[gnso-igo-wt] EPDP Final Report - Round 2 - Non-Substantive Edits

Wed Mar 23 08:42:35 UTC 2022

Hi Chris, Brian,

It seems to me that what we are aiming at getting here is the identity of
the *underlying registrant* as the proper party for establishing location.

My understanding of how privacy services and proxy services work is as
explained by Mary. So, even where a privacy service is in play, the
registered name holder and the underlying registrant are one and the same
person/entity; while in the case where a proxy service is in play, the
registered name holder is not the underlying registrant. The RrSG input is
aimed at fixing the latter case i.e. to establish the identity of the
actual underlying registrant.

If my understanding above is incorrect, then I'm happy to stand corrected.

Kind regards,
Justine

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 at 16:31, Chris Disspain <cd.dnscapital at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> I may be confused here. Isn’t the crux of the point we’re discussing that
> there would need to be clarity around location of the registrant? Thus
> where the registrant is actually located is the important bit. If I’m right
> then whether the registrant’s location is obscured by a proxy or by use of
> a privacy provider is irrelevant. It’s the fact that it is obscured that
> requires ‘fixing’. If that’s correct then surely the provision should apply
> to both privacy and proxy services shouldn’t it?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> On 23 Mar 2022, at 08:13, BECKHAM Brian via gnso-igo-wt <
> gnso-igo-wt at icann.org> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Thanks Mary, Justine,
>
>
>
> I may be overlooking something, but I am not sure I see a distinction for
> present purposes.
>
>
>
> In the case of a privacy service, just like a proxy service, it is the
> underlying/beneficial registrant who would answer the claim against it in
> the UDRP case, and who would initiate court proceedings and/or arbitral
> appeal.
>
>
>
> I cannot speak to the UDRP Lock WG but it does seem the fact that the UDRP
> Rules which were updated following that PDP uses “privacy or proxy” is
> intended to speak to the above.
>
>
>
> (Of course that clause seems to assume some sort of link between the
> registrar and the privacy or proxy service, which, also noting that PPSAI
> seems to be more or less indefinitely stalled (but also noting that such WG
> made a policy decision not to distinguish between the two), may be a
> question for the RPM Phase II to look at.)
>
>
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> *From:* Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 23, 2022 5:12 AM
> *To:* igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>
> *Cc:* BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int>; Berry Cobb <
> Berry.Cobb at icann.org>; Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-igo-wt] EPDP Final Report - Round 2 -
> Non-Substantive Edits
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks to RrSG for the proposed edit, Brian for the ensuing question and
> Mary for the corresponding explanation.
>
> I support the specification of just "proxy service" in Recommendation #5
> for the reasons that Mary has provided, and think it would useful to post a
> shorter version of the explanation as a footnote to highlight that the EPDP
> Team has indeed considered the issue of "proxy service" vs "privacy
> service".
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Justine
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 at 01:54, Mary Wong via gnso-igo-wt <
> gnso-igo-wt at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Hello Brian and everyone,
>
>
>
> Thanks for highlighting the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and the UDRP
> Rules, Brian, which I believe is the link and consistency that the RrSG is
> asking for.
>
>
>
> The reason we had specified “proxy service” rather than use the more
> typical reference of “privacy/proxy service” is because of a fundamental
> difference between the two types of service that seems relevant in the
> context of this recommendation (viz., linking applicable law to where the
> actual registrant is located):
>
>    - For domain names registered via a *privacy service*, *the actual
>    registrant is the registered name holder*, and the privacy service
>    then provides alternate contact information for purposes of display in
>    Whois or relevant registration directory service.
>    - For domain names registered via a *proxy service*, *the proxy
>    service itself is the registered name holder* (and the service then
>    licenses the domain name to the actual underlying registrant to use).
>
>
>
> As such, since Recommendation #5 is concerned with the appropriate choice
> of law for an arbitration between an IGO Complainant and the actual
> registrant/underlying customer, it seemed necessary to provide clarity for
> cases involving proxy services and not privacy services. That said, it will
> be helpful to know if the EPDP team believes that adding “privacy service”
> to the text is more consistent with the general understanding and provides
> further clarity.
>
>
>
> For further reference, here are the definitions of both types of services
> from the relevant Specification to the current RAA (
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#privacy-proxy):
>
>
> *1.2 "Privacy Service" is a service by which a Registered Name is
