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

Tue Nov 4 21:37:15 UTC 2014

Hi Val,

I am sorry, but I simply do not agree with your statement "Another point that came up during our call is that an authorized party would respond to a relay request. Lack of response to relays is evidence of bad faith, but it doesn't obviate the need for disclosure."

Any number of reasons could be cited for not replying, spam service for example messagelabs, hardened mail server simply rejects the mail for something as simple as an SPF conflict.

An assumption just because I have not replied to you is not bad faith.  

Please remember that the receiver is not obliged to answer you, similar to any email you receive in your inbox. :)

Kind regards,
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Valeriya Sherman" <VSherman at sgbdc.com>
To: "Phil Corwin" <psc at vlaw-dc.com>, "Don Blumenthal" <dblumenthal at pir.org>, "Graeme Bunton" <gbunton at tucows.com>, gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
Sent: Tuesday, 4 November, 2014 9:19:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Recap & Moving Forward

Phil/Graeme -- An IP owner would know who they authorized to use the IP and who they did not. The issue is that they do not know whether a particular Customer , whose identity is hidden, needs authorization or not. In the example I provided earlier , where a Requestor has rights in US but not in the EU, it would be essential for him to know where the Customer is located to establish whether the Customer needs any authorization -- and that is some of the information that Disclosure w ould provide. 

Another point that came up during our call is that an authorized party would respond to a relay request. Lack of response to relays is evidence of bad faith, but it doesn't obviate the need for disclosure. As noted above, a Customer may not need any authorization, so his failure to reply to a relayed request is not conclusive evidence of his rights or lack thereof. Disclosure is still needed. 

Best, 

Val 

Valeriya Sherman 
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, L.L.P. 
1101 30th Street, N.W. 
Suite 120 
Washington, D.C. 20007 
Tel 202.944.3300 
Cell 303.589.7477 
vsherman at sgbdc.com 

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] on behalf of Phil Corwin [psc at vlaw-dc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 9:43 AM 
To: Don Blumenthal; Graeme Bunton; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org 
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Recap & Moving Forward 

Yes, Graeme, it is quite useful. 

My only question regards this sentence – “Shouldn't an IP rights holder know who they've allowed to use it and for what? “ If “it” is a trademark/brand name, wouldn’t the rights holder already know that? 

Best, Philip 

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal 

Virtualaw LLC 

1155 F Street, NW 

Suite 1050 

Washington, DC 20004 

202-559-8597/Direct 

202-559-8750/Fax 

202-255-6172/cell 

Twitter: @VlawDC 

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey 

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal 
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 9:36 AM 
To: Graeme Bunton; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org 
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Recap & Moving Forward 

Thanks, Graeme. This summary is very helpful. 

Don 

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [ mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org ] On Behalf Of Graeme Bunton 
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2014 10:21 PM 
To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org 
Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Recap & Moving Forward 

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 

No virus found in this message. 
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2015.0.5315 / Virus Database: 4189/8462 - Release Date: 10/27/14 
Internal Virus Database is out of date. 
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg