<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" id="owaParaStyle"></style>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" fpstyle="1" ocsi="0">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Times New Roman;color: #000000;font-size: 12pt;">
<div align="justify" style="font-size: 16px;"><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 16px;"><font size="3">We also agree with the points raised by Todd and Kathy below. Disclosure to a </font><font size="3">Requestor would avoid </font><font size="3">the </font><font size="3">more
drastic result </font><font size="3">of </font><font size="3">Publication associated </font><font size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">with the filing of a legal action</span></font><font size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">, which could have negative
consequences for all parties.</span></font></span></font></div>
<div align="justify" style="font-size: 16px;"><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 16px;"><font face="Times New Roman,serif"><br>
</font></span></font></div>
<div align="justify" style="font-size: 16px;"><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 16px;"><font size="3">To echo Todd's point below, Disclosure </font><font size="3">would help to avoid </font><font size="3">unnecessary</font><font size="3">(and expensive) </font><font size="3">arbitration
or</font><font size="3"> litigation. In the context of IP rights enforcement, where many rights are territorial in nature, </font><font size="3">disclosure of registrant contact information may be</font><font size="3"> essential for a Requestor to </font><font size="3">properly
analyze</font><font size="3"> whether a cause of action exists </font>or further proceedings are merited<font size="3">. In other words, filing a UDRP or a court action without this information is putting the cart before the horse -- it entangles all three
parties (Customer, P/P Provider, and Requestor) in </font><font size="3">potentially </font><font size="3">premature </font><font size="3">legal action</font><font size="3">, that could very well have been avoided through disclosure of </font><font size="3">Customer
information</font><font size="3"> (e.g., jurisdiction) and/or direct communication between Customer and Requestor. </font></span></font></div>
<div align="justify" style="font-size: 16px;"><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 16px;"><font size="3"><br>
</font></span></font></div>
<div align="justify" style="font-size: 16px;"><font size="3">Moreover, we should keep in mind that many </font><font size="3">Requestors will be </font><font size="3">smaller businesses and organizations, </font><font size="3">for which</font><font size="3"> bringing
an expensive action without essential facts </font><font size="3">that could be obtained through Disclosure would b</font>e extremely burdensome, potentially to the point where they would be unable to protect their rights against some infringers -- a result
fraught with anti-competitive and anti-consumer implications. An effective and fair accreditation regime should aim to prevent such a result. </div>
<div align="justify" style="font-size: 16px;"><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 16px;"><font size="3"><br>
</font></span></font></div>
<div align="justify" style="font-size: 16px;"><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 16px;"><font size="3">Thanks,</font></span></font></div>
<div align="justify" style="font-size: 16px;"><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 16px;"><font size="3">Val</font></span></font></div>
<div><br>
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span dir="ltr">Valeriya Sherman<br>
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, L.L.P.<br>
1101 30th Street, N.W.<br>
Suite 120<br>
Washington, D.C. 20007<br>
Tel 202.944.3300<br>
Cell 303.589.7477<br>
</span><a target="_blank" href="mailto:vsherman@law.gwu.edu" tabindex="0" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">vsherman@sgbdc.com</a></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF205427" style="direction: ltr;"><font face="Tahoma" size="2" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of Kathy Kleiman [kathy@kathykleiman.com]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:33 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Compilation of P/P provider responses<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">A Belated +1 to Todd's thoughtful analysis below. <br>
<br>
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 name...??)<br>
<br>
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 resolution.<br>
<br>
I think Todd lays it out far more eloquently below...<br>
Best,<br>
Kathy<br>
<br>
<br>
:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"><style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"}
span.EmailStyle17
{font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"}
@page WordSection1
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in}
-->
</style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:#1F497D">Thanks Mary. One thought for the group to consider (happy to discuss in more detail on the call):</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:#1F497D">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):</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:#1F497D"><span style="">1)<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:#1F497D">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:#1F497D"><span style="">2)<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:#1F497D">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).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:#1F497D">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?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:#1F497D"> f<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:#1F497D">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:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:51.75pt; text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:Symbol; color:#1F497D"><span style="">·<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:#1F497D">The complainant gets to save the money that it would otherwise spend on a UDRP.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:51.75pt; text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:Symbol; color:#1F497D"><span style="">·<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:#1F497D">The beneficial user gets to avoid the more drastic result of publication to the world.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:51.75pt; text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:Symbol; color:#1F497D"><span style="">·<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:#1F497D">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:#1F497D">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)?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:#1F497D">Thanks.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:#1F497D"><br>
Todd.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none; border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">
gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Mary Wong<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 25, 2014 7:36 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> PPSAI WG<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Compilation of P/P provider responses</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; color:black">Dear WG members,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; color:black">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:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">1. What are provider practices regarding customer notification when a disclosure request is received, and is the customer given the opportunity to respond?
</span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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”)?</span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">3. What are provider “standards" for determining disclosure to third parties?
</span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">4. Can providers give the WG some general information about the percentage of requests for disclosure that are successful?</span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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.?</span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; color:black">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.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; color:black">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: <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/QwbxAg" target="_blank">
https://community.icann.org/x/QwbxAg</a>.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; color:black">Thanks and cheers</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; color:black">Mary</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; color:black">Mary Wong</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; color:black">Senior Policy Director</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; color:black">Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; color:black">Telephone: +1 603 574 4892</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; color:black">Email: <a href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org" target="_blank">
mary.wong@icann.org</a></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader" target="_blank"></fieldset> <br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>