UDRP Language - Additional Language to Consider
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
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> 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
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
Perhaps makes sense to change “with a fee” --> “sometimes with a fee”, or even deleting “with a fee” *if* that mechanism and its variations are well-known to the readership. I’m concerned about removing “in this ePDP”, because I interpret it as “in a subsequent non-expedited PDP (i.e. ‘never’)”. Isn’t that a reasonable concern? From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Matt Serlin Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2018 7:11 AM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> Cc: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] UDRP Language - Additional Language to Consider 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
HI All- Per our discussion, here’s the revised wording in yellow. I have simplified the language, by deleting some of the possible policy solutions, although they are examples of how this problem could be addressed. To answer the questions raised on this thread – the charter specifically calls out for changes to the UDRP in Part 3 so it is important to keep it in this EPDP, as it is relevant to the question o), and points to issues caused directly by the approach taken in the Temporary Specification. I agree that we can focus on this in a later phase of this EPDP, so that’s reflected in the revised language. All the best, 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 a later phase of this ePDP., such as, o 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 o 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. o Require the TM holder to have a TMCH filing with valid SMD file o Require the TM holder to agree to data processing standards (i.e. model clauses, or similar). o Limitations on the number of records accessible under this purpose _______________________________________________ From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Mark Svancarek (CELA) via Gnso-epdp-team" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Reply-To: "MarksvATmicrosoft.com" <Marksv@microsoft.com> Date: Sunday, November 18, 2018 at 9:45 AM To: Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> Cc: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] UDRP Language - Additional Language to Consider ______________ ….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 _______________________________________________
This appears to be another case of people wanting to put arguments they intend to make in their public comments into the initial report. It is one of the reasons the report is so bloated. I urge us all to stop playing this game. Unless the language changes affect the substance of a recommendation or there is a major error or misrepresentation in the body of the report, it is just not worth it at this stage. --MM From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Margie Milam Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 2:55 PM To: Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] UDRP Language - Additional Language to Consider HI All- Per our discussion, here’s the revised wording in yellow. I have simplified the language, by deleting some of the possible policy solutions, although they are examples of how this problem could be addressed. To answer the questions raised on this thread – the charter specifically calls out for changes to the UDRP in Part 3 so it is important to keep it in this EPDP, as it is relevant to the question o), and points to issues caused directly by the approach taken in the Temporary Specification. I agree that we can focus on this in a later phase of this EPDP, so that’s reflected in the revised language. All the best, 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 a later phase of this ePDP., such as, o 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 o 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. o Require the TM holder to have a TMCH filing with valid SMD file o Require the TM holder to agree to data processing standards (i.e. model clauses, or similar). o Limitations on the number of records accessible under this purpose _______________________________________________ From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Mark Svancarek (CELA) via Gnso-epdp-team" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Reply-To: "MarksvATmicrosoft.com" <Marksv@microsoft.com<mailto:Marksv@microsoft.com>> Date: Sunday, November 18, 2018 at 9:45 AM To: Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com<mailto:matt@brandsight.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Cc: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] UDRP Language - Additional Language to Consider ______________ ….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 _______________________________________________
On the contrary, these are clear factual assertions squarely on point with a charter question. I believe that they are not well understood by all reviewers and should be included in the report. Note that the prescriptive language, which we might expect to see during public comment (“require the trademark holder…”) has been removed. From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 5:47 AM To: Margie Milam <margiemilam@fb.com>; Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] UDRP Language - Additional Language to Consider This appears to be another case of people wanting to put arguments they intend to make in their public comments into the initial report. It is one of the reasons the report is so bloated. I urge us all to stop playing this game. Unless the language changes affect the substance of a recommendation or there is a major error or misrepresentation in the body of the report, it is just not worth it at this stage. --MM From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Margie Milam Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 2:55 PM To: Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] UDRP Language - Additional Language to Consider HI All- Per our discussion, here’s the revised wording in yellow. I have simplified the language, by deleting some of the possible policy solutions, although they are examples of how this problem could be addressed. To answer the questions raised on this thread – the charter specifically calls out for changes to the UDRP in Part 3 so it is important to keep it in this EPDP, as it is relevant to the question o), and points to issues caused directly by the approach taken in the Temporary Specification. I agree that we can focus on this in a later phase of this EPDP, so that’s reflected in the revised language. All the best, 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 a later phase of this ePDP., such as, o 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 o 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. o Require the TM holder to have a TMCH filing with valid SMD file o Require the TM holder to agree to data processing standards (i.e. model clauses, or similar). o Limitations on the number of records accessible under this purpose _______________________________________________ From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Mark Svancarek (CELA) via Gnso-epdp-team" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Reply-To: "MarksvATmicrosoft.com" <Marksv@microsoft.com<mailto:Marksv@microsoft.com>> Date: Sunday, November 18, 2018 at 9:45 AM To: Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com<mailto:matt@brandsight.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Cc: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] UDRP Language - Additional Language to Consider ______________ ….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 _______________________________________________
participants (5)
-
Amr Elsadr -
Margie Milam -
Mark Svancarek (CELA) -
Matt Serlin -
Mueller, Milton L