September 2014 - Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Domains By Proxy - Trademark/Copyright Infringement Policy
by James M. Bladel Sept. 26, 2014

Sept. 26, 2014

PPSAI Team: As discussed on Tuesday's call, please find below the TM/copyright policy for our affiliated P/P service, Domains By Proxy. Some on this WG are likely familiar with our claims processing procedures, and can weigh on their experiences. Let me know if you have any questions, and I'll address next Tuesday. Thanks- J. ________________________________ https://www.domainsbyproxy.com/policy/ShowDoc.aspx?pageid=trademark_copy_dbp DOMAINS BY PROXY TRADEMARK AND/OR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT POLICY I. Overview of Trademark and/or Copyright Infringement Policy Domains By Proxy, LLC ("DBP") supports the protection of intellectual property rights. Whether you are the holder of a trademark, service mark or copyright, DBP is committed to helping you protect your legal rights. Therefore, we have established the following policies for considering trademark and/or copyright infringement claims. II. Trademark and Copyright Claim Initiation A. Domain name infringes a trademark If you believe that a domain name utilizing DBP's service infringes your (or your client's) trademark or service mark rights, please complete our Claim Form<http://domainsbyproxy.com/popup/LegalClaimForm.aspx?type=Trademark>, which requires you to provide: * First and last name, email address, and telephone number of the trademark owner * The name of the trademark and the federal trademark registration number * The country where the trademark is registered * A good faith statement, under penalty of perjury, from either the trademark holder or an authorized representative of the trademark holder stating that the use of the trademark by the alleged infringer (i) infringes the trademark holder's rights and (ii) is not defensible. B. Website content infringes a trademark If you believe that a website associated with a domain name utilizing DBP's service contains content that infringes your (or your client's) trademark or service mark rights, please complete our Claim Form<http://domainsbyproxy.com/popup/LegalClaimForm.aspx?type=Trademark>, which requires you to provide: * First and last name, email address, and telephone number of the trademark owner * The name of the trademark and the federal trademark registration number * The country where the trademark is registered * The exact URL where the allegedly infringing content is located * A good faith statement, under penalty of perjury, from either the trademark holder or an authorized representative of the trademark holder, stating that the use of the trademark by the alleged infringer (i) infringes the trademark holder's rights and (ii) is not defensible. C. Website content infringes a copyright If you believe that a website associated with a domain name utilizing DBP's services contains material that infringes your (or your client's) bona fide copyright, please complete our Claim Form<http://domainsbyproxy.com/popup/LegalClaimForm.aspx?type=Trademark>. That form requires you to provide: * First and last name, email address, and telephone number of the copyright owner * The federal copyright registration number, if applicable * The country where the copyright is registered * The exact URL where the copyrighted content is located (if applicable) * The exact URL where the infringing copyrighted content is located * A good faith statement, under penalty of perjury, from either the copyright holder or an authorized representative of the copyright holder, stating that the use of the copyright content by the alleged infringer (i) infringes the copyright holder's rights and (ii) is not defensible. III. Claim Processing Upon receipt of a complete Claim Form as set forth in Section II A - C above, as well as any additional supporting information which DBP may, in its discretion, request from the complaining party, DBP will initiate a claim investigation

7 8

PLEASE RSVP: Pre- Los Angeles Policy Update Webinars - Thursday 2 October 2014 at 10:00 & 19:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Sept. 24, 2014