> registered to its beneficial user as the Registered Name Holder, but for
> which alternative, reliable contact information is provided by the P/P
> Provider for display of the Registered Name Holder's contact information in
> the Registration Data Service (Whois) or equivalent services.*
>
> *1.3 "Proxy Service" is a service through which a Registered Name Holder
> licenses use of a Registered Name to the P/P Customer in order to provide
> the P/P Customer use of the domain name, and the Registered Name Holder's
> contact information is displayed in the Registration Data Service (Whois)
> or equivalent services rather than the P/P Customer's contact information.*
>
>
>
> Thanks and cheers
>
> Steve, Berry & Mary
>
>
>
> P.S. Brian, thanks also for catching the omission of “or” from the text –
> we’ll make sure to add it!
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of BECKHAM
> Brian via gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>
> *Reply-To: *BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int>
> *Date: *Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 11:23 AM
> *To: *Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb at icann.org>, igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-igo-wt] EPDP Final Report - Round 2 -
> Non-Substantive Edits
>
>
>
> Hi Berry,
>
>
>
> Thank you for passing this on.
>
>
>
> Often we hear of “privacy and proxy” services/providers, so just wondering
> if there is a specific reason only “proxy” is used here?
>
>
>
> Overall, and for whatever worth, I do note that this seems to match the
> overall intent of UDRP Rules para 4(b) and RAA 3.7.7.3, the former of which
> states:
>
>
>
> “Any updates to the Respondent's data, such as through the result of a
> request by a privacy or proxy provider to reveal the underlying customer
> data, must be made before the two (2) business day period concludes or
> before the Registrar verifies the information requested and confirms the
> Lock to the UDRP Provider, whichever occurs first.”
>
>
>
> In that case, do we need to add “timely” before “disclosed” at “underlying
> registrant’s identity is disclosed”?
>
>
>
> PS, I think there needs or be an “of” at “office the”.
>
>
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Berry
> Cobb via gnso-igo-wt
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 22, 2022 2:24 PM
> *To:* Chris Disspain via gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-igo-wt] EPDP Final Report - Round 2 -
> Non-Substantive Edits
>
>
>
> Dear EPDP,
>
>
>
> One small update from the report sent out yesterday.
>
>
>
> The leadership team received input from the RrSG regarding Proxy
> registrations and Recommendation #5 on Applicable law. You will see
> bracketed text on lines 390-392. Staff in consultation with EPDP
> leadership, it is proposed to amend that bracketed text as follows (bold
> text):
>
>
>
> *Arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the law as mutually
> agreed by the parties. Where the parties cannot reach mutual agreement, the
> IGO Complainant shall elect either the law of the relevant registrar’s
> principal office or the domain name holder's address as shown for the
> registration of the disputed domain name in the relevant registrar's Whois
> database at the time the complaint was submitted to the UDRP or URS
> provider. Where the parties cannot reach mutual agreement in a case where
> the registered domain name holder is a proxy service and the underlying
> registrant’s identity is disclosed as part of the UDRP or URS proceeding,
> the IGO Complainant shall elect either the law of the relevant registrar’s
> principal office the law in the location of the underlying registrant. In
> all cases, where neither law provides for a suitable cause of action, the
> arbitral tribunal shall make a determination as to the law to be applied
> in accordance with the applicable arbitral rules.*
>
>
>
> The rationale for the change is that it does seem appropriate in those
> cases where the beneficial registrant’s identity is disclosed as part of
> the UDRP or URS process to point to that registrant’s location instead of
> the proxy service’s (as the Registered Name Holder).
>
>
>
> If no objections, staff will include this in the next version of the
> report and we can review during next week’s call.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Mary, Steve, and B
>
>
>
> Berry Cobb
>
> Policy Development – Senior Program Manager
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
>
>
> Mobile: +1 424 443 8960
>
> Phone: +1 202 570 7240
> Fax: +1 202 789 0104
>
> Twitter: @berrycobb
>
> www.icann.org
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Berry
> Cobb via gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>
> *Reply-To: *Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb at icann.org>
> *Date: *Monday, March 21, 2022 at 20:45
> *To: *Chris Disspain via gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[gnso-igo-wt] EPDP Final Report - Round 2 - Non-Substantive
> Edits
>
>
>
> Dear EPDP,
>
>
>
> Please find attached a line-numbered version of the lastest draft Final
> Report. As noted on the call today and in parallel to the final phase of
> the consensus process, we are beginning round #2 of non-substantive edit
> proposals to the report. Instructions and a link to the submission table
> are below.
>
>
>
> Please have any suggested revisions posted by *23:59 UTC, 24 March 2022*.
> Staff will import the proposals and return an updated version by the next
