FW: Largest URS Filing/Decision in History
FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing. For more background see http://www.circleid.com/posts/20161223_heres_the_largest_urs_complaint_ever_... and http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1703352D.htm Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Which seems to indicate that the current RPMs are working. Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2 Current UTC offset: -8
On 3 Jan 2017, at 09:34, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing.
For more background see http://www.circleid.com/posts/20161223_heres_the_largest_urs_complaint_ever_... <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20161223_heres_the_largest_urs_complaint_ever_...> and http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1703352D.htm <http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1703352D.htm>
Best regards, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
As the author of the blog post that Phil shared, I disagree with Reg's conclusion below (and am quite unsure how that conclusion was reached). This URS case is interesting because its size makes it unusual (and, indeed, unprecedented). It is not indicative of any trend about RPMs in general or the URS in particular. If anything, it is a reminder that there are many domain name registrants - even in the new gTLDs - who continue to engage in cybersquatting on a large-scale, despite the RPMs such as the URS. Sincerely yours, Douglas M. Isenberg Attorney at Law <http://www.gigalaw.com/> "When your brand is on the line, The GigaLaw Firm protects your brand online." Learn more: <http://www.gigalaw.com/> www.GigaLaw.com From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:56 PM To: Philip S. Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Which seems to indicate that the current RPMs are working. Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2 Current UTC offset: -8 On 3 Jan 2017, at 09:34, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> > wrote: FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing. For more background see http://www.circleid.com/posts/20161223_heres_the_largest_urs_complaint_ever_ filed/ and http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1703352D.htm Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ 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
Agreed. How does one large URS filling indicate that the RPMs are working? Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305 On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Doug Isenberg <disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>> wrote: As the author of the blog post that Phil shared, I disagree with Reg’s conclusion below (and am quite unsure how that conclusion was reached). This URS case is interesting because its size makes it unusual (and, indeed, unprecedented). It is not indicative of any trend about RPMs in general or the URS in particular. If anything, it is a reminder that there are many domain name registrants – even in the new gTLDs – who continue to engage in cybersquatting on a large-scale, despite the RPMs such as the URS. Sincerely yours, Douglas M. Isenberg Attorney at Law <image001.png><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...> “When your brand is on the line, The GigaLaw Firm protects your brand online.” Learn more: www.GigaLaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:56 PM To: Philip S. Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Which seems to indicate that the current RPMs are working. Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2 Current UTC offset: -8 On 3 Jan 2017, at 09:34, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing. For more background see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2...> and https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=...> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information.
Agree with Doug and Marc, I would be curious to understand the thinking further. Also, it will be interesting to see what happens to all of these names when the suspension period is over. K Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:27 AM, "trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com" <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> wrote:
Agreed. How does one large URS filling indicate that the RPMs are working?
Best Regards,
Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305
On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Doug Isenberg <disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>> wrote:
As the author of the blog post that Phil shared, I disagree with Reg’s conclusion below (and am quite unsure how that conclusion was reached). This URS case is interesting because its size makes it unusual (and, indeed, unprecedented). It is not indicative of any trend about RPMs in general or the URS in particular. If anything, it is a reminder that there are many domain name registrants – even in the new gTLDs – who continue to engage in cybersquatting on a large-scale, despite the RPMs such as the URS.
Sincerely yours,
Douglas M. Isenberg Attorney at Law
<image001.png><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...>
“When your brand is on the line, The GigaLaw Firm protects your brand online.” Learn more: www.GigaLaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...>
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:56 PM To: Philip S. Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History
Which seems to indicate that the current RPMs are working.
Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2
Current UTC offset: -8
On 3 Jan 2017, at 09:34, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing.
For more background see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2...> and https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...>
Best regards, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=...> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
My point was that a matter was successfully brought under the RPMs (my point would stand for matters unsuccessfully brought under the RPMs). That cybersquatting exists is not in dispute. Nor is it our—or ICANN’s—job to cause cybersquatting to no longer exist. The matter was a URS, which was a new-to-new-gTLDs RPM and (supposedly) cheaper than the UDRP. If this does not signify that RPMs work, does it signify that they do not? Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2 Current UTC offset: -8
On 3 Jan 2017, at 10:30, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Agree with Doug and Marc, I would be curious to understand the thinking further.
Also, it will be interesting to see what happens to all of these names when the suspension period is over.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:27 AM, "trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com" <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> wrote:
Agreed. How does one large URS filling indicate that the RPMs are working?
Best Regards,
Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305
On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Doug Isenberg <disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>> wrote:
As the author of the blog post that Phil shared, I disagree with Reg’s conclusion below (and am quite unsure how that conclusion was reached). This URS case is interesting because its size makes it unusual (and, indeed, unprecedented). It is not indicative of any trend about RPMs in general or the URS in particular. If anything, it is a reminder that there are many domain name registrants – even in the new gTLDs – who continue to engage in cybersquatting on a large-scale, despite the RPMs such as the URS.
Sincerely yours,
Douglas M. Isenberg Attorney at Law
<image001.png><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...>
“When your brand is on the line, The GigaLaw Firm protects your brand online.” Learn more: www.GigaLaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...>
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:56 PM To: Philip S. Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History
Which seems to indicate that the current RPMs are working.
Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2
Current UTC offset: -8
On 3 Jan 2017, at 09:34, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing.
For more background see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2...> and https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...>
Best regards, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=...> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
I have to agree with Reg here. One argument I've heard against URS working is that it is underutilized, and cases like this seem to undermine that argument (although no single case or outcome should be considered dispositive). Jonathan Jonathan Frost General Counsel Telephone: (+1)877-707-5752 100 SE 3rd Avenue, #1310 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 E-Mail: <mailto:jonathan@get.club> jonathan@get.club Website: <http://www.get.club/> www.get.club <https://app.getsignals.com/link?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.nic.club%2f&ukey=agxzf nNpZ25hbHNjcnhyGAsSC1VzZXJQcm9maWxlGICAgMCxgJ8KDA&k=00a65763b45344369d292997 60b3ae45> Please be advised that this communication is confidential. The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments, may also be attorney-client privileged and/or work product confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify Jonathan Frost by telephone at 877.707.5752 or by email at <mailto:jonathan@get.club> jonathan@get.club and delete the original message. From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 1:35 PM To: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History My point was that a matter was successfully brought under the RPMs (my point would stand for matters unsuccessfully brought under the RPMs). That cybersquatting exists is not in dispute. Nor is it our-or ICANN's-job to cause cybersquatting to no longer exist. The matter was a URS, which was a new-to-new-gTLDs RPM and (supposedly) cheaper than the UDRP. If this does not signify that RPMs work, does it signify that they do not? Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2 Current UTC offset: -8 On 3 Jan 2017, at 10:30, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > wrote: Agree with Doug and Marc, I would be curious to understand the thinking further. Also, it will be interesting to see what happens to all of these names when the suspension period is over. K Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:27 AM, "trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> " <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> > wrote: Agreed. How does one large URS filling indicate that the RPMs are working? Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305 On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Doug Isenberg <disenberg@gigalawfirm.com <mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com> <mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>> wrote: As the author of the blog post that Phil shared, I disagree with Reg's conclusion below (and am quite unsure how that conclusion was reached). This URS case is interesting because its size makes it unusual (and, indeed, unprecedented). It is not indicative of any trend about RPMs in general or the URS in particular. If anything, it is a reminder that there are many domain name registrants - even in the new gTLDs - who continue to engage in cybersquatting on a large-scale, despite the RPMs such as the URS. Sincerely yours, Douglas M. Isenberg Attorney at Law <image001.png><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigal aw.com_ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMF Ag&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m= FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ZlOXy68aDw9dtyJO-ShgSeFTgT5qjS ffEUGc14ZQL78&e=> &d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzC xm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ZlOXy68aDw9dtyJO-ShgSeF TgT5qjSffEUGc14ZQL78&e=> "When your brand is on the line, The GigaLaw Firm protects your brand online." Learn more: www.GigaLaw.com <http://www.GigaLaw.com> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMF Ag&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m= FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ZlOXy68aDw9dtyJO-ShgSeFTgT5qjS ffEUGc14ZQL78&e=> &d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzC xm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ZlOXy68aDw9dtyJO-ShgSeF TgT5qjSffEUGc14ZQL78&e=> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:56 PM To: Philip S. Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Which seems to indicate that the current RPMs are working. Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2 Current UTC offset: -8 On 3 Jan 2017, at 09:34, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing. For more background see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2 0161223-5Fheres-5Fthe-5Flargest-5Furs-5Fcomplaint-5Fever-5Ffiled_ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_ 20161223-5Fheres-5Fthe-5Flargest-5Furs-5Fcomplaint-5Fever-5Ffiled_&d=DgIF-g& c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=fgH eIuw69VHEcmbXFEVpbqoiy5s_C2pOj08v08OjTa0&s=uuBJPL7S7Bq1LLxnQi6-hMVaLBUGbWfLW bzUWaGowVI&e=> &d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-Jq gRYk&m=fgHeIuw69VHEcmbXFEVpbqoiy5s_C2pOj08v08OjTa0&s=uuBJPL7S7Bq1LLxnQi6-hMV aLBUGbWfLWbzUWaGowVI&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_ 20161223-5Fheres-5Fthe-5Flargest-5Furs-5Fcomplaint-5Fever-5Ffiled_ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_ 20161223-5Fheres-5Fthe-5Flargest-5Furs-5Fcomplaint-5Fever-5Ffiled_&d=DgMFAg& c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC 38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=OUHplwLUfg3180ijgGiEmvhZ4gztm1YhH 13LqLUt1OI&e=> &d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzC xm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=OUHplwLUfg3180ijgGiEmvh Z4gztm1YhH13LqLUt1OI&e=> and https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind ecisions_1703352D.htm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain decisions_1703352D.htm&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYF o5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=fgHeIuw69VHEcmbXFEVpbqoiy5s_C2pOj08v08OjTa0&s=l kCdLadNciOafHsJ9pa4VDWScSKJ4CCUZKajVKxxecI&e=> &d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-Jq gRYk&m=fgHeIuw69VHEcmbXFEVpbqoiy5s_C2pOj08v08OjTa0&s=lkCdLadNciOafHsJ9pa4VDW ScSKJ4CCUZKajVKxxecI&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain decisions_1703352D.htm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain decisions_1703352D.htm&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA 3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=6 C7KqyrV7UIBNaA7RqhQeA-ApSbBAsjisDW_czuUCqk&e=> &d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzC xm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=6C7KqyrV7UIBNaA7RqhQeA- ApSbBAsjisDW_czuUCqk&e=> Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_&d=DgMFAg&c =2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC3 8yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=DcyREXZNRu3J24MyaCAlQv0DTP01AeO46b tFz4QITVk&e=> &d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzC xm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=DcyREXZNRu3J24MyaCAlQv0 DTP01AeO46btFz4QITVk&e=> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li stinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l istinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpY Fo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=fgHeIuw69VHEcmbXFEVpbqoiy5s_C2pOj08v08OjTa0&s= Nr-ty83kRt8QQyQqG_g1bxNkZq0m9gsx7nnu3T9nDYw&e=> &d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-Jq gRYk&m=fgHeIuw69VHEcmbXFEVpbqoiy5s_C2pOj08v08OjTa0&s=Nr-ty83kRt8QQyQqG_g1bxN kZq0m9gsx7nnu3T9nDYw&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l istinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l istinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4i A3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s= ACWaH_t-BoxZE1k7HpXoBCt5EeY6VNY0hDlTKLCW0VY&e=> &d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzC xm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ACWaH_t-BoxZE1k7HpXoBCt 5EeY6VNY0hDlTKLCW0VY&e=> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li stinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l istinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgICAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4i A3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s= ACWaH_t-BoxZE1k7HpXoBCt5EeY6VNY0hDlTKLCW0VY&e=> &d=DgICAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzC xm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ACWaH_t-BoxZE1k7HpXoBCt 5EeY6VNY0hDlTKLCW0VY&e= ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com <mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com> , and do not use or disseminate such information. _______________________________________________ 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
How does one decision signify whether a particular RPM is under, over, or appropriately utilized? I think this can only be determined / analyzed in the aggregate. Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305 On Jan 3, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Jonathan Frost <jonathan@get.club<mailto:jonathan@get.club>> wrote: I have to agree with Reg here. One argument I’ve heard against URS working is that it is underutilized, and cases like this seem to undermine that argument (although no single case or outcome should be considered dispositive). Jonathan Jonathan Frost General Counsel Telephone: (+1)877-707-5752 100 SE 3rd Avenue, #1310 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 E-Mail: jonathan@get.club<mailto:jonathan@get.club> Website: www.get.club<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.get.club_&d=DgMFAg&c...> <image002.jpg><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__app.getsignals.com_link...> Please be advised that this communication is confidential. The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments, may also be attorney-client privileged and/or work product confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify Jonathan Frost by telephone at 877.707.5752 or by email at jonathan@get.club<mailto:jonathan@get.club> and delete the original message. From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 1:35 PM To: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History My point was that a matter was successfully brought under the RPMs (my point would stand for matters unsuccessfully brought under the RPMs). That cybersquatting exists is not in dispute. Nor is it our—or ICANN’s—job to cause cybersquatting to no longer exist. The matter was a URS, which was a new-to-new-gTLDs RPM and (supposedly) cheaper than the UDRP. If this does not signify that RPMs work, does it signify that they do not? Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2 Current UTC offset: -8 On 3 Jan 2017, at 10:30, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: Agree with Doug and Marc, I would be curious to understand the thinking further. Also, it will be interesting to see what happens to all of these names when the suspension period is over. K Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:27 AM, "trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>" <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> wrote: Agreed. How does one large URS filling indicate that the RPMs are working? Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305 On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Doug Isenberg <disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com><mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>> wrote: As the author of the blog post that Phil shared, I disagree with Reg’s conclusion below (and am quite unsure how that conclusion was reached). This URS case is interesting because its size makes it unusual (and, indeed, unprecedented). It is not indicative of any trend about RPMs in general or the URS in particular. If anything, it is a reminder that there are many domain name registrants – even in the new gTLDs – who continue to engage in cybersquatting on a large-scale, despite the RPMs such as the URS. Sincerely yours, Douglas M. Isenberg Attorney at Law <image001.png><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...> “When your brand is on the line, The GigaLaw Firm protects your brand online.” Learn more: www.GigaLaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.GigaLaw.com&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=SG-xdBXsuhe_iU3yraFFyY5rMN48-Axxr8sBjZ9NHmg&s=gX7_N2M7MlyRFGp3EK877Z5xGV39lbpfMWOlgzHTz6A&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ZlOXy68aDw9dtyJO-ShgSeFTgT5qjSffEUGc14ZQL78&e=> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:56 PM To: Philip S. Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Which seems to indicate that the current RPMs are working. Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2 Current UTC offset: -8 On 3 Jan 2017, at 09:34, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing. For more background see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2...> and https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=SG-xdBXsuhe_iU3yraFFyY5rMN48-Axxr8sBjZ9NHmg&s=QihKy3Wi3DgO70UkYop9yr94LwUieXHn2inZ-cOea5I&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=DcyREXZNRu3J24MyaCAlQv0DTP01AeO46btFz4QITVk&e=> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate such information. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
Thanks for sharing Phil and Doug. This case is an interesting data point of a brand holder deciding to use the URS over the UDRP. We developed the RPMs with the hope that brand holders would utilize the RPMs that made the most sense to them to protect their brands. The URS was developed for slam-dunk cases of infringement. We wanted to create a quicker and less costly way to take down infringing domain names. There was a deliberate distinction between the standard of proof and remedies with the URS and the UDRP. If these distinctions didn't exist, there would not have been a purpose for the URS. It would be interesting to understand why a brand holder like this one selected to use the URS over the UDRP -- and especially whether they understood the risk that Kiran mentioned. Look forward to the discussion at the appropriate time. Best, Jon
On Jan 3, 2017, at 2:13 PM, <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> wrote:
How does one decision signify whether a particular RPM is under, over, or appropriately utilized? I think this can only be determined / analyzed in the aggregate.