Sept. 24, 2014

The ICANN Policy Development Support Team will provide a Policy Update Webinar on Thursday 2 October 2014 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC, summarizing policy activities across the ICANN policy development community and the ongoing Transition of Stewardship of the IANA Functions and the ICANN Accountability track efforts. Please RSVP via <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-2G5_ti0hTCd0j8DBcAz3o5ktoWzY1zPqeQPGqWJ68 Y/viewform> this form by 26 September 2014. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 29 September 2014. Updates will also be provided on topics from ICANN's Support Organizations and Advisory Committees: . ASO and Regional Internet Registries RIR Activities . GNSO Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part D Working Group . GNSO Policy and Implementation Working Group . GNSO Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Working Group . ccNSO Framework of Interpretation Working Group Final Report . ALAC Policy Advice and RALO Activities . ATLAS II Implementation Progress . GAC's Remaining Advice on new generic Top-Level Domains . GAC's Implementation of ATRT2 Recommendations . RSSAC Caucus Work Parties . SSAC Advisories and Activities The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session runs for 90 minutes and will be conducted in English only. The webinar will be conducted in Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function in Adobe Connect. Recordings of the webinars will be made available. The Policy Development Support Team is always available to answer any questions via email at <mailto:policyinfo@icann.org> policyinfo(a)icann.org. Again, please RSVP via <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-2G5_ti0hTCd0j8DBcAz3o5ktoWzY1zPqeQPGqWJ68 Y/viewform> this form by 26 September 2014. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 29 September 2014. We look forward to welcoming you on the Pre-ICANN 51 Policy Update Webinar! Best Regards, ICANN Policy Development Support Team

1 0

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Another question
by Chris Pelling Sept. 24, 2014

Sept. 24, 2014

Hi Kathy Disclosure is only to the UDRP processor, it doesnt mean that WHOIS details are updated. Kind regards, Chris NetEarth One, inc On 23/09/2014 2:36 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Hi All, > In preparing for today's call, a few of us had a question: how do P/P > Providers handle UDRP filings. Does that become a Disclosure, > Publication, depends...? Quick answers welcome. > > Tx! > Kathy > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

3 2

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 23 September 2014 at 1400 UTC
by Terri Agnew Sept. 23, 2014

