[GNSO-Accuracy-ST] UDRP Data Points wrt Accuracy

[Michael Palage]

Hello All,

 

So I reached out to Brian Beckham from WIPO in response to this thread yesterday. Listed below is his email response. I also spoke with Brian today about how we might go about involving other UDRP providers in this outreach. If we complete our assignments tomorrow we can add this to the agenda.

 

Best regards,

 

Michael

 

<EMAIL RESPONSE FROM BRIAN BECKHAM (WIPO)> 

 

Thanks Michael,

 

Do let me know if/how we can assist.

 

An initial observation, which you and the WG will already know, is that while perhaps anecdotally useful, this will yield incomplete data and obviously the search terms should be creatively widened (yet will inevitably not be fully comprehensive given that if a panel chooses to record such fact in the decision, it could do so in different ways (or even in different places: e.g., in the procedural history vs the bad faith analysis) and using different terms).

 

If only to state the obvious, information can be “accurate” in the sense that it provides an entry into the required data fields, but still inaccurate in the sense of authenticity vis-à-vis an actual registrant.  These types of scenarios in particular cause unnecessary time (giving room for cyberflight, or prolonged illegitimate activity) and expense in the UDRP cases, and even potential due process issues (even if they would be occasioned by registrants).  While this goes beyond UDRP cases (as will your efforts), I wonder if your WG has considered the utility of cross-field challenge/matching (which may not be the technical term) such as is employed by postal and shipping companies around the world (i.e., you cannot provide a 4-digit zip code in Switzerland but list a US or UK address).

 

Mindful that these conversations and policies need to look at scale and potential ripple effects/unintended consequences, I would also caution, as Roger seems to allude to below, that there may indeed be broader policy considerations than a mere one-to-one correlation between “extent” and “impact” can reasonably be expected to reveal.

 

While a slightly different topic (P/P), the following may be of interest:  

https://circleid.com/posts/20201104-icann-meeting-concluded-with-no-action-on-dns-abuse-or-privacy   

 

Thanks, and again, do let me know if we can assist further.

 

Brian 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/attachments/20220209/904b5940/attachment.html>