Best Regards,
Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305
On Jan 3, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Jonathan Frost <jonathan@get.club<mailto:jonathan@get.club>> wrote:
I have to agree with Reg here. One argument I’ve heard against URS working is that it is underutilized, and cases like this seem to undermine that argument (although no single case or outcome should be considered dispositive).
Jonathan
Jonathan Frost General Counsel Telephone: (+1)877-707-5752 100 SE 3rd Avenue, #1310 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 E-Mail: jonathan@get.club<mailto:jonathan@get.club> Website: www.get.club<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.get.club_&d=DgMFAg&c...> <image002.jpg><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__app.getsignals.com_link...>
Please be advised that this communication is confidential. The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments, may also be attorney-client privileged and/or work product confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify Jonathan Frost by telephone at 877.707.5752 or by email at jonathan@get.club<mailto:jonathan@get.club> and delete the original message.
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 1:35 PM To: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History
My point was that a matter was successfully brought under the RPMs (my point would stand for matters unsuccessfully brought under the RPMs). That cybersquatting exists is not in dispute. Nor is it our—or ICANN’s—job to cause cybersquatting to no longer exist. The matter was a URS, which was a new-to-new-gTLDs RPM and (supposedly) cheaper than the UDRP.
If this does not signify that RPMs work, does it signify that they do not?
Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2
Current UTC offset: -8
On 3 Jan 2017, at 10:30, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote:
Agree with Doug and Marc, I would be curious to understand the thinking further.
Also, it will be interesting to see what happens to all of these names when the suspension period is over.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:27 AM, "trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>" <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> wrote:
Agreed. How does one large URS filling indicate that the RPMs are working?
Best Regards,
Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305
On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Doug Isenberg <disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com><mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>> wrote:
As the author of the blog post that Phil shared, I disagree with Reg’s conclusion below (and am quite unsure how that conclusion was reached). This URS case is interesting because its size makes it unusual (and, indeed, unprecedented). It is not indicative of any trend about RPMs in general or the URS in particular. If anything, it is a reminder that there are many domain name registrants – even in the new gTLDs – who continue to engage in cybersquatting on a large-scale, despite the RPMs such as the URS.
Sincerely yours,
Douglas M. Isenberg Attorney at Law
<image001.png><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...>
“When your brand is on the line, The GigaLaw Firm protects your brand online.” Learn more: www.GigaLaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.GigaLaw.com&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=SG-xdBXsuhe_iU3yraFFyY5rMN48-Axxr8sBjZ9NHmg&s=gX7_N2M7MlyRFGp3EK877Z5xGV39lbpfMWOlgzHTz6A&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ZlOXy68aDw9dtyJO-ShgSeFTgT5qjSffEUGc14ZQL78&e=>
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:56 PM To: Philip S. Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History
Which seems to indicate that the current RPMs are working.
Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2
Current UTC offset: -8
On 3 Jan 2017, at 09:34, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing.
For more background see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2...> and https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...>
Best regards, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=SG-xdBXsuhe_iU3yraFFyY5rMN48-Axxr8sBjZ9NHmg&s=QihKy3Wi3DgO70UkYop9yr94LwUieXHn2inZ-cOea5I&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=DcyREXZNRu3J24MyaCAlQv0DTP01AeO46btFz4QITVk&e=> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate such information. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <image002.jpg>_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
I have no insights as to why this trademark owner chose the URS instead of the UDRP, but certainly the filing fee for this URS case (as I noted in my blog post) was much less than a UDRP complaint would have cost. At the Forum (where this URS complaint was filed -- and where the same trademark owner has filed previous UDRP cases), the filing fee for a URS case with more than 50 domain names is only $500; by comparison, the Forum doesn't even publish a fee schedule for UDRP cases with more than 16 domain names (and the UDRP filing fee for a complaint with 15 domain names is $2,250). Clearly, the UDRP filing fee would have been many times more expensive than for the URS case. Since trademark owners often consider costs when evaluating enforcement options, I suspect this may have been a factor. Doug -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 2:31 PM To: Marc Trachtenberg <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Thanks for sharing Phil and Doug. This case is an interesting data point of a brand holder deciding to use the URS over the UDRP. We developed the RPMs with the hope that brand holders would utilize the RPMs that made the most sense to them to protect their brands. The URS was developed for slam-dunk cases of infringement. We wanted to create a quicker and less costly way to take down infringing domain names. There was a deliberate distinction between the standard of proof and remedies with the URS and the UDRP. If these distinctions didn't exist, there would not have been a purpose for the URS. It would be interesting to understand why a brand holder like this one selected to use the URS over the UDRP -- and especially whether they understood the risk that Kiran mentioned. Look forward to the discussion at the appropriate time. Best, Jon
On Jan 3, 2017, at 2:13 PM, <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> wrote:
How does one decision signify whether a particular RPM is under, over, or appropriately utilized? I think this can only be determined / analyzed in the aggregate.
Best Regards,
Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305
On Jan 3, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Jonathan Frost <jonathan@get.club<mailto:jonathan@get.club>> wrote:
I have to agree with Reg here. One argument I've heard against URS working is that it is underutilized, and cases like this seem to undermine that argument (although no single case or outcome should be considered dispositive).
Jonathan
Jonathan Frost General Counsel Telephone: (+1)877-707-5752 100 SE 3rd Avenue, #1310 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 E-Mail: jonathan@get.club<mailto:jonathan@get.club> Website: www.get.club<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.g et.club_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3Jr KXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=SG-xdBXsuhe_iU3yraFFyY5rMN48-Axxr8sBjZ9NHmg&s=uRP 6gVdyNko-MCyaALJqMiNMSSpR1dVWPPYBuvanaPY&e=> <image002.jpg><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ap p.getsignals.com_link-3Furl-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fwww.nic.club-252f-26u key-3DagxzfnNpZ25hbHNjcnhyGAsSC1VzZXJQcm9maWxlGICAgMCxgJ8KDA-26k-3D00a 65763b45344369d29299760b3ae45&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB 7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=SG-xdBXsuhe_iU3yraFFyY5rMN48 -Axxr8sBjZ9NHmg&s=X5JKv_N0BzvKWYBlwwgSNJ9hwUpzBGg_KAIXrhUtBQ8&e=>
Please be advised that this communication is confidential. The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments, may also be attorney-client privileged and/or work product confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify Jonathan Frost by telephone at 877.707.5752 or by email at jonathan@get.club<mailto:jonathan@get.club> and delete the original message.
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 1:35 PM To: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmo nitor.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History
My point was that a matter was successfully brought under the RPMs (my point would stand for matters unsuccessfully brought under the RPMs). That cybersquatting exists is not in dispute. Nor is it our-or ICANN's-job to cause cybersquatting to no longer exist. The matter was a URS, which was a new-to-new-gTLDs RPM and (supposedly) cheaper than the UDRP.
If this does not signify that RPMs work, does it signify that they do not?
Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2
Current UTC offset: -8
On 3 Jan 2017, at 10:30, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote:
Agree with Doug and Marc, I would be curious to understand the thinking further.
Also, it will be interesting to see what happens to all of these names when the suspension period is over.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:27 AM, "trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>" <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> wrote:
Agreed. How does one large URS filling indicate that the RPMs are working?
Best Regards,
Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305
On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Doug Isenberg <disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com><mailto:disenber g@gigalawfirm.com>> wrote:
As the author of the blog post that Phil shared, I disagree with Reg's conclusion below (and am quite unsure how that conclusion was reached). This URS case is interesting because its size makes it unusual (and, indeed, unprecedented). It is not indicative of any trend about RPMs in general or the URS in particular. If anything, it is a reminder that there are many domain name registrants - even in the new gTLDs - who continue to engage in cybersquatting on a large-scale, despite the RPMs such as the URS.
Sincerely yours,
Douglas M. Isenberg Attorney at Law
<image001.png><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www .gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7 Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk& s=ZlOXy68aDw9dtyJO-ShgSeFTgT5qjSffEUGc14ZQL78&e=>
"When your brand is on the line, The GigaLaw Firm protects your brand online." Learn more: www.GigaLaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ww w.GigaLaw.com&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7 Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=SG-xdBXsuhe_iU3yraFFyY5rMN48-Axxr8sBjZ9NHmg& s=gX7_N2M7MlyRFGp3EK877Z5xGV39lbpfMWOlgzHTz6A&e=><https://urldefense.p roofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0U oSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcX r_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ZlOXy68aDw9dtyJO-ShgSeFTgT5qjSffE UGc14ZQL78&e=>
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><ma ilto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:56 PM To: Philip S. Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg @icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History
Which seems to indicate that the current RPMs are working.
Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2
Current UTC offset: -8
On 3 Jan 2017, at 09:34, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing.
For more background see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_p osts_20161223-5Fheres-5Fthe-5Flargest-5Furs-5Fcomplaint-5Fever-5Ffiled _&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQ nabB-JqgRYk&m=fgHeIuw69VHEcmbXFEVpbqoiy5s_C2pOj08v08OjTa0&s=uuBJPL7S7B q1LLxnQi6-hMVaLBUGbWfLWbzUWaGowVI&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_ posts_20161223-5Fheres-5Fthe-5Flargest-5Furs-5Fcomplaint-5Fever-5Ffile d_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1 dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=OUHplwLUf g3180ijgGiEmvhZ4gztm1YhH13LqLUt1OI&e=> and https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_d omaindecisions_1703352D.htm&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5N zRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=fgHeIuw69VHEcmbXFEVpbqoiy5s_C2 pOj08v08OjTa0&s=lkCdLadNciOafHsJ9pa4VDWScSKJ4CCUZKajVKxxecI&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_ domaindecisions_1703352D.htm&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7 eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWY uKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=6C7KqyrV7UIBNaA7RqhQeA-ApSbBAsjisDW_czuUCqk&e=>
Best regards, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.av g.com&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt 7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=SG-xdBXsuhe_iU3yraFFyY5rMN48-Axxr8sBjZ9NHmg&s=QihKy3 Wi3DgO70UkYop9yr94LwUieXHn2inZ-cOea5I&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoin t.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg &r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg 59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=DcyREXZNRu3J24MyaCAlQv0DTP01AeO46btFz4QITVk&e => Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg @icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail man_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5 NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=fgHeIuw69VHEcmbXFEVpbqoiy5s_C 2pOj08v08OjTa0&s=Nr-ty83kRt8QQyQqG_g1bxNkZq0m9gsx7nnu3T9nDYw&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB 7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MW YuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ACWaH_t-BoxZE1k7HpXoBCt5EeY6VNY0hDlTKLCW0VY&e=>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg @icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail man_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgICAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7 eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWY uKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ACWaH_t-BoxZE1k7HpXoBCt5EeY6VNY0hDlTKLCW0VY&e=
---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate such information. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail man_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5 NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=dcOC2XQtt2smwldl3GsE6Z11g0vrm Y6x5UF_4UI9yFw&s=9Gom-LPrpYTxJr9JK3A1vWwiZD-vskCM2PFIWbpnH6U&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB 7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=SG-xdBXsuhe_iU3yraFFyY5rMN48 -Axxr8sBjZ9NHmg&s=wg5SHnXW48tNUihTSMWJ7jdejnfJgdv7L2O0Sk22TJk&e=> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail man_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5 NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=dcOC2XQtt2smwldl3GsE6Z11g0vrm Y6x5UF_4UI9yFw&s=9Gom-LPrpYTxJr9JK3A1vWwiZD-vskCM2PFIWbpnH6U&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB 7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=SG-xdBXsuhe_iU3yraFFyY5rMN48 -Axxr8sBjZ9NHmg&s=wg5SHnXW48tNUihTSMWJ7jdejnfJgdv7L2O0Sk22TJk&e=>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail man_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgICAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7 eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=SG-xdBXsuhe_iU3yraFFyY5rMN48- Axxr8sBjZ9NHmg&s=wg5SHnXW48tNUihTSMWJ7jdejnfJgdv7L2O0Sk22TJk&e= <image002.jpg>_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Well, this is an excellent example on why there is a need for URS in cases where there is no need for transfer but rather to quickly stop an obvious infringement. / Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you 3 januari 2017 20:41:01 +01:00, skrev Doug Isenberg <disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>:
I have no insights as to why this trademark owner chose the URS instead of the UDRP, but certainly the filing fee for this URS case (as I noted in my blog post) was much less than a UDRP complaint would have cost. At the Forum (where this URS complaint was filed -- and where the same trademark owner has filed previous UDRP cases), the filing fee for a URS case with more than 50 domain names is only $500; by comparison, the Forum doesn't even publish a fee schedule for UDRP cases with more than 16 domain names (and the UDRP filing fee for a complaint with 15 domain names is $2,250). Clearly, the UDRP filing fee would have been many times more expensive than for the URS case. Since trademark owners often consider costs when evaluating enforcement options, I suspect this may have been a factor.
