collection agencies and credit card companies. The lawsuit also claims the company violates false advertising laws by misrepresenting themselves as a neutral organization. "
My questions are: (for NAF)
(1) In light of [A], how do NAF's business practices in handling domain name disputes differ from those in the consumer-arbitration business which it left, and how can domain name registrants be confident that the same abuses which were alleged in consumer arbitrations are not present in its domain name dispute business?
(2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they have any times to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://www.leap.com/&c=E,1,ybJKZoZH6UY...
P.S. Further background info at:
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://library.nclc.org/sites/default... https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(alternative_dispute_resolution) _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________
+1 Michael R. Graham From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 7:05 AM To: Scott Austin <SAustin@vlplawgroup.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos Agree with Susan as well. NAF could certainly respond to George's question in writing. Lori Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy INTA +1(202)704-0408 On Mar 15, 2018, at 9:47 AM, Scott Austin <SAustin@vlplawgroup.com<mailto:SAustin@vlplawgroup.com>> wrote: Since we have no chat: @Susan +1 Best regards, Scott Please click below to use my booking calendar to schedule: a 15-minute call a 30-minute call a 60-minute call Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney | VLP Law Group LLP 101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 | SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com<mailto:SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com> -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org%3e> On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 9:44 AM To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com%3e>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos Importance: High Actually I think we should take the opportunity of having the providers with us (whether in person or by phone) to get as much information about their processes) That is what they were asked to prepare for and they have clearly spent time doing so. It is very discourteous to MSFD and ADNDC to curtail their time in order to direct questions to Forum which are not directly related to what the three providers were asked to present on. And indeed discourteous to the WG members who would like to hear from them. I say that not because I want to shield Forum - in fact I suspect Renee would appreciate the opportunity to put this long past history to bed - but because this is clearly something which can be done as a follow up and it is not directly within the scope of the purpose of this meeting with all three providers. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: 15 March 2018 09:24 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos Hi George, this is going to be a "last 10 minute" question. That's the space reserved for additional questions. Best, Kathy On 3/15/2018 8:42 AM, George Kirikos wrote:
[with the Adobe Connect down, it seems remote participants can only ask questions via email]
For NAF:
According to:
[A] https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publicat... settlement-with-minnesota-attorney-general
"On July 20, 2009, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced that the country’s largest arbitrator of credit-card and consumer-collection disputes would no longer handle consumer arbitrations.
The National Arbitration Forum’s decision to end its consumer-arbitration business resulted from a settlement it reached with the State of Minnesota less than a week after Attorney General Swanson sued the company in Ramsey County, Minnesota, accusing the company of violating Minnesota’s consumer-fraud, deceptive-trade-practices, and false-advertising statutes."
[B] https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://www.creditcards.com/credit-car... l-lawsuit-national-arbitration-forum-1282.php
"The lawsuit claims the NAF, the largest arbitration company in the United States, violates state consumer fraud and deceptive trade laws by hiding its financial ties to collection agencies and credit card companies. The lawsuit also claims the company violates false advertising laws by misrepresenting themselves as a neutral organization. "
My questions are: (for NAF)
(1) In light of [A], how do NAF's business practices in handling domain name disputes differ from those in the consumer-arbitration business which it left, and how can domain name registrants be confident that the same abuses which were alleged in consumer arbitrations are not present in its domain name dispute business?
(2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they have any times to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://www.leap.com/&c=E,1,ybJKZoZH6UY...
P.S. Further background info at:
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://library.nclc.org/sites/default... https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(alternative_dispute_resolution) _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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
These *are* questions about their practices, namely how they *differ* from the practices in the consumer arbitration business which they left, after the Minnesota Attorney General lawsuit, etc. regarding alleged abuses in those practices. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
Actually I think we should take the opportunity of having the providers with us (whether in person or by phone) to get as much information about their processes) That is what they were asked to prepare for and they have clearly spent time doing so. It is very discourteous to MSFD and ADNDC to curtail their time in order to direct questions to Forum which are not directly related to what the three providers were asked to present on. And indeed discourteous to the WG members who would like to hear from them.
I say that not because I want to shield Forum - in fact I suspect Renee would appreciate the opportunity to put this long past history to bed - but because this is clearly something which can be done as a follow up and it is not directly within the scope of the purpose of this meeting with all three providers.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: 15 March 2018 09:24 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
Hi George, this is going to be a "last 10 minute" question. That's the space reserved for additional questions.
Best, Kathy
On 3/15/2018 8:42 AM, George Kirikos wrote:
[with the Adobe Connect down, it seems remote participants can only ask questions via email]
For NAF:
According to:
[A] https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/national-arbitration-forum- settlement-with-minnesota-attorney-general
"On July 20, 2009, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced that the country’s largest arbitrator of credit-card and consumer-collection disputes would no longer handle consumer arbitrations.
The National Arbitration Forum’s decision to end its consumer-arbitration business resulted from a settlement it reached with the State of Minnesota less than a week after Attorney General Swanson sued the company in Ramsey County, Minnesota, accusing the company of violating Minnesota’s consumer-fraud, deceptive-trade-practices, and false-advertising statutes."
[B] https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/minnesota-attorney-genera l-lawsuit-national-arbitration-forum-1282.php
"The lawsuit claims the NAF, the largest arbitration company in the United States, violates state consumer fraud and deceptive trade laws by hiding its financial ties to collection agencies and credit card companies. The lawsuit also claims the company violates false advertising laws by misrepresenting themselves as a neutral organization. "
My questions are: (for NAF)
(1) In light of [A], how do NAF's business practices in handling domain name disputes differ from those in the consumer-arbitration business which it left, and how can domain name registrants be confident that the same abuses which were alleged in consumer arbitrations are not present in its domain name dispute business?
(2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they have any times to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
P.S. Further background info at:
https://library.nclc.org/sites/default/files/Arb10_Appx_O-1.pdf https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/arbitrationtrap.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(alternative_dispute_resolution) _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
George don't be obtuse. We are discussing the URS rules and what the providers do to follow them Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 -----Original Message----- From: George Kirikos [mailto:icann@leap.com] Sent: 15 March 2018 09:48 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> Cc: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos These *are* questions about their practices, namely how they *differ* from the practices in the consumer arbitration business which they left, after the Minnesota Attorney General lawsuit, etc. regarding alleged abuses in those practices. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
Actually I think we should take the opportunity of having the providers with us (whether in person or by phone) to get as much information about their processes) That is what they were asked to prepare for and they have clearly spent time doing so. It is very discourteous to MSFD and ADNDC to curtail their time in order to direct questions to Forum which are not directly related to what the three providers were asked to present on. And indeed discourteous to the WG members who would like to hear from them.
I say that not because I want to shield Forum - in fact I suspect Renee would appreciate the opportunity to put this long past history to bed - but because this is clearly something which can be done as a follow up and it is not directly within the scope of the purpose of this meeting with all three providers.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: 15 March 2018 09:24 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
Hi George, this is going to be a "last 10 minute" question. That's the space reserved for additional questions.
Best, Kathy
On 3/15/2018 8:42 AM, George Kirikos wrote:
[with the Adobe Connect down, it seems remote participants can only ask questions via email]
For NAF:
According to:
[A] https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/national-arbitration-forum - settlement-with-minnesota-attorney-general
"On July 20, 2009, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced that the country’s largest arbitrator of credit-card and consumer-collection disputes would no longer handle consumer arbitrations.
The National Arbitration Forum’s decision to end its consumer-arbitration business resulted from a settlement it reached with the State of Minnesota less than a week after Attorney General Swanson sued the company in Ramsey County, Minnesota, accusing the company of violating Minnesota’s consumer-fraud, deceptive-trade-practices, and false-advertising statutes."
[B] https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/minnesota-attorney-gener a l-lawsuit-national-arbitration-forum-1282.php
"The lawsuit claims the NAF, the largest arbitration company in the United States, violates state consumer fraud and deceptive trade laws by hiding its financial ties to collection agencies and credit card companies. The lawsuit also claims the company violates false advertising laws by misrepresenting themselves as a neutral organization. "
My questions are: (for NAF)
(1) In light of [A], how do NAF's business practices in handling domain name disputes differ from those in the consumer-arbitration business which it left, and how can domain name registrants be confident that the same abuses which were alleged in consumer arbitrations are not present in its domain name dispute business?
