Food for Thought: DMCA procedure at YouTube contrast with URS/UDRP
Hi folks, There was an interesting article published today about a copyright dispute involving "white noise" videos on YouTube: https://gizmodo.com/man-s-youtube-video-of-white-noise-hit-with-five-copyri-... which linked to the dispute procedure that YouTube follows: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454 Going through the various links, it was very interesting that they even have a "Copyright School", see: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000 (expand the "How to resolve a copyright strike" to see the link to it), which is quite interesting, given how often the education aspect for registrants has come up in our PDP's work. Also of interest is the section on "Counter Notification Basics": https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684 where importantly it says: "After we process your counter notification by forwarding it to the claimant, the claimant has 10 business days to provide us with evidence that they have initiated a court action to keep the content down." and it's the content creator who posts the relevant jurisdiction: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919 ""I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is located, and will accept service of process from the claimant." As noted in prior threads, various issues arise under the URS (and UDRP) when the natural role of plaintiffs vs. defendants (had the URS/UDRP not existed) gets reversed (e.g. the Yoyo.email UK "cause of action issue", as well as IGO and other groups' claimed "sovereign immunity"). With the dispute resolution procedure followed by YouTube, instead the onus is on the copyright owner (the "claimant") to file the lawsuit, in the same natural way that would exist had that dispute resolution procedure not existed. Thus, none of the issues due to reversal of plaintiff/defendant arise. I thought it would be of interest, especially as it also might also give insights as to how "defaults" are handled. Food for thought. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
George K: The Youtube procedure is linked to the DMCA, which is part of the US copyright laws. The whole point is that if Youtube follows certain procedures under the DMCA it can avoid host liability. This is not Youtube coming up with a new dispute resolution mechanism but a way for Youtube to avoid liability per the DMCA for content being posted on its platform, and for Youtube to avoid being put in the middle of a dispute between a content owner and a potential infringer. This is quite different from the UDRP or URS, which is meant to address abusive registrations of domain names in a cost effective way. You should keep in mind that the DMCA is part of federal law in the US, that it needs to be read in conjunction with other part of the copyright laws as well as the personal jurisdiction laws in the various US sates and constitutional concerns. Put another way, a copyright infringer in Montreal, for example, can be hauled in to a US court in any US jurisdiction where sufficient contacts can be established that would meet state and constitutional requirements. This means (a) a much wider range of forums for litigation and where a potential defendant might have to litigate, and (b) less options for a party that has been accused of infringement (i.e. Such a party could file an action in Canada for non-infringement, but still face suit anywhere else in the US where sufficient contacts for state and constitutional purposes can be established). Also keep in mind that attorneys fees and statutory damages are available against an infringer under the US copyright laws if certain requirements are met. All of that fits in hand in hand with the DMCA. So the bottom line is that the Youtube example under the DMCA is linked to a set of premises that are very different from domain name situations. The Yoyo mail UK example is an outlier case, for reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum. -- and keep in mind it is not the norm given that many many countries allow lawsuits by parties that lost a UDRP. In sum, we should not be looking to create a whole new model, but perhaps address wrinkles such as the Yoyo mail situation in the UK. Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 6:23 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Food for Thought: DMCA procedure at YouTube contrast with URS/UDRP Hi folks, There was an interesting article published today about a copyright dispute involving "white noise" videos on YouTube: https://gizmodo.com/man-s-youtube-video-of-white-noise-hit-with-five-copyri-... which linked to the dispute procedure that YouTube follows: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454 Going through the various links, it was very interesting that they even have a "Copyright School", see: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000 (expand the "How to resolve a copyright strike" to see the link to it), which is quite interesting, given how often the education aspect for registrants has come up in our PDP's work. Also of interest is the section on "Counter Notification Basics": https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684 where importantly it says: "After we process your counter notification by forwarding it to the claimant, the claimant has 10 business days to provide us with evidence that they have initiated a court action to keep the content down." and it's the content creator who posts the relevant jurisdiction: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919 ""I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is located, and will accept service of process from the claimant." As noted in prior threads, various issues arise under the URS (and UDRP) when the natural role of plaintiffs vs. defendants (had the URS/UDRP not existed) gets reversed (e.g. the Yoyo.email UK "cause of action issue", as well as IGO and other groups' claimed "sovereign immunity"). With the dispute resolution procedure followed by YouTube, instead the onus is on the copyright owner (the "claimant") to file the lawsuit, in the same natural way that would exist had that dispute resolution procedure not existed. Thus, none of the issues due to reversal of plaintiff/defendant arise. I thought it would be of interest, especially as it also might also give insights as to how "defaults" are handled. Food for thought. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Speaking personally, I see some other significant differences between YouTube's DMCA compliance practices and the UDRP/URS, aside from being based in a federal statute: * The DMCA’s notice-and-takedown procedure provides only a temporary means for removal of content claimed to be infringing, and is not meant to provide a DRP alternative to litigation. * Default (failure to respond) by the allegedly infringing party results in the content remaining in takedown status, while in the UDRP/URS context there remains a possibility that the Complaint will fail. * YouTube has a direct relationship with its users and can therefore impose specific jurisdiction venue requirements through its TOS. ICANN has no direct relationship with domain registrants, and the “mutual jurisdiction” nexus for litigation that may be filed in relationship to a UDRP/URS must accommodate the fact that the two parties with a direct contractual relationship (registrar and registrant) may be located in separate national jurisdiction, both of which may lie outside the U.S.; and that the trademark holder complainant may be domiciled in yet a third jurisdiction. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nahitchevansky, Georges Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 11:08 PM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Food for Thought: DMCA procedure at YouTube contrast with URS/UDRP George K: The Youtube procedure is linked to the DMCA, which is part of the US copyright laws. The whole point is that if Youtube follows certain procedures under the DMCA it can avoid host liability. This is not Youtube coming up with a new dispute resolution mechanism but a way for Youtube to avoid liability per the DMCA for content being posted on its platform, and for Youtube to avoid being put in the middle of a dispute between a content owner and a potential infringer. This is quite different from the UDRP or URS, which is meant to address abusive registrations of domain names in a cost effective way. You should keep in mind that the DMCA is part of federal law in the US, that it needs to be read in conjunction with other part of the copyright laws as well as the personal jurisdiction laws in the various US sates and constitutional concerns. Put another way, a copyright infringer in Montreal, for example, can be hauled in to a US court in any US jurisdiction where sufficient contacts can be established that would meet state and constitutional requirements. This means (a) a much wider range of forums for litigation and where a potential defendant might have to litigate, and (b) less options for a party that has been accused of infringement (i.e. Such a party could file an action in Canada for non-infringement, but still face suit anywhere else in the US where sufficient contacts for state and constitutional purposes can be established). Also keep in mind that attorneys fees and statutory damages are available against an infringer under the US copyright laws if certain requirements are met. All of that fits in hand in hand with the DMCA. So the bottom line is that the Youtube example under the DMCA is linked to a set of premises that are very different from domain name situations. The Yoyo mail UK example is an outlier case, for reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum. -- and keep in mind it is not the norm given that many many countries allow lawsuits by parties that lost a UDRP. In sum, we should not be looking to create a whole new model, but perhaps address wrinkles such as the Yoyo mail situation in the UK. Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 6:23 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Food for Thought: DMCA procedure at YouTube contrast with URS/UDRP Hi folks, There was an interesting article published today about a copyright dispute involving "white noise" videos on YouTube: https://gizmodo.com/man-s-youtube-video-of-white-noise-hit-with-five-copyri-... which linked to the dispute procedure that YouTube follows: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454 Going through the various links, it was very interesting that they even have a "Copyright School", see: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000 (expand the "How to resolve a copyright strike" to see the link to it), which is quite interesting, given how often the education aspect for registrants has come up in our PDP's work. Also of interest is the section on "Counter Notification Basics": https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684 where importantly it says: "After we process your counter notification by forwarding it to the claimant, the claimant has 10 business days to provide us with evidence that they have initiated a court action to keep the content down." and it's the content creator who posts the relevant jurisdiction: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919 ""I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is located, and will accept service of process from the claimant." As noted in prior threads, various issues arise under the URS (and UDRP) when the natural role of plaintiffs vs. defendants (had the URS/UDRP not existed) gets reversed (e.g. the Yoyo.email UK "cause of action issue", as well as IGO and other groups' claimed "sovereign immunity"). With the dispute resolution procedure followed by YouTube, instead the onus is on the copyright owner (the "claimant") to file the lawsuit, in the same natural way that would exist had that dispute resolution procedure not existed. Thus, none of the issues due to reversal of plaintiff/defendant arise. I thought it would be of interest, especially as it also might also give insights as to how "defaults" are handled. Food for thought. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
George, I know that a response has already been posted but I wanted to add my quick thoughts. I agree that the DMCA and the UDRP/URS are not identical. In fact the roles remain reversed throughout the UDRP/URS process. The DMCA merely provides a notice, take-down followed by the opportunity to revive the posting. Once reposting occurs the issue remains as it was before the notice - the copyright owner must proceed with litigation. The UDRP/URS however, results in the domain being transferred/suspended or not. In the case of transfer, it is the registrant that must file. In the case the complaint is denied then the trademark owner has that burden (like the copyright owner in the DMCA example). PRK On 1/6/18, 12:23 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
There was an interesting article published today about a copyright dispute involving "white noise" videos on YouTube:
https://gizmodo.com/man-s-youtube-video-of-white-noise-hit-with-five-copyr i-1821804093
which linked to the dispute procedure that YouTube follows:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454
Going through the various links, it was very interesting that they even have a "Copyright School", see:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000
(expand the "How to resolve a copyright strike" to see the link to it), which is quite interesting, given how often the education aspect for registrants has come up in our PDP's work.
Also of interest is the section on "Counter Notification Basics":
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684
where importantly it says:
"After we process your counter notification by forwarding it to the claimant, the claimant has 10 business days to provide us with evidence that they have initiated a court action to keep the content down."
and it's the content creator who posts the relevant jurisdiction:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919
""I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is located, and will accept service of process from the claimant."
As noted in prior threads, various issues arise under the URS (and UDRP) when the natural role of plaintiffs vs. defendants (had the URS/UDRP not existed) gets reversed (e.g. the Yoyo.email UK "cause of action issue", as well as IGO and other groups' claimed "sovereign immunity").
With the dispute resolution procedure followed by YouTube, instead the onus is on the copyright owner (the "claimant") to file the lawsuit, in the same natural way that would exist had that dispute resolution procedure not existed. Thus, none of the issues due to reversal of plaintiff/defendant arise.
I thought it would be of interest, especially as it also might also give insights as to how "defaults" are handled.
Food for thought.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi Paul, Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that they are different. Just pointing out that there are other systems out there that don't have that role reversal feature. Also, I believe some folks had mused about the possibility of a single DRP that integrated the URS and UDRP. The issue of creation of a "Notice of Dispute", that preceded the actual dispute, also has arisen. If such a system also handled the high number of defaults differently than today, then one result might be a much lower cost procedure in the case of defaults (i.e. it could be very lightweight like the YouTube procedure), and then reference to the courts for the disputes when both sides show up and are heavily contesting the matter. In terms of integration, one way to look at the URS is that it's very similar to a UDRP where the Complainant (TM holder) asks only for cancellation, albeit that the URS cancellation happens with a delay (under the UDRP, the cancellation would happen almost immediately, after allowing for the appeal to the courts) Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 6:30 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
George,
I know that a response has already been posted but I wanted to add my quick thoughts.
I agree that the DMCA and the UDRP/URS are not identical. In fact the roles remain reversed throughout the UDRP/URS process. The DMCA merely provides a notice, take-down followed by the opportunity to revive the posting. Once reposting occurs the issue remains as it was before the notice - the copyright owner must proceed with litigation. The UDRP/URS however, results in the domain being transferred/suspended or not. In the case of transfer, it is the registrant that must file. In the case the complaint is denied then the trademark owner has that burden (like the copyright owner in the DMCA example).
PRK
On 1/6/18, 12:23 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
There was an interesting article published today about a copyright dispute involving "white noise" videos on YouTube:
https://gizmodo.com/man-s-youtube-video-of-white-noise-hit-with-five-copyr i-1821804093
which linked to the dispute procedure that YouTube follows:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454
Going through the various links, it was very interesting that they even have a "Copyright School", see:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000
(expand the "How to resolve a copyright strike" to see the link to it), which is quite interesting, given how often the education aspect for registrants has come up in our PDP's work.
Also of interest is the section on "Counter Notification Basics":
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684
where importantly it says:
"After we process your counter notification by forwarding it to the claimant, the claimant has 10 business days to provide us with evidence that they have initiated a court action to keep the content down."
and it's the content creator who posts the relevant jurisdiction:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919
""I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is located, and will accept service of process from the claimant."
As noted in prior threads, various issues arise under the URS (and UDRP) when the natural role of plaintiffs vs. defendants (had the URS/UDRP not existed) gets reversed (e.g. the Yoyo.email UK "cause of action issue", as well as IGO and other groups' claimed "sovereign immunity").
With the dispute resolution procedure followed by YouTube, instead the onus is on the copyright owner (the "claimant") to file the lawsuit, in the same natural way that would exist had that dispute resolution procedure not existed. Thus, none of the issues due to reversal of plaintiff/defendant arise.
I thought it would be of interest, especially as it also might also give insights as to how "defaults" are handled.
Food for thought.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
George, all, Thanks for this note. Just for clarification on the last point, as I understand the current remedies available under the URS does not include cancellation of the domain. As a result, upon expiry the suspended domain can be renewed and used (including for abusive purposes) by the losing registrant of the URS decision. To address this issue we can consider adding cancellation as a remedy (or otherwise modifying the URS) to minimize the need for repeated, serial enforcement against previously suspended domains. Best regards, Claudio On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 8:09 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that they are different. Just pointing out that there are other systems out there that don't have that role reversal feature.
Also, I believe some folks had mused about the possibility of a single DRP that integrated the URS and UDRP. The issue of creation of a "Notice of Dispute", that preceded the actual dispute, also has arisen. If such a system also handled the high number of defaults differently than today, then one result might be a much lower cost procedure in the case of defaults (i.e. it could be very lightweight like the YouTube procedure), and then reference to the courts for the disputes when both sides show up and are heavily contesting the matter.
In terms of integration, one way to look at the URS is that it's very similar to a UDRP where the Complainant (TM holder) asks only for cancellation, albeit that the URS cancellation happens with a delay (under the UDRP, the cancellation would happen almost immediately, after allowing for the appeal to the courts)
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 6:30 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
George,
I know that a response has already been posted but I wanted to add my quick thoughts.
I agree that the DMCA and the UDRP/URS are not identical. In fact the roles remain reversed throughout the UDRP/URS process. The DMCA merely provides a notice, take-down followed by the opportunity to revive the posting. Once reposting occurs the issue remains as it was before the notice - the copyright owner must proceed with litigation. The UDRP/URS however, results in the domain being transferred/suspended or not. In the case of transfer, it is the registrant that must file. In the case the complaint is denied then the trademark owner has that burden (like the copyright owner in the DMCA example).
PRK
On 1/6/18, 12:23 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
There was an interesting article published today about a copyright dispute involving "white noise" videos on YouTube:
https://gizmodo.com/man-s-youtube-video-of-white-noise- hit-with-five-copyr i-1821804093
which linked to the dispute procedure that YouTube follows:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454
Going through the various links, it was very interesting that they even have a "Copyright School", see:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000
(expand the "How to resolve a copyright strike" to see the link to it), which is quite interesting, given how often the education aspect for registrants has come up in our PDP's work.
Also of interest is the section on "Counter Notification Basics":
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684
where importantly it says:
"After we process your counter notification by forwarding it to the claimant, the claimant has 10 business days to provide us with evidence that they have initiated a court action to keep the content down."
and it's the content creator who posts the relevant jurisdiction:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919
""I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is located, and will accept service of process from the claimant."
As noted in prior threads, various issues arise under the URS (and UDRP) when the natural role of plaintiffs vs. defendants (had the URS/UDRP not existed) gets reversed (e.g. the Yoyo.email UK "cause of action issue", as well as IGO and other groups' claimed "sovereign immunity").
With the dispute resolution procedure followed by YouTube, instead the onus is on the copyright owner (the "claimant") to file the lawsuit, in the same natural way that would exist had that dispute resolution procedure not existed. Thus, none of the issues due to reversal of plaintiff/defendant arise.
I thought it would be of interest, especially as it also might also give insights as to how "defaults" are handled.
Food for thought.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Has there ever been an instance where someone has made a nuisance of themselves by re-registering and abusing names that they have had suspended under a URS determination? On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 3:26 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George, all,
Thanks for this note.
Just for clarification on the last point, as I understand the current remedies available under the URS does not include cancellation of the domain.
As a result, upon expiry the suspended domain can be renewed and used (including for abusive purposes) by the losing registrant of the URS decision.
To address this issue we can consider adding cancellation as a remedy (or otherwise modifying the URS) to minimize the need for repeated, serial enforcement against previously suspended domains.
Best regards, Claudio
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 8:09 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that they are different. Just pointing out that there are other systems out there that don't have that role reversal feature.
Also, I believe some folks had mused about the possibility of a single DRP that integrated the URS and UDRP. The issue of creation of a "Notice of Dispute", that preceded the actual dispute, also has arisen. If such a system also handled the high number of defaults differently than today, then one result might be a much lower cost procedure in the case of defaults (i.e. it could be very lightweight like the YouTube procedure), and then reference to the courts for the disputes when both sides show up and are heavily contesting the matter.
In terms of integration, one way to look at the URS is that it's very similar to a UDRP where the Complainant (TM holder) asks only for cancellation, albeit that the URS cancellation happens with a delay (under the UDRP, the cancellation would happen almost immediately, after allowing for the appeal to the courts)
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 6:30 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
George,
I know that a response has already been posted but I wanted to add my quick thoughts.
I agree that the DMCA and the UDRP/URS are not identical. In fact the roles remain reversed throughout the UDRP/URS process. The DMCA merely provides a notice, take-down followed by the opportunity to revive the posting. Once reposting occurs the issue remains as it was before the notice - the copyright owner must proceed with litigation. The UDRP/URS however, results in the domain being transferred/suspended or not. In the case of transfer, it is the registrant that must file. In the case the complaint is denied then the trademark owner has that burden (like the copyright owner in the DMCA example).
PRK
On 1/6/18, 12:23 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
There was an interesting article published today about a copyright dispute involving "white noise" videos on YouTube:
https://gizmodo.com/man-s-youtube-video-of-white-noise-hit -with-five-copyr i-1821804093
which linked to the dispute procedure that YouTube follows:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454
Going through the various links, it was very interesting that they even have a "Copyright School", see:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000
(expand the "How to resolve a copyright strike" to see the link to it), which is quite interesting, given how often the education aspect for registrants has come up in our PDP's work.
Also of interest is the section on "Counter Notification Basics":
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684
where importantly it says:
"After we process your counter notification by forwarding it to the claimant, the claimant has 10 business days to provide us with evidence that they have initiated a court action to keep the content down."
and it's the content creator who posts the relevant jurisdiction:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919
""I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is located, and will accept service of process from the claimant."
As noted in prior threads, various issues arise under the URS (and UDRP) when the natural role of plaintiffs vs. defendants (had the URS/UDRP not existed) gets reversed (e.g. the Yoyo.email UK "cause of action issue", as well as IGO and other groups' claimed "sovereign immunity").
With the dispute resolution procedure followed by YouTube, instead the onus is on the copyright owner (the "claimant") to file the lawsuit, in the same natural way that would exist had that dispute resolution procedure not existed. Thus, none of the issues due to reversal of plaintiff/defendant arise.
I thought it would be of interest, especially as it also might also give insights as to how "defaults" are handled.
Food for thought.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
I would be very opposed to having cancellation available in a URS proceeding, particularly given the issues discussed concerning notice and language. If the complainant wants the domain they should proceed to the UDRP route From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> Date: Monday, January 8, 2018 at 4:58 PM To: claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Food for Thought: DMCA procedure at YouTube contrast with URS/UDRP
Has there ever been an instance where someone has made a nuisance of themselves by re-registering and abusing names that they have had suspended under a URS determination?
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 3:26 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George, all,
Thanks for this note.
Just for clarification on the last point, as I understand the current remedies available under the URS does not include cancellation of the domain.
As a result, upon expiry the suspended domain can be renewed and used (including for abusive purposes) by the losing registrant of the URS decision.
To address this issue we can consider adding cancellation as a remedy (or otherwise modifying the URS) to minimize the need for repeated, serial enforcement against previously suspended domains.
Best regards, Claudio
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 8:09 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that they are different. Just pointing out that there are other systems out there that don't have that role reversal feature.
Also, I believe some folks had mused about the possibility of a single DRP that integrated the URS and UDRP. The issue of creation of a "Notice of Dispute", that preceded the actual dispute, also has arisen. If such a system also handled the high number of defaults differently than today, then one result might be a much lower cost procedure in the case of defaults (i.e. it could be very lightweight like the YouTube procedure), and then reference to the courts for the disputes when both sides show up and are heavily contesting the matter.
