<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] RE: [gnso-acc-sgb] Impact on UDRP
- To: debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, disenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [ga] RE: [gnso-acc-sgb] Impact on UDRP
- From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:53:53 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
<HEAD>
<STYLE>body{font-family:
Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-color:#ffffff;color:black;}p{margin:0px}</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18928"></HEAD>
<BODY id=compText>
<P>Debbie and all,</P>
<P> </P>
<P> I agree that all zone files should be avaliable for public review,
and most already are if you know how to</P>
<P>access same. So I am a bit confused as to what your meaning of 'Made
availiable' is exactly. ?? Can</P>
<P>you please elaborate?</P>
<P> </P>
<P> Secondly any privacy service regarding a Domain Name such as a proxy
under contract at the time</P>
<P>of registration and in accordance with current ICANN policy if violated in
any way ergo obtained by</P>
<P>other than a court order in jurisdiction of the Domain Name holder is not
valid and that domain name</P>
<P>holder if so violated has the legal right to contest in jurisdiction, such a
illegal act accordingly. What</P>
<P>'Details' are you suggesting under the UDRP proceedure should or must in
your opinion, be provided?<BR><BR><BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px;
MARGIN-LEFT: 0px">-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Debbie Garside
<DEBBIE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: Jun 15, 2010 3:24 PM <BR>To: 'Hugh
Dierker' <HDIERKER2204@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Cc: 'Accountability Headquarters'
<GA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Subject: [ga] RE: [gnso-acc-sgb] Impact on UDRP
<BR><BR><ZZZHTML><ZZZHEAD><ZZZMETA http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<STYLE type=text/css>DIV {
MARGIN: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<ZZZMETA content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18928" name="GENERATOR"></ZZZHEAD><ZZZBODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=990531320-15062010><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>This is exactly why it is necessary for a lo-cost
monitoring/notification system. I know exactly how a system can be
designed in order to deal with just these issues. I cannot pretend that
it is easy but it is quite doable. However, it is crucial that Zone Files
for all ccTLDs and gTLDs are made available.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=990531320-15062010><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=990531320-15062010><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>If a Registrar offers some sort of privacy service then the
onus is on the Registrar to provide the details as soon as a UDRP is
filed. I am not totally familiar with UDRP but it would seem to require a
two tier process in such a case. As in, Complainant files a preliminary
complaint at which time the Registrant is informed by the Registrar that a
complaint has been filed and by whom (this gets around the vexatious
complainant issue). The Registrant is given the option of relinquishing
disputed domain or providing his/her details for the UDRP to go
forward.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=990531320-15062010><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=990531320-15062010><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Debbie</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px;
MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> Hugh Dierker
[mailto:hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx] <BR><B>Sent:</B> 15 June 2010
19:49<BR><B>To:</B> debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR><B>Cc:</B> Accountability
Headquarters<BR><B>Subject:</B> Fw: [gnso-acc-sgb] Impact on
UDRP<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE:
12pt">
<DIV>Debbie,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Here is the middle of a debate that overlapped here. This shows
the brass tacks of getting down to disclosures and why or why not. The
subgroup b in the address refers to a GNSO group, that dovetailed with more
open discussions had here.</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE:
12pt"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px"><FONT
size=2 face=Tahoma>----- Forwarded Message ----<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT:
bold">From:</SPAN></B> Doug Isenberg
<disenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT:
bold">To:</SPAN></B> gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT:
bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Thu, May 17, 2007 9:06:43 AM<BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> RE: [gnso-acc-sgb] Impact on
UDRP<BR></FONT><BR>My primary questions, refined in response to the below, are
as follows:<BR><BR>(1) If the UDRP requires a Complainant to prove that a
registrant has "no<BR>rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain
name" (UDRP Policy,<BR>paragraph 4(a)(ii)), then how would a Complainant be
able to do so if the<BR>Complainant does not know the registrant's identity and
instead knows only<BR>the identity of the registrant's OPOC? Either (a)
the Complainant must have<BR>access to the registrant's identity, or (b) the
UDRP must be amended to<BR>eliminate this requirement.<BR><BR>(2) If the UDRP