Sept. 23, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 23 September 2014 at 14:00 UTC at: <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140923-en.mp3> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140923-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Steve Metalitz - IPC Graeme Bunton – RrSG Griffin Barnett – IPC Frank Michlick – Individual Don Blumenthal – RySG David Heasley-IPC Jim Bikoff-IPC Chris Pelling – RrSG Kathy Kleiman – NCSG Darcy Southwell – RrSG Phil Marano – IPC Sarah Wyld – RrSG Victoria Scheckler - IPC Lindsay Hamilton-Reid – RrSG James Bladel – RrSG Val Sherman – IPC Luc Seufer – RrSG Alex Deacon – IPC Carlton Samuels – At-Large Todd Williams – IPC Michael Palage - RySG Christian Dawson – ISPCP Keith Kupferschmid-IPC Libby Baney-BC Amr Elsadr-NCUC David Cake-NCSG Kiran Malancharuvil-IPC Osvaldo Novoa-ISPCP Tatiana Khramtsova - RrSG Sean McInerney – no SOI Apologies : Kristina Rosette – IPC Susan Prosser – RrSG Michele Neylon – RrSG Phil Corwin-BC ICANN staff: Mary Wong Marika Konings Amy Bivins Danielle Andela Nathalie Peregrine Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg> https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 23 September 2014: Mary Wong:Welcome to the PPSAI WG meeting of 23 September 2014! Chris Pelling:good afternoon all Carlton Samuels:Morning all Libby Baney:Happy fall all Graeme Bunton:Morning everyone. Bladel:GM everyone. Graeme Bunton:http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule-full Frank Michlick:Good * everyone - whatever is appropiate in your timezone Graeme Bunton:Yep Val Sherman:Morning all Vicky Sheckler:hi Nathalie Peregrine:Marika Konings, Danielle Andela and Vicky Schlecker also noted for attendance Bladel:Having trouble hearing Don.? Terri Agnew:David Cake has joined Danielle Andela:Thanks Nathalie Bladel:Is it just me? Griffin Barnett:i could hear don alright Amr Elsadr:I can hear him fine too. Bladel:ok. just me, apparently. :) Luc Seufer:Hearing him fine, but I am young :-p Terri Agnew:Christain Dawson has joined Christian Dawson:Hi all Chris Pelling:I can hear him fine too Terri Agnew:Kiran Malancharuvil has joined Kiran Malancharuvil:Apologies for being late. Terri Agnew:Osvaldo Novoa and Todd Williams has joined Don Blumenthal:Welcome back, Kiran Don Blumenthal:hoping I haven't you before. Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks Don. Keith Kupferschmid:I can no longer hear Don. the connection got very bad. Griffin Barnett:same Darcy Southwell:I'm having a great deal of trouble hearing Don steve metalitz:Don there is a lot of static on your line Graeme Bunton:(ok, now you are a bit quiet again Don) Amr Elsadr:Don, now it's really hard to hear what you're saying. Sarah Wyld - Aplus.net:Don, did you move away from your mic? Chris Pelling:issues with Don's voice here in the uk Chris Pelling:aha Bladel:*vindicated*! Chris Pelling:don no Chris Pelling:perfect Nathalie Peregrine:Don, would you like us to dial out to you? Chris Pelling:are you holding the mic ? Graeme Bunton:Thanks Steve, no issues here Chris Pelling:LEA is the police Darcy Southwell:Agree with the 3 definitions, including James' suggestion about an add to the definition of disclosure. Vicky Sheckler:steve - havent had a chance to read them yet - will do so and provide comments as appropriate Mary Wong:Document is unsync'ed so you should be able to scroll thru. Terri Agnew:Don has joined audio Don Blumenthal:I'm baaack Kathy:Welcome back! Kathy:When and how the customer will be contacted will also be included in the TOS Kathy:(suggestion) Chris Pelling:Kathy generally by email, if the email bounces and you are on the 2013 RAA that would constitute a suspension (if the bounce is a hard bounce) Chris Pelling:ah Sorry Kathy, thought that was a quiestion, ill go back under my stone Kathy:@Chris: all data helpful, tx you! Terri Agnew:Phil Marano has joined Kiran Malancharuvil:apologies if this was discussed while i was out, but what is a "hard bounce"? Chris Pelling:Permanent failure where it will not retry Kiran Malancharuvil:thanks Kathy:@Don, Steve, Mary: I don't think this is a question we can answer right now. Kathy:I think most people will have to go back and review the RAA... I do! David Cake:Contrast with a soft bounce, where the email server says that it hasn't delivered, but will keep trying for a while. Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks David. Assumed that was correct, but I have learned to always ask. :) Chris Pelling:Thank you Don Chris Pelling:its really not a simple cut and dry count I am sorry to say Chris Pelling:ok, from what we have seen, the PP service provider has been removed Terri Agnew:Sean McInerney has joined audio Bladel:Publication, not reveal. Amr Elsadr:Does reveal = publication or disclosure? Marika Konings:in the UDRP context, it is publication Amr Elsadr:Thanks. Marika Konings:(sorry, may have mixed up some of the definitions we agreed to) Amr Elsadr:We're all doing that. :) Graeme Bunton:Sorry,yes, publish Darcy Southwell:We also Publish in the event of a UDRP. Chris Pelling:ah - ok, I answered Kathy wrong in the emails, the PP service is disabled after UDRP service provider has been informed Griffin Barnett:+1 Todd Mary Wong:Marka is referring the the GNSO Council resolution to have an Issue Report prepared on reviewing the UDRP and all other Rights Protection Mechanisms 18 months after the delegation of the first new gTLD. Kathy:From a liability view, I can see why there is Publication, but from a fairness point of view, it seems unfair Graeme Bunton:no disagreement Kathy Kathy:Mere filing of a UDRP should lead to a reveal, perhaps, but I worry about global publication withiout even a finding of bad faith Bladel:I agree. Especially considering that this could be abused. Graeme Bunton:For the low cost of filing a UDRP, you can use it to reveal Kathy:right Bladel:And then cancel the UDRP Kathy:So what is within our scope to work on here. Chris Pelling:Kathy, it all depends if the PP provider or registrar is listed Bladel:Maybe a special "Reveal" to only the panelist, until the window to cancel the UDRP is closed? Marika Konings:If I recall well, UDRP Providers do carry out an admin check at the start of the process to make sure they are not dealing with a bogus complaint. Libby Baney:+1 Steve re interim standards Kathy:It seems the P/P should disclose the customer to the UDRP filer and the UDRP Forum and leave it at that Luc Seufer:Depending on the implementation of the Lock UDRP WG report, registrants won't even be notified of the proceedings let alone of the suspension of the P/P service. Marika Konings:If I recall well, the problem is that the UDRP Provider currently does not have the possibility to verify that someone is who they say they are, apart from taking that information from the publicly available Whois. Mary Wong:Scopewise, this WG could note potential impact b/c of UDRP actions but can't rec changes to UDRP Rules or practice - it could rec that these be looked at in the proper forum/process, of course. Chris Pelling:Marika, we answer the udrp provider Chris Pelling:and once the new updated complaint is received we then pass that onto the registrant Luc Seufer:I am not very knowlmedgeable in the UDRP providers supplemental rules but I think they all include an anti-abuse provision. Marika Konings:right, but what if I go back and say, I'm listed as the registrant, but it should really be Mary. How can the UDRP Provider verify that is indeed the case (although I guess this could possibly be addressed in the context of accredited P/P providers) steve metalitz:Can staff put the questions up on screen? Amr Elsadr:Is there an anti-abuse provision in the UDRP? I wasn't aware of one. steve metalitz:I mean the questions posed to providers after our last call Mary Wong:Oh sorry Steve Mary Wong:@Steve, they're on the pod on the right steve metalitz:Thanks Mary. steve metalitz:We are also lacking responses to queston 3. Mary Wong:Staff will compile the various email responses received and send those out (and update as necessary) Kiran Malancharuvil:Agree with Steve that we lack answers to questions 3, 4 and 5 Kiran Malancharuvil:Which would be very helpful, thanks! Griffin Barnett:+1 Mary Wong:You're very welcome, Steve and all :) Kathy:Yes! steve metalitz:We all have challenges to face..... Griffin Barnett:thanks all Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks Bladel:Thnanks Luc Seufer:Merci Lindsay Hamilton-Reid:Thanks Amr Elsadr:Thanks. Bye. Chris Pelling:thanks all

