Page History
Please find the details below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call scheduled for Wednesday, 10 October 2018 at 192018 at 17:00 UTC for 120 minutes.
1210:00 PDT, 1513:00 EDT, 2119:00 Paris CEST, (Thursday) 0022:00 Karachi PKT, (Thursday) 0402:00 Tokyo JST, (Thursday) 0604:00 Melbourne AEDT
For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/y8qnrxe9ycuxdz4u
| Info | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar |
| Tip | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
Attendance & AC Chatchat Apologies: Marie Pattullo, Lori Schulman, Jay Chapman, Sara Bockey |
| Note |
|---|
Notes/ Action Items Chair: Kathy Kleiman
1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates: No updates 2. Discussion of Individual URS Proposals (See: https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ) 1. George Kirikos (#5): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-5.pdf?api=v2 Discussion: -- Statute of limitations is based on known or should have known. -- Question: How does this proposal deal with issues of continuing harm? How to deal with the issue of known or should have known? -- Worth getting public comments on. -- Put into the Initial Report for discussion. There is support for and against. -- There has been no survey of national law. -- This would create an exception that could blow a hole in the policy. -- Worthy for further review and discussion. -- Needs to be put on the table for discussion. -- Ripe for discussion. Response: -- Didn't make a latches proposal because it is more complicated to prove. -- Useful to survey national law. -- Re: "submarine registration" it is a possibility but they would have to be paying renewal costs in the mean time. -- Still a recourse to the courts for all other disputes. 2. George Kirikos (#7): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-7.pdf?api=v2 Discussion: -- Support including the proposal in the Initial Report.. -- No legal contact right now in the WHOIS. Requirement for everyone is high burden. -- Revise proposal to say, "If a legal contact is required then in that case..."? -- Seems like we would be making recommendations where other parts of the community are working. -- Think it is okay to make recommendations for other groups. Response: -- Isn't meant to force someone to have a legal contact if they don't want one. It is just another means of contact in the WHOIS. 3. George Kirikos (#8): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-8.pdf?api=v2 Discussion: -- Don't know what this proposal does that doesn't already exist in the URS. -- Don't know how the three days would equate to more than what they can already do. -- The issue with actual notice not sure if you drag it out for 3 more days’ notice will be achieved. -- Seems to be effectively a limitation period. -- Would increase the time (contrary to "rapid). -- In the Sub Team analysis there was no evidence of people missing the notifications. Response: -- Having the additional time period would reduce incidences of default and suspensions. -- Seems like rapid doesn't apply to bringing complaint. -- High rate of default is evidence of the problem. 4. Marie Pattullo (staff to present on behalf of Marie) (#13): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-13.pdf?api=v2 Discussion: -- Good intention, but could be problematic to implement. Could be impossible for a registrar to handle on its own. Interested in how to overcome the technical problems. -- Would be interested in the evidence. Is it happening? Does it happen often? Check with Berry Cobb re: evidence of a losing registrant re-registering. -- Sufficient merit for going into the Initial Report. -- Creative proposal. Need to distinguish implementation changes from policy challenges. -- Costly monitoring burden on the trademark holder. -- Strongly oppose putting out for public comment when it is impossible to implement. Cannot distinguish between registrants even within the same registrar. -- Seems to be unbalanced. Response: Staff will convey the discussion from the transcript and the chat for Marie to respond to. 5. George Kirikos (#12): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-12.pdf?api=v2 Discussion: -- Strongly opposed. Challenge: If you transfer a trademark to a new owner and they do something different with it then the clock does reset. -- Support including it in the Initial Report. -- In the UDRP there is a lot of ambiguity of what the creation date represents. Ambiguity if a domain is deleted and then re-registered. Area worthy of further discussion. -- Interesting but needs further development. -- It's binary -- either it exists or it does not. Response: -- Overriding concern is that we want to have safe harbors for when a TM is transfered. -- Conceivably a domain name could not be fully deleted. -- Statute of limitations would be another way to handle it. 6. George Kirikos (#18): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-18.pdf?api=v2 Discussion: -- Needs to be reworked. Not sure it is universally applicable. -- This has been extensively debated in the IGO/INGO. -- Real problem if the policies are worded in a way that courts aren't allowing it. -- There is no real problem here -- it is an outlier case. -- Not sure in favor of the proposals as currently written. There are -- Worth getting community feedback. Response: -- There were at least 2 cases in the UK and also in Australia. 7. George Kirikos (#19): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-19.pdf?api=v2 Discussion: -- Does address the concern among some WG members that ICANN cannot decide what case a court will here. This proposal would be able to effect how courts deal with subsequent action following URS. -- In the URS there are multiple avenues for appeal. The registrant does have avenues for recourse. Response: -- Not fair to say that there are multiple avenues for recourse in the URS since it doesn't have the same recourses as a court. 8. George Kirikos (#20): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-20.pdf?api=v2 Discussion: See the chat. |
