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

Kathy Kleiman kathy at kathykleiman.com
Tue Sep 30 13:33:53 UTC 2014

A Belated +1 to Todd's thoughtful analysis below.

Although #1 (publication) does seem to be the default for some re: UDRP 
filings, it does seem to be intrinsically unfair to publish a 
Registrants personal/organizational data to the world without at least a 
*finding* of actual wrongdoing (not the filing of the complaint in and 
of itself -- what happens if it is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking 
decision, or a previous business partner sharing rights to the same 

Here, I think disclosure to the Complainant and the Forum would be 
sufficient to meet the needs of the Complainant, and provide information 
that can be used for both the formal dispute and perhaps an informal 

I think Todd lays it out far more eloquently below...

> 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?
>  f
> 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)?
> Thanks.
> Todd.
> *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
> *To:* PPSAI WG
> *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 
> <https://community.icann.org/x/QwbxAg>.
> Thanks and cheers
> Mary
> 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>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140930/e1019af3/attachment-0001.html>

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