Doug
-----Original Message----- From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:<gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 2:31 PM To: Marc Trachtenberg <<trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <<gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History
Thanks for sharing Phil and Doug.
This case is an interesting data point of a brand holder deciding to use the URS over the UDRP. We developed the RPMs with the hope that brand holders would utilize the RPMs that made the most sense to them to protect their brands. The URS was developed for slam-dunk cases of infringement. We wanted to create a quicker and less costly way to take down infringing domain names. There was a deliberate distinction between the standard of proof and remedies with the URS and the UDRP. If these distinctions didn't exist, there would not have been a purpose for the URS. It would be interesting to understand why a brand holder like this one selected to use the URS over the UDRP -- and especially whether they understood the risk that Kiran mentioned.
Look forward to the discussion at the appropriate time.
Best,
Jon
On Jan 3, 2017, at 2:13 PM, <<trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>>
<<trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> wrote:
How does one decision signify whether a particular RPM is under, over, or appropriately utilized? I think this can only be determined / analyzed in
the aggregate.
Best Regards,
Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305
On Jan 3, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Jonathan Frost <jonathan@get.club<mailto:<jonathan@get.club>>> wrote:
I have to agree with Reg here. One argument I've heard against URS working is that it is underutilized, and cases like this seem to undermine
that argument (although no single case or outcome should be considered dispositive).
Jonathan
Jonathan Frost General Counsel Telephone: (+1)877-707-5752 100 SE 3rd Avenue, #1310 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 E-Mail: jonathan@get.club<mailto:<jonathan@get.club>> Website: <http://www.get>.club<<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.g> et.club_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3Jr KXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=SG-xdBXsuhe_iU3yraFFyY5rMN48-Axxr8sBjZ9NHmg&s=uRP 6gVdyNko-MCyaALJqMiNMSSpR1dVWPPYBuvanaPY&e=> <image002.jpg><<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ap> p.getsignals.com_link-3Furl-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fwww.nic.club-252f-26u key-3DagxzfnNpZ25hbHNjcnhyGAsSC1VzZXJQcm9maWxlGICAgMCxgJ8KDA-26k-3D00a 65763b45344369d29299760b3ae45&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB 7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=SG-xdBXsuhe_iU3yraFFyY5rMN48 -Axxr8sBjZ9NHmg&s=X5JKv_N0BzvKWYBlwwgSNJ9hwUpzBGg_KAIXrhUtBQ8&e=>
Please be advised that this communication is confidential. The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments, may also be attorney-client
privileged and/or work product confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify Jonathan Frost by telephone at 877.707.5752 or by email at jonathan@get.club<mailto:<jonathan@get.club>> and delete the original message.
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:<gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:<gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 1:35 PM To: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmo nitor.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:<gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History
My point was that a matter was successfully brought under the RPMs (my point would stand for matters unsuccessfully brought under the RPMs). That
cybersquatting exists is not in dispute. Nor is it our-or ICANN's-job to cause cybersquatting to no longer exist. The matter was a URS, which was a new-to-new-gTLDs RPM and (supposedly) cheaper than the UDRP.
If this does not signify that RPMs work, does it signify that they do not?
Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2
Current UTC offset: -8
On 3 Jan 2017, at 10:30, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:<gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>>> wrote:
Agree with Doug and Marc, I would be curious to understand the thinking further.
Also, it will be interesting to see what happens to all of these names when the suspension period is over.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:27 AM, "trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:<trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>>"
<trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:<trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>>> wrote:
Agreed. How does one large URS filling indicate that the RPMs are working?
Best Regards,
Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305
On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Doug Isenberg <disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:<disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>><mailto:disenber
<g@gigalawfirm.com>>> wrote:
As the author of the blog post that Phil shared, I disagree with Reg's conclusion below (and am quite unsure how that conclusion was reached).
This URS case is interesting because its size makes it unusual (and, indeed, unprecedented). It is not indicative of any trend about RPMs in general or the URS in particular. If anything, it is a reminder that there are many domain name registrants - even in the new gTLDs - who continue to engage in cybersquatting on a large-scale, despite the RPMs such as the URS.
Sincerely yours,
Douglas M. Isenberg Attorney at Law
<image001.png><<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www> .gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7 Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk& s=ZlOXy68aDw9dtyJO-ShgSeFTgT5qjSffEUGc14ZQL78&e=>
"When your brand is on the line, The GigaLaw Firm protects your brand online." Learn more: <http://www.GigaLaw>.com<<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ww> w.GigaLaw.com&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7 Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=SG-xdBXsuhe_iU3yraFFyY5rMN48-Axxr8sBjZ9NHmg& s=gX7_N2M7MlyRFGp3EK877Z5xGV39lbpfMWOlgzHTz6A&e=><<https://urldefense.p> roofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0U oSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcX r_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ZlOXy68aDw9dtyJO-ShgSeFTgT5qjSffE UGc14ZQL78&e=>
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:<gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>><ma ilto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:<gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:56 PM To: Philip S. Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:<psc@vlaw-dc.com>><mailto:<psc@vlaw-dc.com>>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:<gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg @icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History
Which seems to indicate that the current RPMs are working.
Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2
Current UTC offset: -8
On 3 Jan 2017, at 09:34, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:<psc@vlaw-dc.com>><mailto:<psc@vlaw-dc.com>>> wrote:
FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing.
For more background see <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_p> osts_20161223-5Fheres-5Fthe-5Flargest-5Furs-5Fcomplaint-5Fever-5Ffiled _&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQ nabB-JqgRYk&m=fgHeIuw69VHEcmbXFEVpbqoiy5s_C2pOj08v08OjTa0&s=uuBJPL7S7B q1LLxnQi6-hMVaLBUGbWfLWbzUWaGowVI&e= <<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_> posts_20161223-5Fheres-5Fthe-5Flargest-5Furs-5Fcomplaint-5Fever-5Ffile d_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1 dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=OUHplwLUf g3180ijgGiEmvhZ4gztm1YhH13LqLUt1OI&e=> and <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_d> omaindecisions_1703352D.htm&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5N zRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=fgHeIuw69VHEcmbXFEVpbqoiy5s_C2 pOj08v08OjTa0&s=lkCdLadNciOafHsJ9pa4VDWScSKJ4CCUZKajVKxxecI&e= <<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_> domaindecisions_1703352D.htm&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7 eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWY uKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=6C7KqyrV7UIBNaA7RqhQeA-ApSbBAsjisDW_czuUCqk&e=>
Best regards, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg>.com<<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.av> g.com&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt 7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=SG-xdBXsuhe_iU3yraFFyY5rMN48-Axxr8sBjZ9NHmg&s=QihKy3 Wi3DgO70UkYop9yr94LwUieXHn2inZ-cOea5I&e=><<https://urldefense.proofpoin> t.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg &r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg 59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=DcyREXZNRu3J24MyaCAlQv0DTP01AeO46btFz4QITVk&e => Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:<gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg @icann.org> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail> man_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5 NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=fgHeIuw69VHEcmbXFEVpbqoiy5s_C 2pOj08v08OjTa0&s=Nr-ty83kRt8QQyQqG_g1bxNkZq0m9gsx7nnu3T9nDYw&e= <<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai> lman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB 7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MW YuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ACWaH_t-BoxZE1k7HpXoBCt5EeY6VNY0hDlTKLCW0VY&e=>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:<gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg @icann.org> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail> man_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgICAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7 eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWY uKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ACWaH_t-BoxZE1k7HpXoBCt5EeY6VNY0hDlTKLCW0VY&e=
---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at
postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:<postmaster@gtlaw.com>>, and do not use or disseminate such information.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:<gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail> man_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5 NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=dcOC2XQtt2smwldl3GsE6Z11g0vrm Y6x5UF_4UI9yFw&s=9Gom-LPrpYTxJr9JK3A1vWwiZD-vskCM2PFIWbpnH6U&e= <<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai> lman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB 7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=SG-xdBXsuhe_iU3yraFFyY5rMN48 -Axxr8sBjZ9NHmg&s=wg5SHnXW48tNUihTSMWJ7jdejnfJgdv7L2O0Sk22TJk&e=> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:<gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail> man_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5 NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=dcOC2XQtt2smwldl3GsE6Z11g0vrm Y6x5UF_4UI9yFw&s=9Gom-LPrpYTxJr9JK3A1vWwiZD-vskCM2PFIWbpnH6U&e= <<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai> lman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB 7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=SG-xdBXsuhe_iU3yraFFyY5rMN48 -Axxr8sBjZ9NHmg&s=wg5SHnXW48tNUihTSMWJ7jdejnfJgdv7L2O0Sk22TJk&e=>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:<gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail> man_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgICAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7 eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=SG-xdBXsuhe_iU3yraFFyY5rMN48- Axxr8sBjZ9NHmg&s=wg5SHnXW48tNUihTSMWJ7jdejnfJgdv7L2O0Sk22TJk&e= <image002.jpg>_______________________________________________ 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>
Every time I write about URS, I'm stopped that it's still not time to talk about it... I agree with Doug that an important factor when considering to choose between URS and UDRP is the low administrative fees. The other one is that it is fast and the brand owners' first intention could be to obtain cessation of the infringement immediately. It is less used that it could be, also because there is a lack of information amongst the brand owners' when it applies (many requests of information if it can be use for .com domains) and which is the outcome/what happens when suspension period expires. I think that the statistics, over 680 URS cases filed at the 3 URS Dispute Resolution Providers, shows that it is used and useful (over 95% of the disputed domain names suspended). When we will arrive at that point I am sure that ICANN staff, Forum and ADNDRC will provide statistics how many successful URS cases turned into UDRP. Happy New Year to everyone! Ivett Paulovics URS Domain Dispute Case Manager --- MFSD Srl | IP Dispute Resolution Center Viale Beatrice d'Este, 20 | 20122 Milano (Italy) T +39 02 45506624 | F +39 02 91471087 urs@mfsd.it | www.mfsd.it Skype mfsd P. Iva 04810100968 (Italian VAT) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- URS Domain Dispute Resolution Service Provider approved by ICANN .it Domain Dispute Resolution Center accredited by Registry .it IP Mediation Center authorized by Italian Ministry of Justice (n. 903) IP Mediation Training Center authorized by Italian Ministry of Justice (n. 392)
Il giorno 03 gen 2017, alle ore 20:41, Doug Isenberg <disenberg@gigalawfirm.com> ha scritto:
I have no insights as to why this trademark owner chose the URS instead of the UDRP, but certainly the filing fee for this URS case (as I noted in my blog post) was much less than a UDRP complaint would have cost. At the Forum (where this URS complaint was filed -- and where the same trademark owner has filed previous UDRP cases), the filing fee for a URS case with more than 50 domain names is only $500; by comparison, the Forum doesn't even publish a fee schedule for UDRP cases with more than 16 domain names (and the UDRP filing fee for a complaint with 15 domain names is $2,250). Clearly, the UDRP filing fee would have been many times more expensive than for the URS case. Since trademark owners often consider costs when evaluating enforcement options, I suspect this may have been a factor.
Doug
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 2:31 PM To: Marc Trachtenberg <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History
Thanks for sharing Phil and Doug.
