question ICA: Big Players propose to change domain owners rights?

[offthehandle]

https://domaininvesting.com/phil-corwin-leaves-ica/

Eliot quoted on reprint from his blog this statement.

We see the next 18-24 months as critical for the domain industry. In the policy arena there are ongoing initiatives that have the potential to dramatically impact our ability to protect our assets and conduct business. There are large, well-funded and determined players working to change domain intellectual property law in ways that could dramatically impact our community.

Anybody have an idea who is behind the changes in IP Law?.

I did a search on the ICA website and found no results.
https://www.internetcommerce.org/

 

[ctmixing]

CSC Global represent alot of Fortune 500 companies and big brands. Their clients own a sh*t ton of "Valuable/unused/bad faith" domain names. You can even call CSC Global right now and buy a domain name from one of their clients if it is unused. I doubt these same companies are paying their lawyers to push change that would put their on domain names in jeopardy.


This sounds like a scare tactic to bring down the aftermarket pricing! That way the big fish can swoop in a buy it all up. Then drive the value higher than its ever been. Don't believe the B.S

 

[pokainc]

One big reason the "panic" mode is a bit subsiding until further info is the fact that Godaddy spent 50 million buying a portfolio recently. No matter how you cut it, If they saw the trend going towards against domain investing, then why in the world would they have spent all that money... you invest where you see growth and profits.... logically anyway.. I'm sure Godaddy (as an entity) has a better pulse of what's happening with key legislation than most people.

 

[Bullock]

CSC Global represent alot of Fortune 500 companies and big brands. Their clients own a sh*t ton of "Valuable/unused/bad faith" domain names. You can even call CSC Global right now and buy a domain name from one of their clients if it is unused. I doubt these same companies are paying their lawyers to push change that would put their on domain names in jeopardy.


This sounds like a scare tactic to bring down the aftermarket pricing! That way the big fish can swoop in a buy it all up. Then drive the value higher than its ever been. Don't believe the B.S

I totally agree!

It seems to me there is a sneaky "war" among lobbies whose purposes are underhand.

 

[HotKey]

One big reason the "panic" mode is a bit subsiding until further info is the fact that Godaddy spent 50 million buying a portfolio recently. No matter how you cut it, If they saw the trend going towards against domain investing, then why in the world would they have spent all that money... you invest where you see growth and profits.... logically anyway.. I'm sure Godaddy (as an entity) has a better pulse of what's happening with key legislation than most people.

Large portfolio holders could quickly offload their inventory super-cheap to unsuspecting buyers months or years before the $hit actually hits the fan. Also, in many large corporations different departments are rarely "in sync" with each other, meaning one hand doesn't speak to the other.

 

[pokainc]

Although that is a known fact, I doubt Godaddy would risk their reputation by doing something that many can parallel to insider trading type of acts... and I highly doubt the purchasing department spends that kind of money without the proper vetting which would indicate that it's a sound investment which includes potential upcoming legislative changes. 100K maybe, 50 million, doubt it. It's speculation at this point, but the signs show still in favor of domain investing. Maybe for flagrant violators it will be tougher.

 

[ctmixing]

Large portfolio holders could quickly offload their inventory super-cheap to unsuspecting buyers months or years before the $hit actually hits the fan. Also, in many large corporations different departments are rarely "in sync" with each other, meaning one hand doesn't speak to the other.

This is a share holder's conversation. Not really something different departments can partake in.

 

[pokainc]

Don't want to get off topic by going into specifics of Godaddy.. but we don't know if the decision to spend these funds are a shareholders' decision or not. The purchasing department doesn't consult the shareholders every time they are going to make a move... also even if it was a shareholders' conversation, when they present a potential interest to invest 50 million, they present the prospect with data backing their intentions which usually comes from an internal study.. anywho.. again this is all speculation.

 

[offthehandle]

@GeorgeK and @Nat Cohen I went and took both your advice and joined the ICA working group but only as an observer. For now, until I dig into this I am confused about archived debates and votes and past events and emails, and how many subgroups there are and the organization. Very few names other than both of yours did I recognize.

There are quite a few NP members who have that ICA icon, yet they are not on the list that I received.