(2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they have any times to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
P.S. Further background info at:
https://library.nclc.org/sites/default/files/Arb10_Appx_O-1.pdf https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/arbitrationtrap.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(alternative_dispute_resolution) _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
George K. Give it rest. The providers are here to talk about the URS, period. What you are doing is disruptive and disrespectful of the presenters and the WG -- and the work we are trying to do in the short time frame we have. From: icann@leap.com Sent: March 15, 2018 9:48 AM To: susan.payne@valideus.com Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos These *are* questions about their practices, namely how they *differ* from the practices in the consumer arbitration business which they left, after the Minnesota Attorney General lawsuit, etc. regarding alleged abuses in those practices. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
Actually I think we should take the opportunity of having the providers with us (whether in person or by phone) to get as much information about their processes) That is what they were asked to prepare for and they have clearly spent time doing so. It is very discourteous to MSFD and ADNDC to curtail their time in order to direct questions to Forum which are not directly related to what the three providers were asked to present on. And indeed discourteous to the WG members who would like to hear from them.
I say that not because I want to shield Forum - in fact I suspect Renee would appreciate the opportunity to put this long past history to bed - but because this is clearly something which can be done as a follow up and it is not directly within the scope of the purpose of this meeting with all three providers.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: 15 March 2018 09:24 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
Hi George, this is going to be a "last 10 minute" question. That's the space reserved for additional questions.
Best, Kathy
On 3/15/2018 8:42 AM, George Kirikos wrote:
[with the Adobe Connect down, it seems remote participants can only ask questions via email]
For NAF:
According to:
[A] https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/national-arbitration-forum- settlement-with-minnesota-attorney-general
"On July 20, 2009, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced that the country’s largest arbitrator of credit-card and consumer-collection disputes would no longer handle consumer arbitrations.
The National Arbitration Forum’s decision to end its consumer-arbitration business resulted from a settlement it reached with the State of Minnesota less than a week after Attorney General Swanson sued the company in Ramsey County, Minnesota, accusing the company of violating Minnesota’s consumer-fraud, deceptive-trade-practices, and false-advertising statutes."
[B] https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/minnesota-attorney-genera l-lawsuit-national-arbitration-forum-1282.php
"The lawsuit claims the NAF, the largest arbitration company in the United States, violates state consumer fraud and deceptive trade laws by hiding its financial ties to collection agencies and credit card companies. The lawsuit also claims the company violates false advertising laws by misrepresenting themselves as a neutral organization. "
My questions are: (for NAF)
(1) In light of [A], how do NAF's business practices in handling domain name disputes differ from those in the consumer-arbitration business which it left, and how can domain name registrants be confident that the same abuses which were alleged in consumer arbitrations are not present in its domain name dispute business?
(2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they have any times to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
P.S. Further background info at:
https://library.nclc.org/sites/default/files/Arb10_Appx_O-1.pdf https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/arbitrationtrap.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(alternative_dispute_resolution) _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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.
All, it is very hard to participate remotely. I have done it many times, and it is beyond frustrating. Let's try to understand, please. I thank Claudio, George and Justin for participating remotely... Best, Kathy On 3/15/2018 9:58 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges wrote:
George K. Give it rest. The providers are here to talk about the URS, period. What you are doing is disruptive and disrespectful of the presenters and the WG -- and the work we are trying to do in the short time frame we have.
*From:* icann@leap.com *Sent:* March 15, 2018 9:48 AM *To:* susan.payne@valideus.com *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
These *are* questions about their practices, namely how they *differ* from the practices in the consumer arbitration business which they left, after the Minnesota Attorney General lawsuit, etc. regarding alleged abuses in those practices.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
Actually I think we should take the opportunity of having the providers with us (whether in person or by phone) to get as much information about their processes) That is what they were asked to prepare for and they have clearly spent time doing so. It is very discourteous to MSFD and ADNDC to curtail their time in order to direct questions to Forum which are not directly related to what the three providers were asked to present on. And indeed discourteous to the WG members who would like to hear from them.
I say that not because I want to shield Forum - in fact I suspect Renee would appreciate the opportunity to put this long past history to bed - but because this is clearly something which can be done as a follow up and it is not directly within the scope of the purpose of this meeting with all three providers.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: 15 March 2018 09:24 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
Hi George, this is going to be a "last 10 minute" question. That's the space reserved for additional questions.
Best, Kathy
On 3/15/2018 8:42 AM, George Kirikos wrote:
[with the Adobe Connect down, it seems remote participants can only ask questions via email]
For NAF:
According to:
[A] https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/national-arbitration-forum- settlement-with-minnesota-attorney-general
"On July 20, 2009, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced that the country’s largest arbitrator of credit-card and consumer-collection disputes would no longer handle consumer arbitrations.
The National Arbitration Forum’s decision to end its consumer-arbitration business resulted from a settlement it reached with the State of Minnesota less than a week after Attorney General Swanson sued the company in Ramsey County, Minnesota, accusing the company of violating Minnesota’s consumer-fraud, deceptive-trade-practices, and false-advertising statutes."
[B] https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/minnesota-attorney-genera l-lawsuit-national-arbitration-forum-1282.php
"The lawsuit claims the NAF, the largest arbitration company in the United States, violates state consumer fraud and deceptive trade laws by hiding its financial ties to collection agencies and credit card companies. The lawsuit also claims the company violates false advertising laws by misrepresenting themselves as a neutral organization. "
My questions are: (for NAF)
(1) In light of [A], how do NAF's business practices in handling domain name disputes differ from those in the consumer-arbitration business which it left, and how can domain name registrants be confident that the same abuses which were alleged in consumer arbitrations are not present in its domain name dispute business?
(2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they have any times to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
P.S. Further background info at:
https://library.nclc.org/sites/default/files/Arb10_Appx_O-1.pdf https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/arbitrationtrap.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(alternative_dispute_resolution <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_%28alternative_dispute_resolution>) _______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Moot point as question is being posed now. Lori Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy INTA +1(202)704-0408 On Mar 15, 2018, at 10:01 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote: All, it is very hard to participate remotely. I have done it many times, and it is beyond frustrating. Let's try to understand, please. I thank Claudio, George and Justin for participating remotely... Best, Kathy On 3/15/2018 9:58 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges wrote: George K. Give it rest. The providers are here to talk about the URS, period. What you are doing is disruptive and disrespectful of the presenters and the WG -- and the work we are trying to do in the short time frame we have. From: icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com> Sent: March 15, 2018 9:48 AM To: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos These *are* questions about their practices, namely how they *differ* from the practices in the consumer arbitration business which they left, after the Minnesota Attorney General lawsuit, etc. regarding alleged abuses in those practices. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com><mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
Actually I think we should take the opportunity of having the providers with us (whether in person or by phone) to get as much information about their processes) That is what they were asked to prepare for and they have clearly spent time doing so. It is very discourteous to MSFD and ADNDC to curtail their time in order to direct questions to Forum which are not directly related to what the three providers were asked to present on. And indeed discourteous to the WG members who would like to hear from them.
I say that not because I want to shield Forum - in fact I suspect Renee would appreciate the opportunity to put this long past history to bed - but because this is clearly something which can be done as a follow up and it is not directly within the scope of the purpose of this meeting with all three providers.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: 15 March 2018 09:24 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
Hi George, this is going to be a "last 10 minute" question. That's the space reserved for additional questions.
Best, Kathy
On 3/15/2018 8:42 AM, George Kirikos wrote:
[with the Adobe Connect down, it seems remote participants can only ask questions via email]
For NAF:
According to:
[A] https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/national-arbitration-forum- settlement-with-minnesota-attorney-general
"On July 20, 2009, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced that the country’s largest arbitrator of credit-card and consumer-collection disputes would no longer handle consumer arbitrations.