In terms of integration, one way to look at the URS is that it's very similar to a UDRP where the Complainant (TM holder) asks only for cancellation, albeit that the URS cancellation happens with a delay (under the UDRP, the cancellation would happen almost immediately, after allowing for the appeal to the courts)
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 6:30 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
George,
I know that a response has already been posted but I wanted to add my quick thoughts.
I agree that the DMCA and the UDRP/URS are not identical. In fact the roles remain reversed throughout the UDRP/URS process. The DMCA merely provides a notice, take-down followed by the opportunity to revive the posting. Once reposting occurs the issue remains as it was before the notice - the copyright owner must proceed with litigation. The UDRP/URS however, results in the domain being transferred/suspended or not. In the case of transfer, it is the registrant that must file. In the case the complaint is denied then the trademark owner has that burden (like the copyright owner in the DMCA example).
PRK
On 1/6/18, 12:23 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
>Hi folks, > >There was an interesting article published today about a copyright >dispute involving "white noise" videos on YouTube: >
https://gizmodo.com/man-s-youtube-video-of-white-noise-hit-with-five-cop>>>>> yr
>i-1821804093 > >which linked to the dispute procedure that YouTube follows: > >https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454 > >Going through the various links, it was very interesting that they >even have a "Copyright School", see: > >https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000 > >(expand the "How to resolve a copyright strike" to see the link to >it), which is quite interesting, given how often the education aspect >for registrants has come up in our PDP's work. > >Also of interest is the section on "Counter Notification Basics": > >https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684 > >where importantly it says: > >"After we process your counter notification by forwarding it to the >claimant, the claimant has 10 business days to provide us with >evidence that they have initiated a court action to keep the content >down." > >and it's the content creator who posts the relevant jurisdiction: > >https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919 > >""I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the >district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside >of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is >located, and will accept service of process from the claimant." > >As noted in prior threads, various issues arise under the URS (and >UDRP) when the natural role of plaintiffs vs. defendants (had the >URS/UDRP not existed) gets reversed (e.g. the Yoyo.email UK "cause of >action issue", as well as IGO and other groups' claimed "sovereign >immunity"). > >With the dispute resolution procedure followed by YouTube, instead the >onus is on the copyright owner (the "claimant") to file the lawsuit, >in the same natural way that would exist had that dispute resolution >procedure not existed. Thus, none of the issues due to reversal of >plaintiff/defendant arise. > >I thought it would be of interest, especially as it also might also >give insights as to how "defaults" are handled. > >Food for thought. > >Sincerely, > >George Kirikos >416-588-0269 <tel:416-588-0269> >http://www.leap.com/ >_______________________________________________ >gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Paul, To clarify, I am not suggesting a remedy that equates to an immediate cancellation, such as the remedy for cancellation that is available under the UDRP. Rather, as George described in his last note, the cancellation would only take effect upon the expiration of the domain's life-cycle. This will need to take into account the various procedures of the URS, such as the appeals mechanism. Best regards, Claudio On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
I would be very opposed to having cancellation available in a URS proceeding, particularly given the issues discussed concerning notice and language. If the complainant wants the domain they should proceed to the UDRP route
From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> Date: Monday, January 8, 2018 at 4:58 PM To: claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Food for Thought: DMCA procedure at YouTube contrast with URS/UDRP
Has there ever been an instance where someone has made a nuisance of themselves by re-registering and abusing names that they have had suspended under a URS determination?
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 3:26 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George, all,
Thanks for this note.
Just for clarification on the last point, as I understand the current remedies available under the URS does not include cancellation of the domain.
As a result, upon expiry the suspended domain can be renewed and used (including for abusive purposes) by the losing registrant of the URS decision.
To address this issue we can consider adding cancellation as a remedy (or otherwise modifying the URS) to minimize the need for repeated, serial enforcement against previously suspended domains.
Best regards, Claudio
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 8:09 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that they are different. Just pointing out that there are other systems out there that don't have that role reversal feature.
Also, I believe some folks had mused about the possibility of a single DRP that integrated the URS and UDRP. The issue of creation of a "Notice of Dispute", that preceded the actual dispute, also has arisen. If such a system also handled the high number of defaults differently than today, then one result might be a much lower cost procedure in the case of defaults (i.e. it could be very lightweight like the YouTube procedure), and then reference to the courts for the disputes when both sides show up and are heavily contesting the matter.
In terms of integration, one way to look at the URS is that it's very similar to a UDRP where the Complainant (TM holder) asks only for cancellation, albeit that the URS cancellation happens with a delay (under the UDRP, the cancellation would happen almost immediately, after allowing for the appeal to the courts)
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 6:30 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
George,
I know that a response has already been posted but I wanted to add my quick thoughts.
I agree that the DMCA and the UDRP/URS are not identical. In fact the roles remain reversed throughout the UDRP/URS process. The DMCA merely provides a notice, take-down followed by the opportunity to revive the posting. Once reposting occurs the issue remains as it was before the notice - the copyright owner must proceed with litigation. The UDRP/URS however, results in the domain being transferred/suspended or not. In the case of transfer, it is the registrant that must file. In the case the complaint is denied then the trademark owner has that burden (like the copyright owner in the DMCA example).
PRK
On 1/6/18, 12:23 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
There was an interesting article published today about a copyright dispute involving "white noise" videos on YouTube:
https://gizmodo.com/man-s-youtube-video-of-white-noise-hit -with-five-copyr i-1821804093
which linked to the dispute procedure that YouTube follows:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454
Going through the various links, it was very interesting that they even have a "Copyright School", see:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000
(expand the "How to resolve a copyright strike" to see the link to it), which is quite interesting, given how often the education aspect for registrants has come up in our PDP's work.
Also of interest is the section on "Counter Notification Basics":
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684
where importantly it says:
"After we process your counter notification by forwarding it to the claimant, the claimant has 10 business days to provide us with evidence that they have initiated a court action to keep the content down."
and it's the content creator who posts the relevant jurisdiction:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919
""I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is located, and will accept service of process from the claimant."
As noted in prior threads, various issues arise under the URS (and UDRP) when the natural role of plaintiffs vs. defendants (had the URS/UDRP not existed) gets reversed (e.g. the Yoyo.email UK "cause of action issue", as well as IGO and other groups' claimed "sovereign immunity").
With the dispute resolution procedure followed by YouTube, instead the onus is on the copyright owner (the "claimant") to file the lawsuit, in the same natural way that would exist had that dispute resolution procedure not existed. Thus, none of the issues due to reversal of plaintiff/defendant arise.
I thought it would be of interest, especially as it also might also give insights as to how "defaults" are handled.
Food for thought.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Fine but if you want such a remedy file a udrp. Sincerely, Paul Keating, Esq.
On Jan 8, 2018, at 6:16 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul,
To clarify, I am not suggesting a remedy that equates to an immediate cancellation, such as the remedy for cancellation that is available under the UDRP.
