Comments filed today by American Red Cross

Thu Jul 22 18:20:45 CEST 2010

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.

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>] On Behalf Of Debra Hughes [HughesDeb at USA.REDCROSS.ORG<mailto:HughesDeb at USA.REDCROSS.ORG>]
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 8:21 PM
To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto: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<mailto:HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100722/ddf48399/attachment.html>