The National Arbitration Forum’s decision to end its consumer-arbitration business resulted from a settlement it reached with the State of Minnesota less than a week after Attorney General Swanson sued the company in Ramsey County, Minnesota, accusing the company of violating Minnesota’s consumer-fraud, deceptive-trade-practices, and false-advertising statutes."
[B] https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/minnesota-attorney-genera l-lawsuit-national-arbitration-forum-1282.php
"The lawsuit claims the NAF, the largest arbitration company in the United States, violates state consumer fraud and deceptive trade laws by hiding its financial ties to collection agencies and credit card companies. The lawsuit also claims the company violates false advertising laws by misrepresenting themselves as a neutral organization. "
My questions are: (for NAF)
(1) In light of [A], how do NAF's business practices in handling domain name disputes differ from those in the consumer-arbitration business which it left, and how can domain name registrants be confident that the same abuses which were alleged in consumer arbitrations are not present in its domain name dispute business?
(2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they have any times to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
P.S. Further background info at:
https://library.nclc.org/sites/default/files/Arb10_Appx_O-1.pdf https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/arbitrationtrap.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(alternative_dispute_resolution<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_%28alternative_dispute_resolution>) _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________
NAF's answer that they "voluntarily" left the consumer arbitration business seems incomplete. For example, consider the class-action lawsuit that followed, which notes in one order dated August 8, 2011: CASE 0:10-md-02122-PAM -JSM D http://www.lieffcabraser.com/pdf/national-arbitration-final.pdf "Plaintiffs have a strong case, as evidenced by Defendants’ settlement with the Minnesota Attorney General for more than $30 million in the summer of 2009. " (page 2) If there was indeed a $30 million "voluntary" payment to Minnesota, I find that very interesting. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http:/www.leap.com/ On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> wrote:
Moot point as question is being posed now.
Lori Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy INTA +1(202)704-0408
On Mar 15, 2018, at 10:01 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
All, it is very hard to participate remotely. I have done it many times, and it is beyond frustrating. Let's try to understand, please. I thank Claudio, George and Justin for participating remotely...
Best, Kathy
On 3/15/2018 9:58 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges wrote:
George K. Give it rest. The providers are here to talk about the URS, period. What you are doing is disruptive and disrespectful of the presenters and the WG -- and the work we are trying to do in the short time frame we have.
*From:* icann@leap.com *Sent:* March 15, 2018 9:48 AM *To:* susan.payne@valideus.com *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
These *are* questions about their practices, namely how they *differ* from the practices in the consumer arbitration business which they left, after the Minnesota Attorney General lawsuit, etc. regarding alleged abuses in those practices.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
Actually I think we should take the opportunity of having the providers with us (whether in person or by phone) to get as much information about their processes) That is what they were asked to prepare for and they have clearly spent time doing so. It is very discourteous to MSFD and ADNDC to curtail their time in order to direct questions to Forum which are not directly related to what the three providers were asked to present on. And indeed discourteous to the WG members who would like to hear from them.
I say that not because I want to shield Forum - in fact I suspect Renee would appreciate the opportunity to put this long past history to bed - but because this is clearly something which can be done as a follow up and it is not directly within the scope of the purpose of this meeting with all three providers.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: 15 March 2018 09:24 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
Hi George, this is going to be a "last 10 minute" question. That's the space reserved for additional questions.
Best, Kathy
On 3/15/2018 8:42 AM, George Kirikos wrote:
[with the Adobe Connect down, it seems remote participants can only ask questions via email]
For NAF:
According to:
[A] https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/national-arbitration-forum- settlement-with-minnesota-attorney-general
"On July 20, 2009, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced that the country’s largest arbitrator of credit-card and consumer-collection disputes would no longer handle consumer arbitrations.
The National Arbitration Forum’s decision to end its consumer-arbitration business resulted from a settlement it reached with the State of Minnesota less than a week after Attorney General Swanson sued the company in Ramsey County, Minnesota, accusing the company of violating Minnesota’s consumer-fraud, deceptive-trade-practices, and false-advertising statutes."
[B] https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/minnesota-attorney-genera l-lawsuit-national-arbitration-forum-1282.php
"The lawsuit claims the NAF, the largest arbitration company in the United States, violates state consumer fraud and deceptive trade laws by hiding its financial ties to collection agencies and credit card companies. The lawsuit also claims the company violates false advertising laws by misrepresenting themselves as a neutral organization. "
My questions are: (for NAF)
(1) In light of [A], how do NAF's business practices in handling domain name disputes differ from those in the consumer-arbitration business which it left, and how can domain name registrants be confident that the same abuses which were alleged in consumer arbitrations are not present in its domain name dispute business?
(2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they have any times to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
P.S. Further background info at:
https://library.nclc.org/sites/default/files/Arb10_Appx_O-1.pdf https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/arbitrationtrap.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(alternative_dispute_resolution) _______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------
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 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
My personal view is that it is the task of the WG to determine whether NAF and the other two providers are administering the URS in a manner that is consistent with the letter and spirit of the rules, procedures, and MOU. It is unclear to me how the veracity and disposition of allegations brought against NAF in the last decade regarding consumer credit arbitrations have any significant relevance to its administration of the URS in the current decade. 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 George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 10:18 AM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos NAF's answer that they "voluntarily" left the consumer arbitration business seems incomplete. For example, consider the class-action lawsuit that followed, which notes in one order dated August 8, 2011: CASE 0:10-md-02122-PAM -JSM D http://www.lieffcabraser.com/pdf/national-arbitration-final.pdf "Plaintiffs have a strong case, as evidenced by Defendants’ settlement with the Minnesota Attorney General for more than $30 million in the summer of 2009. " (page 2) If there was indeed a $30 million "voluntary" payment to Minnesota, I find that very interesting. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http:/www.leap.com/<http://www.leap.com/> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> wrote: Moot point as question is being posed now. Lori Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy INTA +1(202)704-0408 On Mar 15, 2018, at 10:01 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote: All, it is very hard to participate remotely. I have done it many times, and it is beyond frustrating. Let's try to understand, please. I thank Claudio, George and Justin for participating remotely... Best, Kathy On 3/15/2018 9:58 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges wrote: George K. Give it rest. The providers are here to talk about the URS, period. What you are doing is disruptive and disrespectful of the presenters and the WG -- and the work we are trying to do in the short time frame we have. From: icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com> Sent: March 15, 2018 9:48 AM To: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos These *are* questions about their practices, namely how they *differ* from the practices in the consumer arbitration business which they left, after the Minnesota Attorney General lawsuit, etc. regarding alleged abuses in those practices. