Comments filed today by American Red Cross

[Alex Gakuru]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis <
k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote:

>  Just one point I would like to clarify being involved and having
> researched on both the UDRP and the URS. In a system of adjudication, the
> term ‘rapid’ does not really refer to the speed leading up to the
> adjudication process; rather, it refers to the ‘rapidness’ of the
> decision-making process. And, the recommendation of the STI has been
> consistent with this, instructing panels to submit their decisions within 3
> business days.
>
>
>
> This distinction in determining ‘rapidness’ is crucial for the adjudication
> process and in Brussels as well as from the comments it appears that the
> trademark community misinterprets what we mean by rapidness. No system is
> fair if it is rapid during the discovery process or in any other process
> leading up to adjudication.
>
>
>
> And, 14 days is not really fair. Again, just like the problems with the
> UDRP, the complainant has all the time in the world to compile, submit and
> file the complaint. The Respondent is given only 14 days? What about
> legitimate Registrants located in parts of the world with limited Internet
> access? For many users the Internet is still not a given. What about
> legitimate Registrants whose first language is not English? What about
> legitimate Registrants that have to find a lawyer to compile the Response on
> their behalf? All these are legitimate reasons for the deadline to be 20
> days – at least that is how I feel and that is what 10 years of UDRP
> experience teaches us.
>
> Simply put, if this sails through as is, then it should be expected that
those of registrants in the developing regions connectivity islands of
scantly and/or poorly communication networks  will literally exist on the
internet out of the kindness of considerate wealthy complainants out whom
will not, graciously, take down our domains in the 14 days?

Will these on DAG4 not mean the final move towards highly commercial
big-brand Internet? When do we - the non-commercial users, bid farewell to
thee good old open Internet?


> KK
>
>
>
> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
>
> Law Lecturer,
>
> Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
>
> University of Strathclyde,
>
> The Law School,
>
> The Lord Hope Building,
>
> 141 St. James Road,
>
> Glasgow, G4 0LT
>
> UK
>
> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
>
>
> http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
>
> Selected publications:
> http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
>
> Website: http://domainnamelaw.ning.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] *On Behalf
> Of *Debra Hughes
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 22, 2010 4:25 PM
>
> *To:* NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: Comments filed today by American Red Cross
>
>
>
> Thanks, Rafik.  The work of the JAS WG is very important and of course
> related, in part, to the outreach work we are both involved with on the OSC
> Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team.
>
>
>
> About the thin v. think comment below: In a thin registry (.COM is an
> example), the Whois records includes limited data - only enough to identify
> the registrar of the domain name (registrar name, registration status,
> creation/expiration dates).  So, for a problematic .COM domain, obtaining
> the contact details for the registrant is a two (or three or four or five…)
> step process for research.
>
>
>
> For example,
>
> Step 1: Look up the domain name using a Whois service of choice. Find out
> registrar.
>
> Step 2: Then, go to that particular registrar’s Whois service to obtain the
> publicly available Registrant’s contact information.
>
> Step 3:  If the bad actor is using a privacy/proxy service, I have to keep
> my fingers crossed that the privacy/proxy service has a fair (and hopefully
> easy and inexpensive) system for me to request the concealed contact
> information for the Registrant. Hopefully they will follow their policy!
>
> Step 4:  Proxy/privacy service does not have a system to request underlying
> contact information or ignores request, I have to decide whether it makes
> sense to spend donor dollars to get a subpoena, if applicable or escalate
> the request for contact information.
>
>
>
> A record from a registry operating a thick Whois server (like .ORG)
> includes the registrant’s contact information, admin/tech and the registrar
> info.  It eliminates having to go two places to get the publicly available
> Registrant contact info, which is important for not for profit organization
> that are often asked to do more with less resources.  The other benefit of a
> thick registry is when a registrar goes out of business, the thick registry
> will retain the registrant info (except if the registrant used a privacy/proxy
> service).
>
>
>
> About the URS, I think fairness is important – fairness to the registrant
> and a fair procedure for an organization that is being harmed by a bad actor
> from a "clear cut” instance” of trademark abuse.”  I think the suggestion of
> giving Registrants 14 days, rather than 20 days to file an Answer is fair,
> not abusive and consistent with the intent of “rapid” suspension.  Also, if
> ICANN provides a form complaint and reduces the word/page limit, it is
> possible a Registrant, who is inexperienced with such actions, might feel
> less intimidated.  Also, the suggestion of a form Answer can help
> inexperienced Registrants prepare responses.
>
>
>
> Debbie
>
>
>
> *Debra Y. Hughes** l** Senior Counsel*
> *American Red Cross*
>
> Office of the General Counsel
> 2025 E Street, NW
> Washington, D.C. 20006
> Phone: (202) 303-5356
> Fax: (202) 303-0143
> HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] *On Behalf
> Of *Rafik Dammak
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 22, 2010 6:24 AM
> *To:* NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: Comments filed today by American Red Cross
>
>
>
> Hello Debbie,
>
>
>
> Thanks for comments sent to the JAS WG, the document is shared within the
> WG members.
>
>
>
> I was little bit puzzled by the mention of  supporting thick whois as
> suggested by IRT, even there are some people arguing for that , I think that
> a balanced solution for common ground of different interests is mandatory
> with safeguard for privacy. also about URS, maybe we can assume that there
> is need make it simple and short, how we can prevent abuse of using URS for
> this supposed mechanism to prevent abuse?
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Rafik
>
> 2010/7/22 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
>
> Deb:
>
> Glad to see that Red Cross is endorsing the idea that nonprofits might use
> a new gTLD for "internal business purposes under a model that is different
> from a commercial, profit-driven new gTLD"
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* NCSG-NCUC [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Debra
> Hughes [HughesDeb at USA.REDCROSS.ORG]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 21, 2010 8:21 PM
> *To:* NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] Comments filed today by American Red Cross
>
> All,
>
> Attached are comments filed by the American Red Cross on the Joint SO/AC
> Working Group Report and on DAG4.
>
> <<American Red Cross Comments on Joint SO-AC WG Report - 07212010.pdf>>
> <<American Red Cross Comments on DAGv4 - 07212010.pdf>>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Debbie
>
> *Debra Y. Hughes** l Senior Counsel*
>
> *American Red Cross*
>
> Office of the General Counsel
>
> 2025 E Street, NW
>
> Washington, D.C. 20006
>
> Phone: (202) 303-5356
>
> Fax: (202) 303-0143
>
> HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100722/6e0af593/attachment.html>