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