1 0

Questions for P/P providers from the WG call earlier today
by Mary Wong Sept. 23, 2014

Sept. 23, 2014

Dear WG members, With the Chairs¹ consent, I¹m sending on the questions that were asked by several WG members during the call earlier today, in the hopes that those members who are or know of P/P providers and their practices can respond. If links to or copies of provider practices and policies can be provided, that would be very helpful too. 1. What are provider practices regarding customer notification when a disclosure request is received, and is the customer given the opportunity to respond? (Note - on the call, James had agreed to provide information about DBP; Graeme and Michele had responded on behalf of their respective companies perhaps other providers besides DBP can also step in here?) 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 ³takedown²)? 3. What are provider ³standards" 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.? As also noted on the call, the Chairs will discuss some of the responses and suggestions that were made, with a view toward hopefully offering some kind of summary or recommendation in time for the call next week. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

7 8

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Questions for P/P providers from the WG call earlier today
by Chris Pelling Sept. 23, 2014

Sept. 23, 2014

Hi All, Let me answer from our point of view and how we handle things : 1. Because we look at EACH and EVERY request manually if by ticket or mail, all requests for disclosure are passed to the PP customer, we ask the 2 parties requestee and pp customer to resolve whatever issue between them, as this is the best way forward for all parties. 2. There is little point allowing a deletion of the domain, as it will then simply be registered elsewhere. However, in point 1 getting the 2 parties talking and more to the point a resolution fixes the issue. 3. Case by Case basis - we do not host material for example, thus DMCA as an example is simply passed on. If the issue is with the actual domain name, then UDRP. 4. Well I can answer this one, in the last year we have had 2 requests if memory serves and thus 2 disclosures. 5. As 4, only LEA. We would only disclose on LEA request (in our jurisdiction) or Court order. Kind regards, Chris NetEarth One, inc On 16/09/2014 11:38 PM, Mary Wong wrote: > Dear WG members, > > With the Chairs’ consent, I’m sending on the questions that were asked > by several WG members during the call earlier today, in the hopes that > those members who are or know of P/P providers and their practices can > respond. If links to or copies of provider practices and policies can > be provided, that would be very helpful too. > > 1. What are provider practices regarding customer notification when a > disclosure request is received, and is the customer given the > opportunity to respond? (Note - on the call, James had agreed to > provide information about DBP; Graeme and Michele had responded on > behalf of their respective companies – perhaps other providers > besides DBP can also step in here?) > 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.? > > As also noted on the call, the Chairs will discuss some of the > responses and suggestions that were made, with a view toward hopefully > offering some kind of summary or recommendation in time for the call > next week. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary > > Mary Wong > Senior Policy Director > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 > Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

2 2

Proposed agenda and documents for WG meeting on 23 September
by Mary Wong Sept. 22, 2014

Sept. 22, 2014

Dear WG members, The proposed agenda for our meeting on Tuesday 23 September is: 1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI 2. Update on WG F2F facilitated session in Los Angeles 3. Continue deliberations on Category F (see attached documents) 4. Next steps Please note that, for Agenda Item #3, the WG chairs working with ICANN staff have prepared a set of draft preliminary conclusions for Category F that they would like to use for discussion and review. It¹s attached to this email, as is the entire set of Category F charter questions with the WG-agreed sub-questions included (this second document has not changed from its 1 September version). Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

1 0

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Questions for P/P providers from the WG call earlier today
by Darcy Southwell Sept. 17, 2014

Sept. 17, 2014

In response to the Chairs’ specific questions below: 1. We do not automatically forward to our customers disclosure requests that were sent directly to us for processing . If the requester asks us to, we will forward it. 2. We have not built this “takedown” concept into our process. At this point, disclosure and publication are our only actions. 3. We require a valid court order or subpoena before disclosing information that is not already publicly available. 4. N/A 5. N/A Domain.com’s Domain Privacy Service TOS is available here <http://www.domain.com/legal/legal_domain.bml#domain-privacy-service>. [image: Description: Description: compass-high-res 2] *Darcy Southwell* Director, Registrar Compliance | *The Endurance International Group* Mobile +1.503.453.7305 | darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com | Skype: darcy.enyeart From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 at 3:38 PM To: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Questions for P/P providers from the WG call earlier today Dear WG members, With the Chairs’ consent, I’m sending on the questions that were asked by several WG members during the call earlier today, in the hopes that those members who are or know of P/P providers and their practices can respond. If links to or copies of provider practices and policies can be provided, that would be very helpful too. 1. What are provider practices regarding customer notification when a disclosure request is received, and is the customer given the opportunity to respond? (Note - on the call, James had agreed to provide information about DBP; Graeme and Michele had responded on behalf of their respective companies – perhaps other providers besides DBP can also step in here?) 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.? As also noted on the call, the Chairs will discuss some of the responses and suggestions that were made, with a view toward hopefully offering some kind of summary or recommendation in time for the call next week. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

1 0

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 16 September 2014 at 1400 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Sept. 16, 2014