I am not sure about making comments in this venue since it seems politicized, and I am not a politician. So I will lurk for now and get some education on whats going on and might change my mind. These roundrobin emails so far are interesting.

Glad to see you are vocal like these past few days posts. Keep up the good work.
Thsnk you for the recommendation.

 

[GeorgeK]

@GeorgeK and @Nat Cohen I went and took both your advice and joined the ICA working group but only as an observer. For now, until I dig into this I am confused about archived debates and votes and past events and emails, and how many subgroups there are and the organization. Very few names other than both of yours did I recognize.

Was it for the RPM PDP working group, i.e. at:

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729950

If so, that's an ICANN working group that's open to all (not a working group from the ICA, although some ICA members like Nat are in it).

 

[offthehandle]

Yes, Thank you very much for sharing that information and for making me aware of it and for any others who want to join. I just checked your link and that’s the group. It’s from the earlier link you posted in the thread I believe. The moderator responded immediately and was very professional.

Are there other emailing groups like that covering domain name owners rights you might also suggest? Thanks again.

 

[GeorgeK]

Are there other emailing groups like that covering domain name owners rights you might also suggest? Thanks again.

Within ICANN, other policymaking mailing lists are mentioned at:

https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/mailing-lists
https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active

There are also groups like ALAC and the Business Constituency:

https://atlarge.icann.org/
http://www.bizconst.org/

 

[offthehandle]

Ok, Thanks George- I will take a look at those links.

 

[offthehandle]

I have been reading the various emails from the RPM working group. I am just getting into reading this and see you are quite outspoken and active and posting some good comments regarding the article URL you shared such as:

"It challenges conventional dogma, which might make some uncomfortable
who rely on that dogma, but is a well reasoned work in my view."

 

[offthehandle]

@GeorgeK Reading the RPM email today- I am observing and reading here and there, can you shed some light on what's with this disclaimer? I thought the entire thing was an open book.

I have been following along mostly only what you write, and you put a great deal of effort into your posting WIPO decision links, your well written comments and work in this URS/RPM process. I see now too what you mentioned earlier about the amount of lawyers that are involved in this group.

This was sent today, with all the different emails below it,

"As a URS Provider, Forum finds itself in a difficult position with respect to many of the decision review options set forth to date. We are concerned that the filing parties reasonably expected that their filings would be confidential. We are also concerned that if we intervened with the examiners on behalf of the WG regarding past decisions, or drew conclusions regarding the examiners’ aptitude to decide a particular case correctly, that we would undermine our role as a neutral administrator in the URS process.

Forum will of course continue to cooperate with the WG, but cautions that any information outside of the decision itself should be gathered in a way that does not upset the integrity of the URS system."

Thanks.

 

[alcy]

have attempts to pass similar laws been made before and failed? if not, then why now?

 

[GeorgeK]

"As a URS Provider, Forum finds itself in a difficult position with respect to many of the decision review options set forth to date. We are concerned that the filing parties reasonably expected that their filings would be confidential. We are also concerned that if we intervened with the examiners on behalf of the WG regarding past decisions, or drew conclusions regarding the examiners’ aptitude to decide a particular case correctly, that we would undermine our role as a neutral administrator in the URS process.

Forum will of course continue to cooperate with the WG, but cautions that any information outside of the decision itself should be gathered in a way that does not upset the integrity of the URS system."

Thanks.

I think NAF wants minimal scrutiny of its processes, as it would likely expose how one-sided things are in favour of complainants.

NAF was already forced out of consumer credit arbitrations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(alternative_dispute_resolution)
https://www.creditcards.com/credit-...l-lawsuit-national-arbitration-forum-1282.php
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publi...um-settlement-with-minnesota-attorney-general
https://library.nclc.org/sites/default/files/Arb10_Appx_O-1.pdf
https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/arbitrationtrap.pdf

The cloak of 'privacy' or 'confidentiality' isn't there to protect the filing parties. They want to prevent forensic analysis of the decisions. It's amusing to have them talk about 'the integrity of the URS system' given their past.

 

[offthehandle]

Thanks for confirming what I suspected. I am trying to follow the cast of characters to understand how this operates.

