Comments filed today by American Red Cross
tlhackque
tlhackque at YAHOO.COM
Thu Jul 22 21:20:51 CEST 2010
I know we all despise the spammers and fraud-mongers. And removing and
prosecuting them will all due haste should certainly be a goal.
However, let's also remember that many individuals register domain names.
Perhaps their family name - or their pet's name - or... happens to be a keyword
in a advertising campaign in a language they don't know for a product they've
never heard of on the other side of the globe that they've never visited. And
that individual happens to take a vacation when Megacorp's legal department
decides to make an issue of it.
I don't think 20 days is unreasonable - in fact, I don't think 30 days is
unreasonable if I had to respond to such a complaint. I certainly don't have
your organization's legal resources. And I do - occasionally - take vacations
without reading e-mail.
Of course, I'd also like the spammers off the network in a microsecond or less.
But let's not amplify the leverage that the large/deep pockets have over the
individuals. Let's not assume that only the guilty will get charged.
And let's remember that "non-commercial" doesn't just mean large non-profit
groups. It's supposed to include individuals who who are registrants - and are
not engaged in fraud or 'problematic' use.
---------------------------------------------------------
This communication may not represent my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed.
________________________________
From: Debra Hughes <HughesDeb at USA.REDCROSS.ORG>
To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Sent: Thu, July 22, 2010 1:43:04 PM
Subject: Re: Comments filed today by American Red Cross
Konstantinos,
Regarding rapid decision making, in my comments, we offered the following
suggestion:
In addition, the examiner should be required to render a decision within seven
(7) business days, rather than being allowed up to 14 days, with a goal and best
practice of providing the Answer within three (3) days. Once again, the use of
a form Decision should greatly increase the ability of examiners to provide
their Decisions in a rapid manner.
Regarding your comments about 14 days to respond, let’s also remember the
difference between a “user” of the Internet and a “Registrant”. Your mention of
users below is perhaps misplaced. We are talking about Registrants of domain
names and not end users of the DNS. A Registrant had access to the Internet
when he/she registered the domain name (either personally or through another
party acting on his/her behalf). The Registrant had “all the time in the
world” to decide to register its problematic domain name for a problematic use
before he/she actually registered the domain – long before the Complaint was
aware. The Registrant also had the ability to access the Internet to engage in
fraudulent activity – he/she had plenty of time to consider and prepare the
content and use of the domain name. It’s a bit one-sided to argue that if an
organization sees a problematic use we should agree to 20 days for the
Registrant to prepare a response for the reasons you mention below. Also, a
form for the Answer could minimize the need for an attorney for Answers, but if
not, Registrants should know that the act of registering a domain name has
potential consequences. A Registrant willingly enters a contractual
relationship with the registrar when he/she decides to register a domain name.
On a related note, I think new gTLD and other outreach efforts to those in the
developing and emerging regions could offer a primer to the community about the
domain registration process – explaining the contractual relationship between
the registrar and the registrant. Guidance could be given to the community
about these processes, obligations, what a Registrant “agrees to” when registers
a domain name and an explanation of the potential consequences. Perhaps those
that offer pro bono legal services can talk about the types of assistance they
can offer Registrants in these scenarios. These are ideas I am sharing with
those involved with outreach activities within ICANN. Perhaps there are other
ideas NCUC/NCSG members have to help Registrants understand and the “business”
behind the registration process.
Debbie
Debra Y. HugheslSenior 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:Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:21 PM
To: Hughes, Debra Y.; NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: RE: Comments filed today by American Red Cross
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. HugheslSenior 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 filedby the American RedCrosson 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. Hughesl 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/c7fdc0e9/attachment.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list