Rather, as George described in his last note, the cancellation would only take effect upon the expiration of the domain's life-cycle. This will need to take into account the various procedures of the URS, such as the appeals mechanism.
Best regards, Claudio
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote: I would be very opposed to having cancellation available in a URS proceeding, particularly given the issues discussed concerning notice and language. If the complainant wants the domain they should proceed to the UDRP route
From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> Date: Monday, January 8, 2018 at 4:58 PM To: claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Food for Thought: DMCA procedure at YouTube contrast with URS/UDRP
Has there ever been an instance where someone has made a nuisance of themselves by re-registering and abusing names that they have had suspended under a URS determination?
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 3:26 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote: George, all,
Thanks for this note.
Just for clarification on the last point, as I understand the current remedies available under the URS does not include cancellation of the domain.
As a result, upon expiry the suspended domain can be renewed and used (including for abusive purposes) by the losing registrant of the URS decision.
To address this issue we can consider adding cancellation as a remedy (or otherwise modifying the URS) to minimize the need for repeated, serial enforcement against previously suspended domains.
Best regards, Claudio
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 8:09 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: Hi Paul,
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that they are different. Just pointing out that there are other systems out there that don't have that role reversal feature.
Also, I believe some folks had mused about the possibility of a single DRP that integrated the URS and UDRP. The issue of creation of a "Notice of Dispute", that preceded the actual dispute, also has arisen. If such a system also handled the high number of defaults differently than today, then one result might be a much lower cost procedure in the case of defaults (i.e. it could be very lightweight like the YouTube procedure), and then reference to the courts for the disputes when both sides show up and are heavily contesting the matter.
In terms of integration, one way to look at the URS is that it's very similar to a UDRP where the Complainant (TM holder) asks only for cancellation, albeit that the URS cancellation happens with a delay (under the UDRP, the cancellation would happen almost immediately, after allowing for the appeal to the courts)
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 6:30 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
George,
I know that a response has already been posted but I wanted to add my quick thoughts.
I agree that the DMCA and the UDRP/URS are not identical. In fact the roles remain reversed throughout the UDRP/URS process. The DMCA merely provides a notice, take-down followed by the opportunity to revive the posting. Once reposting occurs the issue remains as it was before the notice - the copyright owner must proceed with litigation. The UDRP/URS however, results in the domain being transferred/suspended or not. In the case of transfer, it is the registrant that must file. In the case the complaint is denied then the trademark owner has that burden (like the copyright owner in the DMCA example).
PRK
On 1/6/18, 12:23 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
There was an interesting article published today about a copyright dispute involving "white noise" videos on YouTube:
https://gizmodo.com/man-s-youtube-video-of-white-noise-hit-with-five-copyr i-1821804093
which linked to the dispute procedure that YouTube follows:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454
Going through the various links, it was very interesting that they even have a "Copyright School", see:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000
(expand the "How to resolve a copyright strike" to see the link to it), which is quite interesting, given how often the education aspect for registrants has come up in our PDP's work.
Also of interest is the section on "Counter Notification Basics":
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684
where importantly it says:
"After we process your counter notification by forwarding it to the claimant, the claimant has 10 business days to provide us with evidence that they have initiated a court action to keep the content down."
and it's the content creator who posts the relevant jurisdiction:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919
""I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is located, and will accept service of process from the claimant."
As noted in prior threads, various issues arise under the URS (and UDRP) when the natural role of plaintiffs vs. defendants (had the URS/UDRP not existed) gets reversed (e.g. the Yoyo.email UK "cause of action issue", as well as IGO and other groups' claimed "sovereign immunity").
With the dispute resolution procedure followed by YouTube, instead the onus is on the copyright owner (the "claimant") to file the lawsuit, in the same natural way that would exist had that dispute resolution procedure not existed. Thus, none of the issues due to reversal of plaintiff/defendant arise.
I thought it would be of interest, especially as it also might also give insights as to how "defaults" are handled.
Food for thought.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Paul, While I cannot speak to the URS, similar “nuisance” behavior has been observed in a number of UDRP cases such as the following: www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2016-0414 Brian On 8 January 2018 at 10:58:41 GMT-5, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote: Has there ever been an instance where someone has made a nuisance of themselves by re-registering and abusing names that they have had suspended under a URS determination? On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 3:26 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com<mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com>> wrote: George, all, Thanks for this note. Just for clarification on the last point, as I understand the current remedies available under the URS does not include cancellation of the domain. As a result, upon expiry the suspended domain can be renewed and used (including for abusive purposes) by the losing registrant of the URS decision. To address this issue we can consider adding cancellation as a remedy (or otherwise modifying the URS) to minimize the need for repeated, serial enforcement against previously suspended domains. Best regards, Claudio On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 8:09 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Hi Paul, Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that they are different. Just pointing out that there are other systems out there that don't have that role reversal feature. Also, I believe some folks had mused about the possibility of a single DRP that integrated the URS and UDRP. The issue of creation of a "Notice of Dispute", that preceded the actual dispute, also has arisen. If such a system also handled the high number of defaults differently than today, then one result might be a much lower cost procedure in the case of defaults (i.e. it could be very lightweight like the YouTube procedure), and then reference to the courts for the disputes when both sides show up and are heavily contesting the matter. In terms of integration, one way to look at the URS is that it's very similar to a UDRP where the Complainant (TM holder) asks only for cancellation, albeit that the URS cancellation happens with a delay (under the UDRP, the cancellation would happen almost immediately, after allowing for the appeal to the courts) Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 6:30 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>> wrote:
George,
I know that a response has already been posted but I wanted to add my quick thoughts.
I agree that the DMCA and the UDRP/URS are not identical. In fact the roles remain reversed throughout the UDRP/URS process. The DMCA merely provides a notice, take-down followed by the opportunity to revive the posting. Once reposting occurs the issue remains as it was before the notice - the copyright owner must proceed with litigation. The UDRP/URS however, results in the domain being transferred/suspended or not. In the case of transfer, it is the registrant that must file. In the case the complaint is denied then the trademark owner has that burden (like the copyright owner in the DMCA example).
PRK
On 1/6/18, 12:23 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote:
Hi folks,
There was an interesting article published today about a copyright dispute involving "white noise" videos on YouTube:
https://gizmodo.com/man-s-youtube-video-of-white-noise-hit-with-five-copyr i-1821804093
which linked to the dispute procedure that YouTube follows:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454
Going through the various links, it was very interesting that they even have a "Copyright School", see:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000
(expand the "How to resolve a copyright strike" to see the link to it), which is quite interesting, given how often the education aspect for registrants has come up in our PDP's work.
Also of interest is the section on "Counter Notification Basics":
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684
where importantly it says:
"After we process your counter notification by forwarding it to the claimant, the claimant has 10 business days to provide us with evidence that they have initiated a court action to keep the content down."
and it's the content creator who posts the relevant jurisdiction:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919
""I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is located, and will accept service of process from the claimant."
As noted in prior threads, various issues arise under the URS (and UDRP) when the natural role of plaintiffs vs. defendants (had the URS/UDRP not existed) gets reversed (e.g. the Yoyo.email UK "cause of action issue", as well as IGO and other groups' claimed "sovereign immunity").
