Hi Amr and Margie, I’d echo Amr’s sentiment below...I completely understand the intention to disclose the data in relation to the filing of a UDRP but have some concerns on including this language in the initial report at this stage. Specifically, I don’t think “associated with a fee” is appropriate to call out as these services are not always associated with a fee based on my understanding of the marketplace. Additionally, though I like the concept of auditing disclosure requests against actually filings by the dispute providers, I’m not sure we can include that as part of this PDP and seems to be it would be more warranted for subsequent work as Amr suggests in his comments below. Regards, Matt On Nov 18, 2018, at 5:29 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> wrote: Hi Margie, Substantive issues aside, it seems to me that the solution you’re proposing is far outside the scope of the EPDP, and is better taken up by the GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG. We already have quite a lot on our plate, and recommending procedural changes to the UDRP is something I don’t believe we have the bandwidth or time to thoroughly address here and now, don’t you think? Thanks. Amr On Nov 16, 2018, at 11:41 PM, Margie Milam <margiemilam@fb.com<mailto:margiemilam@fb.com>> wrote: 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team