Hi Paul T., On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 6:35 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote:
George #23 doesn’t seem very sensible and I’m somewhat surprised it is deemed to have adequate support.
As I have already pointed out the TM holder is a 3rd party looking to intervene in a private contract. What you are proposing is that one of the parties to the contract that is causing the problem should be rewarded proportionately to level of bad behaviour, which would have the effect of working in direct opposition to the intenttions of RAA 3.18.
The registrar (or registry) isn't being "rewarded" --- they're simply recovering their compliance/admin costs associated with providing help to providers during the dispute. Forget about domain names for a moment, and suppose that an ISP like Verizon, Cox, or AT&T is approached to provide information about one of their subscribers (by law enforcement, copyright holders, etc.). There are staff costs to do that. Those ISPs aren't getting "rewarded" -- they're just recovering those costs (the cost recovery needs to be "reasonable"). It doesn't become a "profit center." Here's a cost schedule for Cox, as an example: https://www.cox.com/aboutus/policies/law-enforcement-and-subpoenas-informati... "$50.00 Per account for basic information* "$100.00 Expedited handling fee" "$75.00/hr./staff Requests requiring greater than 0.5 hours ($40.00 minimum)" "Wiretap $3,125 for 30 days" And it's a proposal not just for registrars, it'd be for registries too (which don't have a direct contractual relationship with registrants, but still need to interact with providers, at least for the URS). And the costs for registries exist, as Jonathan Frost has noted, when this topic came up last month on the mailing list. See the thread at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/date.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003263.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003266.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003269.html etc. Indeed, by allowing registrars to recover costs, just like ISPs do, it'll strengthen 3.18 of the RAA. Furthermore, this isn't "bad behaviour" -- prior to the matter being discharged by the courts, or a panel, etc., the outcome of the dispute is unknown (one can't presume the registrar's customer is guilty, based on an accusation or request; the ISP or registrar or registry is neutral, and not a party to the dispute). I don't know if we have any ISPs participating in this PDP, but they might be able to provide further data/insights. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/