<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Dear Ed, <br>
Thank you for being on this Working Group on behalf of the NCUC. For
those of us here in Sydney, is there anyplace you would like us to be?
How can we best support the work you are doing?<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Kathy<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1c2c330a0906200626n120de7advd37b7da6b2ab5148@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Dear all,<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1c2c330a0906200626n120de7advd37b7da6b2ab5148@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
Thanks for your input on this, I'll definitely raise the issues above,
and any more anyone wishes to contribute, with the RAP-WG. I just
wanted to point out that we are expecting to make substantial changes
to the abuse list, as the WG realizes that there are lots of problems
with it at this point. That's why your commentary at this point is
helpful because we are just in the preliminary stages of editing the
list and so people are receptive to ideas about the list. <br>
<br>
Also, while I'm the only NCUCer on the group, I have confidence that
this group will be receptive to our position on limiting the number of
activities that are defined as abuse. When we were working out the
definition for registration there was a definite push to expand the
scope of what would be considered abuse. However, there was an even
stronger push on limiting the reach of the term "registration abuse."
The group is receptive to well reasoned positions and I think we can
definitely have the abuse list made more to our liking.<br>
<br>
As I said, any input anyone has would be gladly accepted.<br>
<br>
-Ed N<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 6:21 AM,
Konstantinos Komaitis <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk">k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;">Dear Edward and all,<br>
<br>
‘Gripe/commentary’ sites as abusive is a pattern that has been
established and is being promoted as a normative justification via the
UDRP. So far it is exemplified mainly via the addition of the negative
connotation <.sucks> next to the trademarked term in the SLD
space and up to this day UDRP panels consider gripe sites as abusive
and thus they transfer the domain name to the trademark owner. See for
instance the latest UDRP case on <.sucks>, which clearly
illustrates this normative pattern: ( </span></font><font size="2"><font
face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><i>Société Air
France v. Mark Allaye-Chan, </i>WIPO D2009-0327<i> (“The disputed
domain name contains the Complainant’s entire trade mark. However, it
also contains the suffix “-suck”. The disputed domain name therefore
falls within the category of so-called “sucks” cases (where a trade
mark is joined with a negative term). Previous panels who encounter
“sucks” cases have found that a domain names can be confusingly similar
to the trade mark for various reasons, including because the disputed
domain name is highly similar to the trade mark; or because the domain
name may not be recognized as negative (for example, for non-English
speaking Internet users). This view (that “sucks” domain names are
confusingly similar to the trade mark) is the majority view of previous
panels, and may even be the consensus view. See e.g.<b>, </b>Sermo,
Inc. v. CatalystMD<b> </b>LLC<b>, </b>WIPO Case No. D2008-0647,
Footnote 5; Air Austral v. Tian Yi Tong Investment Ltd., WIPO Case No.
D2009-0020. It is in any event the Panel’s preferred view in these
circumstances, particularly because the Complainant originated in
France, and may have a significant number of non-English speaking
customers who will not automatically recognize “suck” as a pejorative
term.)<br>
</i></span></font></font><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;">This is not only contrary to free speech but
it is also contrary to trademark and defamation laws. As stated, the US
has already allowed gripe sites to co-exist in harmony with trademarks
– the same way Nominet, UK has incorporated a specific clause within
their own dispute resolution services.<br>
This should be added as well as issues of RDNH, which nobody seems to
give the appropriate attention to.<br>
<br>
<br>
Best <br>
Konstantinos
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On 18/06/2009 20:20, "Milton L Mueller" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://mueller@SYR.EDU" target="_blank">mueller@SYR.EDU</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</span></font>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<blockquote><font color="#000080"><font size="2"><font face="Arial"><span
style="font-size: 10pt;">Wow. I just noticed that the list of abuses
contains “gripe/commentary” sites. In other words, this is an attempt
to define free expression and commentary using trademarked names as an
abuse – it is just an attempt to stifle criticism. <br>
<br>
Edward, that has to go. First, it does not represent well-established
positions of this constituency; second it is literally ILLEGAL under
U.S. law – it is well settled case law now that the use of trademarked
names in grip domains is legal and protected by the First Amendment. <br>
<br>
</span></font></font></font><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;">
</span></font>
<p align="center"><font face="Times New Roman"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%"></span></font></p>
<p><font size="2"><font face="Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 10pt;"><b>From:</b> Non-Commercial User Constituency
[<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"
target="_blank">mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Edward Nunes<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:16 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank">NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] GNSO working group<br>
</span></font></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;"> <br>
</span></font><font size="1"><font
face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span style="font-size: 9pt;">Hey all,<br>
</span></font></font><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font><font size="1"><font
face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span style="font-size: 9pt;">I just
wanted to update you all on what's been happening with the Registration
Abuse Policy Working Group.<br>
</span></font></font><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font><font size="1"><font
face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span style="font-size: 9pt;">Since I
joined the GNSO Registration Abuse Policies Working Group the
discussion within the group has focused on the definition of
registration abuse. During the April 27th meeting we decided on a
working definition of abuse:<br>
</span></font></font><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font><font size="1"><font
face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span style="font-size: 9pt;"> <br>
</span></font></font><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font><font size="1"><font
face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span style="font-size: 9pt;">Abuse
is an action that:<br>
</span></font></font><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font><font size="1"><font
face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span style="font-size: 9pt;">1.
