Yes, Graeme, it is quite useful.

 

My only question regards this sentence – “Shouldn't an IP rights holder know who they've allowed to use it and for what? “ If “it” is a trademark/brand name, wouldn’t the rights holder already know that?

 

Best, Philip

 

 

 

Thanks, Graeme. This summary is very helpful.

Don

 

 

 

For my own benefit I thought it useful to try and capture highlights from the recent list discussion.  Apologies if I've mis-characterized any of your arguments.  I was trying to collect and aggregate them for my own understanding, and perhaps this is also useful for others.

In general, we're still discussing disclosure.  This has created two related threads of conversation, one around the definition of content, another for allegations of IP infringement, though they mostly overlap.

Before we get to that, Eric Brunner-Williams, via Michele introduced some language that I thought was interesting and helpful, at least for introducing some precision in our discussions.  This was, If I am understanding correctly, that we can break down some issues into two groups:

String issues: problems directly related to the string of characters that constitute a domain name
Resolved resource issues: problems related to what a domain name is pointed at

I think it's worthwhile for us to discuss using those terms going forward.

Re: Allegations of IP Infringement and Disclosure & what constitutes content
Phil Corwin raised concerns about relaying registrant details upon an allegation of infringement.  He pointed out that UDRP and URS exist for string issues, and that complaints are frequently dismissed and reverse domain hijacking is increasing.   Mandatory disclosure does not, to Phil, 'facilitate resolution'.    Valeriya was suggesting that having access to registrant details prior to filing a UDRP may eliminate the need for the potential UDRP, as it better enables the rights holder to determine if a UDRP is warranted. 

We collectively batted this around for a bit, main points being:

• the cost of a UDRP may be a useful gate to prevent abuse
• 'cybersquating' and stockpiling domain names are not necessarily examples of bad faith use.
• Disclosure being helpful for the requestor does not by itself justify the disclosure
• UDRP filings due to the subsequent publishing of details are generally worse for the registrant than disclosure
• Disclosure rather than publish may keep the customer for the provider.

I don't think we resolved much from this discussion, but perhaps it clarified the positions.

To me, and perhaps someone can clarify, it seems like the request for disclosure on allegation of infringement is to be used to fill in a rights holders' information gap.   Shouldn't an IP rights holder know who they've allowed to use it and for what?  Should we be building this mechanism, given the potential for abuse and the importance of protecting registrant privacy?

The separate thread around the definition of content, if i may borrow a phrase from Steve, generated more heat than light.  It ended up centering around the issue that most privacy/proxy service providers reserve the right to unilaterally terminate service to a customer, without due process, while also insisting that disclosing registrant details to a 3rd party upon IP infringement allegation was itself violation of due process. Volker and Frank pointed out that providers reserve the right to protect themselves, and may not use it lightly. 

Which lastly brings us to the discussion on a moderate central course of action.

James had suggested that we look into the authorization and identification of 3rd party requestors. It's not a bad idea, though I suspect easier to implement for larger providers, so it might be worth hearing an opinion from others.

I'm going to circle back to some of the discussions and proposals that registrars had worked on privately, and will see if that can be made ready for prime time. I'd encourage everyone to ponder ways forward on this issue, as we move on to category G to make a bit of headway before circling back.

Thanks

Graeme

-- 

_________________________

Graeme Bunton

Manager, Management Information Systems

Manager, Public Policy

Tucows Inc.

PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634 

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5315 / Virus Database: 4189/8462 - Release Date: 10/27/14
Internal Virus Database is out of date.