<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
panose-1:3 15 7 2 3 3 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D;}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Konstantinos. Wow. I am so glad
you are able to cover this for us. So is it possible to get rid of the PDDRP
entirely? Or are they just going to modify it? If the latter, what proposals
can we make that will limit the damage and make it more fair? What are the
registries after? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:#1F497D'>Milton Mueller<br>
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies<br>
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology<br>
------------------------------<br>
Internet Governance Project:<br>
<a href="http://internetgovernance.org">http://internetgovernance.org</a></span><span
style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Non-Commercial User
Constituency [mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Konstantinos
Komaitis<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 14, 2010 4:53 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [NCUC-DISCUSS] ICANN consultation on new gTLD Agreement process
and post-delegation dispute resolution process.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'>Dear all,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'>I would like to give you an update on the ICANN consultation on
new gTLD Agreement amendment process and post-delegation dispute resolution
process I attended yesterday evening. This meeting was initiated by the
Registry Constituency, which is concerned with the PDDRP and its potential
impact upon the future of Registries.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'>A quick reminder: the Post-Delegation dispute resolution process
is an additional trademark defense under the new gTLD programme. Under this
process, trademark owners will be able to turn against a Registry and seek to
prove that the Registry has engaged in a systematic registration of domain
names that infringe upon their rights. The remedies are severe and can
potentially lead to the cancellation of the contractual relationship between
the Registry and ICANN. So, in essence, every Registry is amenable to trademark
intimidation and abuse, just like domain name holders are. If this system is
finally endorsed trademark owners will have at their disposal the following
mechanisms: the UDRP, the newly-established URS and the PDDRP. For me, all
these mechanisms demonstrate an awkward resemblance, which demonstrates a clear
lack of consideration and the impact that they can potentially have upon the
whole registration system. The full text of the policy can be found here: (<span
class=apple-style-span>http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-trademark-pddrp-redline-15feb10-en.pdf)</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'>One of the things that was heavily discussed was the involvement
and role of ICANN within this process. ICANN seeks to waive any sort of
responsibility and abstain from actively being involved in the process,
something that of course Registries do not agree with. Registries want ICANN to
be part and take full responsibility of the decisions reached under the PDDRP,
because of the contractual agreement that it holds with Registries. Amy Stathos
claimed that the PDDRP is not part of the contractual agreement that Registries
hold with ICANN and therefore there is no justification for ICANN’s involvement
in the process. But here is the catch – 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. So on the one hand ICANN does not want to be involved in the process so
as to avoid any sort of liability issues, but on the other hand they are fully
involved. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'>Kathy Kleiman expressed concerns over the justification of such
a system and the way it has been promoted, while Jeff Neuman said that this
policy raises serious legal issues, such as privity of contract, that have not been
clearly taken under consideration and will create much more problems than the
ones they seek to address. There was a great fear by most of the participants
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. Chuck Gomes made the very accurate
comment that in any case we need to think that the registration system is not
only aimed to please big brand owners and that there are so many other
participants, like individual users and small trademark owners, that we tend to
forget. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'>The Registries’ position is also 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. There was a lot of
discussion on the de novo review issue – many analogies were drawn with the
UDRP and the way de novo review is working, many of which were mistaken on the
fact that they considered the UDRP an arbitration process, which is not (there
is US case having established this: Dan Parisi v. Netlearing Inc.). Moreover,
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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'>I spoke about all these issues in line with the comments we made
during the public period (</span><span class=apple-style-span><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:black'><a
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/ppdrp-15feb10/">http://forum.icann.org/lists/ppdrp-15feb10/</a>).
</span></span><span class=apple-style-span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:#1F497D'>I expressed the great fear
that this process, unless very carefully designed and justified, will upset the
registration culture and will create a very unfriendly environment for
individual registrants. In essence what this policy does is asking Registries
to become content-controllers, a task that they don’t want nor should they be
allowed to perform. I expressed my fear that we are designing a DNS and
the new gTLD programme that is tilted toward protecting trademark interests,
forgetting that it is mainly individual users and registrants that are mainly
supporting the DNS. I also expressed our great concern over the way WIPO has
handled UDRP disputes and the way it is expected it will handle PDDRP ones
(something that as you can understand did not go down well with WIPO, which was
participating in the call). On the three member panel issue, I said that this
rule must be implemented because we are talking about the potential
cancellation of a whole Registry, something that will have a roll-on effect
upon individual and non-commercial domain name registrants. </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:#1F497D'>I had to cut
the call short by 30 minutes because it was getting too late and unfortunately
I do not have anything to report on the issue of Registry amendment process.
However, the meeting was recorded and it will be made available.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:#1F497D'>KK</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'>Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'>Law Lecturer,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'>University of Strathclyde,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'>The Law School,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'>The Lord Hope Building,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'>141 St. James Road,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'>Glasgow, G4 0LT<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'>UK<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'>tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'>http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765</span><span
lang=EN-GB style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'>Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
color:#1F497D'>Website: http://domainnamelaw.ning.com/</span><span lang=EN-GB
style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='color:#1F497D'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>