The wiki states:
“Consumer advocacy groups and attorneys frequently claim that the National Arbitration Forum is the most biased against consumers of the major arbitration organizations.”

When UDRPsearch. Com was active, I read quite a few decisions. WIPO also publishes the decisions. What I don’t understand is if they are they attempting “to seal” the URS process under guise of brevity? Less overhead of publishing, etc.

The emails are somewhat amusing too. The one guy stating some links posted went to an “unworthy” data source, another stating links went to bad or questionable websites.

 

[GeorgeK]

NAF also publishes its decisions, via: http://www.adrforum.com/SearchDecisions (choose a ruleset of 'UDRP' and leave all other fields blank, to see all the UDRP cases; URS are also published there, changing the ruleset accordingly) Both WIPO and NAF have mailing lists with daily decisions.

Yes, lots of "interesting" posts from people. One woman was even upset about posting style:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-July/002170.html
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-July/002171.html
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-July/002172.html
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-July/002173.html

I suppose if they can't attack the substance, all they have left is to attack the style.

 

[offthehandle]

Thank you again. Great info here. Well, thought I would check it out immediately and the First thing I did was enter UDRP in the Ruleset picklist, as you mentioned, pushed search then in 30 seconds It certainly had ALL UDRP’s. It actually came back with 24322 and started with the year 2000. Is this like a master database?

Pardon my ignorance, as I do not know the history of who was the intial gatekeeper of disputes like UDRP’s, can only assume it was the NAF. ICANN was the only domain name organization I had heard of that goes way back mid 1990’s, until joining this forum, and thought they controlled disputes but have yet to understand what are all the function(s) that they serve. At one time they were a small organization in Marina Del Rey.

 

[offthehandle]

Lol. This was interesting:

“I'm aware of how it displays in the official archive. I simply disagree that this is easier to read or "good practice". In the current example your message would have been delivered much more effectively by saying "The deadline for the IGO/INGO comment is now two days away - please see my earlier email (copied below)" rather than expecting us all to search for the salient information embedded within other text. But there you go - I've just done that for”

The wordsmithing nature of some participants in the dialog, I find annoying. It takes more effort to understand, and isn’t fun. This reminds me of journalists in various vertical niche markets more intent on stroking their egos with their own choice of colloquial or infrequently used english vocabulary words like “Salient” than effective communication. I am finding a few of these RPM exchanges from some authors, really difficult to plow through.

 

[GeorgeK]

Thank you again. Great info here. Well, thought I would check it out immediately and the First thing I did was enter UDRP in the Ruleset picklist, as you mentioned, pushed search then in 30 seconds It certainly had ALL UDRP’s. It actually came back with 24322 and started with the year 2000. Is this like a master database?

Pardon my ignorance, as I do not know the history of who was the intial gatekeeper of disputes like UDRP’s, can only assume it was the NAF. ICANN was the only domain name organization I had heard of that goes way back mid 1990’s, until joining this forum, and thought they controlled disputes but have yet to understand what are all the function(s) that they serve. At one time they were a small organization in Marina Del Rey.

The link I provided was only for the NAF UDRPs. The other providers have their own archives. WIPO is the other major UDRP provider (there are a few smaller providers), with approximately the same total UDRPs as NAF per year:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/casesx/all.html
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/

At one time, ICANN was archiving the decisions on their website, but they ceased doing that (many, many years ago). UDRPSearch.com was the best index of them all, but that site seems to have stopped in the past month or so, for unknown reasons.

ICANN created the UDRP policy, but the disputes themselves are handled by outside providers. You can see the list at:

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/providers-6d-2012-02-25-en

 

[offthehandle]

At one time, ICANN was archiving the decisions on their website, but they ceased doing that (many, many years ago).

I would think ICANN who like most organizations are supposed to serve it’s customers, would fund a database like UDRPsearch for historical reference.

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20180115_in_memoriam_udrpsearchcom/ I read this when it came out.

 

[offthehandle]

have attempts to pass similar laws been made before and failed? if not, then why now?

Not sure what your comment or question is about which laws, can you elaborate?
The UDRP and URS as I understand them are rules and guidelines, not legal processes. They are binding arbitration decisions to avoid writing laws and keep these matters out of jamming up the courts.