Sept. 16, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 16 September 2014 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140916-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Steve Metalitz - IPC Graeme Bunton – RrSG Griffin Barnett – IPC Frank Michlick – Individual Don Blumenthal – RySG David Heasley-IPC Jim Bikoff-IPC Chris Pelling – RrSG Kathy Kleiman – NCSG Justin Macy - BC Susan Kawaguchi – BC Kristina Rosette – IPC Darcy Southwell – RrSG Paul McGrady – IPC Phil Marano – IPC Sarah Wyld – RrSG Victoria Scheckler - IPC Michele Neylon – RrSG Lindsay Hamilton-Reid – RrSG James Bladel – RrSG Val Sherman – IPC Luc Seufer – RrSG David Hughes - IPC Alex Deacon – IPC Carlton Samuels – At-Large Todd Williams – IPC Phil Corwin – BC Michael Palage - RySG Sean McInerney – no SOI Apologies : Holly Raiche – ALAC Christian Dawson – ISPCP Volker Greimann - RrSG ICANN staff: Mary Wong Marika Konings Amy Bivins Danielle Andela Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg> https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 16 September 2014: Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the PPSAI call on the 16th September 2014 Graeme Bunton:g'morning all Mary Wong:Hello everyone Carlton Samuels:morning all Nathalie Peregrine:Hello Carlton, presence noted for attendance Chris Pelling:afternoon all Nathalie Peregrine:Kathy Kleiman and Paul McGrady have joined the AC room Nathalie Peregrine:Vicky Scheckler is also in the AC room Nathalie Peregrine:Susan Kawaguchi has joined the call Nathalie Peregrine:David Hughes is on the audido bridge only Nathalie Peregrine:Kristina Rosette has joined the Ac room Carlton Samuels:+1. P/P Service Should be a separate contract Kathy:+1 James and Carlton Nathalie Peregrine:Frank Michlick has joined the AC room Carlton Samuels:Not only because providers need not be registrars but given the range of issues that is the best holistic approach Graeme Bunton:I think James captured that well Mary Wong:@James, everyone, we'll certainly take that back to the Registrar Team, thank you. Nathalie Peregrine:Luc Seufer has joined the AC room Bladel:Did we lose Don? Mary Wong:I can hear him Graeme Bunton:i can hear him Nathalie Peregrine:we can hear you Bladel:sorry I dropped...redialing. Chris Pelling:bit this is one registgrars terms Chris Pelling:but * Don Blumenthal:Two with Tucows. :) Kathy:Question for James: Does DBP offer any opportunity for customer to respond prior to disclosure or publication? Carlton Samuels:@Kathy: That is also my question..which leads directly to Steve's Chris Pelling:Sorry Don, I was meaning to do with Steve's points. We are the same as TuCows in that we do not host websites or material Chris Pelling:We would essentially be doing the same as TuCows Don Blumenthal:Chris, thanks for the clarificaiton. I didn't want Graeme to feel left out. Chris Pelling:well you can add a third as we would be the same as TuCows :) Mary Wong:@Kathy @James, from the DBP website: "When DBP receives certified or traceable courier mail or legal notices addressed to Your domain name, in most cases, DBP will attempt to forward the mail to you via email. If You do not respond to the DBP email and/or the correspondence DBP has received regarding Your domain name registration concerns a dispute of any kind or otherwise requires immediate disposition, DBP may immediately reveal Your identity and/or cancel the DBP private registration service regarding either the domain name registration(s) in question. This means the Whois directory will revert to displaying Your name, postal address, email address and phone number that you provided to DBP." Bladel:Well, there's no Gala on wednesday... Mary Wong:From our review of the DBP terms provided in response to us, they also reserve the right to resolve all third party claims, and take any other action necessary if there is a TM violation. Luc Seufer:@James do you think I could fight against one of those .kids? Seems to be the only option for me not to get knock down too swiftly Kathy:Tx James! 