ICANN consultation on new gTLD Agreement process and post-delegation dispute resolution process.

[Mary Wong]

BTW, the IRT discussed (and ultimately proposed) a form of PDDRP that was different from what WIPO was (at that time) and is (currently) recommending, and the recent ICANN proposal is (as far as I can remember) not identical to either.
 
As Konstantinos says, a number of Registries are troubled by the current proposal, with one major sticking point being ICANN's involvement (or lack thereof) and another being the relationship with the contractual registry arrangements with ICANN. At the same time, there is something to be said, very generally, for having a mechanism that deals with "rogue" registries (and a number of Registries are in favor of a narrowly-tailored one that protects registrant interests). I recall also that ICANN's last proposal consisted of 2 types of post-delegation dispute mechanisms, one specific to community gTLDs. Were both discussed and still "on the table", so to speak?
 
Cheers
Mary
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>> 


From: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK>
To:<NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
Date: 4/14/2010 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: ICANN consultation on new gTLD Agreement process and post-delegation dispute resolution process.
I feel that registries are split on this - some would really like to see the
PDDRP go altogether (especially the ones that have public interests issues
as a primary focus), whilst others would like to see the PDDRP amended but
not gone because they want to please their trademark customers. What we need
to understand is that behind the PDDRP is the trademark constituency and
WIPO (which at the time at least seems to be the sole PDDRP provider) so
getting rid of it will be difficult but not entirely impossible (we managed
to do this with the IRT's GPML). From the phone call yesterday it became
obvious that ICANN does not want to get involved in this process for the
fear of Registries ultimately turning against it, but Registries are pushing
for ICANN taking its share of responsibility. I have a feeling that ICANN
would much rather see the PDDRP being scraped than be part of it.

In our comments we put forward some propositions of making the system
fairer: availability of de novo appeal, introduction of statute of
limitations, adequate time for response, a standard 3-panel rule, etc. But
even if we do all these things the main issue with the PDDRP will remain:
Registries will be forced to check content, will suspend domain names
without proper review and this will ultimately create a trademark-oriented
DNS - exactly what trademark owners are after.

Personally my hunch is to seek to get rid of it. Brussels will be key on
this. I don't know who is the 'mastermind' behind this, but what is being
proposed has huge legal ramifications that are not properly thought through;
needless to say that the whole registration environment will change
completely with such a dispute in place.

KK


On 14/04/2010 16:21, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:

> 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?
> 
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Konstantinos Komaitis
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 4:53 AM
> To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] ICANN consultation on new gTLD Agreement process and
> post-delegation dispute resolution process.
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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:
> (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-trademark-pddrp-redline-15feb1
> 0-en.pdf)
> 
> One of the things that was heavily discussed was the involvement and role of
> ICANN within this pro

-- 
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
Lecturer in Law,
GigaNet Membership Chair,
University of Strathclyde,
The Lord Hope Building,
141 St. James Road,
Glasgow, G4 0LT,
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
email: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100414/81cc51b3/attachment.html>