[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Compilation of P/P provider responses
Chris Pelling
chris at netearth.net
Wed Oct 1 09:28:41 UTC 2014
Hi Val,
Kathy's words were : "I think disclosure to the Complainant and the
Forum would be sufficient to meet the needs of the Complainant, and
provide information that can be used for both the formal dispute and
perhaps an informal resolution." which essentially means (if we are
talking about the National Arbitration Forum) this is filing a UDRP case.
So disclosure is ONLY once UDRP has been filed, because we are required
to provide that information for the UDRP process as the registrar under
the RAA. Otherwise in all fairness we will have "willy nilly" requests
for information from every tom, dick and harry.
I totally agree with Kathy in that the PP service /should not/ be lifted
until the UDRP decision/finding has been completed - as at that point if
the request has been found "/wanting/" then the customer still has his
privacy intact because the UDRP panel has rejected the claim.
The UDRP process cost is around $1500, I don't know what lawyers charge
on top mind you, but, if I had to protect my IP, $1500 is something
simple to find to protect it. You have given certainly the view from
the "person trying to get the information" yet totally left out the "I
want my privacy protected". Let me give you a "way off" example and yes
I know this is way off.
A "person" is being stalked, they move to get away from said stalker,
BUT, their domain is essential to their keeping, the stalker only has to
ask / request the PP service provider for the information - and in your
last paragraph you suggest the information should be simply given over.
I am sorry, but, thats wrong. It is not an attack on you Val, and we
have to think of the best routes for this. UDRP means somebody
adjudicates the request - THIS IS FAIR and IMPARTIAL to both parties.
If the PP customer is in the wrong - fine, not only do they lose the
case and the domain - they lose the PP service as the domain is no
longer theirs.
We can all go round and round in circles and be here all year, the IP
guys want the ability to simply ask for information and be given it, let
me put another thought out there :
A lawyer provides his customer a PP service, do you really think that
the lawyer will simply "give up" the customer information if requested?
They may well do, but, I would lean on the side of "No, you cant have it
as it is attorney–client privilege" (I am not a lawyer, so that may be
the wrong term - but you get the idea)
If the lawyer has a court order or subpoena then sure - he/she will
provide that info. I am suggesting the same, no more, no less.
In the UK, you are innocent until proven guilty, like most places, so,
why should someone's data be revealed unless it has been requested/ruled
by an authority/judge whatever. At least with being requested LEGALLY
like that, the data protection act in the UK (where we are) allows us to
provide that information as we have a court order requesting it.
Kind regards,
Chris
On 30/09/2014 11:12 PM, Valeriya Sherman wrote:
> We also agree with the points raised by Todd and Kathy below.
> Disclosure to a Requestor would avoid the more drastic result of
> Publication associated with the filing of a legal action, which could
> have negative consequences for all parties.
>
> To echo Todd's point below, Disclosure would help to avoid
> unnecessary(and expensive) arbitration or litigation. In the context
> of IP rights enforcement, where many rights are territorial in nature,
> disclosure of registrant contact information may be essential for a
> Requestor to properly analyze whether a cause of action exists or
> further proceedings are merited. In other words, filing a UDRP or a
> court action without this information is putting the cart before the
> horse -- it entangles all three parties (Customer, P/P Provider, and
> Requestor) in potentially premature legal action, that could very well
> have been avoided through disclosure of Customer information (e.g.,
> jurisdiction) and/or direct communication between Customer and Requestor.
>
> Moreover, we should keep in mind that many Requestors will be smaller
> businesses and organizations, for which bringing an expensive action
> without essential facts that could be obtained through
> Disclosure would be extremely burdensome, potentially to the point
> where they would be unable to protect their rights against some
> infringers -- a result fraught with anti-competitive and anti-consumer
> implications. An effective and fair accreditation regime should aim to
> prevent such a result.
>
> Thanks,
> 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 Kathy Kleiman
> [kathy at kathykleiman.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:33 AM
> *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Compilation of P/P provider responses
>
> A Belated +1 to Todd's thoughtful analysis below.
>
> Although #1 (publication) does seem to be the default for some re:
> UDRP filings, it does seem to be intrinsically unfair to publish a
> Registrants personal/organizational data to the world without at least
> a *finding* of actual wrongdoing (not the filing of the complaint in
> and of itself -- what happens if it is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
> decision, or a previous business partner sharing rights to the same
> name...??)