requires that a Complainant send or transmit the Complaint<BR>to "the holder of
a domain-name registration against which a complaint is<BR>initiated" (UDRP
Rules 1 and 3(b)(xii)), then how would a Complainant be<BR>able to do so if the
Complainant does not know the registrant's identity and<BR>instead knows only
the identity of the registrant's OPOC? Either (a) the<BR>Complainant must
have access to the registrant's identity, or (b) the UDRP<BR>must be amended to
eliminate this requirement.<BR><BR>These are not necessarily the only
UDRP-related issues that may exist, but<BR>the general notion is that any
changes to Whois (whether via OPOC or<BR>otherwise) are likely to have broader
implications than appear to have been<BR>discussed thus far and that these
implications may require changes to the<BR>UDRP itself before the changes could
be implemented.<BR><BR>Doug Isenberg<BR><A href="http://www.gigalawfirm.com/";
target=_blank>www.GigaLawFirm.com</A><BR><BR><BR>-----Original
Message-----<BR>From: <A href="mailto:owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx";
ymailto="mailto:owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx</A>
[mailto:<A href="mailto:owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx";
ymailto="mailto:owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx</A>]
On<BR>Behalf Of Milton Mueller<BR>Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 11:47 AM<BR>To:
<A href="mailto:disenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";
ymailto="mailto:disenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>disenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>; <A
href="mailto:gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx";
ymailto="mailto:gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx</A>;<BR><A
href="mailto:hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx";
ymailto="mailto:hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx";>hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx</A><BR>Subject:
Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Impact on UDRP<BR><BR>Doug Isenberg <<A
href="mailto:disenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";
ymailto="mailto:disenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>disenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>>
wrote:<BR><BR>>-- Presumably, a Complainant needs to know the identity of a
domain <BR>>name registrant to prove that the registrant has "no rights
or<BR>legitimate<BR>>interests in respect of the domain name" as required by
paragraph<BR>4(a)(ii)<BR><BR>Under the OPoC proposal the identity of the
registrant (name, location)<BR>would be known. Yes, you additional info would
be useful (e.g., life<BR>history, business registrations, etc.) but you have no
right to it nor<BR>is it prima facie required. <BR><BR>You can ask the
registrant, via its OPoC, for the basis of their claim<BR>to a right and
legitimate interest. If they do not respond that is often<BR>used by UDRP
panelists as supporting evidence of bad faith. <BR><BR>>-- Presumably,
a Complainant needs to know the identity of a domain<BR>name<BR>>registrant
to prove bad faith under 4(b)(ii) of the Policy, which<BR>refers to<BR>>a
domain name registrant engaging in a "pattern" of registering
domain<BR>names<BR>>to prevent trademark or service mark owners from
reflecting the marks<BR>in<BR>>corresponding domain names. <BR><BR>Seems
obvious to me that such a pattern could be estalbished by having<BR>the same
name, jurisdiction, and even the same OPoC. If the registrant<BR>lies on this
they may as well lie on the additional information that is<BR>screened. The
same "lying pattern" that is often used with the<BR>additional info may show
up. <BR><BR>This business about "premature disclosure" strikes me as odd. If
you are<BR>talking about filing a UDRP claim you are disclosing all kinds of
things<BR>to the registrant. <BR><BR>>-- If a Complainant submitted a UDRP
complaint to an OPOC instead of to<BR>the<BR>>registrant itself (if the
Complainant did not have the registrant's<BR>identity<BR>>and contact
information), would that satisfy paragraph 3(b)(xii) of the<BR>>Rules, which
requires a Complainant to certify that the Complaint "has<BR>been<BR>>sent
or transmitted to the Respondent"? <BR><BR>If that doesn't count as "sent or
transmitted" already the rules could<BR>easily be modiied to make it
so.<BR><BR><BR><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR>Regards,<BR><BR>Jeffrey A.
Williams<BR>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 300+k members/stakeholders and
growing, strong!)<BR>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom"
-<BR> Abraham Lincoln<BR><BR>"Credit should go with the performance
of duty and not with what is very<BR>often the accident of glory" - Theodore
Roosevelt<BR><BR>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the
burden, B; liability<BR>depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied
by<BR>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."<BR>United States v. Carroll
Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir.
1947]<BR>===============================================================<BR>Updated
1/26/04<BR>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of<BR>Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.<BR>ABA member in good
standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Phone:
214-244-4827<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></ZZZBODY></ZZZHTML></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|