This case is an interesting data point of a brand holder deciding to use the URS over the UDRP. We developed the RPMs with the hope that brand holders would utilize the RPMs that made the most sense to them to protect their brands. The URS was developed for slam-dunk cases of infringement. We wanted to create a quicker and less costly way to take down infringing domain names. There was a deliberate distinction between the standard of proof and remedies with the URS and the UDRP. If these distinctions didn't exist, there would not have been a purpose for the URS. It would be interesting to understand why a brand holder like this one selected to use the URS over the UDRP -- and especially whether they understood the risk that Kiran mentioned.
Look forward to the discussion at the appropriate time.
Best,
Thanks, and we will look to your expertise when we reach the URS portion of our agenda later this year. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of URS - Uniform Rapid Suspension System - MFSD Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 8:38 AM To: disenberg@gigalawfirm.com Cc: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Every time I write about URS, I'm stopped that it's still not time to talk about it... I agree with Doug that an important factor when considering to choose between URS and UDRP is the low administrative fees. The other one is that it is fast and the brand owners' first intention could be to obtain cessation of the infringement immediately. It is less used that it could be, also because there is a lack of information amongst the brand owners' when it applies (many requests of information if it can be use for .com domains) and which is the outcome/what happens when suspension period expires. I think that the statistics, over 680 URS cases filed at the 3 URS Dispute Resolution Providers, shows that it is used and useful (over 95% of the disputed domain names suspended). When we will arrive at that point I am sure that ICANN staff, Forum and ADNDRC will provide statistics how many successful URS cases turned into UDRP. Happy New Year to everyone! Ivett Paulovics URS Domain Dispute Case Manager --- MFSD Srl | IP Dispute Resolution Center Viale Beatrice d'Este, 20 | 20122 Milano (Italy) T +39 02 45506624<tel:+39%2002%2045506624> | F +39 02 91471087<tel:+39%2002%2091471087> urs@mfsd.it<mailto:responsabile@mfsd.it> | www.mfsd.it<http://ww.mfsd.it/> Skype mfsd P. Iva 04810100968<tel:04810100968> (Italian VAT) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- URS Domain Dispute Resolution Service Provider approved by ICANN .it Domain Dispute Resolution Center accredited by Registry .it IP Mediation Center authorized by Italian Ministry of Justice (n. 903) IP Mediation Training Center authorized by Italian Ministry of Justice (n. 392) [1ECE0438-9D98-41F7-AAD9-10EE7CE22471] Il giorno 03 gen 2017, alle ore 20:41, Doug Isenberg <disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>> ha scritto: I have no insights as to why this trademark owner chose the URS instead of the UDRP, but certainly the filing fee for this URS case (as I noted in my blog post) was much less than a UDRP complaint would have cost. At the Forum (where this URS complaint was filed -- and where the same trademark owner has filed previous UDRP cases), the filing fee for a URS case with more than 50 domain names is only $500; by comparison, the Forum doesn't even publish a fee schedule for UDRP cases with more than 16 domain names (and the UDRP filing fee for a complaint with 15 domain names is $2,250). Clearly, the UDRP filing fee would have been many times more expensive than for the URS case. Since trademark owners often consider costs when evaluating enforcement options, I suspect this may have been a factor. Doug -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 2:31 PM To: Marc Trachtenberg <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Thanks for sharing Phil and Doug. This case is an interesting data point of a brand holder deciding to use the URS over the UDRP. We developed the RPMs with the hope that brand holders would utilize the RPMs that made the most sense to them to protect their brands. The URS was developed for slam-dunk cases of infringement. We wanted to create a quicker and less costly way to take down infringing domain names. There was a deliberate distinction between the standard of proof and remedies with the URS and the UDRP. If these distinctions didn't exist, there would not have been a purpose for the URS. It would be interesting to understand why a brand holder like this one selected to use the URS over the UDRP -- and especially whether they understood the risk that Kiran mentioned. Look forward to the discussion at the appropriate time. Best, ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Brian, Good point. I'm concerned about the "Casablanca Syndrome" ("I'm shocked, shocked to find cybersquatting in my gTLD"), which is not really "willful blindness" but more a willingness to set the wheels in motion and look away, when one knows (or should know) what the result will be. (Indeed, one may depend on it as part of the business model, even if it is not stated.) While cybersquatting will probably never be eliminated, some circumstances encourage it more than others. I'm confident that the vast majority of registries really don't want to become "cybersquatting havens," but that doesn't mean that's a universal truth. Greg On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Thanks, and we will look to your expertise when we reach the URS portion of our agenda later this year.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@ icann.org] *On Behalf Of *URS - Uniform Rapid Suspension System - MFSD *Sent:* Wednesday, January 04, 2017 8:38 AM *To:* disenberg@gigalawfirm.com *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg
*Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History
Every time I write about URS, I'm stopped that it's still not time to talk about it...
I agree with Doug that an important factor when considering to choose between URS and UDRP is the low administrative fees.
The other one is that it is fast and the brand owners' first intention could be to obtain cessation of the infringement immediately.
It is less used that it could be, also because there is a lack of information amongst the brand owners' when it applies (many requests of information if it can be use for .com domains) and which is the outcome/what happens when suspension period expires.
I think that the statistics, over 680 URS cases filed at the 3 URS Dispute Resolution Providers, shows that it is used and useful (over 95% of the disputed domain names suspended). When we will arrive at that point I am sure that ICANN staff, Forum and ADNDRC will provide statistics how many successful URS cases turned into UDRP.
Happy New Year to everyone!
Ivett Paulovics
URS Domain Dispute Case Manager
---
MFSD Srl | IP Dispute Resolution Center
Viale Beatrice d'Este, 20 | 20122 Milano (Italy)
T +39 02 45506624 <+39%2002%2045506624> | F +39 02 91471087 <+39%2002%2091471087>
urs@mfsd.it <responsabile@mfsd.it> | www.mfsd.it <http://ww.mfsd.it/>
Skype mfsd
P. Iva 04810100968 (Italian VAT)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
URS Domain Dispute Resolution Service Provider approved by ICANN
.it Domain Dispute Resolution Center accredited by Registry .it
IP Mediation Center authorized by Italian Ministry of Justice (n. 903)
IP Mediation Training Center authorized by Italian Ministry of Justice (n. 392)
[image: 1ECE0438-9D98-41F7-AAD9-10EE7CE22471]
Il giorno 03 gen 2017, alle ore 20:41, Doug Isenberg < disenberg@gigalawfirm.com> ha scritto:
I have no insights as to why this trademark owner chose the URS instead of the UDRP, but certainly the filing fee for this URS case (as I noted in my blog post) was much less than a UDRP complaint would have cost. At the Forum (where this URS complaint was filed -- and where the same trademark owner has filed previous UDRP cases), the filing fee for a URS case with more than 50 domain names is only $500; by comparison, the Forum doesn't even publish a fee schedule for UDRP cases with more than 16 domain names (and the UDRP filing fee for a complaint with 15 domain names is $2,250). Clearly, the UDRP filing fee would have been many times more expensive than for the URS case. Since trademark owners often consider costs when evaluating enforcement options, I suspect this may have been a factor.
Doug
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 2:31 PM To: Marc Trachtenberg <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History
Thanks for sharing Phil and Doug.
This case is an interesting data point of a brand holder deciding to use the URS over the UDRP. We developed the RPMs with the hope that brand holders would utilize the RPMs that made the most sense to them to protect their brands. The URS was developed for slam-dunk cases of infringement. We wanted to create a quicker and less costly way to take down infringing domain names. There was a deliberate distinction between the standard of proof and remedies with the URS and the UDRP. If these distinctions didn't exist, there would not have been a purpose for the URS. It would be interesting to understand why a brand holder like this one selected to use the URS over the UDRP -- and especially whether they understood the risk that Kiran mentioned.
Look forward to the discussion at the appropriate time.
Best,
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
I don't see how it signifies anything - it's just one decision. Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305 On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Reg Levy <reg@mmx.co<mailto:reg@mmx.co>> wrote: My point was that a matter was successfully brought under the RPMs (my point would stand for matters unsuccessfully brought under the RPMs). That cybersquatting exists is not in dispute. Nor is it our—or ICANN’s—job to cause cybersquatting to no longer exist. The matter was a URS, which was a new-to-new-gTLDs RPM and (supposedly) cheaper than the UDRP. If this does not signify that RPMs work, does it signify that they do not? Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2 Current UTC offset: -8 On 3 Jan 2017, at 10:30, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: Agree with Doug and Marc, I would be curious to understand the thinking further. Also, it will be interesting to see what happens to all of these names when the suspension period is over. K Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:27 AM, "trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>" <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> wrote: Agreed. How does one large URS filling indicate that the RPMs are working? Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305 On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Doug Isenberg <disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com><mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>> wrote: As the author of the blog post that Phil shared, I disagree with Reg’s conclusion below (and am quite unsure how that conclusion was reached). This URS case is interesting because its size makes it unusual (and, indeed, unprecedented). It is not indicative of any trend about RPMs in general or the URS in particular. If anything, it is a reminder that there are many domain name registrants – even in the new gTLDs – who continue to engage in cybersquatting on a large-scale, despite the RPMs such as the URS. Sincerely yours, Douglas M. Isenberg Attorney at Law <image001.png><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...> “When your brand is on the line, The GigaLaw Firm protects your brand online.” Learn more: www.GigaLaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.GigaLaw.com&d=DgIF-g... ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:56 PM To: Philip S. Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Which seems to indicate that the current RPMs are working. Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2 Current UTC offset: -8 On 3 Jan 2017, at 09:34, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing. For more background see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2...> and https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DgIF-g&c=2... ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=...> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate such information. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
I totally agree. The blog post was interesting read, but really is a distraction from the issues. <http://riskiq.com/> *jonathan matkowsky*, vp – ip & brand security usa:: 1.347.467.1193 | office:: +972-(0)8-926-2766 emergency mobile:: +972-(0)54-924-0831 company reg. no. 514805332 <http://havarot.justice.gov.il/CompaniesDetails.aspx?id=514805332> 11/1 nachal chever, modiin israel <https://twitter.com/riskiq> <https://www.facebook.com/pages/RiskIQ/555939994512820> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/riskiq_2> <https://plus.google.com/+Riskiq/posts> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 9:12 PM, <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> wrote:
I don't see how it signifies anything - it's just one decision.
Best Regards,
Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305
On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Reg Levy <reg@mmx.co<mailto:reg@mmx.co>> wrote:
My point was that a matter was successfully brought under the RPMs (my point would stand for matters unsuccessfully brought under the RPMs). That cybersquatting exists is not in dispute. Nor is it our—or ICANN’s—job to cause cybersquatting to no longer exist. The matter was a URS, which was a new-to-new-gTLDs RPM and (supposedly) cheaper than the UDRP.
If this does not signify that RPMs work, does it signify that they do not?
Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2
Current UTC offset: -8
On 3 Jan 2017, at 10:30, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote:
Agree with Doug and Marc, I would be curious to understand the thinking further.
Also, it will be interesting to see what happens to all of these names when the suspension period is over.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:27 AM, "trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>" <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> wrote:
Agreed. How does one large URS filling indicate that the RPMs are working?
Best Regards,
Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305
On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Doug Isenberg <disenberg@gigalawfirm.com< mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com><mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>> wrote:
As the author of the blog post that Phil shared, I disagree with Reg’s conclusion below (and am quite unsure how that conclusion was reached). This URS case is interesting because its size makes it unusual (and, indeed, unprecedented). It is not indicative of any trend about RPMs in general or the URS in particular. If anything, it is a reminder that there are many domain name registrants – even in the new gTLDs – who continue to engage in cybersquatting on a large-scale, despite the RPMs such as the URS.
Sincerely yours,
Douglas M. Isenberg Attorney at Law
<image001.png><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/ url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r= L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_ 2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ZlOXy68aDw9dtyJO- ShgSeFTgT5qjSffEUGc14ZQL78&e=>
“When your brand is on the line, The GigaLaw Firm protects your brand online.” Learn more: www.GigaLaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/ url?u=http-3A__www.GigaLaw.com&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r= DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m= CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s= 2EuoR5I7h2Xn6TFKTv9MuhDFQ3usqxsVL-6CMVpyfbc&e= ><https://urldefense. proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFAg& c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzC xm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ZlOXy68aDw9dtyJO- ShgSeFTgT5qjSffEUGc14ZQL78&e=>
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@ icann.org] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:56 PM To: Philip S. Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto: psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:g nso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History
Which seems to indicate that the current RPMs are working.
Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2
Current UTC offset: -8
On 3 Jan 2017, at 09:34, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@ vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing.