3 questions: Kathy:1. Can the customer respond to the allegations? Kathy:Tx Graeme! Kathy:2. Can the customer know before publication? Kathy:3. Can the customer take other actions to prevent publication, e.g, takedown Graeme Bunton:The customer would know Don Blumenthal:Chris, it would be shorter than the auction prooces Kathy:Graeme, is there any writing from Tucows that we might use as an example? Graeme Bunton:Kathy - nope! Kathy::-) OK Kristina Rosette:Would it also be possible for the providers to supply some general information about the percentage of requests for disclosure are successful (and even better if that information is available by "claim" type)? It would be a good benchmark to have, I think. Vicky Sheckler:in thinking about standards/current practices, it would be useful to understand context in terms of reason for request ( law enforcement, third party claims of IP infringement, other, etc.) Graeme Bunton:Kristina - that sort of transparency reporting is going to be beyond the majority of providers at the moment i bet. Michele Neylon:Kristina - we'd do a transparency report *if* we had enough to talk about Michele Neylon:of anything .. Michele Neylon:we get one UDRP per year (on average) Kathy:how did you know, Michele? Kathy::-) Chris Pelling:this year I think we have had 2 or 3 UDRP's if that helps Nathalie Peregrine:please remember to state your names for the transcript Carlton Samuels:@Michele: Don't forget to add the civil law enforcement agencies Paul McGrady:I'm having trouble following the conversation. Lots of overlapping speakers. Carlton Samuels:@Don: Yes, +1. Its a mess Kathy:Could someone post this definition? Vicky Sheckler:+1 for james's comment Val Sherman:+1 James Bladel:3.18.2 Registrar shall establish and maintain a dedicated abuse point of contact, including a dedicated email address and telephone number that is monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to receive reports of Illegal Activity by law enforcement, consumer protection, quasi-governmental or other similar authorities designated from time to time by the national or territorial government of the jurisdiction in which the Registrar is established or maintains a physical office. Well-founded reports of Illegal Activity submitted to these contacts must be reviewed within 24 hours by an individual who is empowered by Registrar to take necessary and appropriate actions in response to the report. In responding to any such reports, Registrar will not be required to take any action in contravention of applicable law. Carlton Samuels:@Kathy: +1. Very good point Carlton Samuels:Thereafter it moves upto MLATs and such. No reinvention of the wheel Michele Neylon:MLATs Michele Neylon:such fun :) Kathy:@James, tx and useful def. Carlton Samuels:@Michele: I knew that would cause a chuckle out of ya Kathy:it includes the jurisdiction concept Michele Neylon:Carlton - there was some good discussion about jurisdiction at IGF Mary Wong:Following up on Steve's point, note that DBP has separate policies for UDRP, TM/Copyright Notices, and Subpoenas from LEA. Carlton Samuels:@Michele: Yessir Chris Pelling:however the person who requests the information is not bound by any agreement though Darcy Southwell:How would a P/P provide enforce? Chris Pelling:exactly Don Nathalie Peregrine:Sean McInerney has joined the AC room Vicky Sheckler:kathy re: good faith standard approach Kathy:Domains by Proxy language: Kathy:A good faith statement, under penalty of perjury, from either thecopyright holder or an authorized representative of the copyrightholder, stating that the use of the copyright content by the allegedinfringer (i) infringes the copyright holder’s rights and (ii) is notdefensible. Chris Pelling:to be honest, I do not think the complainee will really care, we have seen clear DMCA complaints which reading them are fraudulant Vicky Sheckler:Chris - while there are some abuses, most rightsholders do take the langauge seriously Chris Pelling:@Vicky, this is why we only provide on court order as we have something in hand we can then go back with steve metalitz:Murder is a good analogy? Not where I sit.... Chris Pelling:thats not a bad thought Michele Don Blumenthal:We have talked about murder and ICANN boxing on this call. I'm getting a bad feeling. Chris Pelling:depends if you get away with it steve :) Kathy:Nodding... Chris Pelling:not that I have ever done it, but, I am sure some people have and have got away with it Chris Pelling:surely you are inocent until proven cuilty, and the only ones that can do that are LEA or Courts ? Chris Pelling:just trying to think the flow for proof essentially Chris Pelling:cuily = guilty Luc Seufer:is there any country where making a false declaration isn't punishable? Graeme Bunton:James' sports team IS the worst. Luc Seufer:The one with a bird as logo? Don Blumenthal:Whichever team it is? Chris Pelling:@Luc you have to be able to enforce the punishment Chris Pelling:for example you are in the EU Kathy:Alot to think about - including the range of legal ways people use domain names (that tick other people off) Kathy:tx Don! Chris Pelling:thanks :)

