[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Recap & Moving Forward

[Graeme Bunton]

For my own benefit I thought it useful to try and capture highlights 
from the recent list discussion.  Apologies if I've mis-characterized 
any of your arguments.  I was trying to collect and aggregate them for 
my own understanding, and perhaps this is also useful for others.

In general, we're still discussing disclosure.  This has created two 
related threads of conversation, one around the definition of content, 
another for allegations of IP infringement, though they mostly overlap.

Before we get to that, Eric Brunner-Williams, via Michele introduced 
some language that I thought was interesting and helpful, at least for 
introducing some precision in our discussions.  This was, If I am 
understanding correctly, that we can break down some issues into two groups:

String issues: problems directly related to the string of characters 
that constitute a domain name
Resolved resource issues: problems related to what a domain name is 
pointed at

I think it's worthwhile for us to discuss using those terms going forward.

*Re: Allegations of IP Infringement and Disclosure**& what constitutes 
content*
Phil Corwin raised concerns about relaying registrant details upon an 
allegation of infringement.  He pointed out that UDRP and URS exist for 
string issues, and that complaints are frequently dismissed and reverse 
domain hijacking is increasing.   Mandatory disclosure does not, to 
Phil, 'facilitate resolution'.    Valeriya was suggesting that having 
access to registrant details prior to filing a UDRP may eliminate the 
need for the potential UDRP, as it better enables the rights holder to 
determine if a UDRP is warranted.

We collectively batted this around for a bit, main points being:

  * the cost of a UDRP may be a useful gate to prevent abuse
  * 'cybersquating' and stockpiling domain names are not necessarily
    examples of bad faith use.
  * Disclosure being helpful for the requestor does not by itself
    justify the disclosure
  * UDRP filings due to the subsequent publishing of details are
    generally worse for the registrant than disclosure
  * Disclosure rather than publish may keep the customer for the provider.

I don't think we resolved much from this discussion, but perhaps it 
clarified the positions.

To me, and perhaps someone can clarify, it seems like the request for 
disclosure on allegation of infringement is to be used to fill in a 
rights holders' information gap.   Shouldn't an IP rights holder know 
who they've allowed to use it and for what?  Should we be building this 
mechanism, given the potential for abuse and the importance of 
protecting registrant privacy?

The separate thread around the definition of content, if i may borrow a 
phrase from Steve, generated more heat than light.  It ended up 
centering around the issue that most privacy/proxy service providers 
reserve the right to unilaterally terminate service to a customer, 
without due process, while also insisting that disclosing registrant 
details to a 3rd party upon IP infringement allegation was itself 
violation of due process. Volker and Frank pointed out that providers 
reserve the right to protect themselves, and may not use it lightly.

Which lastly brings us to the discussion on a moderate central course of 
action.

James had suggested that we look into the authorization and 
identification of 3rd party requestors. It's not a bad idea, though I 
suspect easier to implement for larger providers, so it might be worth 
hearing an opinion from others.

I'm going to circle back to some of the discussions and proposals that 
registrars had worked on privately, and will see if that can be made 
ready for prime time. I'd encourage everyone to ponder ways forward on 
this issue, as we move on to category G to make a bit of headway before 
circling back.

Thanks

Graeme

-- 
_________________________
Graeme Bunton
Manager, Management Information Systems
Manager, Public Policy
Tucows Inc.
PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20141103/9ba5f8d4/attachment.html>