[Gnso-epdp-team] UDRP Language - Additional Language to Consider
margiemilam at fb.com
Fri Nov 16 21:41:16 UTC 2018
HI – following up on my action item—here is the language I suggest.
Have a great weekend everyone!
….However this proposed addition was not supported by others who pointed out that in the case of privacy/proxy registrations complainants never often do not have access to registrant information pre-filing. Some believe that GDRP redaction is distinguishable from a privacy/proxy registration because a privacy/proxy services is a separate service (associated with a fee) that the registrant chooses, with separate ICANN policies, and a different set of responsibilities. For example, the proxy service is considered the registrant, and under can face liability under RAA Section 126.96.36.199.
Similarly, concerns were expressed about how this pre-filing disclosures could be implemented in practice as it could result in information being disclosed to anyone claiming to be interested in filing a UDRP complaint, without any obligation to follow this through. Some believe that this concern can be addressed through policy recommendations to be explored further in this ePDP, such as,
* Require the trademark holder to represent that they have a good faith intent to file a UDRP or other dispute resolution mechanism or cybersquatting action
* Suggest that Dispute resolution providers 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.
* Require the TM holder to have a TMCH filing with valid SMD file
* Require the TM holder to agree to data processing standards (i.e. model clauses, or similar).
* Limitations on the number of records accessible under this purpose
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team