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com><mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote: > Actually I think we should take the opportunity of having the providers with us (whether in person or by phone) to get as much information about their processes) That is what they were asked to prepare for and they have clearly spent time doing so. It is very discourteous to MSFD and ADNDC to curtail their time in order to direct questions to Forum which are not directly related to what the three providers were asked to present on. And indeed discourteous to the WG members who would like to hear from them. > > I say that not because I want to shield Forum - in fact I suspect Renee would appreciate the opportunity to put this long past history to bed - but because this is clearly something which can be done as a follow up and it is not directly within the scope of the purpose of this meeting with all three providers. > > > Susan Payne > Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd > 28-30 Little Russell Street > London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom > > E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> > D: +44 20 7421 8255 > T: +44 20 7421 8299 > M: +44 7971 661175 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman > Sent: 15 March 2018 09:24 > To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos > > Hi George, this is going to be a "last 10 minute" question. That's the space reserved for additional questions. > > Best, Kathy > > > On 3/15/2018 8:42 AM, George Kirikos wrote: >> [with the Adobe Connect down, it seems remote participants can only >> ask questions via email] >> >> For NAF: >> >> According to: >> >> [A] >> https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/national-arbitration-forum- >> settlement-with-minnesota-attorney-general >> >> "On July 20, 2009, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced >> that the country’s largest arbitrator of credit-card and >> consumer-collection disputes would no longer handle consumer >> arbitrations. >> >> The National Arbitration Forum’s decision to end its >> consumer-arbitration business resulted from a settlement it reached >> with the State of Minnesota less than a week after Attorney General >> Swanson sued the company in Ramsey County, Minnesota, accusing the >> company of violating Minnesota’s consumer-fraud, >> deceptive-trade-practices, and false-advertising statutes." >> >> [B] >> https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/minnesota-attorney-genera >> l-lawsuit-national-arbitration-forum-1282.php >> >> "The lawsuit claims the NAF, the largest arbitration company in the >> United States, violates state consumer fraud and deceptive trade laws >> by hiding its financial ties to collection agencies and credit card >> companies. The lawsuit also claims the company violates false >> advertising laws by misrepresenting themselves as a neutral >> organization. " >> >> My questions are: (for NAF) >> >> (1) In light of [A], how do NAF's business practices in handling >> domain name disputes differ from those in the consumer-arbitration >> business which it left, and how can domain name registrants be >> confident that the same abuses which were alleged in consumer >> arbitrations are not present in its domain name dispute business? >> >> (2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they >> have any times to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else >> that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the >> "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization? >> >> Sincerely, >> >> George Kirikos >> 416-588-0269 >> http://www.leap.com/ >> >> P.S. Further background info at: >> >> https://library.nclc.org/sites/default/files/Arb10_Appx_O-1.pdf >> https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/arbitrationtrap.pdf >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(alternative_dispute_resolution<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_%28alternative_dispute_resolution>) >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ 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
While you're entitled to your personal views as to what the task of the WG should be, in my view the accountability and neutrality of providers is an important issue that should be within the scope of our PDP's review. Indeed, the topic of whether there should be formal contracts between ICANN and the providers has been mentioned before in this PDP. Today's presenter couldn't even tell us who the beneficial owner of NAF was, a relatively simple question. Let me give a couple of hypothetical examples, to show why that can be dangerous. [A] Suppose the law firm of Dewey, Cheetham & Howe (DCW) is the true beneficial owner of NAF, and that lawyers from DCW initiate domain name disputes via NAF -- that's an instant conflict of interest of the provider itself. They select the panelists, and can steer cases to panelists who have a history of being complainant-friendly. [B] Suppose that a venture capital or private equity firm owns NAF, and also owns Acme Industries. If Acme files a domain name dispute using NAF, that's also a conflict of interest and calls into question the neutrality of the provider. Given the history of NAF, these aren't just theoretical concerns anymore. We had the attorney general of Minnesota looking out for consumers in the consumer arbitration sphere. Who does that in the domain sphere? ICANN needs to be on the lookout for abuses by the provider, instead of accrediting it once, and not monitoring things afterwards. And that means policies need to be in place to anticipate these issues, and ensure ongoing accountability and neutrality. Today's slides talked about databases of abusive complainants (and perhaps respondents down the road). It seems only natural to review and question whether other participants in the DRP, including the provider itself, have a history of abuse. This also goes to the issue of forum shopping. If a provider has serious allegations (and one can look at how credible they were, given the nature of the settlement and the other related litigation) in its history of favouring complainants in consumer arbitrations, and that TM owners are the ones that select the provider, then the potential for abuse is evident. I didn't get an answer that I found acceptable with regards to how business practices differ in NAF's consumer arbitration business relative to it's domain dispute business. Simply saying it was "political" seems to be a way to deflect the hard analysis and review that should take place. We need to dig deeper. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
My personal view is that it is the task of the WG to determine whether NAF and the other two providers are administering the URS in a manner that is consistent with the letter and spirit of the rules, procedures, and MOU.
It is unclear to me how the veracity and disposition of allegations brought against NAF in the last decade regarding consumer credit arbitrations have any significant relevance to its administration of the URS in the current decade.
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190&entry=g...> 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 *George Kirikos *Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2018 10:18 AM *To:* Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
NAF's answer that they "voluntarily" left the consumer arbitration business seems incomplete. For example, consider the class-action lawsuit that followed, which notes in one order dated August 8, 2011:
CASE 0:10-md-02122-PAM -JSM D
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/pdf/national-arbitration-final.pdf
"Plaintiffs have a strong case, as evidenced by Defendants’ settlement with the Minnesota Attorney General for more than $30 million in the summer of 2009. " (page 2)
If there was indeed a $30 million "voluntary" payment to Minnesota, I find that very interesting.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269
http:/www.leap.com/
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> wrote:
Moot point as question is being posed now.
Lori Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
INTA
+1(202)704-0408
On Mar 15, 2018, at 10:01 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
All, it is very hard to participate remotely. I have done it many times, and it is beyond frustrating. Let's try to understand, please. I thank Claudio, George and Justin for participating remotely...
Best, Kathy
On 3/15/2018 9:58 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges wrote:
George K. Give it rest. The providers are here to talk about the URS, period. What you are doing is disruptive and disrespectful of the presenters and the WG -- and the work we are trying to do in the short time frame we have.
*From:* icann@leap.com
*Sent:* March 15, 2018 9:48 AM
*To:* susan.payne@valideus.com
*Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
These *are* questions about their practices, namely how they *differ* from the practices in the consumer arbitration business which they left, after the Minnesota Attorney General lawsuit, etc. regarding alleged abuses in those practices.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
Actually I think we should take the opportunity of having the providers with us (whether in person or by phone) to get as much information about their processes) That is what they were asked to prepare for and they have clearly spent time doing so. It is very discourteous to MSFD and ADNDC to curtail their time in order to direct questions to Forum which are not directly related to what the three providers were asked to present on. And indeed discourteous to the WG members who would like to hear from them.
I say that not because I want to shield Forum - in fact I suspect Renee would appreciate the opportunity to put this long past history to bed - but because this is clearly something which can be done as a follow up and it is not directly within the scope of the purpose of this meeting with all three providers.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street <https://maps.google.com/?q=28-30+Little+Russell+Street+%0D%0A+London,+WC1A&e...> London, WC1A <https://maps.google.com/?q=28-30+Little+Russell+Street+%0D%0A+London,+WC1A&e...> 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: 15 March 2018 09:24 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
Hi George, this is going to be a "last 10 minute" question. That's the space reserved for additional questions.
Best, Kathy
On 3/15/2018 8:42 AM, George Kirikos wrote:
[with the Adobe Connect down, it seems remote participants can only ask questions via email]
For NAF:
According to:
[A] https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/national-arbitration-forum- settlement-with-minnesota-attorney-general
"On July 20, 2009, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced that the country’s largest arbitrator of credit-card and consumer-collection disputes would no longer handle consumer arbitrations.
The National Arbitration Forum’s decision to end its consumer-arbitration business resulted from a settlement it reached with the State of Minnesota less than a week after Attorney General Swanson sued the company in Ramsey County, Minnesota, accusing the company of violating Minnesota’s consumer-fraud, deceptive-trade-practices, and false-advertising statutes."
[B] https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/minnesota-attorney-genera l-lawsuit-national-arbitration-forum-1282.php
"The lawsuit claims the NAF, the largest arbitration company in the United States, violates state consumer fraud and deceptive trade laws by hiding its financial ties to collection agencies and credit card companies. The lawsuit also claims the company violates false advertising laws by misrepresenting themselves as a neutral organization. "
My questions are: (for NAF)
(1) In light of [A], how do NAF's business practices in handling domain name disputes differ from those in the consumer-arbitration business which it left, and how can domain name registrants be confident that the same abuses which were alleged in consumer arbitrations are not present in its domain name dispute business?