With the dispute resolution procedure followed by YouTube, instead the onus is on the copyright owner (the "claimant") to file the lawsuit, in the same natural way that would exist had that dispute resolution procedure not existed. Thus, none of the issues due to reversal of plaintiff/defendant arise.
I thought it would be of interest, especially as it also might also give insights as to how "defaults" are handled.
Food for thought.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Brian There are always outlier situations. However, as you well know, they should not be used to guide policy. You would not, for example, support lowering the RDNH hurdle just because i could cite you a few (or more) cases where the complaint attempted outright fraud. Paul Sincerely, Paul Keating, Esq.
On Jan 8, 2018, at 8:13 PM, BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Paul,
While I cannot speak to the URS, similar “nuisance” behavior has been observed in a number of UDRP cases such as the following:
www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2016-0414
Brian
On 8 January 2018 at 10:58:41 GMT-5, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote: Has there ever been an instance where someone has made a nuisance of themselves by re-registering and abusing names that they have had suspended under a URS determination?
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 3:26 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote: George, all,
Thanks for this note.
Just for clarification on the last point, as I understand the current remedies available under the URS does not include cancellation of the domain.
As a result, upon expiry the suspended domain can be renewed and used (including for abusive purposes) by the losing registrant of the URS decision.
To address this issue we can consider adding cancellation as a remedy (or otherwise modifying the URS) to minimize the need for repeated, serial enforcement against previously suspended domains.
Best regards, Claudio
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 8:09 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: Hi Paul,
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that they are different. Just pointing out that there are other systems out there that don't have that role reversal feature.
Also, I believe some folks had mused about the possibility of a single DRP that integrated the URS and UDRP. The issue of creation of a "Notice of Dispute", that preceded the actual dispute, also has arisen. If such a system also handled the high number of defaults differently than today, then one result might be a much lower cost procedure in the case of defaults (i.e. it could be very lightweight like the YouTube procedure), and then reference to the courts for the disputes when both sides show up and are heavily contesting the matter.
In terms of integration, one way to look at the URS is that it's very similar to a UDRP where the Complainant (TM holder) asks only for cancellation, albeit that the URS cancellation happens with a delay (under the UDRP, the cancellation would happen almost immediately, after allowing for the appeal to the courts)
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 6:30 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
George,
I know that a response has already been posted but I wanted to add my quick thoughts.
I agree that the DMCA and the UDRP/URS are not identical. In fact the roles remain reversed throughout the UDRP/URS process. The DMCA merely provides a notice, take-down followed by the opportunity to revive the posting. Once reposting occurs the issue remains as it was before the notice - the copyright owner must proceed with litigation. The UDRP/URS however, results in the domain being transferred/suspended or not. In the case of transfer, it is the registrant that must file. In the case the complaint is denied then the trademark owner has that burden (like the copyright owner in the DMCA example).
PRK
On 1/6/18, 12:23 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
There was an interesting article published today about a copyright dispute involving "white noise" videos on YouTube:
https://gizmodo.com/man-s-youtube-video-of-white-noise-hit-with-five-copyr i-1821804093
which linked to the dispute procedure that YouTube follows:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454
Going through the various links, it was very interesting that they even have a "Copyright School", see:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000
(expand the "How to resolve a copyright strike" to see the link to it), which is quite interesting, given how often the education aspect for registrants has come up in our PDP's work.
Also of interest is the section on "Counter Notification Basics":
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684
where importantly it says:
"After we process your counter notification by forwarding it to the claimant, the claimant has 10 business days to provide us with evidence that they have initiated a court action to keep the content down."
and it's the content creator who posts the relevant jurisdiction:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919
""I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is located, and will accept service of process from the claimant."
As noted in prior threads, various issues arise under the URS (and UDRP) when the natural role of plaintiffs vs. defendants (had the URS/UDRP not existed) gets reversed (e.g. the Yoyo.email UK "cause of action issue", as well as IGO and other groups' claimed "sovereign immunity").
With the dispute resolution procedure followed by YouTube, instead the onus is on the copyright owner (the "claimant") to file the lawsuit, in the same natural way that would exist had that dispute resolution procedure not existed. Thus, none of the issues due to reversal of plaintiff/defendant arise.
I thought it would be of interest, especially as it also might also give insights as to how "defaults" are handled.
Food for thought.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi Claudio, Thanks for your reply. Yes, the current implementation of the URS appears to leave much to be desired. I believe the intent was that the domain name would be suspended, and then go through the normal expiration cycle (which meant deletion after expiry). But, the actual implementation wasn't so clean. I'm not sure that implementing immediate cancellation would make the TM holder better off (i.e. keeping the domain name out of circulation for a while, and not having to pay for the renewals themselves might be perferable, compared with a quicker deletion). A delayed cancellation process also is desirable for a good faith domain name registrant, to allow ample time for appeal (within the URS) and/or external review by the courts (outside the URS). To show how "ugly" the current implementation is, consider this "bug" (REGISTRARS pay attention!). In the "URS Technical Requirements" https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/tech-requirements-17oct13-en.pd... one of the registrar requirements (page 5) is: "Registrar Requirement 3: Registrar MUST offer the option for the URS Complainant to extend a URS Suspended domain name's registration for up to one additional year (if allowed by the maximum validity period of the TLD) in cases where the URS Complainant prevailed. Registrar MUST pay the renewal fee for such domain name to the Registry Operator." Imagine a scenario where a registrar has domains that were registered for pennies. The registry later raises the renewal price to a very high amount (as we've seen some registries do), say $5 million (just for the sake of argument). Since the ***registrar*** MUST pay that renewal fee, they could be on the hook for some enormous payments to the registry! If you want to imagine an even "crazier" scenario, suppose a registry operator registers those domains *themselves* (or via a related party or shell company), sets up some URS disputes against "themselves" (and loses), raises the renewal fees, and then compels the registrar to pay for that renewal! Rinse, and repeat..... I think I've just discovered a new "innovative" business model for new gTLD registry operators! ;-) Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:26 AM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George, all,
Thanks for this note.
Just for clarification on the last point, as I understand the current remedies available under the URS does not include cancellation of the domain.
As a result, upon expiry the suspended domain can be renewed and used (including for abusive purposes) by the losing registrant of the URS decision.
To address this issue we can consider adding cancellation as a remedy (or otherwise modifying the URS) to minimize the need for repeated, serial enforcement against previously suspended domains.
Best regards, Claudio
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 8:09 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that they are different. Just pointing out that there are other systems out there that don't have that role reversal feature.
Also, I believe some folks had mused about the possibility of a single DRP that integrated the URS and UDRP. The issue of creation of a "Notice of Dispute", that preceded the actual dispute, also has arisen. If such a system also handled the high number of defaults differently than today, then one result might be a much lower cost procedure in the case of defaults (i.e. it could be very lightweight like the YouTube procedure), and then reference to the courts for the disputes when both sides show up and are heavily contesting the matter.
