[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Compilation of P/P provider responses

Williams, Todd Todd.Williams at turner.com
Mon Sep 29 20:23:12 UTC 2014

Thanks Mary.  One thought for the group to consider (happy to discuss in more detail on the call):

Reviewing the attached, it seems as if there are basically two alternatives for us to debate when it comes to disclosure in the context of cybersquatting and UDRPs (setting aside for now that there are many abuses other than cybersquatting where disclosure may be relevant):

1)      One alternative is for the p/p provider to simply funnel those kinds of complaints into a UDRP.  This approach basically skips "disclosure" and goes straight to "publication" - the attached points out that most providers will publish all contact information to the world once a UDRP is filed.

2)      The other alternative would require disclosure to the complainant under certain enumerated circumstances where the complainant provides enough information to meet certain prima facie elements (and makes certain averments under penalty of perjury).

Based on the attached, it seems that Option (1) is currently the more common approach.  But going forward, isn't Option (2) much better for the consumers/beneficial users who purchase p/p services?  As Kathy and others have rightly mentioned, publication (to the world) is a more extreme deviation from the beneficial user's privacy expectations than is disclosure (to a single complainant).  So why would we adopt an accreditation regime that skews the process toward the more drastic result?

One other thought on this: in many cases disclosure may obviate the need to file a UDRP at all.  Maybe the complainant can contact the beneficial user to negotiate a resolution.  Or maybe learning the beneficial user's identity will cause the complainant to question its original analysis that the domain name was being used in bad faith.  Whatever the reason, I would assume that avoiding a UDRP is almost always going to be the better option for ALL parties involved:

*         The complainant gets to save the money that it would otherwise spend on a UDRP.

*         The beneficial user gets to avoid the more drastic result of publication to the world.

*         The p/p provider gets to avoid being named as a respondent in a UDRP proceeding (which James noted on our call can be problematic), and may get to keep a paying customer that it would otherwise lose once the UDRP is filed and the contact information is published to the world.

So if everybody is better off under Option (2) than Option (1), what I am missing?  What is the argument for Option (1)?  And why is it the more common approach used today (at least, according to the responses compiled in the attached)?



From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 7:36 PM
Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Compilation of P/P provider responses

Dear WG members,

Please find attached a document that staff has compiled of P/P provider responses to the 5 questions posed by the WG chairs to the group after the call last week, as follows:

1. What are provider practices regarding customer notification when a disclosure request is received, and is the customer given the opportunity to respond?

2. Does any provider offer its customer an option other than disclosure or publication, e.g. an opportunity to cancel the registration instead (i.e. what some WG members have mentioned as a "takedown")?

3. What are provider "standards" for determining disclosure to third parties?

4. Can providers give the WG some general information about the percentage of requests for disclosure that are successful?

5. For Q4, do providers also have information about the type of claims those relate to e.g. If they are from LEA, 3P IP claim etc.?

Please let me know if I have mischaracterized or omitted any response that you may have sent (for which I offer my apologies!). If you have not yet provided a response and are in a position to do so, or if you'd like to add to a response you'd provided previously, please send it along and I'll make sure it gets added to this document.

Finally, please note that certain actual provider terms of service obtained from a sample of providers had previously been compiled as part of the draft template for this Category F, so that may also be helpful - these are available on the WG wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/QwbxAg.

Thanks and cheers

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140929/7fb0c693/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Compilation of Provider Answers to WG Questions - 24 September 2014.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 156680 bytes
Desc: Compilation of Provider Answers to WG Questions - 24 September 2014.docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140929/7fb0c693/CompilationofProviderAnswerstoWGQuestions-24September2014-0001.docx>

More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list