For more background see https://urldefense.proofpoint. com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_20161223- 5Fheres-5Fthe-5Flargest-5Furs-5Fcomplaint-5Fever-5Ffiled_&d= DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT- tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=fgHeIuw69VHEcmbXFEVpbqoiy5s_C2pOj08v08OjTa0&s= uuBJPL7S7Bq1LLxnQi6-hMVaLBUGbWfLWbzUWaGowVI&e= <https://urldefense. proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_ 20161223-5Fheres-5Fthe-5Flargest-5Furs-5Fcomplaint- 5Fever-5Ffiled_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT- UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT- JCWKmwk&s=OUHplwLUfg3180ijgGiEmvhZ4gztm1YhH13LqLUt1OI&e=> and https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www. adrforum.com_domaindecisions_1703352D.htm&d=DgIF-g&c= 2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m= fgHeIuw69VHEcmbXFEVpbqoiy5s_C2pOj08v08OjTa0&s= lkCdLadNciOafHsJ9pa4VDWScSKJ4CCUZKajVKxxecI&e= <https://urldefense. proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_ domaindecisions_1703352D.htm&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT- UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT- JCWKmwk&s=6C7KqyrV7UIBNaA7RqhQeA-ApSbBAsjisDW_czuUCqk&e=>
Best regards, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/ url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r= DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m= CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s=C63MXdBt_K8Fa9WBaWkBP18- jViVNJ0I44HimAc_21I&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- 3A__www.avg.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT- UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT- JCWKmwk&s=DcyREXZNRu3J24MyaCAlQv0DTP01AeO46btFz4QITVk&e=> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:g nso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm. icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgIF-g&c= 2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m= fgHeIuw69VHEcmbXFEVpbqoiy5s_C2pOj08v08OjTa0&s=Nr-ty83kRt8QQyQqG_ g1bxNkZq0m9gsx7nnu3T9nDYw&e= <https://urldefense. proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT- UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT- JCWKmwk&s=ACWaH_t-BoxZE1k7HpXoBCt5EeY6VNY0hDlTKLCW0VY&e=>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:g nso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm. icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgICAg&c= 2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzC xm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ACWaH_t- BoxZE1k7HpXoBCt5EeY6VNY0hDlTKLCW0VY&e=
---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate such information. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm. icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgIF-g&c= 2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m= CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s= 3WEdhXLoXeXnxby5pC3bko8NWOIaXQzoFgVrM4hGSlI&e= _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm. icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgIF-g&c= 2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m= CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s= 3WEdhXLoXeXnxby5pC3bko8NWOIaXQzoFgVrM4hGSlI&e=
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
As to whether something is "working", it's probably dangerous to extrapolate from a sample of 1. I don't think this shows much, other than that the URS worked in this instance. It would be interesting to know more about how the claimant felt this worked (and as Jon points out, why they chose URS over UDRP).
From the point of view of this group, an interesting aspect of the case is that all 474 domain names were registered in .xyz.
This type of wholesale registration may indicate that the Claims Notices are *not* working. It's likely that the registrant received few if any claims notices since their domains are almost all "mark+" domains. It would probably make more sense for Claims Notices to go out whenever the registered string appears in the domain string, not only when the registered string matches the domain string. It's also interesting to think about what would happen if the claimant here wanted to initiate a PDDRP against .xyz. While 474 domains is huge in the context of a single URS proceeding, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the 6 million (and dropping) domains registered in .xyz. Is 474 domains enough to file a PDDRP claim? Enough to win? What else would be needed, if this is not enough to win (or to file)? Greg On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:16 PM, jonathan matkowsky < jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net> wrote:
I totally agree. The blog post was interesting read, but really is a distraction from the issues.
*jonathan matkowsky*,
vp – ip & brand security
usa:: 1.347.467.1193 <(347)%20467-1193> | office:: +972-(0)8-926-2766 <+972%208-926-2766>
emergency mobile:: +972-(0)54-924-0831 <+972%2054-924-0831>
company reg. no. 514805332 <http://havarot.justice.gov.il/CompaniesDetails.aspx?id=514805332>
11/1 nachal chever, modiin israel
<https://twitter.com/riskiq> <https://www.facebook.com/pages/RiskIQ/555939994512820> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/riskiq_2> <https://plus.google.com/+Riskiq/posts>
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 9:12 PM, <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> wrote:
I don't see how it signifies anything - it's just one decision.
Best Regards,
Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305
On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Reg Levy <reg@mmx.co<mailto:reg@mmx.co>> wrote:
My point was that a matter was successfully brought under the RPMs (my point would stand for matters unsuccessfully brought under the RPMs). That cybersquatting exists is not in dispute. Nor is it our—or ICANN’s—job to cause cybersquatting to no longer exist. The matter was a URS, which was a new-to-new-gTLDs RPM and (supposedly) cheaper than the UDRP.
If this does not signify that RPMs work, does it signify that they do not?
Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2
Current UTC offset: -8
On 3 Jan 2017, at 10:30, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote:
Agree with Doug and Marc, I would be curious to understand the thinking further.
Also, it will be interesting to see what happens to all of these names when the suspension period is over.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:27 AM, "trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>" <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> wrote:
Agreed. How does one large URS filling indicate that the RPMs are working?
Best Regards,
Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305
On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Doug Isenberg <disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mai lto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com><mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>> wrote:
As the author of the blog post that Phil shared, I disagree with Reg’s conclusion below (and am quite unsure how that conclusion was reached). This URS case is interesting because its size makes it unusual (and, indeed, unprecedented). It is not indicative of any trend about RPMs in general or the URS in particular. If anything, it is a reminder that there are many domain name registrants – even in the new gTLDs – who continue to engage in cybersquatting on a large-scale, despite the RPMs such as the URS.
Sincerely yours,
Douglas M. Isenberg Attorney at Law
<image001.png><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u= http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_ Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m= FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s= ZlOXy68aDw9dtyJO-ShgSeFTgT5qjSffEUGc14ZQL78&e=>
“When your brand is on the line, The GigaLaw Firm protects your brand online.” Learn more: www.GigaLaw.com<https://urldef ense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.GigaLaw.com&d= DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVA T-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSB MiOCd1U&s=2EuoR5I7h2Xn6TFKTv9MuhDFQ3usqxsVL-6CMVpyfbc&e= >< https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www. gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7 eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyI dg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ZlOXy68aDw9dtyJO-ShgSeFTgT5qjSffEUGc14ZQL78&e=
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@ic ann.org] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:56 PM To: Philip S. Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto: psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:g nso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History
Which seems to indicate that the current RPMs are working.
Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2
Current UTC offset: -8
On 3 Jan 2017, at 09:34, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vl aw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing.
For more background see https://urldefense.proofpoint. com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_20161223-5Fhere s-5Fthe-5Flargest-5Furs-5Fcomplaint-5Fever-5Ffiled_&d=DgIF- g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlO QnabB-JqgRYk&m=fgHeIuw69VHEcmbXFEVpbqoiy5s_C2pOj08v08OjTa0& s=uuBJPL7S7Bq1LLxnQi6-hMVaLBUGbWfLWbzUWaGowVI&e= < https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www. circleid.com_posts_20161223-5Fheres-5Fthe-5Flargest-5Furs- 5Fcomplaint-5Fever-5Ffiled_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_ Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m= FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=OUHplwLUfg3180 ijgGiEmvhZ4gztm1YhH13LqLUt1OI&e=> and https://urldefense.proofpoint. com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaindecisions_17033 52D.htm&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpY Fo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=fgHeIuw69VHEcmbXFEVpbqoiy5s_C2 pOj08v08OjTa0&s=lkCdLadNciOafHsJ9pa4VDWScSKJ4CCUZKajVKxxecI&e= < https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www. adrforum.com_domaindecisions_1703352D.htm&d=DgMFAg&c= 2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T 1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk& s=6C7KqyrV7UIBNaA7RqhQeA-ApSbBAsjisDW_czuUCqk&e=>
Best regards, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<https://urldefense .proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DgIF-g&c= 2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnab B-JqgRYk&m=CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s= C63MXdBt_K8Fa9WBaWkBP18-jViVNJ0I44HimAc_21I&e= >< https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www. avg.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4 iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MW YuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=DcyREXZNRu3J24MyaCAlQv0DTP01AeO46btFz4QITVk&e=> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:g nso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.ican n.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY 0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB- JqgRYk&m=fgHeIuw69VHEcmbXFEVpbqoiy5s_C2pOj08v08OjTa0&s=Nr-ty 83kRt8QQyQqG_g1bxNkZq0m9gsx7nnu3T9nDYw&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint .com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r= L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gT xPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ACWaH_t-BoxZE1k7HpXoBCt5EeY6 VNY0hDlTKLCW0VY&e=>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:g nso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.ican n.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgICAg&c=2s2mvbfY 0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c &m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ACWaH_t-Box ZE1k7HpXoBCt5EeY6VNY0hDlTKLCW0VY&e=
---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate such information. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.ican n.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY 0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB- JqgRYk&m=CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s=3WEdh XLoXeXnxby5pC3bko8NWOIaXQzoFgVrM4hGSlI&e= _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.ican n.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY 0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB- JqgRYk&m=CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s=3WEdh XLoXeXnxby5pC3bko8NWOIaXQzoFgVrM4hGSlI&e=
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Greg: Without evidence that the .XYZ registry itself was acting in concert with the registrant, I don't see how the PDDRP would apply. Absent evidence that the registry actively participated in the infringement, it would be no different than if someone registered 474 names in .com and used them for infringement. It shouldn't matter whether it was 474 names or much greater or less. The PDDRP was developed to go after the registry when it actively participated with the infringing registrant not based on the amount of infringement in the registry. Another distinction between these names and infringing names in .com is that this brand holder had the ability to use the URS and a brand holder facing infringement in .com wouldn't have the URS arrow in its quiver. Best, jon
On Jan 3, 2017, at 2:34 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
As to whether something is "working", it's probably dangerous to extrapolate from a sample of 1. I don't think this shows much, other than that the URS worked in this instance. It would be interesting to know more about how the claimant felt this worked (and as Jon points out, why they chose URS over UDRP).
From the point of view of this group, an interesting aspect of the case is that all 474 domain names were registered in .xyz.
This type of wholesale registration may indicate that the Claims Notices are not working. It's likely that the registrant received few if any claims notices since their domains are almost all "mark+" domains. It would probably make more sense for Claims Notices to go out whenever the registered string appears in the domain string, not only when the registered string matches the domain string.
It's also interesting to think about what would happen if the claimant here wanted to initiate a PDDRP against .xyz. While 474 domains is huge in the context of a single URS proceeding, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the 6 million (and dropping) domains registered in .xyz. Is 474 domains enough to file a PDDRP claim? Enough to win? What else would be needed, if this is not enough to win (or to file)?
Greg
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:16 PM, jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net <mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net>> wrote: I totally agree. The blog post was interesting read, but really is a distraction from the issues.
jonathan matkowsky, vp – ip & brand security usa:: 1.347.467.1193 <tel:(347)%20467-1193> | office:: +972-(0)8-926-2766 <tel:+972%208-926-2766> emergency mobile:: +972-(0)54-924-0831 <tel:+972%2054-924-0831> company reg. no. 514805332 <http://havarot.justice.gov.il/CompaniesDetails.aspx?id=514805332> 11/1 nachal chever, modiin israel <https://twitter.com/riskiq> <https://www.facebook.com/pages/RiskIQ/555939994512820> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/riskiq_2> <https://plus.google.com/+Riskiq/posts>
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 9:12 PM, <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> wrote: I don't see how it signifies anything - it's just one decision.
Best Regards,
Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 <tel:%28312%29%20456-1020> Mobile (773) 677-3305 <tel:%28773%29%20677-3305>
On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Reg Levy <reg@mmx.co <mailto:reg@mmx.co><mailto:reg@mmx.co <mailto:reg@mmx.co>>> wrote:
My point was that a matter was successfully brought under the RPMs (my point would stand for matters unsuccessfully brought under the RPMs). That cybersquatting exists is not in dispute. Nor is it our—or ICANN’s—job to cause cybersquatting to no longer exist. The matter was a URS, which was a new-to-new-gTLDs RPM and (supposedly) cheaper than the UDRP.
If this does not signify that RPMs work, does it signify that they do not?
Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 <tel:%2B1-310-963-7135> S: RegLevy2
Current UTC offset: -8
On 3 Jan 2017, at 10:30, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>>> wrote:
Agree with Doug and Marc, I would be curious to understand the thinking further.
Also, it will be interesting to see what happens to all of these names when the suspension period is over.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 <tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:27 AM, "trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com><mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>>" <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com><mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>>> wrote:
Agreed. How does one large URS filling indicate that the RPMs are working?
Best Regards,
Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 <tel:%28312%29%20456-1020> Mobile (773) 677-3305 <tel:%28773%29%20677-3305>
On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Doug Isenberg <disenberg@gigalawfirm.com <mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com><mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com <mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>><mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com <mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>>> wrote:
As the author of the blog post that Phil shared, I disagree with Reg’s conclusion below (and am quite unsure how that conclusion was reached). This URS case is interesting because its size makes it unusual (and, indeed, unprecedented). It is not indicative of any trend about RPMs in general or the URS in particular. If anything, it is a reminder that there are many domain name registrants – even in the new gTLDs – who continue to engage in cybersquatting on a large-scale, despite the RPMs such as the URS.
Sincerely yours,
Douglas M. Isenberg Attorney at Law
<image001.png><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ZlOXy68aDw9dtyJO-ShgSeFTgT5qjSffEUGc14ZQL78&e=>>
“When your brand is on the line, The GigaLaw Firm protects your brand online.” Learn more: www.GigaLaw.com <http://www.gigalaw.com/><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.GigaLaw.com&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s=2EuoR5I7h2Xn6TFKTv9MuhDFQ3usqxsVL-6CMVpyfbc&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.GigaLaw.com&d=DgIF-g...> ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ZlOXy68aDw9dtyJO-ShgSeFTgT5qjSffEUGc14ZQL78&e=>>
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:56 PM To: Philip S. Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History
Which seems to indicate that the current RPMs are working.
Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 <tel:%2B1-310-963-7135> S: RegLevy2
Current UTC offset: -8
On 3 Jan 2017, at 09:34, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>> wrote:
FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing.