> day the 25th to make ready for review at our next meeting on the 28th.
>
>
>
> Link to Input Table: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TIvh5MKOl7t8Q2Yb_VTqPVlRMhiZS0o6YMZtwXDYvsI/edit
> [docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1TIvh5MKOl7t8Q2Yb_VTqPVlRMhiZS0o6YMZtwXDYvsI/edit__;!!PtGJab4!q9lwWgdUEbc3Kupll5JS4z4eyEFlKUdkgb14OgtZN0jhLZ6oxd16wsJvKCOwB4gsc65tLus$>
>
> *** If you do not have access, please request it. It will notify me and I
> will provide you with suggestion rights.
>
> **** If you do not get access in a timely manner to the google doc, please
> follow the instructions below and send your suggested edits to the full
> email list as an alternative.
>
>
>
> *Instructions*:
>
>    1. Please note your name and the group you represent in the “Group
>    Submitting” column.
>    2. For the “Line Number(s)” column, denote the line numbers from the
>    clean version of the PDF of the Final Report for which you want to suggest
>    a revision. For sentences or paragraphs, it will be helpful to list the
>    full range of line numbers.
>    3. In the last column, “Proposed Revision”, please add your suggested
>    edit or correction that you feel enhances or makes more clear the intent of
>    the recommendation or supporting text without changing the intent. It
>    should not be necessary to quote the text from the report. In more complex
>    proposals, a rationale statement should be included to help inform the EPDP
>    on why the edit should be made.
>    4. See the example in the first row.
>    5. Round #2 Edits scope: *FULL REPORT*.
>    6. Link <https://community.icann.org/display/GNSOIWT/Final+Report> to
>    revision history.
>
>
>
> Please let us know if you have any questions or need clarifications.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Mary, Steve, and Berry
>
>
>
> Berry Cobb
>
> Policy Development – Senior Program Manager
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
>
>
> Mobile: +1 424 443 8960
>
> Phone: +1 202 570 7240
> Fax: +1 202 789 0104
>
> Twitter: @berrycobb
>
> www.icann.org
>
>
>
>
>
> [wipo.int]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.wipo.int/ip-outreach/en/ipday/?utm_source=wipomail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=ipday2022__;!!PtGJab4!r-EhVTzN25MDxiojzs5OKWdExJV4ZKyEo1ya1PyvMViM_Hp2hwtuEyuqLbUSwtYUrgt3ZKQ$>
>
>
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.wipo.int/ip-outreach/en/ipday/?utm_source=wipomail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=ipday2022__;!!PtGJab4!r-EhVTzN25MDxiojzs5OKWdExJV4ZKyEo1ya1PyvMViM_Hp2hwtuEyuqLbUSwtYUrgt3ZKQ$>
>
>
> *World Intellectual*
> *Property Day 2022*
> *April 26*
>
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.wipo.int/ip-outreach/en/ipday/?utm_source=wipomail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=ipday2022__;!!PtGJab4!r-EhVTzN25MDxiojzs5OKWdExJV4ZKyEo1ya1PyvMViM_Hp2hwtuEyuqLbUSwtYUrgt3ZKQ$>
>
> wipo.int/ipday [wipo.int]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.wipo.int/ip-outreach/en/ipday/?utm_source=wipomail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=ipday2022__;!!PtGJab4!r-EhVTzN25MDxiojzs5OKWdExJV4ZKyEo1ya1PyvMViM_Hp2hwtuEyuqLbUSwtYUrgt3ZKQ$>
>
>
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.wipo.int/ip-outreach/en/ipday/?utm_source=wipomail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=ipday2022__;!!PtGJab4!r-EhVTzN25MDxiojzs5OKWdExJV4ZKyEo1ya1PyvMViM_Hp2hwtuEyuqLbUSwtYUrgt3ZKQ$>
>
> #worldipday
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.wipo.int/ip-outreach/en/ipday/?utm_source=wipomail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=ipday2022__;!!PtGJab4!r-EhVTzN25MDxiojzs5OKWdExJV4ZKyEo1ya1PyvMViM_Hp2hwtuEyuqLbUSwtYUrgt3ZKQ$>
>
>
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.wipo.int/ip-outreach/en/ipday/?utm_source=wipomail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=ipday2022__;!!PtGJab4!r-EhVTzN25MDxiojzs5OKWdExJV4ZKyEo1ya1PyvMViM_Hp2hwtuEyuqLbUSwtYUrgt3ZKQ$>
>
> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic
> message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected
> information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please
> immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its
> attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses
> prior to opening or using.
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.wipo.int/ip-outreach/en/ipday/?utm_source=wipomail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=ipday2022__;!!PtGJab4!r-EhVTzN25MDxiojzs5OKWdExJV4ZKyEo1ya1PyvMViM_Hp2hwtuEyuqLbUSwtYUrgt3ZKQ$>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-igo-wt mailing list
> *gnso-igo-wt at icann.org*
> *https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-wt*
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (*https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy*)
> and the website Terms of Service (*https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos*).
> You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.wipo.int/ip-outreach/en/ipday/?utm_source=wipomail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=ipday2022__;!!PtGJab4!r-EhVTzN25MDxiojzs5OKWdExJV4ZKyEo1ya1PyvMViM_Hp2hwtuEyuqLbUSwtYUrgt3ZKQ$>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-igo-wt mailing list
> gnso-igo-wt at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-wt
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-wt/attachments/20220323/56d45d99/attachment-0001.html>