(2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they have any times to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
P.S. Further background info at:
https://library.nclc.org/sites/default/files/Arb10_Appx_O-1.pdf https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/arbitrationtrap.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(alternative_dispute_resolution) _______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------
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
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Consideration of the bona fides of the “accountability and neutrality of providers” may be of interest, but it is well beyond the purview of this working group. Exploration of this area was wasteful and disrespectful of the presenter and the members of this working group. Michael R. Graham From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 8:21 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos While you're entitled to your personal views as to what the task of the WG should be, in my view the accountability and neutrality of providers is an important issue that should be within the scope of our PDP's review. Indeed, the topic of whether there should be formal contracts between ICANN and the providers has been mentioned before in this PDP. Today's presenter couldn't even tell us who the beneficial owner of NAF was, a relatively simple question. Let me give a couple of hypothetical examples, to show why that can be dangerous. [A] Suppose the law firm of Dewey, Cheetham & Howe (DCW) is the true beneficial owner of NAF, and that lawyers from DCW initiate domain name disputes via NAF -- that's an instant conflict of interest of the provider itself. They select the panelists, and can steer cases to panelists who have a history of being complainant-friendly. [B] Suppose that a venture capital or private equity firm owns NAF, and also owns Acme Industries. If Acme files a domain name dispute using NAF, that's also a conflict of interest and calls into question the neutrality of the provider. Given the history of NAF, these aren't just theoretical concerns anymore. We had the attorney general of Minnesota looking out for consumers in the consumer arbitration sphere. Who does that in the domain sphere? ICANN needs to be on the lookout for abuses by the provider, instead of accrediting it once, and not monitoring things afterwards. And that means policies need to be in place to anticipate these issues, and ensure ongoing accountability and neutrality. Today's slides talked about databases of abusive complainants (and perhaps respondents down the road). It seems only natural to review and question whether other participants in the DRP, including the provider itself, have a history of abuse. This also goes to the issue of forum shopping. If a provider has serious allegations (and one can look at how credible they were, given the nature of the settlement and the other related litigation) in its history of favouring complainants in consumer arbitrations, and that TM owners are the ones that select the provider, then the potential for abuse is evident. I didn't get an answer that I found acceptable with regards to how business practices differ in NAF's consumer arbitration business relative to it's domain dispute business. Simply saying it was "political" seems to be a way to deflect the hard analysis and review that should take place. We need to dig deeper. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> wrote: My personal view is that it is the task of the WG to determine whether NAF and the other two providers are administering the URS in a manner that is consistent with the letter and spirit of the rules, procedures, and MOU. It is unclear to me how the veracity and disposition of allegations brought against NAF in the last decade regarding consumer credit arbitrations have any significant relevance to its administration of the URS in the current decade. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way<https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190&entry=g...> 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<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 10:18 AM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos NAF's answer that they "voluntarily" left the consumer arbitration business seems incomplete. For example, consider the class-action lawsuit that followed, which notes in one order dated August 8, 2011: CASE 0:10-md-02122-PAM -JSM D http://www.lieffcabraser.com/pdf/national-arbitration-final.pdf "Plaintiffs have a strong case, as evidenced by Defendants’ settlement with the Minnesota Attorney General for more than $30 million in the summer of 2009. " (page 2) If there was indeed a $30 million "voluntary" payment to Minnesota, I find that very interesting. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http:/www.leap.com/<http://www.leap.com/> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> wrote: Moot point as question is being posed now. Lori Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy INTA +1(202)704-0408 On Mar 15, 2018, at 10:01 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote: All, it is very hard to participate remotely. I have done it many times, and it is beyond frustrating. Let's try to understand, please. I thank Claudio, George and Justin for participating remotely... Best, Kathy On 3/15/2018 9:58 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges wrote: George K. Give it rest. The providers are here to talk about the URS, period. What you are doing is disruptive and disrespectful of the presenters and the WG -- and the work we are trying to do in the short time frame we have. From: icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com> Sent: March 15, 2018 9:48 AM To: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos These *are* questions about their practices, namely how they *differ* from the practices in the consumer arbitration business which they left, after the Minnesota Attorney General lawsuit, etc. regarding alleged abuses in those practices. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com><mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
Actually I think we should take the opportunity of having the providers with us (whether in person or by phone) to get as much information about their processes) That is what they were asked to prepare for and they have clearly spent time doing so. It is very discourteous to MSFD and ADNDC to curtail their time in order to direct questions to Forum which are not directly related to what the three providers were asked to present on. And indeed discourteous to the WG members who would like to hear from them.
I say that not because I want to shield Forum - in fact I suspect Renee would appreciate the opportunity to put this long past history to bed - but because this is clearly something which can be done as a follow up and it is not directly within the scope of the purpose of this meeting with all three providers.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street<https://maps.google.com/?q=28-30+Little+Russell+Street+%0D%0A+London,+WC1A&e...> London, WC1A<https://maps.google.com/?q=28-30+Little+Russell+Street+%0D%0A+London,+WC1A&e...> 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: 15 March 2018 09:24 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
Hi George, this is going to be a "last 10 minute" question. That's the space reserved for additional questions.
Best, Kathy
On 3/15/2018 8:42 AM, George Kirikos wrote:
[with the Adobe Connect down, it seems remote participants can only ask questions via email]
For NAF:
According to:
[A] https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/national-arbitration-forum- settlement-with-minnesota-attorney-general
"On July 20, 2009, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced that the country’s largest arbitrator of credit-card and consumer-collection disputes would no longer handle consumer arbitrations.
The National Arbitration Forum’s decision to end its consumer-arbitration business resulted from a settlement it reached with the State of Minnesota less than a week after Attorney General Swanson sued the company in Ramsey County, Minnesota, accusing the company of violating Minnesota’s consumer-fraud, deceptive-trade-practices, and false-advertising statutes."
[B] https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/minnesota-attorney-genera l-lawsuit-national-arbitration-forum-1282.php
"The lawsuit claims the NAF, the largest arbitration company in the United States, violates state consumer fraud and deceptive trade laws by hiding its financial ties to collection agencies and credit card companies. The lawsuit also claims the company violates false advertising laws by misrepresenting themselves as a neutral organization. "
My questions are: (for NAF)
(1) In light of [A], how do NAF's business practices in handling domain name disputes differ from those in the consumer-arbitration business which it left, and how can domain name registrants be confident that the same abuses which were alleged in consumer arbitrations are not present in its domain name dispute business?
(2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they have any times to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
P.S. Further background info at:
https://library.nclc.org/sites/default/files/Arb10_Appx_O-1.pdf https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/arbitrationtrap.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(alternative_dispute_resolution<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_%28alternative_dispute_resolution>) _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 Michael, It was the work of the GNSO that ultimately led to policies that were reflected in the new gTLD's applicant guidebook. Because new gTLDs are considered so highly trusted, for example, applicants had to demonstrate they were "worthy", e.g. if they had a certain number of adverse cybersquatting decisions, i.e. a "bad history", their applications were tossed in the trash. There are even ongoing requirements, that might be insufficient, e.g. see: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150520_should_barclays_lose_the_barclays_top... http://www.circleid.com/posts/verisign_director_charged_with_securities_frau... http://www.circleid.com/posts/verisign_receives_subpoena/ Certainly the GNSO can set similar set policies to ensure that applicants to be URS/UDRP providers face a similar high degree of scrutiny, and ongoing oversight, to ensure accountability and neutrality given their highly trusted positions. Just because priorities of domain name registrants like myself differ from your own priorities as a representative of a large travel company that is a TM holder (Expedia) and presumably a complainant in URS/UDRP disputes doesn't mean I was "disrespectful" in any way. I asked questions that are relevant to issues that concern me in this PDP. Ask domain name registrants who share those kinds of concerns with relation to the ICANN policy and they might say "Bravo George, thanks for asking them the tough questions". As long as these kinds of issues affect registrants, folks like myself can and should be raising them. For those who don't like that, I leave you wish the immortal words of Katy Perry: "So keep calm, honey, I'ma stick around For more than a minute, get used to it Funny my name keeps comin' out your mouth" :-) Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Michael Graham (ELCA) < migraham@expedia.com> wrote:
Consideration of the bona fides of the “accountability and neutrality of providers” may be of interest, but it is well beyond the purview of this working group. Exploration of this area was wasteful and disrespectful of the presenter and the members of this working group.
Michael R. Graham
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *George Kirikos *Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2018 8:21 AM
*To:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
While you're entitled to your personal views as to what the task of the WG should be, in my view the accountability and neutrality of providers is an important issue that should be within the scope of our PDP's review. Indeed, the topic of whether there should be formal contracts between ICANN and the providers has been mentioned before in this PDP.