For more background see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2...> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_20161223-5Fheres-5Fthe-5Flargest-5Furs-5Fcomplaint-5Fever-5Ffiled_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=OUHplwLUfg3180ijgGiEmvhZ4gztm1YhH13LqLUt1OI&e=>> and https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaindecisions_1703352D.htm&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=6C7KqyrV7UIBNaA7RqhQeA-ApSbBAsjisDW_czuUCqk&e=>>
Best regards, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172 <tel:202-255-6172>/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s=C63MXdBt_K8Fa9WBaWkBP18-jViVNJ0I44HimAc_21I&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DgIF-g&c=2...> ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=DcyREXZNRu3J24MyaCAlQv0DTP01AeO46btFz4QITVk&e=>> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ACWaH_t-BoxZE1k7HpXoBCt5EeY6VNY0hDlTKLCW0VY&e=>>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com <mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com><mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com <mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>>, and do not use or disseminate such information. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ 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 <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 <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
As our PDDRP review disclosed, a successful action requires proof that a registry operator either directly infringed or encouraged registrants to infringe at the second level. And we decided to leave that standard unchanged. I have several personal concerns about the impact of very low and no fee domain registrations that are offered by some new registries, absent a showing that a registry operator actively encouraged low/no cost registrations as an inexpensive way to infringe or engage in other malicious and harmful behavior I don’t see low pricing alone sustaining a PDDRP. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 3:05 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Greg: Without evidence that the .XYZ registry itself was acting in concert with the registrant, I don't see how the PDDRP would apply. Absent evidence that the registry actively participated in the infringement, it would be no different than if someone registered 474 names in .com and used them for infringement. It shouldn't matter whether it was 474 names or much greater or less. The PDDRP was developed to go after the registry when it actively participated with the infringing registrant not based on the amount of infringement in the registry. Another distinction between these names and infringing names in .com is that this brand holder had the ability to use the URS and a brand holder facing infringement in .com wouldn't have the URS arrow in its quiver. Best, jon On Jan 3, 2017, at 2:34 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: As to whether something is "working", it's probably dangerous to extrapolate from a sample of 1. I don't think this shows much, other than that the URS worked in this instance. It would be interesting to know more about how the claimant felt this worked (and as Jon points out, why they chose URS over UDRP). From the point of view of this group, an interesting aspect of the case is that all 474 domain names were registered in .xyz. This type of wholesale registration may indicate that the Claims Notices are not working. It's likely that the registrant received few if any claims notices since their domains are almost all "mark+" domains. It would probably make more sense for Claims Notices to go out whenever the registered string appears in the domain string, not only when the registered string matches the domain string. It's also interesting to think about what would happen if the claimant here wanted to initiate a PDDRP against .xyz. While 474 domains is huge in the context of a single URS proceeding, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the 6 million (and dropping) domains registered in .xyz. Is 474 domains enough to file a PDDRP claim? Enough to win? What else would be needed, if this is not enough to win (or to file)? Greg On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:16 PM, jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net<mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net>> wrote: I totally agree. The blog post was interesting read, but really is a distraction from the issues. [http://safe.riskiq.com/rs/455-NHF-420/images/RiskIQ_Logo_Blue_Vertical.png]<http://riskiq.com/> jonathan matkowsky, vp – ip & brand security usa:: 1.347.467.1193<tel:(347)%20467-1193> | office:: +972-(0)8-926-2766<tel:+972%208-926-2766> emergency mobile:: +972-(0)54-924-0831<tel:+972%2054-924-0831> company reg. no. 514805332<http://havarot.justice.gov.il/CompaniesDetails.aspx?id=514805332> 11/1 nachal chever, modiin israel [http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448744755-png/Email_Signature/twitter_signature_logo.png]<https://twitter.com/riskiq>[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448719740-png/Email_Signature/facebook_signature_logo.png]<https://www.facebook.com/pages/RiskIQ/555939994512820>[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448744760-png/Email_Signature/linkedin_signature_logo.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/riskiq_2>[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448719735-png/Email_Signature/google+_signature_logo-1.png]<https://plus.google.com/+Riskiq/posts> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 9:12 PM, <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> wrote: I don't see how it signifies anything - it's just one decision. Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020<tel:%28312%29%20456-1020> Mobile (773) 677-3305<tel:%28773%29%20677-3305> On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Reg Levy <reg@mmx.co<mailto:reg@mmx.co><mailto:reg@mmx.co<mailto:reg@mmx.co>>> wrote: My point was that a matter was successfully brought under the RPMs (my point would stand for matters unsuccessfully brought under the RPMs). That cybersquatting exists is not in dispute. Nor is it our—or ICANN’s—job to cause cybersquatting to no longer exist. The matter was a URS, which was a new-to-new-gTLDs RPM and (supposedly) cheaper than the UDRP. If this does not signify that RPMs work, does it signify that they do not? Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135<tel:%2B1-310-963-7135> S: RegLevy2 Current UTC offset: -8 On 3 Jan 2017, at 10:30, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>>> wrote: Agree with Doug and Marc, I would be curious to understand the thinking further. Also, it will be interesting to see what happens to all of these names when the suspension period is over. K Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:27 AM, "trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com><mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>>" <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com><mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>>> wrote: Agreed. How does one large URS filling indicate that the RPMs are working? Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020<tel:%28312%29%20456-1020> Mobile (773) 677-3305<tel:%28773%29%20677-3305> On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Doug Isenberg <disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com><mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>><mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>>> wrote: As the author of the blog post that Phil shared, I disagree with Reg’s conclusion below (and am quite unsure how that conclusion was reached). This URS case is interesting because its size makes it unusual (and, indeed, unprecedented). It is not indicative of any trend about RPMs in general or the URS in particular. If anything, it is a reminder that there are many domain name registrants – even in the new gTLDs – who continue to engage in cybersquatting on a large-scale, despite the RPMs such as the URS. Sincerely yours, Douglas M. Isenberg Attorney at Law <image001.png><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...> “When your brand is on the line, The GigaLaw Firm protects your brand online.” Learn more: www.GigaLaw.com<http://www.gigalaw.com/><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.GigaLaw.com&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s=2EuoR5I7h2Xn6TFKTv9MuhDFQ3usqxsVL-6CMVpyfbc&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:56 PM To: Philip S. Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Which seems to indicate that the current RPMs are working. Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135<tel:%2B1-310-963-7135> S: RegLevy2 Current UTC offset: -8 On 3 Jan 2017, at 09:34, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>> wrote: FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing. For more background see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2...> and https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s=C63MXdBt_K8Fa9WBaWkBP18-jViVNJ0I44HimAc_21I&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=...> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com><mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>>, and do not use or disseminate such information. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Thanks Jon and Phil for recapping this as it relates to the PDDRP. Without wishing to reopen discussions on that RPM, I would merely like to suggest here that the final report of this working group at least include a placeholder for possible future reassessment of the PDDRP (particularly in terms of, but not necessarily limited to, substantive criteria such as “affirmative conduct” vs “willful blindness”) based on observed abuse practices (whether fee-occasioned or otherwise) and rights protection experiences over time in new gTLDs. Thanks for noting. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 10:20 PM To: Jon Nevett; Greg Shatan Cc: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History As our PDDRP review disclosed, a successful action requires proof that a registry operator either directly infringed or encouraged registrants to infringe at the second level. And we decided to leave that standard unchanged. I have several personal concerns about the impact of very low and no fee domain registrations that are offered by some new registries, absent a showing that a registry operator actively encouraged low/no cost registrations as an inexpensive way to infringe or engage in other malicious and harmful behavior I don’t see low pricing alone sustaining a PDDRP. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 3:05 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Greg: Without evidence that the .XYZ registry itself was acting in concert with the registrant, I don't see how the PDDRP would apply. Absent evidence that the registry actively participated in the infringement, it would be no different than if someone registered 474 names in .com and used them for infringement. It shouldn't matter whether it was 474 names or much greater or less. The PDDRP was developed to go after the registry when it actively participated with the infringing registrant not based on the amount of infringement in the registry. Another distinction between these names and infringing names in .com is that this brand holder had the ability to use the URS and a brand holder facing infringement in .com wouldn't have the URS arrow in its quiver. Best, jon On Jan 3, 2017, at 2:34 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: As to whether something is "working", it's probably dangerous to extrapolate from a sample of 1. I don't think this shows much, other than that the URS worked in this instance. It would be interesting to know more about how the claimant felt this worked (and as Jon points out, why they chose URS over UDRP). From the point of view of this group, an interesting aspect of the case is that all 474 domain names were registered in .xyz. This type of wholesale registration may indicate that the Claims Notices are not working. It's likely that the registrant received few if any claims notices since their domains are almost all "mark+" domains. It would probably make more sense for Claims Notices to go out whenever the registered string appears in the domain string, not only when the registered string matches the domain string. It's also interesting to think about what would happen if the claimant here wanted to initiate a PDDRP against .xyz. While 474 domains is huge in the context of a single URS proceeding, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the 6 million (and dropping) domains registered in .xyz. Is 474 domains enough to file a PDDRP claim? Enough to win? What else would be needed, if this is not enough to win (or to file)? Greg On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:16 PM, jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net<mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net>> wrote: I totally agree. The blog post was interesting read, but really is a distraction from the issues. [Image removed by sender.]<http://riskiq.com/> jonathan matkowsky, vp – ip & brand security usa:: 1.347.467.1193<tel:(347)%20467-1193> | office:: +972-(0)8-926-2766<tel:+972%208-926-2766> emergency mobile:: +972-(0)54-924-0831<tel:+972%2054-924-0831> company reg. no. 514805332<http://havarot.justice.gov.il/CompaniesDetails.aspx?id=514805332> 11/1 nachal chever, modiin israel [Image removed by sender.]<https://twitter.com/riskiq>[Image removed by sender.]<https://www.facebook.com/pages/RiskIQ/555939994512820>[Image removed by sender.]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/riskiq_2>[Image removed by sender.]<https://plus.google.com/+Riskiq/posts> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 9:12 PM, <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> wrote: I don't see how it signifies anything - it's just one decision. Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020<tel:%28312%29%20456-1020> Mobile (773) 677-3305<tel:%28773%29%20677-3305> On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Reg Levy <reg@mmx.co<mailto:reg@mmx.co><mailto:reg@mmx.co<mailto:reg@mmx.co>>> wrote: My point was that a matter was successfully brought under the RPMs (my point would stand for matters unsuccessfully brought under the RPMs). That cybersquatting exists is not in dispute. Nor is it our—or ICANN’s—job to cause cybersquatting to no longer exist. The matter was a URS, which was a new-to-new-gTLDs RPM and (supposedly) cheaper than the UDRP. If this does not signify that RPMs work, does it signify that they do not? Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135<tel:%2B1-310-963-7135> S: RegLevy2 Current UTC offset: -8 On 3 Jan 2017, at 10:30, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>>> wrote: Agree with Doug and Marc, I would be curious to understand the thinking further. Also, it will be interesting to see what happens to all of these names when the suspension period is over. K Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:27 AM, "trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com><mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>>" <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com><mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>>> wrote: Agreed. How does one large URS filling indicate that the RPMs are working? Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020<tel:%28312%29%20456-1020> Mobile (773) 677-3305<tel:%28773%29%20677-3305> On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Doug Isenberg <disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com><mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>><mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>>> wrote: As the author of the blog post that Phil shared, I disagree with Reg’s conclusion below (and am quite unsure how that conclusion was reached). This URS case is interesting because its size makes it unusual (and, indeed, unprecedented). It is not indicative of any trend about RPMs in general or the URS in particular. If anything, it is a reminder that there are many domain name registrants – even in the new gTLDs – who continue to engage in cybersquatting on a large-scale, despite the RPMs such as the URS. Sincerely yours, Douglas M. Isenberg Attorney at Law <image001.png><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...> “When your brand is on the line, The GigaLaw Firm protects your brand online.” Learn more: www.GigaLaw.com<http://www.gigalaw.com/><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.GigaLaw.com&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s=2EuoR5I7h2Xn6TFKTv9MuhDFQ3usqxsVL-6CMVpyfbc&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:56 PM To: Philip S. Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Which seems to indicate that the current RPMs are working. Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135<tel:%2B1-310-963-7135> S: RegLevy2 Current UTC offset: -8 On 3 Jan 2017, at 09:34, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>> wrote: FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing. For more background see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2...> and https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s=C63MXdBt_K8Fa9WBaWkBP18-jViVNJ0I44HimAc_21I&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=...> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com><mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>>, and do not use or disseminate such information. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