1 0

Agenda for WG meeting on 16 September
by Mary Wong Sept. 15, 2014

Sept. 15, 2014

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for our meeting on Tuesday 16 September 2014: 1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI 2. Follow up from P/P Accreditation Framework presentation last week questions/feedback for ICANN¹s Registrar Services Team 3. Discuss P/P services policies see example of DBP terms sent by James (below) 4. Continue deliberations on Category F documents previously distributed 5. Next steps Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> Date: Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 1:17 PM To: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Domains By Proxy - Trademark/Copyright Infringement Policy > PPSAI Team: > > As discussed on Tuesday¹s call, please find below the TM/copyright policy for > our affiliated P/P service, Domains By Proxy. Some on this WG are likely > familiar with our claims processing procedures, and can weigh on their > experiences. > > Let me know if you have any questions, and I¹ll address next Tuesday. > > Thanks > > J. > > > > > https://www.domainsbyproxy.com/policy/ShowDoc.aspx?pageid=trademark_copy_dbp > > > > DOMAINS BY PROXY > TRADEMARK AND/OR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT POLICY > I. Overview of Trademark and/or Copyright Infringement PolicyDomains By > Proxy, LLC (³DBP²) supports the protection of intellectual property rights. > Whether you are the holder of a trademark, service mark or copyright, DBP is > committed to helping you protect your legal rights. Therefore, we have > established the following policies for considering trademark and/or copyright > infringement claims.II. Trademark and Copyright Claim InitiationA. Domain > name infringes a trademarkIf you believe that a domain name utilizing DBP¹s > service infringes your (or your client¹s) trademark or service mark rights, > please complete our Claim Form > <http://domainsbyproxy.com/popup/LegalClaimForm.aspx?type=Trademark> , which > requires you to provide: > * First and last name, email address, and telephone number of the trademark > owner > * The name of the trademark and the federal trademark registration number > * The country where the trademark is registered > * A good faith statement, under penalty of perjury, from either the trademark > holder or an authorized representative of the trademark holder stating that > the use of the trademark by the alleged infringer (i) infringes the trademark > holder¹s rights and (ii) is not defensible. > B. Website content infringes a trademarkIf you believe that a website > associated with a domain name utilizing DBP¹s service contains content that > infringes your (or your client¹s) trademark or service mark rights, please > complete our Claim Form > <http://domainsbyproxy.com/popup/LegalClaimForm.aspx?type=Trademark> , which > requires you to provide: > * First and last name, email address, and telephone number of the trademark > owner > * The name of the trademark and the federal trademark registration number > * The country where the trademark is registered > * The exact URL where the allegedly infringing content is located > * A good faith statement, under penalty of perjury, from either the trademark > holder or an authorized representative of the trademark holder, stating that > the use of the trademark by the alleged infringer (i) infringes the trademark > holder¹s rights and (ii) is not defensible. > C. Website content infringes a copyrightIf you believe that a website > associated with a domain name utilizing DBP¹s services contains material that > infringes your (or your client¹s) bona fide copyright, please complete our > Claim Form > <http://domainsbyproxy.com/popup/LegalClaimForm.aspx?type=Trademark> . That > form requires you to provide: > * First and last name, email address, and telephone number of the copyright > owner > * The federal copyright registration number, if applicable > * The country where the copyright is registered > * The exact URL where the copyrighted content is located (if applicable) > * The exact URL where the infringing copyrighted content is located > * A good faith statement, under penalty of perjury, from either the copyright > holder or an authorized representative of the copyright holder, stating that > the use of the copyright content by the alleged infringer (i) infringes the > copyright holder¹s rights and (ii) is not defensible. > III. Claim ProcessingUpon receipt of a complete Claim Form as set forth in > Section II A C above, as well as any additional supporting information which > DBP may, in its discretion, request from the complaining party, DBP will > initiate a claim investigation > >

1 0