Causes actual and substantial harm, or is a material predicate of such
harm, and<br>
</span></font></font><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font><font size="1"><font
face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span style="font-size: 9pt;">2. Is
illegal or illegitimate, or is otherwise considered contrary to the
intention and design of a stated legitimate purpose, if such purpose is
disclosed.<br>
</span></font></font><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font><font size="1"><font
face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span style="font-size: 9pt;">Notes:<br>
</span></font></font><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font><font size="1"><font
face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span style="font-size: 9pt;">* This
is a working definition as per group consensus on April 27, 2009 and
may be re-visited should the WG find it inadequate after examining some
specific examples.<br>
</span></font></font><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font><font size="1"><font
face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span style="font-size: 9pt;">* The
party or parties harmed, and the substance or severity of the abuse,
should be identified and discussed in relation to a specific proposed
abuse.<br>
</span></font></font><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font><font size="1"><font
face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span style="font-size: 9pt;">* The
term "harm" is not intended to shield a party from fair market
competition.<br>
</span></font></font><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font><font size="2"><font face="Arial"><span
style="font-size: 10pt;">* The above definition of abuse is indebted
to the definition of "misuse" in the document "Working Definitions for
Key Terms that May be Used in Future WHOIS Studies" prepared by the
GNSO Drafting Team [18 February 2009, at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-working-definitions-study-terms-18feb09.pdf"
target="_blank">http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-working-definitions-study-terms-18feb09.pdf</a>].<br>
</span></font></font><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font><font size="1"><font
face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span style="font-size: 9pt;">While
this is the definition we are sticking with for now, there has been
numerous issued raised about this definition both in and outside the
working group. Issues raised included:<br>
</span></font></font><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font><font size="2"><font face="Symbol"><span
style="font-size: 10pt;">·</span></font><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font
face="Times New Roman"> </font></span></font><font size="1"><font
face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span style="font-size: 9pt;">The use
of “stated” and “disclosed in clause 2 is redundant.<br>
</span></font></font><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font><font size="2"><font face="Symbol"><span
style="font-size: 10pt;">·</span></font><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font
face="Times New Roman"> </font></span></font><font size="1"><font
face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span style="font-size: 9pt;">The use
of “illegal” and “illegitimate” in clause 2 is redundant.<br>
</span></font></font><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font><font size="2"><font face="Symbol"><span
style="font-size: 10pt;">·</span></font><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font
face="Times New Roman"> </font></span></font><font size="1"><font
face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span style="font-size: 9pt;">There
should be an intent requirement for violators, so as to limit abuse to
malicious abusers.<br>
</span></font></font><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font><font size="2"><font face="Symbol"><span
style="font-size: 10pt;">·</span></font><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font
face="Times New Roman"> </font></span></font><font size="1"><font
face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span style="font-size: 9pt;">“Illegal”
is too vague of a term, as the law varies among the jurisdictions of
the world.<br>
</span></font></font><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font><font size="2"><font face="Symbol"><span
style="font-size: 10pt;">·</span></font><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font
face="Times New Roman"> </font></span></font><font size="1"><font
face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span style="font-size: 9pt;">“Harm”
is too broad of a term.<br>
</span></font></font><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font><font size="2"><font face="Symbol"><span
style="font-size: 10pt;">·</span></font><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font
face="Times New Roman"> </font></span></font><font size="1"><font
face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span style="font-size: 9pt;">The
section “material predicate of such harm” creates an overly broad
definition of abuse.<br>
</span></font></font><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font><font size="2"><font face="Symbol"><span
style="font-size: 10pt;">·</span></font><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font
face="Times New Roman"> </font></span></font><font size="1"><font
face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span style="font-size: 9pt;">“Illegitimate”
is too vague of a term.<br>
</span></font></font><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font><font size="2"><font face="Symbol"><span
style="font-size: 10pt;">·</span></font><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font
face="Times New Roman"> </font></span></font><font size="1"><font
face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span style="font-size: 9pt;">“Illegal”
is a legal conclusion derived from a court proceeding.<br>
</span></font></font><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">o</span></font></font><font
size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></span></font><font size="1"><font
face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span style="font-size: 9pt;">There
has been some preliminary talk about the process to determine if
whether something constitutes registration abuse, but no decisions have
been made on this subject.<br>
</span></font></font><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font><font size="1"><font
face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span style="font-size: 9pt;">While
we are sticking with this definition for now, we understand there are
issues with it and expect to revisit it at a later time.<br>
In the May 11th meeting we focused on defining “registration”, and how
this definition will effect th<br>
</span></font></font></p>
</blockquote>
<font size="1"><font face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 9pt;"><br>
</span></font></font></div>
</div>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;">-- <br>
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,<br>
Lecturer in Law,<br>
GigaNet Membership Chair,<br>
University of Strathclyde,<br>
The Lord Hope Building,<br>
141 St. James Road,<br>
Glasgow, G4 0LT,<br>
UK<br>
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306<br>
email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk"
target="_blank">k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk</a> <br>
</span></font>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>