Thanks for the input, Brian, and duly noted. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Beckham, Brian [mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 3:31 AM To: Phil Corwin; Jon Nevett; Greg Shatan Cc: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Thanks Jon and Phil for recapping this as it relates to the PDDRP. Without wishing to reopen discussions on that RPM, I would merely like to suggest here that the final report of this working group at least include a placeholder for possible future reassessment of the PDDRP (particularly in terms of, but not necessarily limited to, substantive criteria such as “affirmative conduct” vs “willful blindness”) based on observed abuse practices (whether fee-occasioned or otherwise) and rights protection experiences over time in new gTLDs. Thanks for noting. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 10:20 PM To: Jon Nevett; Greg Shatan Cc: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History As our PDDRP review disclosed, a successful action requires proof that a registry operator either directly infringed or encouraged registrants to infringe at the second level. And we decided to leave that standard unchanged. I have several personal concerns about the impact of very low and no fee domain registrations that are offered by some new registries, absent a showing that a registry operator actively encouraged low/no cost registrations as an inexpensive way to infringe or engage in other malicious and harmful behavior I don’t see low pricing alone sustaining a PDDRP. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 3:05 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Greg: Without evidence that the .XYZ registry itself was acting in concert with the registrant, I don't see how the PDDRP would apply. Absent evidence that the registry actively participated in the infringement, it would be no different than if someone registered 474 names in .com and used them for infringement. It shouldn't matter whether it was 474 names or much greater or less. The PDDRP was developed to go after the registry when it actively participated with the infringing registrant not based on the amount of infringement in the registry. Another distinction between these names and infringing names in .com is that this brand holder had the ability to use the URS and a brand holder facing infringement in .com wouldn't have the URS arrow in its quiver. Best, jon On Jan 3, 2017, at 2:34 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: As to whether something is "working", it's probably dangerous to extrapolate from a sample of 1. I don't think this shows much, other than that the URS worked in this instance. It would be interesting to know more about how the claimant felt this worked (and as Jon points out, why they chose URS over UDRP). From the point of view of this group, an interesting aspect of the case is that all 474 domain names were registered in .xyz. This type of wholesale registration may indicate that the Claims Notices are not working. It's likely that the registrant received few if any claims notices since their domains are almost all "mark+" domains. It would probably make more sense for Claims Notices to go out whenever the registered string appears in the domain string, not only when the registered string matches the domain string. It's also interesting to think about what would happen if the claimant here wanted to initiate a PDDRP against .xyz. While 474 domains is huge in the context of a single URS proceeding, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the 6 million (and dropping) domains registered in .xyz. Is 474 domains enough to file a PDDRP claim? Enough to win? What else would be needed, if this is not enough to win (or to file)? Greg On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:16 PM, jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net<mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net>> wrote: I totally agree. The blog post was interesting read, but really is a distraction from the issues. [Image removed by sender.]<http://riskiq.com/> jonathan matkowsky, vp – ip & brand security usa:: 1.347.467.1193<tel:(347)%20467-1193> | office:: +972-(0)8-926-2766<tel:+972%208-926-2766> emergency mobile:: +972-(0)54-924-0831<tel:+972%2054-924-0831> company reg. no. 514805332<http://havarot.justice.gov.il/CompaniesDetails.aspx?id=514805332> 11/1 nachal chever, modiin israel [Image removed by sender.]<https://twitter.com/riskiq>[Image removed by sender.]<https://www.facebook.com/pages/RiskIQ/555939994512820>[Image removed by sender.]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/riskiq_2>[Image removed by sender.]<https://plus.google.com/+Riskiq/posts> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 9:12 PM, <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> wrote: I don't see how it signifies anything - it's just one decision. Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020<tel:%28312%29%20456-1020> Mobile (773) 677-3305<tel:%28773%29%20677-3305> On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Reg Levy <reg@mmx.co<mailto:reg@mmx.co><mailto:reg@mmx.co<mailto:reg@mmx.co>>> wrote: My point was that a matter was successfully brought under the RPMs (my point would stand for matters unsuccessfully brought under the RPMs). That cybersquatting exists is not in dispute. Nor is it our—or ICANN’s—job to cause cybersquatting to no longer exist. The matter was a URS, which was a new-to-new-gTLDs RPM and (supposedly) cheaper than the UDRP. If this does not signify that RPMs work, does it signify that they do not? Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135<tel:%2B1-310-963-7135> S: RegLevy2 Current UTC offset: -8 On 3 Jan 2017, at 10:30, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>>> wrote: Agree with Doug and Marc, I would be curious to understand the thinking further. Also, it will be interesting to see what happens to all of these names when the suspension period is over. K Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:27 AM, "trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com><mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>>" <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com><mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>>> wrote: Agreed. How does one large URS filling indicate that the RPMs are working? Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020<tel:%28312%29%20456-1020> Mobile (773) 677-3305<tel:%28773%29%20677-3305> On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Doug Isenberg <disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com><mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>><mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>>> wrote: As the author of the blog post that Phil shared, I disagree with Reg’s conclusion below (and am quite unsure how that conclusion was reached). This URS case is interesting because its size makes it unusual (and, indeed, unprecedented). It is not indicative of any trend about RPMs in general or the URS in particular. If anything, it is a reminder that there are many domain name registrants – even in the new gTLDs – who continue to engage in cybersquatting on a large-scale, despite the RPMs such as the URS. Sincerely yours, Douglas M. Isenberg Attorney at Law <image001.png><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...> “When your brand is on the line, The GigaLaw Firm protects your brand online.” Learn more: www.GigaLaw.com<http://www.gigalaw.com/><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.GigaLaw.com&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s=2EuoR5I7h2Xn6TFKTv9MuhDFQ3usqxsVL-6CMVpyfbc&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:56 PM To: Philip S. Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Which seems to indicate that the current RPMs are working. Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135<tel:%2B1-310-963-7135> S: RegLevy2 Current UTC offset: -8 On 3 Jan 2017, at 09:34, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>> wrote: FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing. For more background see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2...> and https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s=C63MXdBt_K8Fa9WBaWkBP18-jViVNJ0I44HimAc_21I&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=...> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com><mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>>, and do not use or disseminate such information. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Some reactive personal observations: · Even TM+50 requires the TM owner to pay a separate TMCH registration fee for each registered term that was previously recovered in a UDRP or a judicial action. At $150 each, registration of each of the 474 domains suspended by this URS would have cost $71,100 – which is a pretty steep price to pay for the dubious benefits of a sunrise registration (more expense, although not so much at the particular registry involved in this case) and the generation of a claims notice. · IMHO, receipt of a claims notice is unlikely to stop a determined cybersquatter from completing an infringing domain registration. · The complainant was able to identify and proceed against all these domains absent receipt of a notice from the TMCH of the registrations, probably by using a commercial monitoring service at far lower cost than registering the 474 domain names in the TMCH. · Generation of a claims notice whenever a TM+something appears in a domain name, and not just when there is an exact match, would be a very substantial change in the claims notice procedure and goes beyond previous suggestions that a TM+keyword should be able to be registered in the TMCH. All such suggestions are of course open for consideration and debate when we reach the appropriate point in our work, but IMHO this one should be considered in the context of our finding that receipt of a claims notice results in registration abandonment in 94% of instances. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 2:34 PM To: jonathan matkowsky Cc: Zahid Jamil-IG via gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History As to whether something is "working", it's probably dangerous to extrapolate from a sample of 1. I don't think this shows much, other than that the URS worked in this instance. It would be interesting to know more about how the claimant felt this worked (and as Jon points out, why they chose URS over UDRP). From the point of view of this group, an interesting aspect of the case is that all 474 domain names were registered in .xyz. This type of wholesale registration may indicate that the Claims Notices are not working. It's likely that the registrant received few if any claims notices since their domains are almost all "mark+" domains. It would probably make more sense for Claims Notices to go out whenever the registered string appears in the domain string, not only when the registered string matches the domain string. It's also interesting to think about what would happen if the claimant here wanted to initiate a PDDRP against .xyz. While 474 domains is huge in the context of a single URS proceeding, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the 6 million (and dropping) domains registered in .xyz. Is 474 domains enough to file a PDDRP claim? Enough to win? What else would be needed, if this is not enough to win (or to file)? Greg On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:16 PM, jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net<mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net>> wrote: I totally agree. The blog post was interesting read, but really is a distraction from the issues. [http://safe.riskiq.com/rs/455-NHF-420/images/RiskIQ_Logo_Blue_Vertical.png]<http://riskiq.com/> jonathan matkowsky, vp – ip & brand security usa:: 1.347.467.1193<tel:(347)%20467-1193> | office:: +972-(0)8-926-2766<tel:+972%208-926-2766> emergency mobile:: +972-(0)54-924-0831<tel:+972%2054-924-0831> company reg. no. 514805332<http://havarot.justice.gov.il/CompaniesDetails.aspx?id=514805332> 11/1 nachal chever, modiin israel [http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448744755-png/Email_Signature/twitter_signature_logo.png]<https://twitter.com/riskiq>[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448719740-png/Email_Signature/facebook_signature_logo.png]<https://www.facebook.com/pages/RiskIQ/555939994512820>[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448744760-png/Email_Signature/linkedin_signature_logo.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/riskiq_2>[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448719735-png/Email_Signature/google+_signature_logo-1.png]<https://plus.google.com/+Riskiq/posts> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 9:12 PM, <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> wrote: I don't see how it signifies anything - it's just one decision. Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020<tel:%28312%29%20456-1020> Mobile (773) 677-3305<tel:%28773%29%20677-3305> On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Reg Levy <reg@mmx.co<mailto:reg@mmx.co><mailto:reg@mmx.co<mailto:reg@mmx.co>>> wrote: My point was that a matter was successfully brought under the RPMs (my point would stand for matters unsuccessfully brought under the RPMs). That cybersquatting exists is not in dispute. Nor is it our—or ICANN’s—job to cause cybersquatting to no longer exist. The matter was a URS, which was a new-to-new-gTLDs RPM and (supposedly) cheaper than the UDRP. If this does not signify that RPMs work, does it signify that they do not? Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135<tel:%2B1-310-963-7135> S: RegLevy2 Current UTC offset: -8 On 3 Jan 2017, at 10:30, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>>> wrote: Agree with Doug and Marc, I would be curious to understand the thinking further. Also, it will be interesting to see what happens to all of these names when the suspension period is over. K Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:27 AM, "trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com><mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>>" <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com><mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>>> wrote: Agreed. How does one large URS filling indicate that the RPMs are working? Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020<tel:%28312%29%20456-1020> Mobile (773) 677-3305<tel:%28773%29%20677-3305> On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Doug Isenberg <disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com><mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>><mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>>> wrote: As the author of the blog post that Phil shared, I disagree with Reg’s conclusion below (and am quite unsure how that conclusion was reached). This URS case is interesting because its size makes it unusual (and, indeed, unprecedented). It is not indicative of any trend about RPMs in general or the URS in particular. If anything, it is a reminder that there are many domain name registrants – even in the new gTLDs – who continue to engage in cybersquatting on a large-scale, despite the RPMs such as the URS. Sincerely yours, Douglas M. Isenberg Attorney at Law <image001.png><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...> “When your brand is on the line, The GigaLaw Firm protects your brand online.” Learn more: www.GigaLaw.com<http://www.GigaLaw.com><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.GigaLaw.com&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s=2EuoR5I7h2Xn6TFKTv9MuhDFQ3usqxsVL-6CMVpyfbc&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:56 PM To: Philip S. Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Which seems to indicate that the current RPMs are working. Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135<tel:%2B1-310-963-7135> S: RegLevy2 Current UTC offset: -8 On 3 Jan 2017, at 09:34, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>> wrote: FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing. For more background see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2...> and https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s=C63MXdBt_K8Fa9WBaWkBP18-jViVNJ0I44HimAc_21I&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=...> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com><mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>>, and do not use or disseminate such information. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Whilst I appreciate now is not quite the time for a substantive discussion on TM+50 or the Claims service generally, I would like to respond briefly to one of your comments Phil, since there can be a risk that inaccuracy/ imprecise references start to become perceived as fact over time. This WG has not made any finding that receipt of a Claims notice results in registration abandonment in 94% of instances. That supposed-94% figure comes from the Analysis Group’s draft report on the Independent Review of the TMCH. The draft report carries numerous health warnings – see for example the second para of the exec summary, where AG state “Limitations in our data do not allow us to definitively conclude whether Claims Service notifications have a deterrent effect on either type of registration activity.” More detailed disclaimers and acknowledgements of the inadequacy of the data are carried in the section which deals with the Claims service itself. Given that AG states “These results should not be relied upon to make policy recommendations” can we please avoid referring to their findings without context, and as if determinative. thanks Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: 03 January 2017 21:40 To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net> Cc: Zahid Jamil-IG via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Some reactive personal observations: · Even TM+50 requires the TM owner to pay a separate TMCH registration fee for each registered term that was previously recovered in a UDRP or a judicial action. At $150 each, registration of each of the 474 domains suspended by this URS would have cost $71,100 – which is a pretty steep price to pay for the dubious benefits of a sunrise registration (more expense, although not so much at the particular registry involved in this case) and the generation of a claims notice. · IMHO, receipt of a claims notice is unlikely to stop a determined cybersquatter from completing an infringing domain registration. · The complainant was able to identify and proceed against all these domains absent receipt of a notice from the TMCH of the registrations, probably by using a commercial monitoring service at far lower cost than registering the 474 domain names in the TMCH. · Generation of a claims notice whenever a TM+something appears in a domain name, and not just when there is an exact match, would be a very substantial change in the claims notice procedure and goes beyond previous suggestions that a TM+keyword should be able to be registered in the TMCH. All such suggestions are of course open for consideration and debate when we reach the appropriate point in our work, but IMHO this one should be considered in the context of our finding that receipt of a claims notice results in registration abandonment in 94% of instances. