<<<
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 17:22:42 -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> FTP is a dangerous facility to download anything, and no respectable
organization any longer uses FTP.</P>
<P> </P>
<P> The clause to which your suggest or refer is basicially making the
assumption that the registrant</P>
<P>for nearly any reason is suspect from the get go. That's not ever
going to fly for long in any US</P>
<P>court. UK law currently doesn't require such disclosures BTW...
The UDRP is not a constituted</P>
<P>court as far as I know, and if anyones privacy, such as a registrant that is
accused of some sort of</P>
<P>Trademark infringment through the use of their registered domain name, it is
the complaintant</P>
<P>that must show significant evidence of same not for the accused to prove a
negative which</P>
<P>appears to be what your suggested phrase in the Registrars privacy
registration contracts</P>
<P>would be effecting. That would in the US AND the UK as well as other
jurisdictions that </P>
<P>portion of the contract in violation with current contract law accordingly,
the UDRP withstanding.</P>
<P>As such than, the UDRP as I understand your suggestion as being extralegal
in many</P>
<P>jurisdictions. Do I have that understanding of your suggestion
correct? If so, than surely</P>
<P>your countries new PM I believe would take exception as would be his stated
duty to</P>
<P>those of whom he serves. So would my countries ATTYG and President I
believe. But I</P>
<P>will forward this to 10 downing st. and our liason for the PM's office
there ASAP for clarification</P>
<P>accordingly.<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 4:53 PM <BR>To: "'Jeffrey A.
Williams'" <JWKCKID1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, disenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <BR>Cc:
'Accountability Headquarters' <GA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Subject: RE: [ga] RE:
[gnso-acc-sgb] Impact on UDRP <BR><BR><ZZZHTML><ZZZHEAD><ZZZMETA
http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<STYLE>BODY {
BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; COLOR: black;
FONT-SIZE: 10pt
}
P {
MARGIN: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<ZZZMETA content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18928" name="GENERATOR"></ZZZHEAD><ZZZBODY
id=compText>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=936203821-15062010><FONT
face=arial>Jeff</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=936203821-15062010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=936203821-15062010><FONT face=arial>Zone
Files made available for review is not the same as Zone Files made available
for FTP download with timed updates. See my previous message to Eric
where I detail the service offered by Verisign.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=936203821-15062010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=936203821-15062010><FONT face=arial>As to
UDRP, I am no expert, although I do subscribe to the WIPO Domain Names
Decisions List. However, privacy is no defence in law (as far as I know)
and if there is an accusation of Trademark infringement then the owner must
provide information to UDRP. A two tier process in this case may allow
for UDRP to look at the complaint and to decide whether to ask the Registrar to
release information about the actual owner of the domain. The
Registrar should be compelled to provide answers if a UDRP is
filed. I think if this were the case, Registrars would quite happily
write a tiny clause into their privacy contracts stating: "in the event of a
UDRP claim being filed your details will be released to the other party unless
justification can be shown as to why it shouldn't. This justification
would have to go to the UDRP process. Remember these are lawyers and so
there is (hopefully) some sort of client confidentiality which may be
maintained in the first tier of such a process.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=936203821-15062010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=936203821-15062010><FONT face=arial>Anyway,
I'm no expert on UDRP (as I am sure you can see). These are just thoughts
off the top of my head. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=936203821-15062010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=936203821-15062010><FONT
face=arial>Debbie</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px;
MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Jeffrey A.
Williams<BR><B>Sent:</B> 15 June 2010 21:54<BR><B>To:</B>
debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; disenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR><B>Cc:</B>
'Accountability Headquarters'<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [ga] RE: [gnso-acc-sgb]
Impact on UDRP<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<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
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
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=990531320-15062010><FONT color=#0000ff
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
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=990531320-15062010><FONT color=#0000ff
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 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></ZZZBODY>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></ZZZBODY></ZZZHTML></ZZZBODY><ZZZBASE
target="_self"></ZZZHTML></ZZZBODY><BASE
target=_self></ZZZHTML></ZZZBODY><ZZZBASE
target="_self"></ZZZHTML></ZZZBODY><BASE
target=_self></BLOCKQUOTE></ZZZBODY></ZZZHTML></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></ZZZBODY></ZZZHTML></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|