Today's presenter couldn't even tell us who the beneficial owner of NAF was, a relatively simple question. Let me give a couple of hypothetical examples, to show why that can be dangerous.
[A] Suppose the law firm of Dewey, Cheetham & Howe (DCW) is the true beneficial owner of NAF, and that lawyers from DCW initiate domain name disputes via NAF -- that's an instant conflict of interest of the provider itself. They select the panelists, and can steer cases to panelists who have a history of being complainant-friendly.
[B] Suppose that a venture capital or private equity firm owns NAF, and also owns Acme Industries. If Acme files a domain name dispute using NAF, that's also a conflict of interest and calls into question the neutrality of the provider.
Given the history of NAF, these aren't just theoretical concerns anymore. We had the attorney general of Minnesota looking out for consumers in the consumer arbitration sphere. Who does that in the domain sphere? ICANN needs to be on the lookout for abuses by the provider, instead of accrediting it once, and not monitoring things afterwards. And that means policies need to be in place to anticipate these issues, and ensure ongoing accountability and neutrality.
Today's slides talked about databases of abusive complainants (and perhaps respondents down the road). It seems only natural to review and question whether other participants in the DRP, including the provider itself, have a history of abuse.
This also goes to the issue of forum shopping. If a provider has serious allegations (and one can look at how credible they were, given the nature of the settlement and the other related litigation) in its history of favouring complainants in consumer arbitrations, and that TM owners are the ones that select the provider, then the potential for abuse is evident. I didn't get an answer that I found acceptable with regards to how business practices differ in NAF's consumer arbitration business relative to it's domain dispute business. Simply saying it was "political" seems to be a way to deflect the hard analysis and review that should take place. We need to dig deeper.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
My personal view is that it is the task of the WG to determine whether NAF and the other two providers are administering the URS in a manner that is consistent with the letter and spirit of the rules, procedures, and MOU.
It is unclear to me how the veracity and disposition of allegations brought against NAF in the last decade regarding consumer credit arbitrations have any significant relevance to its administration of the URS in the current decade.
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190&entry=g...> 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 *George Kirikos *Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2018 10:18 AM *To:* Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
NAF's answer that they "voluntarily" left the consumer arbitration business seems incomplete. For example, consider the class-action lawsuit that followed, which notes in one order dated August 8, 2011:
CASE 0:10-md-02122-PAM -JSM D
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/pdf/national-arbitration-final.pdf
"Plaintiffs have a strong case, as evidenced by Defendants’ settlement with the Minnesota Attorney General for more than $30 million in the summer of 2009. " (page 2)
If there was indeed a $30 million "voluntary" payment to Minnesota, I find that very interesting.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269
http:/www.leap.com/
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> wrote:
Moot point as question is being posed now.
Lori Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
INTA
+1(202)704-0408
On Mar 15, 2018, at 10:01 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
All, it is very hard to participate remotely. I have done it many times, and it is beyond frustrating. Let's try to understand, please. I thank Claudio, George and Justin for participating remotely...
Best, Kathy
On 3/15/2018 9:58 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges wrote:
George K. Give it rest. The providers are here to talk about the URS, period. What you are doing is disruptive and disrespectful of the presenters and the WG -- and the work we are trying to do in the short time frame we have.
*From:* icann@leap.com
*Sent:* March 15, 2018 9:48 AM
*To:* susan.payne@valideus.com
*Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
These *are* questions about their practices, namely how they *differ* from the practices in the consumer arbitration business which they left, after the Minnesota Attorney General lawsuit, etc. regarding alleged abuses in those practices.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
Actually I think we should take the opportunity of having the providers with us (whether in person or by phone) to get as much information about their processes) That is what they were asked to prepare for and they have clearly spent time doing so. It is very discourteous to MSFD and ADNDC to curtail their time in order to direct questions to Forum which are not directly related to what the three providers were asked to present on. And indeed discourteous to the WG members who would like to hear from them.
I say that not because I want to shield Forum - in fact I suspect Renee would appreciate the opportunity to put this long past history to bed - but because this is clearly something which can be done as a follow up and it is not directly within the scope of the purpose of this meeting with all three providers.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street <https://maps.google.com/?q=28-30+Little+Russell+Street+%0D%0A+London,+WC1A&e...> London, WC1A <https://maps.google.com/?q=28-30+Little+Russell+Street+%0D%0A+London,+WC1A&e...> 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: 15 March 2018 09:24 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
Hi George, this is going to be a "last 10 minute" question. That's the space reserved for additional questions.
Best, Kathy
On 3/15/2018 8:42 AM, George Kirikos wrote:
[with the Adobe Connect down, it seems remote participants can only ask questions via email]
For NAF:
According to:
[A] https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/national-arbitration-forum- settlement-with-minnesota-attorney-general
"On July 20, 2009, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced that the country’s largest arbitrator of credit-card and consumer-collection disputes would no longer handle consumer arbitrations.
The National Arbitration Forum’s decision to end its consumer-arbitration business resulted from a settlement it reached with the State of Minnesota less than a week after Attorney General Swanson sued the company in Ramsey County, Minnesota, accusing the company of violating Minnesota’s consumer-fraud, deceptive-trade-practices, and false-advertising statutes."
[B] https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/minnesota-attorney-genera l-lawsuit-national-arbitration-forum-1282.php
"The lawsuit claims the NAF, the largest arbitration company in the United States, violates state consumer fraud and deceptive trade laws by hiding its financial ties to collection agencies and credit card companies. The lawsuit also claims the company violates false advertising laws by misrepresenting themselves as a neutral organization. "
My questions are: (for NAF)
(1) In light of [A], how do NAF's business practices in handling domain name disputes differ from those in the consumer-arbitration business which it left, and how can domain name registrants be confident that the same abuses which were alleged in consumer arbitrations are not present in its domain name dispute business?
(2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they have any times to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
P.S. Further background info at:
https://library.nclc.org/sites/default/files/Arb10_Appx_O-1.pdf https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/arbitrationtrap.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(alternative_dispute_resolution) _______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------
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
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Michael and Phil Aside from conflicts associated with NAF as a provider how can a panelist attest to the absence of conflict if she or he does not know who the owners of NAF (or any other ADT provider aside from WIPO) are ?? Would it bother anyone if the ADR provider were actually owned by domain registrants or attorneys who inly represent registrants? Sincerely, Paul Keating, Esq.
On Mar 15, 2018, at 5:49 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi Michael,
It was the work of the GNSO that ultimately led to policies that were reflected in the new gTLD's applicant guidebook. Because new gTLDs are considered so highly trusted, for example, applicants had to demonstrate they were "worthy", e.g. if they had a certain number of adverse cybersquatting decisions, i.e. a "bad history", their applications were tossed in the trash. There are even ongoing requirements, that might be insufficient, e.g. see:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150520_should_barclays_lose_the_barclays_top... http://www.circleid.com/posts/verisign_director_charged_with_securities_frau... http://www.circleid.com/posts/verisign_receives_subpoena/
Certainly the GNSO can set similar set policies to ensure that applicants to be URS/UDRP providers face a similar high degree of scrutiny, and ongoing oversight, to ensure accountability and neutrality given their highly trusted positions.
Just because priorities of domain name registrants like myself differ from your own priorities as a representative of a large travel company that is a TM holder (Expedia) and presumably a complainant in URS/UDRP disputes doesn't mean I was "disrespectful" in any way. I asked questions that are relevant to issues that concern me in this PDP. Ask domain name registrants who share those kinds of concerns with relation to the ICANN policy and they might say "Bravo George, thanks for asking them the tough questions".
As long as these kinds of issues affect registrants, folks like myself can and should be raising them. For those who don't like that, I leave you wish the immortal words of Katy Perry:
"So keep calm, honey, I'ma stick around For more than a minute, get used to it Funny my name keeps comin' out your mouth"
:-)
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Michael Graham (ELCA) <migraham@expedia.com> wrote: Consideration of the bona fides of the “accountability and neutrality of providers” may be of interest, but it is well beyond the purview of this working group. Exploration of this area was wasteful and disrespectful of the presenter and the members of this working group.
