[PC-NCSG] Draft motion on UDRP

Wed Nov 9 16:06:50 EET 2011

Thanks, Joy and KK. A couple of observations:

- the original reference to 2 UDRP sessions in Singapore was taken from the Report. I assume the 2nd session it refers to is the GNSO weekend working session where there was an update and discussion that was open to the community. I think we should leave it as two and not change it to one.

- the mention of the UDRP being the oldest policy that has not been reviewed, while true, doesn't seem to fit within the Whereas clause which mentions diversity of viewpoints. I can try to fit it in somewhere else, perhaps in one of the following whereas clauses which argues for doing the PDP, if you want it stated.

With those changes, I can send it to the Council unless someone else has comments. At this stage, it may be easier to put your comment in an email rather than revise the draft as it may be difficult for me to know whose is the more recent if several people start revising at the same time. Thanks!

I'm online for the next couple of hours and then get on a 17+ hour flight :-) 

Thanks and cheers
Mary

"Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk>" <k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote:

Thanks Mary and Joy for holding the drafting pen on this. I am attaching the latest version of the motion, with a couple of additions. I like Joy?s suggestions below ? just a couple of points:

?         In relation to the resolutions and areas of focus ? I wonder if this casts the net too widely? By suggesting a focus on process and  substance and multiple working groups the risk is (even supposing the motion is successful) that the task is too big. Perhaps a smaller more tightly focused piece of work would have more chance of getting traction and be more difficult to argue against?
This is a valid point and I totally agree with it. Although there are various issues concerning the substance of the UDRP, it might be wise to initiate a PDP on the process of the UDRP and then continue with the substance. This way we have a two-stage approach, which is more organized and we can say that it won?t create as many problems. I remember that the IPC was particularly concerned with changing the substance (although they also had issues with the process), so this might be a compromise.

?         I like (3) ? phasing the work, but could this also be narrowed to make it more manageable, for example: focusing initially on certain types of disputes (such as only those related to ccTLDs) or certain parts of the process
Again great suggestion Joy. One thing ? the UDRP is mainly focusing on the gTLDs (although it has been implemented by ccTLD operators and Registries). So, we can suggest that initially we would like to focus on those disputes concerning free speech (mainly paragraph 4(c)(iii)) and the way this provision is interpreted. Another one is the bad faith registration AND use, which is interpreted by some panels as bad faith registration OR use ? going against the policy itself.
Can someone please make sure that this motion is sent to Glen?
Thanks
KK

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

Senior Lecturer,
Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
Graham Hills building,
50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA
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: www.komaitis.org<http://www.komaitis.org>

From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Joy Liddicoat
Sent: ???????, 9 ????????? 2011 2:49 ??
To: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org; 'Robin Gross'
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Draft motion on UDRP

Thanks Mary for this draft ? great job. Some quick thoughts and suggested amendments in the attached (mindful of my newness to this area and the labyrinth of ICANN process related rules?.):

?         How specific does the resolution need to be? Would it be enough to have resolution 1 (ie the first para starting ?RESOVLED?) and in RESOLVED 2 simply request the drafting team to submit the working group charter to the GNSO for approval at its next meeting?

?         The preamble could be strengthened by taking (1) ? (3) in the RESOLVED 2 para and putting it in the preamble ? giving a nod to the concerns in the ICANN staff report, but stating that these are manageable, without bogging down the resolution with that detail

?         In relation to the resolutions and areas of focus ? I wonder if this casts the net too widely? By suggesting a focus on process and  substance and multiple working groups the risk is (even supposing the motion is successful) that the task is too big. Perhaps a smaller more tightly focused piece of work would have more chance of getting traction and be more difficult to argue against?

?         I like (3) ? phasing the work, but could this also be narrowed to make it more manageable, for example: focusing initially on certain types of disputes (such as only those related to ccTLDs) or certain parts of the process

?         Does RESOLVED 3 need ?and such other similar issues and recommendations as it considers appropriate? added ? to cover all bases?
I?ve attached a revised version with these suggested amendments (though not on point 4 above - re narrowing the scope - at this stage). Fire away all!
Cheers
Joy
From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu
Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2011 12:01 p.m.
To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org; Robin Gross
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Draft motion on UDRP

Sorry this was done in a bit of a hurry - can folks please comment on the attached? I'm in airports tomorrow morning and get on a plane for Asia around noon EST, so either someone else takes over the drafting pen if this is too far from what you had in mind and takes charge of sending it in, or if you can let me know ASAP, I can send it in either as-is or with just a bit of tinkering.

Thanks,
Mary

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu<mailto:mary.wong at law.unh.edu>
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>>>
From:

Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>

To:

<pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>

Date:

11/8/2011 5:53 PM

Subject:

[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] TR: Document and motion Deadline 9 November for GNSO Council meeting on 17 Novembre at 20:00 UTC

Begin forwarded message:

From: Glen de Saint G*ry <Glen at icann.org<mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
Date: November 8, 2011 2:46:50 PM PST
To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org<mailto:liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: [liaison6c] TR: Document and motion Deadline 9 November for GNSO Council meeting on 17 Novembre at 20:00 UTC

Dear Councillors,
Reports, motions  and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 8 days in advance (i.e.Wednesday, 9 November 2011) of the GNSO Council meeting on 17 November, 2011 at 20:00 UTC.

If you have reports for consideration, please send them directly to me at GNSO.Secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:GNSO.Secretariat at gnso.icann.org> so that they can be forwarded to the Council. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list.

Thank you very much.
Kind regards,
Glen
Glen de Saint G*ry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
http://gnso.icann.org

IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>