RE: [gnso-dow123] Questions for intellectual property constituency members on private registration services

["Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>]

 Bruce, 

I'll offer a few personal observations in response to your questions.  I
will also circulate this to others within the IPC to seek their views.
As I noted in response to a similar question on the Task Force call on
Tuesday, there is no one answer and the requirements may well vary from
country to country.  

In general there may be two main scenarios.  In the first, speed is of
the essence.  When a website to which a domain name resolves is offering
pirate copies of an unreleased movie, video game or software title, the
time frame for resolving the problem is hours at most, and contact needs
to be made by e-mail, fax and/or telephone.  Even in less urgent
situations, these pathways may be preferred, since if a problem can be
resolved quickly and informally it is best to do so.  For instance,
persons who register domain names incorporating famous trademarks are
sometimes unaware that this creates a problem and will often respond
positively to informal contact such as a phone call or e-mail.  

In a second scenario the primary goal is not an immediate resolution,
but to put the registrant on notice about the legal issues posed by its
registration or use of the domain name.  Here the communication needs to
be in writing (though it may still be electronic) and documentation of
delivery is a more critical concern, though of course speed remains
important.  

These two scenarios are not mutually exclusive but it's my impression
that in particular cases one or the other need predominates. 

In terms of criteria for an effective proxy service, two of them would
be speed of communication to the "real" registrant, and accuracy and
currentness of the B data.  (I am assuming that the A data is accurate
since it is the service's own.) 

Some of the services described on Tuesday's call appear to fit within
the framework established by RAA 3.7.7.3.  Others may not because they
do not involve a licensing arrangement.   For those services that are
permissible under 3.7.7.3, the application of the "reasonable evidence
of actionable harm" standard for disclosing the B data is a critical
question.  

I hope this is responsive to your questions, and as noted I will seek to
gather other viewpoints within the IPC and to share a more considered
view with the TF.  

Steve Metalitz       



          

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 2:48 AM
To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-dow123] Questions for intellectual property constituency
members on private registration services

Hello All,

In the last WHOIS call there were several presentations on private
registration services in use by some registrars.

The essential elements of these services is that the registrar provided
a means of contacting the registrant in compliance with the registration
agreement, which states:
>From clause 3.7.7.3 of the registrar accreditation agreement:
(http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm)
"...contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any
problems that arise in connection with the Registered Name."

For the purpose of discussion, lets call the published contact
information:
Contact Information A (published in WHOIS)

And the contact information that may be held by a registrar or third
party service provider as: 
Contact Information B (not published)

The services typically receive phone calls, email, and postal mail at
contact address A, and pass the information on to contact address B.

As an example, I typically provide my office contact details (A) when
registering a domain name, and my office has my home address details
(B).  If I was on leave or otherwise unable to come into my office, the
office would forward the necessary information to my home.

I would like to understand further what the requirements are from the
Intellectual property constituency for sending a legal letter (such as a
notice of intellectual property infringement letter).

Why would contact information A not be acceptable for sending a legal
notice?

What criteria would a service provider need to meet in terms of
providing a contact service, that would meet the needs of the
intellectual property constituency?

Are legal notices typically sent as an open loop process (the letter is
sent without guarantee of delivery), or are notices sent such that they
must be "signed for" at the destination and a record of such signing
provided to the sender (ie the letter is sent with a guarantee of
delivery)?

Regards,
Bruce