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/

 

[Haykay2005]

Let's see how it goes

 

[pokainc]

It's clear that you have knowledge about the inner workings of these type of organizations which often for the average to semi-average domainer is still not transparent. Definitely trying to get more familiar with the details of some of these organizations' workings.

Looking forward to the data you intend to release.

I'm sure if the problem of the great advocate leaving was a salary/money problem, we could've partly fixed that with a crowdfunding type of campaign. With so much potentially at stake, I'm sure a interesting amount could have been raised.

 

[pokainc]

We'll good for her. Make sure she doesn't add a "V" anywhere on her as she'll be potentially sued by VolksWagen. Then again, that's probably more money for you.

I see you have faith in no-one.

 

[equity78]

I do share Nat's concerns, but the "all of domain investing practically illegal and on the way to extinction" bit is a little over-the-top. I also provide advice to more than one participant in the relevant working group.

John he said "In other words, the changes being pushed by many of the most powerful companies and their teams of well-paid IP attorneys would delegitimize the domain investing industry and put at risk most of our domains."

So I didn't think I was being over the top, if an industry becomes delegitimized that's on the road to extinction.

Is all the advice you provide pro domainer?

 

[Lox]

If this anti-investment happen, registries will lose 20-30% of "users" overnight. Imagine if a stock's demand sinks dramatically. Why would f.e. Verisign (.com) & US Commerce allow this to happen?

 

[pokainc]

@jberryhill
I respect your views and comments on many of these matters. You had mentioned something sarcastic on a serious point I was making, I returned the favor.

Contrary to what you may think, I respect lawyers who have integrity and I do love law matters.

There's no need to take things so personally. Yes volunteering to help often goes unthanked... in case you hadn't noticed I did click "thanks" to one of your prior posts which added value to this situation.

I've helped many in different types of situations and often got worse than not even a thank you..

 

[pokainc]

It was to the aunt with wheels comment haha

 

[equity78]

Boom. Thanks again.

I'm a little cranky this week, because I've been dealing with injuries sustained in a fall just before leaving Geneva two weeks ago. I slipped in the bathroom and then had to take an international flight with three broken ribs. Maybe I should step away from the keyboard.

But in answer to your question, no, I get secret kickbacks from the International Trademark Association for messing with everyone on domain forums. Gonna buy that Lambo I've had my eye on with it.

John I was not implying you were getting kickbacks, I meant were you giving ICANN advice too on how to implement things? Get well soon.

 

[jberryhill]

I meant were you giving ICANN advice too on how to implement things?

Not as their attorney, but, sure, I've submitted public comments on ICANN proposals for a long, long time.

The only functional role I've had in relation to ICANN was a two-year stint on the Nominating Committee (2014 and 2015)

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/2014-2014-01-30-en
https://www.icann.org/nomcom2015

That was an uncompensated position for which ICANN provided accommodations and travel to the physical meetings of the group. Reimbursement for expenses was also available, but I've never been a big fan of obsessively collecting taxi receipts etc., so I never put in for any. So it cost me a few bucks here and there.

ICANN Policy development and implementation are open processes. Me, you, or anyone else, can "give ICANN advice" on anything.

 

[DnEbook]

It was to the aunt with wheels comment haha

If my aunty had a **** she would be my uncle ....

 

[elevator]

It would be so terrible for domainers if they get through this! One of the major purpose of this forum is information and now that this is exposed to huge numbers of domainers; the option is to proffer solutions to avoid the whole plans.

 

[CakeCode]

Oh Boy, this is sending shivers in my spine,

Why every one is silent on this ?

Will be a Huge blow to all the Domain Investors if the new UDRP rule comes into effect.

Would big registrar's like GoDaddy and domain Marketplaces Afternic,SEDO and Uniregistry do anything to stop this ? or just watch it kill all the domainers ?

 

[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.

 

[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]

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?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.