>
> Here, I think disclosure to the Complainant and the Forum would be
> sufficient to meet the needs of the Complainant, and provide
> information that can be used for both the formal dispute and perhaps
> an informal resolution.
>
> I think Todd lays it out far more eloquently below...
> Best,
> Kathy
>
>
> :
>>
>> Thanks Mary. One thought for the group to consider (happy to discuss
>> in more detail on the call):
>>
>> Reviewing the attached, it seems as if there are basically two
>> alternatives for us to debate when it comes to disclosure in the
>> context of cybersquatting and UDRPs (setting aside for now that there
>> are many abuses other than cybersquatting where disclosure may be
>> relevant):
>>
>> 1)One alternative is for the p/p provider to simply funnel those
>> kinds of complaints into a UDRP. This approach basically skips
>> “disclosure” and goes straight to “publication” – the attached points
>> out that most providers will publish all contact information to the
>> world once a UDRP is filed.
>>
>> 2)The other alternative would require disclosure to the complainant
>> under certain enumerated circumstances where the complainant provides
>> enough information to meet certain prima facie elements (and makes
>> certain averments under penalty of perjury).
>>
>> Based on the attached, it seems that Option (1) is currently the more
>> common approach. But going forward, isn’t Option (2) much better for
>> the consumers/beneficial users who purchase p/p services? As Kathy
>> and others have rightly mentioned, publication (to the world) is a
>> more extreme deviation from the beneficial user’s privacy
>> expectations than is disclosure (to a single complainant). So why
>> would we adopt an accreditation regime that skews the process toward
>> the more drastic result?
>>
>> f
>>
>> One other thought on this: in many cases disclosure may obviate the
>> need to file a UDRP at all. Maybe the complainant can contact the
>> beneficial user to negotiate a resolution. Or maybe learning the
>> beneficial user’s identity will cause the complainant to question its
>> original analysis that the domain name was being used in bad faith.
>> Whatever the reason, I would assume that avoiding a UDRP is almost
>> always going to be the better option for ALL parties involved:
>>
>> ·The complainant gets to save the money that it would otherwise spend
>> on a UDRP.
>>
>> ·The beneficial user gets to avoid the more drastic result of
>> publication to the world.
>>
>> ·The p/p provider gets to avoid being named as a respondent in a UDRP
>> proceeding (which James noted on our call can be problematic), and
>> may get to keep a paying customer that it would otherwise lose once
>> the UDRP is filed and the contact information is published to the world.
>>
>> So if everybody is better off under Option (2) than Option (1), what
>> I am missing? What is the argument for Option (1)? And why is it
>> the more common approach used today (at least, according to the
>> responses compiled in the attached)?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> Todd.
>>
>> *From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong
>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 25, 2014 7:36 PM
>> *To:* PPSAI WG
>> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Compilation of P/P provider responses
>>
>> Dear WG members,
>>
>> Please find attached a document that staff has compiled of P/P
>> provider responses to the 5 questions posed by the WG chairs to the
>> group after the call last week, as follows:
>>
>> 1. What are provider practices regarding customer notification when a
>> disclosure request is received, and is the customer given the
>> opportunity to respond?
>>
>> 2. Does any provider offer its customer an option other than
>> disclosure or publication, e.g. an opportunity to cancel the
>> registration instead (i.e. what some WG members have mentioned as a
>> “takedown”)?
>>
>> 3. What are provider “standards" for determining disclosure to third
>> parties?
>>
>> 4. Can providers give the WG some general information about the
>> percentage of requests for disclosure that are successful?
>>
>> 5. For Q4, do providers also have information about the type of
>> claims those relate to e.g. If they are from LEA, 3P IP claim etc.?
>>
>> Please let me know if I have mischaracterized or omitted any response
>> that you may have sent (for which I offer my apologies!). If you have
>> not yet provided a response and are in a position to do so, or if
>> you’d like to add to a response you’d provided previously, please
>> send it along and I’ll make sure it gets added to this document.
>>
>> Finally, please note that certain actual provider terms of service
>> obtained from a sample of providers had previously been compiled as
>> part of the draft template for this Category F, so that may also be
>> helpful – these are available on the WG wiki here:
>> https://community.icann.org/x/QwbxAg
>> <https://community.icann.org/x/QwbxAg>.
>>
>> Thanks and cheers
>>
>> Mary
>>
>> Mary Wong
>>
>> Senior Policy Director
>>
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
>>
>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141001/28d009ce/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list