<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style id="eMClientCss">blockquote.cite { margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; padding-left: 10px; padding-right:0px; border-left: 1px solid #cccccc }
blockquote.cite2 {margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; padding-left: 10px; padding-right:0px; border-left: 1px solid #cccccc; margin-top: 3px; padding-top: 0px; }
.plain pre, .plain tt { font-family: monospace; font-size: 100%; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; }
a img { border: 0px; }body {font-family: Tahoma;font-size: 12pt;}
.plain pre, .plain tt {font-family: Tahoma;font-size: 12pt;}
</style>
</head>
<body scroll="auto" bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
For my own benefit I thought it useful to try and capture highlights
from the recent list discussion. Apologies if I've
mis-characterized any of your arguments. I was trying to collect
and aggregate them for my own understanding, and perhaps this is
also useful for others.<br>
<br>
In general, we're still discussing disclosure. This has created two
related threads of conversation, one around the definition of
content, another for allegations of IP infringement, though they
mostly overlap.<br>
<br>
Before we get to that, Eric Brunner-Williams, via Michele introduced
some language that I thought was interesting and helpful, at least
for introducing some precision in our discussions. This was, If I
am understanding correctly, that we can break down some issues into
two groups:<br>
<br>
String issues: problems directly related to the string of characters
that constitute a domain name<br>
Resolved resource issues: problems related to what a domain name is
pointed at<br>
<br>
I think it's worthwhile for us to discuss using those terms going
forward.<br>
<br>
<b>Re: Allegations of IP Infringement and Disclosure</b><b> &
what constitutes content</b> <br>
Phil Corwin raised concerns about relaying registrant details upon
an allegation of infringement. He pointed out that UDRP and URS
exist for string issues, and that complaints are frequently
dismissed and reverse domain hijacking is increasing. Mandatory
disclosure does not, to Phil, 'facilitate resolution'. Valeriya
was suggesting that having access to registrant details prior to
filing a UDRP may eliminate the need for the potential UDRP, as it
better enables the rights holder to determine if a UDRP is
warranted. <br>
<br>
We collectively batted this around for a bit, main points being: <br>
<ul>
<li>the cost of a UDRP may be a useful gate to prevent abuse </li>
<li>'cybersquating' and stockpiling domain names are not
necessarily examples of bad faith use.</li>
<li>Disclosure being helpful for the requestor does not by itself
justify the disclosure </li>
<li>UDRP filings due to the subsequent publishing of details are
generally worse for the registrant than disclosure </li>
<li>Disclosure rather than publish may keep the customer for the
provider. </li>
</ul>
<p>I don't think we resolved much from this discussion, but perhaps
it clarified the positions.<br>
</p>
<p>To me, and perhaps someone can clarify, it seems like the request
for disclosure on allegation of infringement is to be used to fill
in a rights holders' information gap. Shouldn't an IP rights
holder know who they've allowed to use it and for what? Should we
be building this mechanism, given the potential for abuse and the
importance of protecting registrant privacy?<br>
</p>
<p>The separate thread around the definition of content, if i may
borrow a phrase from Steve, generated more heat than light. It
ended up centering around the issue that most privacy/proxy
service providers reserve the right to unilaterally terminate
service to a customer, without due process, while also insisting
that disclosing registrant details to a 3rd party upon IP
infringement allegation was itself violation of due process.
Volker and Frank pointed out that providers reserve the right to
protect themselves, and may not use it lightly. <br>
</p>
<p>Which lastly brings us to the discussion on a moderate central
course of action.</p>
James had suggested that we look into the authorization and
identification of 3rd party requestors. It's not a bad idea, though
I suspect easier to implement for larger providers, so it might be
worth hearing an opinion from others.<br>
<br>
I'm going to circle back to some of the discussions and proposals
that registrars had worked on privately, and will see if that can be
made ready for prime time. I'd encourage everyone to ponder ways
forward on this issue, as we move on to category G to make a bit of
headway before circling back.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
Graeme
<div><br>
</div>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
_________________________
Graeme Bunton
Manager, Management Information Systems
Manager, Public Policy
Tucows Inc.
PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
</pre>
</body>
</html>