Michael R. Graham
From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 8:21 AM
To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
While you're entitled to your personal views as to what the task of the WG should be, in my view the accountability and neutrality of providers is an important issue that should be within the scope of our PDP's review. Indeed, the topic of whether there should be formal contracts between ICANN and the providers has been mentioned before in this PDP.
Today's presenter couldn't even tell us who the beneficial owner of NAF was, a relatively simple question. Let me give a couple of hypothetical examples, to show why that can be dangerous.
[A] Suppose the law firm of Dewey, Cheetham & Howe (DCW) is the true beneficial owner of NAF, and that lawyers from DCW initiate domain name disputes via NAF -- that's an instant conflict of interest of the provider itself. They select the panelists, and can steer cases to panelists who have a history of being complainant-friendly.
[B] Suppose that a venture capital or private equity firm owns NAF, and also owns Acme Industries. If Acme files a domain name dispute using NAF, that's also a conflict of interest and calls into question the neutrality of the provider.
Given the history of NAF, these aren't just theoretical concerns anymore. We had the attorney general of Minnesota looking out for consumers in the consumer arbitration sphere. Who does that in the domain sphere? ICANN needs to be on the lookout for abuses by the provider, instead of accrediting it once, and not monitoring things afterwards. And that means policies need to be in place to anticipate these issues, and ensure ongoing accountability and neutrality.
Today's slides talked about databases of abusive complainants (and perhaps respondents down the road). It seems only natural to review and question whether other participants in the DRP, including the provider itself, have a history of abuse.
This also goes to the issue of forum shopping. If a provider has serious allegations (and one can look at how credible they were, given the nature of the settlement and the other related litigation) in its history of favouring complainants in consumer arbitrations, and that TM owners are the ones that select the provider, then the potential for abuse is evident. I didn't get an answer that I found acceptable with regards to how business practices differ in NAF's consumer arbitration business relative to it's domain dispute business. Simply saying it was "political" seems to be a way to deflect the hard analysis and review that should take place. We need to dig deeper.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
My personal view is that it is the task of the WG to determine whether NAF and the other two providers are administering the URS in a manner that is consistent with the letter and spirit of the rules, procedures, and MOU.
It is unclear to me how the veracity and disposition of allegations brought against NAF in the last decade regarding consumer credit arbitrations have any significant relevance to its administration of the URS in the current decade.
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 George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 10:18 AM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
NAF's answer that they "voluntarily" left the consumer arbitration business seems incomplete. For example, consider the class-action lawsuit that followed, which notes in one order dated August 8, 2011:
CASE 0:10-md-02122-PAM -JSM D
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/pdf/national-arbitration-final.pdf
"Plaintiffs have a strong case, as evidenced by Defendants’ settlement with the Minnesota Attorney General for more than $30 million in the summer of 2009. " (page 2)
If there was indeed a $30 million "voluntary" payment to Minnesota, I find that very interesting.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269
http:/www.leap.com/
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> wrote:
Moot point as question is being posed now.
Lori Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
INTA
+1(202)704-0408
On Mar 15, 2018, at 10:01 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
All, it is very hard to participate remotely. I have done it many times, and it is beyond frustrating. Let's try to understand, please. I thank Claudio, George and Justin for participating remotely...
Best, Kathy
On 3/15/2018 9:58 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges wrote:
George K. Give it rest. The providers are here to talk about the URS, period. What you are doing is disruptive and disrespectful of the presenters and the WG -- and the work we are trying to do in the short time frame we have.
From: icann@leap.com
Sent: March 15, 2018 9:48 AM
To: susan.payne@valideus.com
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
These *are* questions about their practices, namely how they *differ* from the practices in the consumer arbitration business which they left, after the Minnesota Attorney General lawsuit, etc. regarding alleged abuses in those practices.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
Actually I think we should take the opportunity of having the providers with us (whether in person or by phone) to get as much information about their processes) That is what they were asked to prepare for and they have clearly spent time doing so. It is very discourteous to MSFD and ADNDC to curtail their time in order to direct questions to Forum which are not directly related to what the three providers were asked to present on. And indeed discourteous to the WG members who would like to hear from them.
I say that not because I want to shield Forum - in fact I suspect Renee would appreciate the opportunity to put this long past history to bed - but because this is clearly something which can be done as a follow up and it is not directly within the scope of the purpose of this meeting with all three providers.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: 15 March 2018 09:24 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
Hi George, this is going to be a "last 10 minute" question. That's the space reserved for additional questions.
Best, Kathy
On 3/15/2018 8:42 AM, George Kirikos wrote:
[with the Adobe Connect down, it seems remote participants can only ask questions via email]
For NAF:
According to:
[A] https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/national-arbitration-forum- settlement-with-minnesota-attorney-general
"On July 20, 2009, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced that the country’s largest arbitrator of credit-card and consumer-collection disputes would no longer handle consumer arbitrations.
The National Arbitration Forum’s decision to end its consumer-arbitration business resulted from a settlement it reached with the State of Minnesota less than a week after Attorney General Swanson sued the company in Ramsey County, Minnesota, accusing the company of violating Minnesota’s consumer-fraud, deceptive-trade-practices, and false-advertising statutes."
[B] https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/minnesota-attorney-genera l-lawsuit-national-arbitration-forum-1282.php
"The lawsuit claims the NAF, the largest arbitration company in the United States, violates state consumer fraud and deceptive trade laws by hiding its financial ties to collection agencies and credit card companies. The lawsuit also claims the company violates false advertising laws by misrepresenting themselves as a neutral organization. "
My questions are: (for NAF)
(1) In light of [A], how do NAF's business practices in handling domain name disputes differ from those in the consumer-arbitration business which it left, and how can domain name registrants be confident that the same abuses which were alleged in consumer arbitrations are not present in its domain name dispute business?
(2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they have any times to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
P.S. Further background info at:
https://library.nclc.org/sites/default/files/Arb10_Appx_O-1.pdf https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/arbitrationtrap.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(alternative_dispute_resolution) _______________________________________________ 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
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
_______________________________________________ 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
The UDRP Rules (para. 7) require that a “Panelist shall be impartial and independent and shall have, before accepting appointment, disclosed to the Provider any circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubt as to the Panelist's impartiality or independence.” How does a Panelist’s knowledge (or absence of knowledge) of a Provider’s owners affect whether a Panelist can satisfy this impartiality and independence requirement? Doug From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 3:18 PM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos Michael and Phil Aside from conflicts associated with NAF as a provider how can a panelist attest to the absence of conflict if she or he does not know who the owners of NAF (or any other ADT provider aside from WIPO) are ?? Would it bother anyone if the ADR provider were actually owned by domain registrants or attorneys who inly represent registrants? Sincerely, Paul Keating, Esq.
Example, PANELIST “A” is employed in Lawfirm “B” whose client is a shareholder of NAF. Sent from my iPad
On 15 Mar 2018, at 20:45, Doug Isenberg <Doug@Giga.Law> wrote:
The UDRP Rules (para. 7) require that a “Panelist shall be impartial and independent and shall have, before accepting appointment, disclosed to the Provider any circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubt as to the Panelist's impartiality or independence.” How does a Panelist’s knowledge (or absence of knowledge) of a Provider’s owners affect whether a Panelist can satisfy this impartiality and independence requirement?
Doug
From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 3:18 PM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
Michael and Phil
Aside from conflicts associated with NAF as a provider how can a panelist attest to the absence of conflict if she or he does not know who the owners of NAF (or any other ADT provider aside from WIPO) are ??
Would it bother anyone if the ADR provider were actually owned by domain registrants or attorneys who inly represent registrants?
