Philip: As I've been working through the comments that our sub-team is analyzing I had a question on the ICA comment (here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ppsai-initial-05may15/pdfY5V40N6GZC.pd...) and thought I'd take advantage of you being on our sub-team to go straight to the source. Copied the rest of the sub-team to the extent that our discussion helps their review/analysis. Specifically, I was confused about this sentence from the ICA comment, and in particular the highlighted language: "ICANN has provide two dispute resolution procedures for use by trademark owners in such instances, the UDRP (for all gTLDs) and the URS (for new gTLDs), and disclosure of registrant data to the complainant is provided for in those procedures." Can you show me where the UDRP Rules (here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/udrp-rules-2015-03-11-en) provide for disclosure of registrant data to the complainant? Certainly they recognize in Rule 4(B) that P/P Providers may want to reveal their underlying customer data to the world so as to extricate themselves as a named party from the UDRP. And our WG has seen data confirming that most P/P Providers do just that, and draft their Terms of Service to allow them to do so (see attached email string re: data on this topic). And the recent OpenTLD case shows us a good example of why P/P Providers would draft their TOS to allow them to do so (see: http://domainincite.com/19098-opentld-says-suspension-would-devastate-its-bu...). But as far as I know, there is nothing in the UDRP Rules themselves that requires this type of publication from the P/P Provider as part of the UDRP proceeding - is there? For example, if a particular P/P Provider wanted to show its customers that it is an especially zealous protector of their privacy (perhaps as a point of market differentiation), and therefore agreed in its TOS to serve as the named Respondent in any UDRP action against any of its customer's domains, I'm pretty sure that it could do that, right? Or is there a provision in the UDRP or URS that would require disclosure that I'm missing? Relatedly, if there is a provision in the UDRP or URS that requires disclosure that I'm missing - when does it happen? Is it after the Panel has already adjudicated the guilt/bad faith of the registrant? Because as Kathy argued in her 9-30-14 email in the attached email exchange: "[I]t does seem to be intrinsically unfair to publish a Registrants personal/organizational data to the world without at least a *finding* of actual wrongdoing (not the filing of the complaint in and of itself -- what happens if it is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking decision, or a previous business partner sharing rights to the same name ...??)" Yet I'm pretty sure that is exactly the status quo that we have today: P/P Providers do exactly that (publish to the world; not just disclose to the complainant) as a matter of course as soon as a UDRP is filed, before any adjudication or finding of actual wrongdoing, pursuant to their TOS. Thanks in advance! TW. From: gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nathalie Peregrine Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 4:32 PM To: gnso-ppsai3@icann.org Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai3] MP3 PPSAI WG SubTeam3 - Tuesday 18 August 2015 at 1500 UTC Dear All, Please find below the attendance and MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP SubTeam 3 call held on Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 15:00 UTC. Transcript will follow upon receipt. MP3: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/zfjzi6pv10ynirslwrw76pmlkz4nx60s.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=zZ8xDDIU4PY795Cika7Nmy-2FNugFnAwo9az5qWXNwufQtG6CwDn9RF-2BtV-2Fp-2B8OKL-2Fwdgl0uNc03quui05qNlTH19-2BXqF8ILU-2F74-2BTZRmUmUM-3D_QuA5zZR9ZZ7J1F2FeF-2FOsgm1hgIDcBrAX2P7Ezxmql7ckJc4ios1-2BxObAoz2rzLSI3c4QB1NGo7bw7XrBjpRCbz74w4vzk48UxZMFoBBQBQaQ0ePdiOjdJ30sQNHkokOf-2F2p-2FBvMgKvMhzp-2B4u8fP-2BRrSytHe2KCf2HpQmtSbpezMgNTUG57PiORAPesOotpHA-2BC4pSmXJRsVmpbNaLqzuGd9-2Fw92jZXGs0-2B8FLCBjwEWdYuQCoZgUhG6rv6F3oUK4V56ehvRpcHHJB16mdyqCrSodpvKYN-2FAGS7quPITQAWVdZ0fvORxityjZ7dkwUv0Enqv4bgclqQSM9kEOeSdWYlVf0SFPsg4utfm2CDm3ydG-2BoCaTwrE60cBmDrtQY62aOX9tiYDcDFomhDj3idarzra9XA1E2RW1zsbaUem-2FHF4SZi8wDV05MVAGsvkxUIyvnfj7AB11SoiJGgyJb0RMDm4wiYIDA1FFa3gqBbuEfNIvmtb2o8I1tZM0KWHVg0> Attendees: Philip Corwin Todd Williams Darcy Southwell Vicky Sheckler Sara Bockey Kathy Kleiman Stephanie Perrin Apology: Holly Raiche ICANN staff: Mary Wong Nathalie Peregrine Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 18 August 2015 Mary Wong: Transferring now for Sub Team 3 stephanie Perrin: If I can hear am I in the correct place for subgroup 3? Nathalie Peregrine: yes Kathy: Does everyone agree that we should provide alternatives? alternative language? Sara Bockey: Yes, I think that would be a good idea. Nathalie Peregrine: Please remember to say your names before speaking, for the transcript Philip Corwin: If we can reach any consensus on Annex E language then yes we should go beyond just analyzing the comments. Let's not prejudge our output now. stephanie Perrin: That sounds like a plan Mary.... Kathy: Right - I would be comfortable first with our finalizing our summary before we move on to analysis. Sara Bockey: @Kathy +1 Kathy: So here's the recommendation: clarifying and crystalizing the comments. stephanie Perrin: +1 Kathy stephanie Perrin: This was the point I made in the previous call. "to the extent the document can be changed"....we are in the midst of a discussion, of course it can change. Sara Bockey: I agree with Kathy that the summary does read lopsided, but I also think that working thru some of the comments as Todd suggested and revising based on that review could provide a clearer view of the comments and in the end hhave the effect of reworking the summary. Kathy: @Todd: yes Darcy Southwell: Agree with Sara Kathy: That is what I was proposing Sara Bockey: my computer crashed...so I missed the last few mins Sara Bockey: I hear that I've been volunteered for something...please restate what it is that you would like me to do. sorry. Missed it the first time. Sara Bockey: ok, thanks. I can help with that. Darcy Southwell: Will do. Darcy Southwell: Yes Sara Bockey: yes Philip Corwin: Sounds good Sara Bockey: thank you everyone