<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Val,<br>
<br>
Kathy's words were : "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." which
essentially means (if we are talking about the National
Arbitration Forum) this is filing a UDRP case.<br>
<br>
So disclosure is ONLY once UDRP has been filed, because we are
required to provide that information for the UDRP process as the
registrar under the RAA. Otherwise in all fairness we will have
"willy nilly" requests for information from every tom, dick and
harry. <br>
<br>
I totally agree with Kathy in that the PP service <i>should not</i>
be lifted until the UDRP decision/finding has been completed - as
at that point if the request has been found "<i>wanting</i>" then
the customer still has his privacy intact because the UDRP panel
has rejected the claim.<br>
<br>
The UDRP process cost is around $1500, I don't know what lawyers
charge on top mind you, but, if I had to protect my IP, $1500 is
something simple to find to protect it. You have given certainly
the view from the "person trying to get the information" yet
totally left out the "I want my privacy protected". Let me give
you a "way off" example and yes I know this is way off.<br>
<br>
A "person" is being stalked, they move to get away from said
stalker, BUT, their domain is essential to their keeping, the
stalker only has to ask / request the PP service provider for the
information - and in your last paragraph you suggest the
information should be simply given over.<br>
<br>
I am sorry, but, thats wrong. It is not an attack on you Val, and
we have to think of the best routes for this. UDRP means somebody
adjudicates the request - THIS IS FAIR and IMPARTIAL to both
parties. If the PP customer is in the wrong - fine, not only do
they lose the case and the domain - they lose the PP service as
the domain is no longer theirs.<br>
<br>
We can all go round and round in circles and be here all year, the
IP guys want the ability to simply ask for information and be
given it, let me put another thought out there :<br>
<br>
A lawyer provides his customer a PP service, do you really think
that the lawyer will simply "give up" the customer information if
requested? They may well do, but, I would lean on the side of
"No, you cant have it as it is attorney–client privilege" (I am
not a lawyer, so that may be the wrong term - but you get the
idea) <br>
<br>
If the lawyer has a court order or subpoena then sure - he/she
will provide that info. I am suggesting the same, no more, no
less.<br>
<br>
In the UK, you are innocent until proven guilty, like most places,
so, why should someone's data be revealed unless it has been
requested/ruled by an authority/judge whatever. At least with
being requested LEGALLY like that, the data protection act in the
UK (where we are) allows us to provide that information as we have
a court order requesting it.<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Kind regards,
Chris</pre>
On 30/09/2014 11:12 PM, Valeriya Sherman wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:C6212B30B28E0D4CBA5F057882FF14450157C0E1@EXBE-10.hs.local"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" id="owaParaStyle"></style>
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Times New Roman;color:
#000000;font-size: 12pt;">
<div style="font-size: 16px;" align="justify"><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 style="font-size: 16px;" align="justify"><font size="2"><span
style="font-size: 16px;"><font face="Times New
Roman,serif"><br>
</font></span></font></div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;" align="justify"><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 style="font-size: 16px;" align="justify"><font size="2"><span
style="font-size: 16px;"><font size="3"><br>
</font></span></font></div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;" align="justify"><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 style="font-size: 16px;" align="justify"><font size="2"><span
style="font-size: 16px;"><font size="3"><br>
</font></span></font></div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;" align="justify"><font size="2"><span
style="font-size: 16px;"><font size="3">Thanks,</font></span></font></div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;" align="justify"><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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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
color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] on behalf of Kathy
Kleiman [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:33 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Compilation of P/P
provider responses<br>
</font><br>
</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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>