HI – following up on my action item—here is the language I suggest.

Have a great weekend everyone!

Margie

______________

….However this proposed addition was not supported by others who pointed out that in the case of privacy/proxy registrations complainants never often do not have access to registrant information pre-filing.  Some believe that GDRP redaction is distinguishable from a privacy/proxy registration because a privacy/proxy services  is a separate service (associated with a fee) that the registrant chooses, with separate ICANN policies, and a different set of responsibilities.  For example, the proxy service is considered the registrant, and under can face liability under RAA Section 3.7.7.3.

Similarly, concerns were expressed about how this pre-filing disclosures could be implemented in practice as it could result in information being disclosed to anyone claiming to be interested in filing a UDRP complaint, without any obligation to follow this through.  Some believe that this concern can be addressed through policy recommendations to be explored further in this ePDP, such as,

• Require the trademark holder to represent that they have a good faith intent to file a UDRP or other dispute resolution mechanism or cybersquatting action
• Suggest that Dispute resolution providers be able to audit requests to ensure that the requester filed a UDRP/URS or legal complaint, or in good faith determined that no grounds existed.
• Require the TM holder to have a TMCH filing with valid SMD file
• Require the TM holder to agree to data processing standards (i.e. model clauses, or similar).
• Limitations on the number of records accessible under this purpose