As we know, in the new gTLD process, ICANN's proposed Global Protected Marks List was a non-starter while the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) process has been eventually accepted. The URS allows for fast-track suspension (not transfer as per UDRP) of egregious infringers. What hasn't been resolved is the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution (PDDRP) process which is where an actual registry could be taken down by IP complaints. There is mounting concern amongst both registries and regoistrants that this could be abused. The full text of the policy: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-trademark-pddrp-redline-15feb... Public comments <http://forum.icann.org/lists/ppdrp-15feb10/> Below I have highlighted some comments at an ICANN consulatation this week as reported by Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis of the NCUC The PDDRP is not part of the contractual agreement that Registries hold with ICANN but under the PDDRP ICANN will be responsible for determining the remedies should a PDDRP panel find that the Registry has been involved in systematic registrations that infringe trademark rights. There is fear that, just like the UDRP, the PDDRP will be abused by trademark owners with Registries having no other option but to suspend and cancel domain names in an effort to avoid being engaged in the PDDRP. The Registries’ position is that monetary damages are not appropriate for this system and that a de novo review should be in place that will allow the losing party to challenge the PDDRP decision. Registries asked for the incorporation of safe harbours within the PDDRP (like in the UDRP) and for some kind of monitoring of the complaints (the complaint should have a close nexus with the alleged infringed rights – e.g. Nike cannot ask the cancellation of domain names relating to Adidas). Finally, Registries also asked for a 3-member panel rule, instead of a single panel. The National Arbitration Forum, which was participating in this dispute, agreed with most of the Registries’ comments and said that under its current design the PDDRP is open to abuse. NCUC considers this policy does is asking Registries to become content-controllers, and tilts the new gTLD programme toward protecting trademark interests, forgetting that it is mainly individual users and registrants that are mainly supporting the DNS. NCUC is also already concerned over the way WIPO handles UDRP disputes, insists on the the three member panel in consideration of the potential cancellation of a whole Registry, something that will have a roll-on effect upon individual and non-commercial domain name registrants. DR. KK suggests that registries are treading gingerly to avoid offending IP Stakeholders but, as contracted parties, are insisting ICANN become involved in the process. ICANN itself doesn't want to get involved in IP disputes. It's not out of the question that there should be some process to rein in 'rogue' registries, but it seems near impossible to create one based on IP without a 'chilling' effect. Question: Are the UDRP and the proposed URS sufficient? - do we need the PDDRP? -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------