[Gnso-epdp-team] Purpose M - UDRP Information

Margie Milam margiemilam at fb.com
Mon Nov 5 23:16:47 UTC 2018

Hi Marika  & All –

Yes this is different than Purpose B because it has a direct contractual basis, meaning that the registrant has agreed in the registration statement to submit to dispute resolution proceedings such as the UDRP/URS.   The UDRP would be broken if there was no contractual basis to require the registrant to submit to these proceedings.  As a result, there is no balancing test to be applied (like what occurs under Purpose B), and thus there is no possibility of the registrar not providing the data to a potential complainant for the UDRP.   Right now, we are experiencing this very situation in response to our requests under the Temp.  Spec.  Some registrars will NOT provide the data to the potential complainant but instead we receive a response to “file a UDRP” which is not the appropriate response under the Temp Spec.  Access is needed before the filing to make the determination of whether to file at all.

With respect to your additional question – we are asking for this to be an additional step before filing a UDRP, and would need to be noted in the Initial Report.

I am happy to explain further on tomorrow’s call if necessary.

All the best,

From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Date: Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 9:32
To: Margie Milam <margiemilam at fb.com>, "gnso-epdp-team at icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Purpose M - UDRP Information

Thanks, Margie. Per the action item, could you provide further details as to how this disclosure to the complainant is different from the disclosure that is already foreseen under Purpose B (“Maintaining the security, stability and resiliency of the Domain Name System in accordance with ICANN’s mission through the enabling of lawful access for legitimate third-party interests to data elements collected for other purposes identified herein”)? Also, if this disclosure is deemed consistent with Purpose M, in your view, does this mean the UDRP would need to be modified accordingly as it currently does not foresee a step in which the complainant reaches out to the registrar for this information before filing a UDRP? If so, this would need to be noted accordingly in the Initial Report.

Best regards,

Caitlin, Berry and Marika

From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Margie Milam <margiemilam at fb.com>
Date: Friday, November 2, 2018 at 8:00 PM
To: "gnso-epdp-team at icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Purpose M - UDRP Information


Following up on the action items for this item, please find attached our suggested changes to Purpose M, which include input from the IPC and the BC.  We have asked for these additions because it is important to ensure that the complainant is able to fully assess the strength of the claim and the nature of the bad faith of the registrant in order to prove the elements of the dispute resolution process (URS/UDRP).   To avoid the filing of ungrounded  UDRP complaints, this purpose is fulfilled by making the disclosure before the complaint is filed.

Also with regard to the other dispute resolution processes, we note that PDDRPs can be brought based on systemic registrant behavior, and thus there may be instances where this purpose would be relied on to access registrant contact data.  Under the PDDRP, the subject matter of the dispute is the gTLD and its use by the operator - including any second-level domain names registered to the registry operator or a related third-party, to the extent the registry operator is complicit in trademark infringement.

Similarly RRDRPs are available to complainants to prove a registry is not complying with its registration restrictions, which may require access to registration data, as it relates to the registration restriction.  For example, if there is a TLD that is limited to registrants located in a particular geographic region, those elements would need to be accessed for this purpose.
There are also registries that have specific RPMs that would fall under this purpose.  For example some registries have voluntarily adopted RPMs in their contracts, which would also appear to fall in this Purpose M category (for example, .XXX added a “Rapid Evaluation Service Policy” procedure in their registry agreement to address abusive registrations).
Finally, to address Kristina’s concern about potential abuse, there are ways to address this so that it is not grounds for a phishing expedition, such as:

  *   Requiring the trademark holder to represent that they have a good faith intent to file a UDRP or other dispute resolution mechanism or cybersquatting action
  *   Dispute resolution providers should be able to audit requests to ensure that the requester filed a UDRP/URS or legal complaint, or in good faith determined that no grounds existed.
Have a great weekend everybody!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20181105/3718ae30/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list