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:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Debra Hughes
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 4:25 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
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
[log in to unmask]
From: NCSG-NCUC
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 6:24 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
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 <[log in to unmask]>
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 [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Debra
Hughes [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 8:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
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