RE: [gnso-res-sga] FW: [gnso-acc-sgb] Impact on UDRP

["Scoville, Adam" <ascoville@xxxxxxxxx>]

On the need to be able to prove the case, yes, I think this would
logically have to be a "reveal" event. After all, showing the OPoC in
Whois is meant to provide the registrant privacy, not shield illegality.


But luckily the standard for when there is a possible/impending UDRP
case is pretty easy - it's basically the UDRP prong of whether the
domain is, on its face, "identical or confusingly similar" to the
trademark (without regard to the "legitimate interest" or "bad faith"
prongs, which are the ones that the mark owner is unable fully to
investigate without the Whois information).

- Adam


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:17 PM
To: Christopher Gibson; gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-res-sga] FW: [gnso-acc-sgb] Impact on UDRP

I can see that that would address Doug's point (2), but what about point
(1) -- is the remaining publicly accessible information about the
registrant (name, province, country) enough for a complainant to
investigate and prove that the registrant has no rights or legitimate
interest in a domain name?  Put another way, would an impending (or
actual) UDRP complaint be a circumstance in which the OPOC should not
only "relay" but also "reveal" full contact data? 

Steve 

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Gibson [mailto:cgibson@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 5:02 PM
To: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-res-sga] FW: [gnso-acc-sgb] Impact on UDRP

Steve,

Thanks for cross-posting the comments below.  I already had a quick
review of the UDRP (and mentioned in my working proposal).  I don't
think the UDRP needs to be amended so long as there is something in
ICANN's principles for OPOCs (e.g., in the accreditation) which
specifies that notice to the OPOC's published contact details satisfies
the responsibilities for notice under the UDRP.  I can draft some
specific language on this if it would be helpful.

Chris 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx]
On
Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 4:50 PM
To: gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-res-sga] FW: [gnso-acc-sgb] Impact on UDRP

 Cross-posting to the subgroup A list on an issue that appears to be
within our bailiwick....... 

Steve Metalitz 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Dan Krimm
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 4:40 PM
To: gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-acc-sgb] Impact on UDRP

>From where I sit, it seems that it might only entail minor changes to
UDRP to comply, if at all.

Perhaps this WG (if Subgroup A arrives at such a recommendation) could
instantiate an explicit and absolute (rather than merely informally
implied) responsibility of the OPoC to communicate UDRP complaints to
the registrant (with explicit acknowledgement of such action provided to
the Complainant, and failure possibly resulting in blocking the domain),
and thus the OPoC would be considered a reliable conduit for such
complaints under UDRP.  The OPoC could even be given authority to act
directly on UDRP complaints in some cases, if delegated by the
registrant.

That may not even require amending UDRP explicitly.  But if so, it seems
like a minor amendment.  It's not like UDRP has to be etched in stone in
every absolute detail.  This WG can note any impacts on UDRP arising
from its Whois recommendations, and I presume GNSO (upon adopting the
results of the WG) can offer suggestions to the Board for how to
accommodate its recommendations for Whois/OPoC in UDRP.

Doesn't seem like a big deal.  Isn't this the whole point of the OPoC,
to be the official point of contact for all external communications with
regard to DNS operations?

Dan

PS -- Apologies to SGA for stepping on their domain from SGB...  ;-)



At 3:35 PM -0400 5/17/07, Doug Isenberg wrote:
>I don't believe the UDRP has been amended since it was approved by
ICANN in 1999 - so, the process for amending it is not clear (at least
not to me - though I'd be happy to hear from others on this point).
But, it does seem clear that either (1) the UDRP would need to be
amended to accommodate some of the Whois proposals being discussed or
(2) the Whois proposals being discussed need to be modified to
accommodate the UDRP as it has existed since 1999.
>
>Doug Isenberg
><http://www.gigalawfirm.com/>www.GigaLawFirm.com
>
>