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 2:34 PM To: jonathan matkowsky Cc: Zahid Jamil-IG via gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History As to whether something is "working", it's probably dangerous to extrapolate from a sample of 1. I don't think this shows much, other than that the URS worked in this instance. It would be interesting to know more about how the claimant felt this worked (and as Jon points out, why they chose URS over UDRP). From the point of view of this group, an interesting aspect of the case is that all 474 domain names were registered in .xyz. This type of wholesale registration may indicate that the Claims Notices are not working. It's likely that the registrant received few if any claims notices since their domains are almost all "mark+" domains. It would probably make more sense for Claims Notices to go out whenever the registered string appears in the domain string, not only when the registered string matches the domain string. It's also interesting to think about what would happen if the claimant here wanted to initiate a PDDRP against .xyz. While 474 domains is huge in the context of a single URS proceeding, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the 6 million (and dropping) domains registered in .xyz. Is 474 domains enough to file a PDDRP claim? Enough to win? What else would be needed, if this is not enough to win (or to file)? Greg On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:16 PM, jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net<mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net>> wrote: I totally agree. The blog post was interesting read, but really is a distraction from the issues. [http://safe.riskiq.com/rs/455-NHF-420/images/RiskIQ_Logo_Blue_Vertical.png]<http://riskiq.com/> jonathan matkowsky, vp – ip & brand security usa:: 1.347.467.1193<tel:(347)%20467-1193> | office:: +972-(0)8-926-2766<tel:+972%208-926-2766> emergency mobile:: +972-(0)54-924-0831<tel:+972%2054-924-0831> company reg. no. 514805332<http://havarot.justice.gov.il/CompaniesDetails.aspx?id=514805332> 11/1 nachal chever, modiin israel [http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448744755-png/Email_Signature/twitter_signature_logo.png]<https://twitter.com/riskiq>[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448719740-png/Email_Signature/facebook_signature_logo.png]<https://www.facebook.com/pages/RiskIQ/555939994512820>[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448744760-png/Email_Signature/linkedin_signature_logo.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/riskiq_2>[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448719735-png/Email_Signature/google+_signature_logo-1.png]<https://plus.google.com/+Riskiq/posts> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 9:12 PM, <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> wrote: I don't see how it signifies anything - it's just one decision. Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020<tel:%28312%29%20456-1020> Mobile (773) 677-3305<tel:%28773%29%20677-3305> On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Reg Levy <reg@mmx.co<mailto:reg@mmx.co><mailto:reg@mmx.co<mailto:reg@mmx.co>>> wrote: My point was that a matter was successfully brought under the RPMs (my point would stand for matters unsuccessfully brought under the RPMs). That cybersquatting exists is not in dispute. Nor is it our—or ICANN’s—job to cause cybersquatting to no longer exist. The matter was a URS, which was a new-to-new-gTLDs RPM and (supposedly) cheaper than the UDRP. If this does not signify that RPMs work, does it signify that they do not? Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135<tel:%2B1-310-963-7135> S: RegLevy2 Current UTC offset: -8 On 3 Jan 2017, at 10:30, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>>> wrote: Agree with Doug and Marc, I would be curious to understand the thinking further. Also, it will be interesting to see what happens to all of these names when the suspension period is over. K Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:27 AM, "trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com><mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>>" <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com><mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>>> wrote: Agreed. How does one large URS filling indicate that the RPMs are working? Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020<tel:%28312%29%20456-1020> Mobile (773) 677-3305<tel:%28773%29%20677-3305> On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Doug Isenberg <disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com><mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>><mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>>> wrote: As the author of the blog post that Phil shared, I disagree with Reg’s conclusion below (and am quite unsure how that conclusion was reached). This URS case is interesting because its size makes it unusual (and, indeed, unprecedented). It is not indicative of any trend about RPMs in general or the URS in particular. If anything, it is a reminder that there are many domain name registrants – even in the new gTLDs – who continue to engage in cybersquatting on a large-scale, despite the RPMs such as the URS. Sincerely yours, Douglas M. Isenberg Attorney at Law <image001.png><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...> “When your brand is on the line, The GigaLaw Firm protects your brand online.” Learn more: www.GigaLaw.com<http://www.GigaLaw.com><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.GigaLaw.com&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s=2EuoR5I7h2Xn6TFKTv9MuhDFQ3usqxsVL-6CMVpyfbc&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:56 PM To: Philip S. Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Which seems to indicate that the current RPMs are working. Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135<tel:%2B1-310-963-7135> S: RegLevy2 Current UTC offset: -8 On 3 Jan 2017, at 09:34, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>> wrote: FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing. For more background see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2...> and https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s=C63MXdBt_K8Fa9WBaWkBP18-jViVNJ0I44HimAc_21I&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=...> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com><mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>>, and do not use or disseminate such information. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Point taken, Susan. I am aware that correlation is not necessarily causation. The AG data is imperfect, but also the best we have at the moment. So yes, I was incorrect that the 94% abandonment constituted “our finding”. That said, I stand by the other personal assertions in my email below. We clearly have lots to discuss when we get to the claims notice portion of our agenda. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Susan Payne [mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 11:15 AM To: Phil Corwin; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Whilst I appreciate now is not quite the time for a substantive discussion on TM+50 or the Claims service generally, I would like to respond briefly to one of your comments Phil, since there can be a risk that inaccuracy/ imprecise references start to become perceived as fact over time. This WG has not made any finding that receipt of a Claims notice results in registration abandonment in 94% of instances. That supposed-94% figure comes from the Analysis Group’s draft report on the Independent Review of the TMCH. The draft report carries numerous health warnings – see for example the second para of the exec summary, where AG state “Limitations in our data do not allow us to definitively conclude whether Claims Service notifications have a deterrent effect on either type of registration activity.” More detailed disclaimers and acknowledgements of the inadequacy of the data are carried in the section which deals with the Claims service itself. Given that AG states “These results should not be relied upon to make policy recommendations” can we please avoid referring to their findings without context, and as if determinative. thanks Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: 03 January 2017 21:40 To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net<mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net>> Cc: Zahid Jamil-IG via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Some reactive personal observations: • Even TM+50 requires the TM owner to pay a separate TMCH registration fee for each registered term that was previously recovered in a UDRP or a judicial action. At $150 each, registration of each of the 474 domains suspended by this URS would have cost $71,100 – which is a pretty steep price to pay for the dubious benefits of a sunrise registration (more expense, although not so much at the particular registry involved in this case) and the generation of a claims notice. • IMHO, receipt of a claims notice is unlikely to stop a determined cybersquatter from completing an infringing domain registration. • The complainant was able to identify and proceed against all these domains absent receipt of a notice from the TMCH of the registrations, probably by using a commercial monitoring service at far lower cost than registering the 474 domain names in the TMCH. • Generation of a claims notice whenever a TM+something appears in a domain name, and not just when there is an exact match, would be a very substantial change in the claims notice procedure and goes beyond previous suggestions that a TM+keyword should be able to be registered in the TMCH. All such suggestions are of course open for consideration and debate when we reach the appropriate point in our work, but IMHO this one should be considered in the context of our finding that receipt of a claims notice results in registration abandonment in 94% of instances. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 2:34 PM To: jonathan matkowsky Cc: Zahid Jamil-IG via gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History As to whether something is "working", it's probably dangerous to extrapolate from a sample of 1. I don't think this shows much, other than that the URS worked in this instance. It would be interesting to know more about how the claimant felt this worked (and as Jon points out, why they chose URS over UDRP). From the point of view of this group, an interesting aspect of the case is that all 474 domain names were registered in .xyz. This type of wholesale registration may indicate that the Claims Notices are not working. It's likely that the registrant received few if any claims notices since their domains are almost all "mark+" domains. It would probably make more sense for Claims Notices to go out whenever the registered string appears in the domain string, not only when the registered string matches the domain string. It's also interesting to think about what would happen if the claimant here wanted to initiate a PDDRP against .xyz. While 474 domains is huge in the context of a single URS proceeding, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the 6 million (and dropping) domains registered in .xyz. Is 474 domains enough to file a PDDRP claim? Enough to win? What else would be needed, if this is not enough to win (or to file)? Greg On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:16 PM, jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net<mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net>> wrote: I totally agree. The blog post was interesting read, but really is a distraction from the issues. [http://safe.riskiq.com/rs/455-NHF-420/images/RiskIQ_Logo_Blue_Vertical.png]<http://riskiq.com/> jonathan matkowsky, vp – ip & brand security usa:: 1.347.467.1193<tel:(347)%20467-1193> | office:: +972-(0)8-926-2766<tel:+972%208-926-2766> emergency mobile:: +972-(0)54-924-0831<tel:+972%2054-924-0831> company reg. no. 514805332<http://havarot.justice.gov.il/CompaniesDetails.aspx?id=514805332> 11/1 nachal chever, modiin israel [http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448744755-png/Email_Signature/twitter_signature_logo.png]<https://twitter.com/riskiq>[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448719740-png/Email_Signature/facebook_signature_logo.png]<https://www.facebook.com/pages/RiskIQ/555939994512820>[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448744760-png/Email_Signature/linkedin_signature_logo.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/riskiq_2>[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448719735-png/Email_Signature/google+_signature_logo-1.png]<https://plus.google.com/+Riskiq/posts> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 9:12 PM, <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> wrote: I don't see how it signifies anything - it's just one decision. Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020<tel:%28312%29%20456-1020> Mobile (773) 677-3305<tel:%28773%29%20677-3305> On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Reg Levy <reg@mmx.co<mailto:reg@mmx.co><mailto:reg@mmx.co<mailto:reg@mmx.co>>> wrote: My point was that a matter was successfully brought under the RPMs (my point would stand for matters unsuccessfully brought under the RPMs). That cybersquatting exists is not in dispute. Nor is it our—or ICANN’s—job to cause cybersquatting to no longer exist. The matter was a URS, which was a new-to-new-gTLDs RPM and (supposedly) cheaper than the UDRP. If this does not signify that RPMs work, does it signify that they do not? Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135<tel:%2B1-310-963-7135> S: RegLevy2 Current UTC offset: -8 On 3 Jan 2017, at 10:30, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>>> wrote: Agree with Doug and Marc, I would be curious to understand the thinking further. Also, it will be interesting to see what happens to all of these names when the suspension period is over. K Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:27 AM, "trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com><mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>>" <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com><mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>>> wrote: Agreed. How does one large URS filling indicate that the RPMs are working? Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020<tel:%28312%29%20456-1020> Mobile (773) 677-3305<tel:%28773%29%20677-3305> On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Doug Isenberg <disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com><mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>><mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>>> wrote: As the author of the blog post that Phil shared, I disagree with Reg’s conclusion below (and am quite unsure how that conclusion was reached). This URS case is interesting because its size makes it unusual (and, indeed, unprecedented). It is not indicative of any trend about RPMs in general or the URS in particular. If anything, it is a reminder that there are many domain name registrants – even in the new gTLDs – who continue to engage in cybersquatting on a large-scale, despite the RPMs such as the URS. Sincerely yours, Douglas M. Isenberg Attorney at Law <image001.png><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...> “When your brand is on the line, The GigaLaw Firm protects your brand online.” Learn more: www.GigaLaw.com<http://www.GigaLaw.com><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.GigaLaw.com&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s=2EuoR5I7h2Xn6TFKTv9MuhDFQ3usqxsVL-6CMVpyfbc&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:56 PM To: Philip S. Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Which seems to indicate that the current RPMs are working. Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135<tel:%2B1-310-963-7135> S: RegLevy2 Current UTC offset: -8 On 3 Jan 2017, at 09:34, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>> wrote: FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing. For more background see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2...> and https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DgIF-g&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=CTLGIhJ83DFc6xFM2gjwpScj1Pgsn_sfFjSBMiOCd1U&s=C63MXdBt_K8Fa9WBaWkBP18-jViVNJ0I44HimAc_21I&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=...> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com><mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>>, and do not use or disseminate such information. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
As we are many months away from considering the URS I hope we don't get too into the weeds on this. Doug's article alerted me to the decision and I thought it was significant enough to alert this WG to it. I presume that Reg's statement that the case indicated that the URS was "working" was based on the fact that Ashley Furniture obtained the suspension of 474 domains through a single filing (and she has just further posted in confirmation of that presumption). WG members who believe that this conclusion is not justified apparently believe that RPMs should have more deterrent effect to prevent infringing registrations in the first place. Deterrence is more difficult to achieve when there is little to no cost to the cybersquatter for the original registrations, which was likely the situation in this case. New gTLD pricing is within the jurisdiction of the Subsequent Procedures WG rather than this one, although we are probably free to comment upon its interrelationship with infringing behavior. As co-chair, I shall reserve judgment at this time for how the term "working" should be defined in the context of RPMs. BTW -- Happy New Year! Let's make it a productive one. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 1:28 PM To: disenberg@gigalawfirm.com Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Agreed. How does one large URS filling indicate that the RPMs are working? Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305 On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Doug Isenberg <disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>> wrote: As the author of the blog post that Phil shared, I disagree with Reg's conclusion below (and am quite unsure how that conclusion was reached). This URS case is interesting because its size makes it unusual (and, indeed, unprecedented). It is not indicative of any trend about RPMs in general or the URS in particular. If anything, it is a reminder that there are many domain name registrants - even in the new gTLDs - who continue to engage in cybersquatting on a large-scale, despite the RPMs such as the URS. Sincerely yours, Douglas M. Isenberg Attorney at Law <image001.png><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...> "When your brand is on the line, The GigaLaw Firm protects your brand online." Learn more: www.GigaLaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:56 PM To: Philip S. Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History Which seems to indicate that the current RPMs are working. Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2 Current UTC offset: -8 On 3 Jan 2017, at 09:34, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing. For more background see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2...> and https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=...> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information. ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
participants (13)
-
Beckham, Brian -
Doug Isenberg -
Greg Shatan -
Jon Nevett -
Jonathan Frost -
jonathan matkowsky -
Kiran Malancharuvil -
Petter Rindforth -
Phil Corwin -
Reg Levy -
Susan Payne -
trachtenbergm＠gtlaw.com -
URS - Uniform Rapid Suspension System - MFSD