Sincerely, Paul Keating, Esq.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
And the lack of knowledge certainly supports the lack of partiality based on knowledge. Michael R. From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Doug Isenberg Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 12:46 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos The UDRP Rules (para. 7) require that a “Panelist shall be impartial and independent and shall have, before accepting appointment, disclosed to the Provider any circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubt as to the Panelist's impartiality or independence.” How does a Panelist’s knowledge (or absence of knowledge) of a Provider’s owners affect whether a Panelist can satisfy this impartiality and independence requirement? Doug From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 3:18 PM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos Michael and Phil Aside from conflicts associated with NAF as a provider how can a panelist attest to the absence of conflict if she or he does not know who the owners of NAF (or any other ADT provider aside from WIPO) are ?? Would it bother anyone if the ADR provider were actually owned by domain registrants or attorneys who inly represent registrants? Sincerely, Paul Keating, Esq.
No different the any shotgun wedding. Sincerely, Paul Keating, Esq.
On Mar 15, 2018, at 3:19 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
NAF's answer that they "voluntarily" left the consumer arbitration business seems incomplete. For example, consider the class-action lawsuit that followed, which notes in one order dated August 8, 2011:
CASE 0:10-md-02122-PAM -JSM D
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/pdf/national-arbitration-final.pdf
"Plaintiffs have a strong case, as evidenced by Defendants’ settlement with the Minnesota Attorney General for more than $30 million in the summer of 2009. " (page 2)
If there was indeed a $30 million "voluntary" payment to Minnesota, I find that very interesting.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http:/www.leap.com/
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> wrote: Moot point as question is being posed now.
Lori Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy INTA +1(202)704-0408
On Mar 15, 2018, at 10:01 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
All, it is very hard to participate remotely. I have done it many times, and it is beyond frustrating. Let's try to understand, please. I thank Claudio, George and Justin for participating remotely... Best, Kathy
On 3/15/2018 9:58 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges wrote: George K. Give it rest. The providers are here to talk about the URS, period. What you are doing is disruptive and disrespectful of the presenters and the WG -- and the work we are trying to do in the short time frame we have.
From: icann@leap.com Sent: March 15, 2018 9:48 AM To: susan.payne@valideus.com Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
These *are* questions about their practices, namely how they *differ* from the practices in the consumer arbitration business which they left, after the Minnesota Attorney General lawsuit, etc. regarding alleged abuses in those practices.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
Actually I think we should take the opportunity of having the providers with us (whether in person or by phone) to get as much information about their processes) That is what they were asked to prepare for and they have clearly spent time doing so. It is very discourteous to MSFD and ADNDC to curtail their time in order to direct questions to Forum which are not directly related to what the three providers were asked to present on. And indeed discourteous to the WG members who would like to hear from them.
I say that not because I want to shield Forum - in fact I suspect Renee would appreciate the opportunity to put this long past history to bed - but because this is clearly something which can be done as a follow up and it is not directly within the scope of the purpose of this meeting with all three providers.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: 15 March 2018 09:24 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
Hi George, this is going to be a "last 10 minute" question. That's the space reserved for additional questions.
Best, Kathy
On 3/15/2018 8:42 AM, George Kirikos wrote:
[with the Adobe Connect down, it seems remote participants can only ask questions via email]
For NAF:
According to:
[A] https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/national-arbitration-forum- settlement-with-minnesota-attorney-general
"On July 20, 2009, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced that the country’s largest arbitrator of credit-card and consumer-collection disputes would no longer handle consumer arbitrations.
The National Arbitration Forum’s decision to end its consumer-arbitration business resulted from a settlement it reached with the State of Minnesota less than a week after Attorney General Swanson sued the company in Ramsey County, Minnesota, accusing the company of violating Minnesota’s consumer-fraud, deceptive-trade-practices, and false-advertising statutes."
[B] https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/minnesota-attorney-genera l-lawsuit-national-arbitration-forum-1282.php
"The lawsuit claims the NAF, the largest arbitration company in the United States, violates state consumer fraud and deceptive trade laws by hiding its financial ties to collection agencies and credit card companies. The lawsuit also claims the company violates false advertising laws by misrepresenting themselves as a neutral organization. "
My questions are: (for NAF)
(1) In light of [A], how do NAF's business practices in handling domain name disputes differ from those in the consumer-arbitration business which it left, and how can domain name registrants be confident that the same abuses which were alleged in consumer arbitrations are not present in its domain name dispute business?
(2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they have any times to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
P.S. Further background info at:
https://library.nclc.org/sites/default/files/Arb10_Appx_O-1.pdf https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/arbitrationtrap.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(alternative_dispute_resolution) _______________________________________________ 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
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
_______________________________________________ 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 Kathy, Good session. The subteam's work shall continue..... Regards , Justine Chew ----- On 15 March 2018 at 21:59, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
All, it is very hard to participate remotely. I have done it many times, and it is beyond frustrating. Let's try to understand, please. I thank Claudio, George and Justin for participating remotely...
Best, Kathy
On 3/15/2018 9:58 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges wrote:
George K. Give it rest. The providers are here to talk about the URS, period. What you are doing is disruptive and disrespectful of the presenters and the WG -- and the work we are trying to do in the short time frame we have.
*From:* icann@leap.com *Sent:* March 15, 2018 9:48 AM *To:* susan.payne@valideus.com *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
These *are* questions about their practices, namely how they *differ* from the practices in the consumer arbitration business which they left, after the Minnesota Attorney General lawsuit, etc. regarding alleged abuses in those practices.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
Actually I think we should take the opportunity of having the providers with us (whether in person or by phone) to get as much information about their processes) That is what they were asked to prepare for and they have clearly spent time doing so. It is very discourteous to MSFD and ADNDC to curtail their time in order to direct questions to Forum which are not directly related to what the three providers were asked to present on. And indeed discourteous to the WG members who would like to hear from them.
I say that not because I want to shield Forum - in fact I suspect Renee would appreciate the opportunity to put this long past history to bed - but because this is clearly something which can be done as a follow up and it is not directly within the scope of the purpose of this meeting with all three providers.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 <+44%2020%207421%208255> T: +44 20 7421 8299 <+44%2020%207421%208299> M: +44 7971 661175 <+44%207971%20661175>
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: 15 March 2018 09:24 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
Hi George, this is going to be a "last 10 minute" question. That's the space reserved for additional questions.
Best, Kathy
On 3/15/2018 8:42 AM, George Kirikos wrote:
[with the Adobe Connect down, it seems remote participants can only ask questions via email]
For NAF:
According to:
[A] https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/national-arbitration-forum- settlement-with-minnesota-attorney-general
"On July 20, 2009, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced that the country’s largest arbitrator of credit-card and consumer-collection disputes would no longer handle consumer arbitrations.
The National Arbitration Forum’s decision to end its consumer-arbitration business resulted from a settlement it reached with the State of Minnesota less than a week after Attorney General Swanson sued the company in Ramsey County, Minnesota, accusing the company of violating Minnesota’s consumer-fraud, deceptive-trade-practices, and false-advertising statutes."
[B] https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/minnesota-attorney-genera l-lawsuit-national-arbitration-forum-1282.php
"The lawsuit claims the NAF, the largest arbitration company in the United States, violates state consumer fraud and deceptive trade laws by hiding its financial ties to collection agencies and credit card companies. The lawsuit also claims the company violates false advertising laws by misrepresenting themselves as a neutral organization. "
My questions are: (for NAF)
(1) In light of [A], how do NAF's business practices in handling domain name disputes differ from those in the consumer-arbitration business which it left, and how can domain name registrants be confident that the same abuses which were alleged in consumer arbitrations are not present in its domain name dispute business?
(2) In light of [B], who are the beneficial owners of NAF, and do they have any times to the trademark industry, law firms, or anyone else that might affect its neutrality? In other words, what is the "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for NAF itself as an organization?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
P.S. Further background info at:
https://library.nclc.org/sites/default/files/Arb10_Appx_O-1.pdf https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/arbitrationtrap.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(alternative_dispute_resolution) _______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------
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 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
participants (13)
-
Ariel Liang -
Corwin, Philip -
Doug Isenberg -
George Kirikos -
Justine Chew -
Kathy Kleiman -
Lori Schulman -
Mary Wong -
Michael Graham (ELCA) -
Nahitchevansky, Georges -
Paul Keating -
Scott Austin -
Susan Payne