<div>I am unfortunatly still on road to Syndey. So about NCUC working group, we have opened debate in local level to define what we can understand by "registration abuse" because slowly but surely several users need to have their own trade mark. </div>
<div>The main remarks come from legislation and reglementation which are not adapted. WIPO regulation will be necessary to clarify some points about domain name and new gTLD.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Baudouin<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">2009/6/21 Kathy Kleiman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Kathy@kathykleiman.com">Kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">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><font color="#888888">Kathy</font>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5"><br><br>
<blockquote type="cite">Dear all,<br></blockquote>
<blockquote 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 href="mailto:k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk" target="_blank">k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<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><br><br><br>On 18/06/2009 20:20, "Milton L Mueller" <<a href="http://mueller@SYR.EDU" target="_blank">mueller@SYR.EDU</a>> wrote:<br><br></div></div></span></font>
<div>
<div>
<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>
<p><font size="2"><font face="Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><b>From:</b> Non-Commercial User Constituency [<a 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 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 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></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 href="http://k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk" target="_blank">k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk</a> <br></span></font></div></blockquote>
</div><br></blockquote><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all">
<div></div><br>-- <br>SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN<br>COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC<br>COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE<br>MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE<br>téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91<br>Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571<br>
<a href="mailto:email%3Ab.schombe@gmail.com">email:b.schombe@gmail.com</a><br><a href="http://akimambo.unblog.fr">http://akimambo.unblog.fr</a><br><a href="http://educticafrique.ning.com/">http://educticafrique.ning.com/</a><br>