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

Wed Nov 5 09:31:55 UTC 2014

Sorry, but I smirked at this comment:
> Lack of response to relays is evidence of bad faith, [...].
Really? In my book, lack of response is evidence of only one thing: Lack 
of response is evidence of lack of response. Nothing more!

There may be so many reasons why someone may decline to respond that are 
not bad faith, your conclusion is far fetched at best.

- Message was caught by spam filters
- Message was accidentally deleted
- Message message was not read
- Message was considered spam and ignored
- Recipient believed the message does not concern him
- Recipient is in hospital/on vacation
- Recipient got scared by the harsh language used even though he is not 
actually infringing
- Recipient just does not want to deal with this at this time
- Recipient choses not to respond

And those are just off the top of my head.

Best,

Volker

>
> 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 <mailto:vsherman at law.gwu.edu>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *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> 
> [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 <mailto: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 <http://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

-- 
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

--------------------------------------------

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems

CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20141105/d2f45083/attachment-0001.html>