Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Ariel Liang
20:46
You can scroll the document on your own. Q4 is on page 16
julie.hedlund
24:11
hand up Martin
Kathy Kleiman
25:43
we are really word people - it woudl be nice to see this in writing
julie.hedlund
26:42
@Kathy: Staff have not shared any text with the Sub Team Co-Chairs and so they have not had a chance to make any edits.
Kathy Kleiman
27:26
reading it may only confuse things...
julie.hedlund
28:45
Hand up from staff
julie.hedlund
28:50
after Susan
Martin
29:16
ok
Rebecca Tushnet
32:13
Blind optimism about a notice we haven't fixed yet isn't a policy.
Lori Schulman
32:52
Hello. Sorry for being late.
Kathy Kleiman
33:42
new hand for me
Philip Corwin
33:58
My hand is up
Susan Payne
35:22
well Rebecca many of us have been saying we should fix the notice for 3+ years but sadly ithad not happened - yet
mary.wong
35:30
@Phil, that’s correct.
Kathy Kleiman
40:39
hand up
Philip Corwin
41:37
There is broad agreement that the Notice language should be amended. We can't grapple with proposed edits until we decide if we are or are not expanding the matching criteria.
Susan Payne
43:12
we don't know there are harms against registrants Kathy. we have a suspicion that some may have been deterred but we don't have data
Roger Carney
43:29
+1 Kathy, non-co-chair hat
Cyntia King
44:20
So throw the baby out w/ the bath water?If we can't eliminate teh harm let's take our toys & go home?
Kathy Kleiman
44:53
URS is the catch-all of the problems... so it's our basis for data
Lori Schulman
45:52
We should have new gTLDs and appropriate RPM's. URS is noted as under utilized because the remedy is temporary. Let's looks at UDRP.
Susan Payne
45:59
you cannot just look at the URS. with the best will, it is not the dispute mechanisms of choice for many many cases because of the limitations of the remedy, and the fact that it is intended at the slam dunk cases
Lori Schulman
46:02
WIPO studies say UDRP filings are up.
Kathy Kleiman
46:04
Neuman rule - if it's not broken, we don't fix it.
Cyntia King
46:23
URS has a very limited scope - how this an appropriate basis?
Kathy Kleiman
46:45
It is where we would see a pattern of problems if they existed in new gTLD registration.
Kathy Kleiman
47:06
Michael's proposal? He's in Sunrise...
Rebecca Tushnet
47:26
Nor is there other data supporting that TM + prespecified brandrelated keyword is a source of a significant percentage of cybersquatting issues. My point is: if you want to look at evidence, URS and UDRP provide the most public evidence and no one has suggested any other evidence.
Susan Payne
48:24
but you aren't referring to UDRP data Rebecca, only to URS, correct?
Kathy Kleiman
48:33
the data has not shown us these are problems
Rebecca Tushnet
48:49
That's correct. If you have UDRP data showing that a significant % are TM + brandrelated keyword, please share it.
julie.hedlund
49:01
@Martin: Noted.
Kathy Kleiman
49:23
We evaluated a range of matches in 2009 (STI) as did IRT. We all arrived at exact match.
Kathy Kleiman
51:02
Question to Chair: are we collecting new data at this point in time?
Kathy Kleiman
53:01
@Scott -- this runs to the issue of bad faith, doesn't it?
julie.hedlund
53:05
@Kathy: There is no new data collection. The Sub Team has completed the review of all of the data collected.
Kathy Kleiman
53:14
Tx Julie.
Martin Silva Valent
53:26
Tx Julie for answering
Susan Payne
53:46
@Phil that wasn't the point Scott was making. His point was that the registrant would have benefitted from receiving notice
julie.hedlund
54:09
@Phil: Procedurally, at discussion thread has been opened on Question 4 to complete the development of answers to the charter question and preliminary recommendations.
Kathy Kleiman
54:19
Some members of the subteam do not think we have reached the threshold to getting to proposals.
Lori Schulman
54:54
Agree Phil's comment is more about notice and less about any liabilty to registrars
julie.hedlund
55:01
hand up
Martin Silva Valent
55:22
I know Claudio you are next :-)
Philip Corwin
57:45
@Susan--unless a domain is incapable of being used in a non-infringing manner, the registrar cannot IMHO be held responsible for the registrant's subsequent infringement
Lori Schulman
58:35
Exactly...the more information the registrant has, the better.
Rebecca Tushnet
58:45
I will point out again that we have collected zero evidence that Notice deters phishers and other intentional cybersquatters.
Kathy Kleiman
59:33
But also that the post-entry protection is not showing us a pattern of problems.
Kathy Kleiman
01:00:43
@Rebecca +1 and everyone agreed to that when we worked on the Notice
Scott Austin
01:01:42
@Kathy confusing similarity as well because the use of a business descriptor is a common term not sufficiently distinctive to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. It may also support bad faith as well but the issue I am raising re the addition of the business descriptor is primarily related to prong 1 of the udrp.
Cyntia King
01:04:01
It's disingenous to suggest that the Claims Notice does not deter intentional cybersquatters. Evidence will be impossible to obtain since cybersquatters won't detail thei ilicit activity.
Griffin Barnett
01:04:09
To Rebecca's earlier point above, even assuming no evidence that notices deter intentional cybersquatters/phishers/etc., the notice still serves a useful purpose in downstream legal action, because it can then be shown that the person proceeded in disregard of the notice and being aware of the relevant rights; it is a key component of pleading wilful infringement, bnad faith, etc.