In terms of integration, one way to look at the URS is that it's very similar to a UDRP where the Complainant (TM holder) asks only for cancellation, albeit that the URS cancellation happens with a delay (under the UDRP, the cancellation would happen almost immediately, after allowing for the appeal to the courts)
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 6:30 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
George,
I know that a response has already been posted but I wanted to add my quick thoughts.
I agree that the DMCA and the UDRP/URS are not identical. In fact the roles remain reversed throughout the UDRP/URS process. The DMCA merely provides a notice, take-down followed by the opportunity to revive the posting. Once reposting occurs the issue remains as it was before the notice - the copyright owner must proceed with litigation. The UDRP/URS however, results in the domain being transferred/suspended or not. In the case of transfer, it is the registrant that must file. In the case the complaint is denied then the trademark owner has that burden (like the copyright owner in the DMCA example).
PRK
On 1/6/18, 12:23 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
There was an interesting article published today about a copyright dispute involving "white noise" videos on YouTube:
https://gizmodo.com/man-s-youtube-video-of-white-noise-hit-with-five-copyr i-1821804093
which linked to the dispute procedure that YouTube follows:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454
Going through the various links, it was very interesting that they even have a "Copyright School", see:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000
(expand the "How to resolve a copyright strike" to see the link to it), which is quite interesting, given how often the education aspect for registrants has come up in our PDP's work.
Also of interest is the section on "Counter Notification Basics":
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684
where importantly it says:
"After we process your counter notification by forwarding it to the claimant, the claimant has 10 business days to provide us with evidence that they have initiated a court action to keep the content down."
and it's the content creator who posts the relevant jurisdiction:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919
""I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is located, and will accept service of process from the claimant."
As noted in prior threads, various issues arise under the URS (and UDRP) when the natural role of plaintiffs vs. defendants (had the URS/UDRP not existed) gets reversed (e.g. the Yoyo.email UK "cause of action issue", as well as IGO and other groups' claimed "sovereign immunity").
With the dispute resolution procedure followed by YouTube, instead the onus is on the copyright owner (the "claimant") to file the lawsuit, in the same natural way that would exist had that dispute resolution procedure not existed. Thus, none of the issues due to reversal of plaintiff/defendant arise.
I thought it would be of interest, especially as it also might also give insights as to how "defaults" are handled.
Food for thought.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
I very strongly suggest that this group invite the providers to come discuss the actual workings of the URS. If you read the technical specs along with the URS itself (URS 10.3 - *Complainant* extends the registration for a year at *commercial rates* and URS Rule 14(b) which says a Complainant must discuss renewal with the registry directly), you will see that the TM owner needs to request the extension and pay for it. This is not the first time people have made erroneous assumptions on this list about how they think URS works. PLEASE ASK THE PROVIDERS or a registrar or registry before assuming a registrar would be on the hook for a renewal fee if the complainant didn't pay. Nevertheless, I note that in my past experience, there was a significant amount of good faith confusion by registry operators, registrars, and prevailing TM owners about how this renewal was to work, so I do recommend this group review the process as there is likely room for improvement. Thanks, Kristine -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 8:05 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Food for Thought: DMCA procedure at YouTube contrast with URS/UDRP Hi Claudio, Thanks for your reply. Yes, the current implementation of the URS appears to leave much to be desired. I believe the intent was that the domain name would be suspended, and then go through the normal expiration cycle (which meant deletion after expiry). But, the actual implementation wasn't so clean. I'm not sure that implementing immediate cancellation would make the TM holder better off (i.e. keeping the domain name out of circulation for a while, and not having to pay for the renewals themselves might be perferable, compared with a quicker deletion). A delayed cancellation process also is desirable for a good faith domain name registrant, to allow ample time for appeal (within the URS) and/or external review by the courts (outside the URS). To show how "ugly" the current implementation is, consider this "bug" (REGISTRARS pay attention!). In the "URS Technical Requirements" https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/tech-requirements-17oct13-en.pd... one of the registrar requirements (page 5) is: "Registrar Requirement 3: Registrar MUST offer the option for the URS Complainant to extend a URS Suspended domain name's registration for up to one additional year (if allowed by the maximum validity period of the TLD) in cases where the URS Complainant prevailed. Registrar MUST pay the renewal fee for such domain name to the Registry Operator." Imagine a scenario where a registrar has domains that were registered for pennies. The registry later raises the renewal price to a very high amount (as we've seen some registries do), say $5 million (just for the sake of argument). Since the ***registrar*** MUST pay that renewal fee, they could be on the hook for some enormous payments to the registry! If you want to imagine an even "crazier" scenario, suppose a registry operator registers those domains *themselves* (or via a related party or shell company), sets up some URS disputes against "themselves" (and loses), raises the renewal fees, and then compels the registrar to pay for that renewal! Rinse, and repeat..... I think I've just discovered a new "innovative" business model for new gTLD registry operators! ;-) Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:26 AM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George, all,
Thanks for this note.
Just for clarification on the last point, as I understand the current remedies available under the URS does not include cancellation of the domain.
As a result, upon expiry the suspended domain can be renewed and used (including for abusive purposes) by the losing registrant of the URS decision.
To address this issue we can consider adding cancellation as a remedy (or otherwise modifying the URS) to minimize the need for repeated, serial enforcement against previously suspended domains.
Best regards, Claudio
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 8:09 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that they are different. Just pointing out that there are other systems out there that don't have that role reversal feature.
Also, I believe some folks had mused about the possibility of a single DRP that integrated the URS and UDRP. The issue of creation of a "Notice of Dispute", that preceded the actual dispute, also has arisen. If such a system also handled the high number of defaults differently than today, then one result might be a much lower cost procedure in the case of defaults (i.e. it could be very lightweight like the YouTube procedure), and then reference to the courts for the disputes when both sides show up and are heavily contesting the matter.
In terms of integration, one way to look at the URS is that it's very similar to a UDRP where the Complainant (TM holder) asks only for cancellation, albeit that the URS cancellation happens with a delay (under the UDRP, the cancellation would happen almost immediately, after allowing for the appeal to the courts)
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 6:30 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
George,
I know that a response has already been posted but I wanted to add my quick thoughts.
I agree that the DMCA and the UDRP/URS are not identical. In fact the roles remain reversed throughout the UDRP/URS process. The DMCA merely provides a notice, take-down followed by the opportunity to revive the posting. Once reposting occurs the issue remains as it was before the notice - the copyright owner must proceed with litigation. The UDRP/URS however, results in the domain being transferred/suspended or not. In the case of transfer, it is the registrant that must file. In the case the complaint is denied then the trademark owner has that burden (like the copyright owner in the DMCA example).
PRK
On 1/6/18, 12:23 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
There was an interesting article published today about a copyright dispute involving "white noise" videos on YouTube:
https://gizmodo.com/man-s-youtube-video-of-white-noise-hit-with- five-copyr i-1821804093
which linked to the dispute procedure that YouTube follows:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454
Going through the various links, it was very interesting that they even have a "Copyright School", see:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000
(expand the "How to resolve a copyright strike" to see the link to it), which is quite interesting, given how often the education aspect for registrants has come up in our PDP's work.
