I agree with David's response. I would add that the three examples of non response cited below (refusing to respond to a subpoena, pay my credit card bill, or respond to an IRS audit) are generally speaking unlawful (caveat because I am uncertain of specifics of US tax law, and the credit card bill may be inaccurate, in which case contention is certainly not unlawful). As David points out, only the credit card is a civil matter. I think we have to be extremely careful in crafting our recommendations, not to make it "unlawful" to refuse to become engaged in a conversation with a private actor, simply because they feel a burning desire to communicate with us. Refusing to respond to a Court order, duly relayed by the PP provider, would be another matter entirely. We should not mix apples and oranges. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-11-05, 21:55, David Cake wrote:
On 6 Nov 2014, at 5:31 am, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com <mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> wrote:
None of you seem to have read past what you quoted. Val's point is that it's one thing (of many MANY factors) that may (or may not) contribute to a finding of bad faith. At no point does she claim it's a dispositive factor. I'm sure that no one here believes that. Like she explicitly said... lack of response doesn't conclusively demonstrate rights or lack thereof. Obviously it doesn't. Mischaracterizing statements does everyone in this group a disservice and distracts from the actual points being made. Perhaps Val's point (and if not, my point) is that disclosure is necessary to help rights owners begin a dialogue with the registrant about whether or not they have legitimate rights.
And I repeat that disclosure would be helpful, but helpful is not necessary. Relay is sufficient to begin a dialogue. It is true that sometimes people may not reply to a request via relay, but you can't force someone to engage in a dialogue.
UDRP filings and the back and forth that results from that is unduly burdensome to brand owners and registrants when a private dialogue will do. Relay is designed specifically to allow a private dialogue without compromising the privacy rights that the PPP customer has paid for. If the possibility of dialogue was prevented entirely, then that might be unduly burdensome, but asking that that initial private dialogue take place in a way that respects the privacy rights that the registrant has paid for, and to which (at this point) there has been no finding to indicate they are entitled to, does not seem unduly burdensome.
SNIP
I can refuse to respond to a subpoena, or refuse to pay my credit card bill, or refuse to respond to the government if the IRS requests an audit of my taxes. That's not the end of the story, there are consequences to those actions.
Indeed (though noting only one of those three is a civil matter directly comparable). And those consequences may well be that you choose to initiate a UDRP, and as you point out lack of response to a relay request will not help their case, and may well help contribute to a finding of bad faith (though, as you say, it would be one factor amongst many, lack of response to a relay request would not be sufficient in itself).
Perhaps there are consequences to ignoring "legitimate" (whatever we deem that to be) requests for information if certain criteria are met in certain situations. I am not (at this point) advocating one solution or another.. but I would like to see language that suggests "absolutes" disappear from our discussions.
If you suggest a specific proposal, I'm sure many people will be interested in looking at it.
But all I am saying is that 'it would be helpful to someone contemplating filing a UDRP' is clearly not sufficient cause to overrule the privacy rights the customer has paid for.
David
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg