And let’s remember that individuals
that register domain names should be responsible for their contractual obligations,
right? To be clear, I am not minimizing that an organization may have
more resources than a person who registers a domain name. However, we
have to find a way to balance the interests - helping those trying to quickly
take down domains registered by bad actors for serious cases and helping individual
registrants understand the nature of the playing field when they enter this
commercial arena. Because honestly, one could argue that obtaining a
domain name is a commercial transaction, even when used to connect family members.
And when individuals engage in commercial activities, like buying keywords to
help people find their domain, maybe they should carefully consider the rules
of the road.
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 tlhackque
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 3:21
PM
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Comments filed today
by American Red Cross
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
<[log in to unmask]>
To:
[log in to unmask]
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. 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: Konstantinos
Komaitis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010
12:21 PM
To: Hughes, Debra Y.;
[log in to unmask]
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:[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