Also of interest is the section on "Counter Notification Basics":
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684
where importantly it says:
"After we process your counter notification by forwarding it to the claimant, the claimant has 10 business days to provide us with evidence that they have initiated a court action to keep the content down."
and it's the content creator who posts the relevant jurisdiction:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919
""I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is located, and will accept service of process from the claimant."
As noted in prior threads, various issues arise under the URS (and UDRP) when the natural role of plaintiffs vs. defendants (had the URS/UDRP not existed) gets reversed (e.g. the Yoyo.email UK "cause of action issue", as well as IGO and other groups' claimed "sovereign immunity").
With the dispute resolution procedure followed by YouTube, instead the onus is on the copyright owner (the "claimant") to file the lawsuit, in the same natural way that would exist had that dispute resolution procedure not existed. Thus, none of the issues due to reversal of plaintiff/defendant arise.
I thought it would be of interest, especially as it also might also give insights as to how "defaults" are handled.
Food for thought.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ 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
Kristine: I think you can be confident that once the WG concurs regarding what data and impressions we seek from the three providers we will seek a dialogue with them. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dorrain, Kristine via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 2:49 PM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Food for Thought: DMCA procedure at YouTube contrast with URS/UDRP I very strongly suggest that this group invite the providers to come discuss the actual workings of the URS. If you read the technical specs along with the URS itself (URS 10.3 - *Complainant* extends the registration for a year at *commercial rates* and URS Rule 14(b) which says a Complainant must discuss renewal with the registry directly), you will see that the TM owner needs to request the extension and pay for it. This is not the first time people have made erroneous assumptions on this list about how they think URS works. PLEASE ASK THE PROVIDERS or a registrar or registry before assuming a registrar would be on the hook for a renewal fee if the complainant didn't pay. Nevertheless, I note that in my past experience, there was a significant amount of good faith confusion by registry operators, registrars, and prevailing TM owners about how this renewal was to work, so I do recommend this group review the process as there is likely room for improvement. Thanks, Kristine -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 8:05 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Food for Thought: DMCA procedure at YouTube contrast with URS/UDRP Hi Claudio, Thanks for your reply. Yes, the current implementation of the URS appears to leave much to be desired. I believe the intent was that the domain name would be suspended, and then go through the normal expiration cycle (which meant deletion after expiry). But, the actual implementation wasn't so clean. I'm not sure that implementing immediate cancellation would make the TM holder better off (i.e. keeping the domain name out of circulation for a while, and not having to pay for the renewals themselves might be perferable, compared with a quicker deletion). A delayed cancellation process also is desirable for a good faith domain name registrant, to allow ample time for appeal (within the URS) and/or external review by the courts (outside the URS). To show how "ugly" the current implementation is, consider this "bug" (REGISTRARS pay attention!). In the "URS Technical Requirements" https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/tech-requirements-17oct13-en.pd... one of the registrar requirements (page 5) is: "Registrar Requirement 3: Registrar MUST offer the option for the URS Complainant to extend a URS Suspended domain name's registration for up to one additional year (if allowed by the maximum validity period of the TLD) in cases where the URS Complainant prevailed. Registrar MUST pay the renewal fee for such domain name to the Registry Operator." Imagine a scenario where a registrar has domains that were registered for pennies. The registry later raises the renewal price to a very high amount (as we've seen some registries do), say $5 million (just for the sake of argument). Since the ***registrar*** MUST pay that renewal fee, they could be on the hook for some enormous payments to the registry! If you want to imagine an even "crazier" scenario, suppose a registry operator registers those domains *themselves* (or via a related party or shell company), sets up some URS disputes against "themselves" (and loses), raises the renewal fees, and then compels the registrar to pay for that renewal! Rinse, and repeat..... I think I've just discovered a new "innovative" business model for new gTLD registry operators! ;-) Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:26 AM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George, all,
Thanks for this note.
Just for clarification on the last point, as I understand the current remedies available under the URS does not include cancellation of the domain.
As a result, upon expiry the suspended domain can be renewed and used (including for abusive purposes) by the losing registrant of the URS decision.
To address this issue we can consider adding cancellation as a remedy (or otherwise modifying the URS) to minimize the need for repeated, serial enforcement against previously suspended domains.
Best regards, Claudio
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 8:09 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that they are different. Just pointing out that there are other systems out there that don't have that role reversal feature.
Also, I believe some folks had mused about the possibility of a single DRP that integrated the URS and UDRP. The issue of creation of a "Notice of Dispute", that preceded the actual dispute, also has arisen. If such a system also handled the high number of defaults differently than today, then one result might be a much lower cost procedure in the case of defaults (i.e. it could be very lightweight like the YouTube procedure), and then reference to the courts for the disputes when both sides show up and are heavily contesting the matter.
In terms of integration, one way to look at the URS is that it's very similar to a UDRP where the Complainant (TM holder) asks only for cancellation, albeit that the URS cancellation happens with a delay (under the UDRP, the cancellation would happen almost immediately, after allowing for the appeal to the courts)
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 6:30 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
George,
I know that a response has already been posted but I wanted to add my quick thoughts.
I agree that the DMCA and the UDRP/URS are not identical. In fact the roles remain reversed throughout the UDRP/URS process. The DMCA merely provides a notice, take-down followed by the opportunity to revive the posting. Once reposting occurs the issue remains as it was before the notice - the copyright owner must proceed with litigation. The UDRP/URS however, results in the domain being transferred/suspended or not. In the case of transfer, it is the registrant that must file. In the case the complaint is denied then the trademark owner has that burden (like the copyright owner in the DMCA example).
PRK
On 1/6/18, 12:23 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
There was an interesting article published today about a copyright dispute involving "white noise" videos on YouTube:
https://gizmodo.com/man-s-youtube-video-of-white-noise-hit-with- five-copyr i-1821804093
which linked to the dispute procedure that YouTube follows:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454
Going through the various links, it was very interesting that they even have a "Copyright School", see:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000
(expand the "How to resolve a copyright strike" to see the link to it), which is quite interesting, given how often the education aspect for registrants has come up in our PDP's work.
Also of interest is the section on "Counter Notification Basics":
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684
where importantly it says:
"After we process your counter notification by forwarding it to the claimant, the claimant has 10 business days to provide us with evidence that they have initiated a court action to keep the content down."
and it's the content creator who posts the relevant jurisdiction:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919
""I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is located, and will accept service of process from the claimant."
As noted in prior threads, various issues arise under the URS (and UDRP) when the natural role of plaintiffs vs. defendants (had the URS/UDRP not existed) gets reversed (e.g. the Yoyo.email UK "cause of action issue", as well as IGO and other groups' claimed "sovereign immunity").
With the dispute resolution procedure followed by YouTube, instead the onus is on the copyright owner (the "claimant") to file the lawsuit, in the same natural way that would exist had that dispute resolution procedure not existed. Thus, none of the issues due to reversal of plaintiff/defendant arise.
I thought it would be of interest, especially as it also might also give insights as to how "defaults" are handled.
Food for thought.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
participants (8)
-
BECKHAM, Brian -
claudio di gangi -
Corwin, Philip -
Dorrain, Kristine -
George Kirikos -
Nahitchevansky, Georges -
Paul Keating -
Paul Tattersfield