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

[Stephanie Perrin]

I agree with David's response.  I would add that the three examples of 
non response cited below (refusing to respond to a subpoena, pay my 
credit card bill, or respond to an IRS audit) are generally speaking 
unlawful (caveat because I am uncertain of specifics of US tax law, and 
the credit card bill may be inaccurate, in which case contention is 
certainly not unlawful).  As David points out, only the credit card is a 
civil matter.  I think we have to be extremely careful in crafting our 
recommendations, not to make it "unlawful" to refuse to become engaged 
in a conversation with a private actor, simply because they feel a 
burning desire to communicate with us. Refusing to respond to a Court 
order, duly relayed by the PP provider, would be another matter 
entirely. We should not mix apples and oranges.
Stephanie Perrin

On 2014-11-05, 21:55, David Cake wrote:
>
> On 6 Nov 2014, at 5:31 am, Kiran Malancharuvil 
> <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com 
> <mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com>> wrote:
>
>> None of you seem to have read past what you quoted.  Val's point is 
>> that it's one thing (of many MANY factors) that may (or may not) 
>> contribute to a finding of bad faith.  At no point does she claim 
>> it's a dispositive factor. I'm sure that no one here believes that.  
>> Like she explicitly said... lack of response doesn't conclusively 
>> demonstrate rights or lack thereof.  Obviously it doesn't.  
>> Mischaracterizing statements does everyone in this group a disservice 
>> and distracts from the actual points being made.
>> Perhaps Val's point (and if not, my point) is that disclosure is 
>> necessary to help rights owners begin a dialogue with the registrant 
>> about whether or not they have legitimate rights.
>
> And I repeat that disclosure would be helpful, but helpful is not 
> necessary. Relay is sufficient to begin a dialogue.
> It is true that sometimes people may not reply to a request via relay, 
> but you can't force someone to engage in a dialogue.
>
>> UDRP filings and the back and forth that results from that is unduly 
>> burdensome to brand owners and registrants when a private dialogue 
>> will do.
> Relay is designed specifically to allow a private dialogue without 
> compromising the privacy rights that the PPP customer has paid for.
> If the possibility of dialogue was prevented entirely, then that might 
> be unduly burdensome, but asking that that initial private dialogue 
> take place in a way that respects the privacy rights that the 
> registrant has paid for, and to which (at this point) there has been 
> no finding to indicate they are entitled to, does not seem unduly 
> burdensome.
>
> SNIP
>> I can refuse to respond to a subpoena, or refuse to pay my credit 
>> card bill, or refuse to respond to the government if the IRS requests 
>> an audit of my taxes.  That's not the end of the story, there are 
>> consequences to those actions.
>
> Indeed (though noting only one of those three is a civil matter 
> directly comparable). And those consequences may well be that you 
> choose to initiate a UDRP, and as you point out lack of response to a 
> relay request will not help their case, and may well help contribute 
> to a finding of bad faith (though, as you say, it would be one factor 
> amongst many, lack of response to a relay request would not be 
> sufficient in itself).
>
>> Perhaps there are consequences to ignoring "legitimate" (whatever we 
>> deem that to be) requests for information if certain criteria are met 
>> in certain situations.  I am not (at this point) advocating one 
>> solution or another.. but I would like to see language that suggests 
>> "absolutes" disappear from our discussions.
>
> If you suggest a specific proposal, I'm sure many people will be 
> interested in looking at it.
>
> But all I am saying is that 'it would be helpful to someone 
> contemplating filing a UDRP' is clearly not sufficient cause to 
> overrule the privacy rights the customer has paid for.
>
> David
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20141106/1b609d3d/attachment.html>