[Accred-Model] Philly Special 2.0

Thu May 31 06:02:38 UTC 2018

Steve

Thanks for the constructive comments. However, allow me to share with you
why I believe your concerns may potentially be misplaced from a historical
perspective.

So prior to the adoption of the UDRP and the passage of the ACPA, there was
concern within the IP community about the effectiveness of these new tools.
An interesting side note that may be of value to you and others, in late
1999/early 2000 Network Solutions contacted those trademark owners that had
availed themselves of the old Network Solutions trademark policy and
informed them that they either needed to file a legal action in a court of
competent jurisdiction or file a UDRP. Failure to take either action would
result in the domain name being unlocked.  I know of at least one high
profile case where the attorneys decided to undertake costly litigation,
versus just filing a 5K UDRP that they would have in retrospect easily have
won.  Many attorneys are uneasy with new mechanisms with no track record. I
get that.

That is why as part of my preliminary work in connection with the ADR
component of this model I have focused on existing ADR - GDPR centric
solutions:

*	JAMS has a Privacy Shield dispute resolution mechanism:
https://www.jamsadr.com/eu-us-privacy-shield
*	ICDR (the body that currently administers ICANN's Independent Review
Filings) has a Privacy Shield related services:
https://www.icdr.org/privacyshield
*	The Better Business Bureau (BBB) also has an independent dispute
resolution mechanism operated by the Council of Better Business Bureaus
(CBBB): https://www.bbb.org/EU-privacy-shield/for-eu-consumers/

I appreciate your concerns about potential gaming by cybersquatters. That is
why we will need to pay attention to the final policy/rules to prevent
potential gaming. However, I am currently optimistic of achieving this goal
based on the documents that I have reviewed.  Much like Kathy Kleiman and
Karl Auerbach fought for Registrant safeguards in the final UDRP rules and
policy back in 1999, I am sure that the IPC/BC will fight equally hard to
make sure that the final policy/rules minimize potential gaming scenarios to
the detriment of legitimate interest users.

On your point about keeping this process light weight, I fully agree. In the
above cited models they do not appear to rely upon a lawyer, but are
designed for a data subject to initiate the proceeding on their own.  In
fact I am sure that some third parties are like to offer professional
services either filing or defending these actions.  

Thanks again for the constructive feedback.  Please follow-up with similar
constructive feedback in connection with the proposed template Access
Agreement.

Best regards,

Michael

From: Steve Levy <slevy at accentlawgroup.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 6:31 PM
To: Michael Palage <michael at palage.com>; accred-model at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Accred-Model] Philly Special 2.0

Thanks for your hard work, Michael. My only feedback right now relates to
your planned ADR rules. I am leery of aggressive cybersquatters misusing
such a claim as leverage against a Legitimate Interest User and so I feel
the burden of proof should be set at an appropriate level that will punish
transgressions but discourage misuse. I also feel the process should be of a
somewhat informal nature so that, like the UDRP and URS, it is not
absolutely necessary for either party to engage the services of an attorney
to represent them in a claim.  I feel this would serve both Data Subjects
and Legitimate Interest Users alike.

Best regards

Steve

Steven M. Levy, Esq.

Accent Law Group, Inc.
301 Fulton St.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19147

United States

Phone: +1-215-327-9094
Email: slevy at AccentLawGroup.com <mailto:slevy at accentlawgroup.com> 

Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/> 

LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/>  
________________________________________
Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information
that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other
privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed
only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this
communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the
intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended
recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in
error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly
delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in
any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or
reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be
unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a
waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.

From: Accred-Model <accred-model-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:accred-model-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Michael Palage
<michael at palage.com <mailto:michael at palage.com> >
Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 1:05 AM
To: "accred-model at icann.org <mailto:accred-model at icann.org> "
<accred-model at icann.org <mailto:accred-model at icann.org> >
Subject: [Accred-Model] Philly Special 2.0

Hello All,

The list has been rather silent so I thought I would share the next
iteration of my proposed differential access (aka tiered) model.
Unfortunately ICANN has required Registration Authorities in the Temporary
Specification to provide access to Legitimate Interest users but has
provided little to no thought leadership on how to move forward with that
demand.

As noted previously, my model defers to the hard work that others on this
list have done on establishing the credentials for accreditation bodies. I
instead have focus on market dynamics, governance and Registrant
administrative remedies.  

In addition to this policy/governance framework document, I have also
drafted an Registrant Data Access Agreement which I will be posting shortly.
This is designed to be a standard agreement by with Legitimate Interest
Users can enter into with Registration Authorities to access their
non-public Registrant data. 

The only other missing piece which I have started work on this week, is the
proposed ADR rules by which Data Subjects will be able to initiate a claim
against a Legitimate Interest User which they believe has exceeded the scope
of their legitimate use.

With these three components, there will exist an entire eco-system for a new
differentiated (tiered) access  model. In the spirit of the GDPR this is a
Privacy by Design model that is centered on placing the rights of the Data
Subject at the apex of that hierarchy, as opposed to the current model where
the Data Subject's fundamental human rights are all too often collateral
damage to other commercial interests. 

As always I welcome any feedback.

Best regards,

Michael 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accred-model/attachments/20180531/a5da9fdd/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 17053 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accred-model/attachments/20180531/a5da9fdd/image001.png>