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

[Frank Michlick]

Hi Val,

On 2014-11-04 4:19 PM, Valeriya Sherman wrote:
> 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  would provide.
IP owners could also track the domains where their customers are allowed
to use their IP.

Remember, we're not really talking about any content here that is hosted
on a site with a domain under privacy, as the privacy provider usually
has no involvement with the hosting etc. There are existing paths that
deal with infringements that can be applied, no matter if there is whois
privacy or not.

But I also have to wonder if a partial disclosure of the registrant's
country would satisfy your need in this case. Not that I support this
either really.
>
> 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.    
>  
"Lack of response to relays is evidence of bad faith"?  Why would
someone be obliged to respond to a message they receive, be it via relay
or not - and how do you ensure that its received?

Best regards,
/FM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20141104/a4cdec3e/attachment.html>