I'm not sure what you mean by this, since UDRP cases aren't "solved". It's unclear whether this statistic is the number of cases filed each month, or the number of cases decided each month. But that doesn't really matter. UDRP cases can be filed even in the absence of information regarding the identity of the registrant. That's not the issue, and I don't believe there were any claims that WHOIS partly "going dark" would result in fewer cases being filed. If anything, more cases (but not better cases) may be filed (see #1 below). The issues that are caused by lack of registrant information include the following: 1. The potential complainant won't be able to tell whether the registrant may have a legitimate interest in the domain name, and whether that right predates the complainant's rights. This could result in cases being filed that wouldn't be filed with better information. 2. The potential complainant will have a much tougher time determining whether the registrant engages in a pattern and practice of cybersquatting (since the identity of the registrant will not be known at the time of the complaint). 3. The potential complainant will have a much tougher time determining whether other infringing domain names are owned by the same registrant. 4. It will be more difficult to consolidate cases, since it won't be immediately clear that domains in different are under common control. Best regards, Greg On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 3:33 AM gtheo <gtheo@xs4all.nl> wrote:

So far the numbers of solved UDRP's under the GDPR regime remains the same compared to last year.

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/statistics/cases_yr.jsp?year=2018

WIPO has a lot of statistics; http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/statistics/

Best,

Theo Geurts

Dev Anand Teelucksingh schreef op 2018-08-26 09:04 PM:

...

the WIPO Center has produced the present Q&A on the GDPR’s relation to the UDRP.

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/gdpr/ _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

---

CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg

Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs

-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org "The Internet is for everyone"

Theo, Thanks. That wasn't my question, though; I know how to find decisions (and the statistics page). The question was whether this is a tally of decisions per month, or filings per month. (The statistics page does not say.) If it is filings, it gives us a look at the recent filing behavior of complainants. If it is decisions, then it reflects filings that were made some months ago. These could include numerous filings based on investigations that took place prior to May 25. In any event, the effect of the partial WHOIS blackout is not necessarily a precipitous change, and not necessarily one reflected in such a blunt-force statistic as number of cases (filed/decided?) per month. In my view, it is more likely a degradation over time (as third party WHOIS databases degrade in accuracy and completeness) and a constellation of secondary effects (in addition to those mentioned, fewer attempts to negotiate a resolution prior to filing (since one would have little idea who one would be dealing with), higher expenses associated with making a case, a possible uptick in litigations (due to changing costs and availability of information), a possibility that registries and registrars will have to deal with litigations in a number of ways (discovery requests, liability issues, in rem cases (cases against the domain name rather than the registrant)), etc. As for how you determine #1 (The potential complainant won't be able to tell whether the registrant may have a legitimate interest in the domain name, and whether that right predates the complainant's rights. This could result in cases being filed that wouldn't be filed with better information.) The identity of the registrant is key, along with the date the domain name was registered by (or transferred to) the registrant), and the contents of the website (if there is one). All of these would be weighed and considered, along with any information one could glean based on this data. But without the name, it's much harder to make a reasoned judgment call. If the registrant's business name (or more rarely, personal name) is identical or related to the domain name, that could be an indicator of legitimate rights in the domain. This could then lead to an investigation to learn more about the registrant. Depending on the investigation, it could be the end of the case, or it could make the case stronger. More information will also help the complainant feel more comfortable about contacting the registrant to see if an amicable resolution can be reached. This can also help avoid potential RDNH cases, which will be less obvious and harder to identify now. Cybersquatting is a problem for a lot of actors. However, brandowners are at the "tip of the spear" in many respects. Those other actors depend in significant part on brandowners' efforts to monitor, investigate and shut down cybersquatters -- because it's the companies' trademarks that are being squatted. There are a variety of avenues to shut down cybersquatters, and the UDRP is a primary avenue. A lot of cybersquatting situations involve considerably more than cybersquatting, such as fake websites and emails using stolen content, phishing, spearphishing, fraud, theft, counterfeiting, distribution of malware, spam, etc. This could suggest other avenues aside from UDRP as better choices to respond, including providing information for civil or criminal investigations, alerting registrars to Terms of Service violations, etc. Precisely because it can be complex, the crippling of any one solution vector could have secondary effects. Precisely because its complex, we all have to work harder to understand it and keep up with it. While the brandowners are the ones engaged in enforcement, it's the end-users who are the victims. Whether it's the use of a typosquatted domain to fool a bank into sending money to a fraudulent bank account, the theft of content which is then used to defraud consumers, redirecting consumers to dangerous sites or to sites selling counterfeit goods, etc., etc. Best regards, Greg . On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 3:32 AM gtheo <gtheo@xs4all.nl> wrote:

You can easily zoom in on the cases and the decisions by WIPO; http://www.wipo.int/rss/index.xml?col=dnddocs

Out of interest, how do you actually determine 1? 2,3,4 are self-explanatory and cybersquatting is an issue for a lot of actors within the DNS ecosystem and a complex one to solve.

Best, Theo

Greg Shatan schreef op 2018-09-03 06:12 AM:

...

I'm not sure what you mean by this, since UDRP cases aren't "solved".

It's unclear whether this statistic is the number of cases filed each month, or the number of cases decided each month. But that doesn't really matter.

UDRP cases can be filed even in the absence of information regarding the identity of the registrant. That's not the issue, and I don't believe there were any claims that WHOIS partly "going dark" would result in fewer cases being filed. If anything, more cases (but not better cases) may be filed (see #1 below).

The issues that are caused by lack of registrant information include the following:

1. The potential complainant won't be able to tell whether the registrant may have a legitimate interest in the domain name, and whether that right predates the complainant's rights. This could result in cases being filed that wouldn't be filed with better information. 2. The potential complainant will have a much tougher time determining whether the registrant engages in a pattern and practice of cybersquatting (since the identity of the registrant will not be known at the time of the complaint). 3. The potential complainant will have a much tougher time determining whether other infringing domain names are owned by the same registrant. 4. It will be more difficult to consolidate cases, since it won't be immediately clear that domains in different are under common control.

Best regards,

Greg

On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 3:33 AM gtheo <gtheo@xs4all.nl> wrote:

...

So far the numbers of solved UDRP's under the GDPR regime remains the same compared to last year.

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/statistics/cases_yr.jsp?year=2018

WIPO has a lot of statistics; http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/statistics/

Best,

Theo Geurts

Dev Anand Teelucksingh schreef op 2018-08-26 09:04 PM:

...

the WIPO Center has produced the present Q&A on the GDPR’s relation to the UDRP.

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/gdpr/ _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

---

CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg

Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org "The Internet is for everyone"