Have you hugged your WHOIS privacy provider today?

[Rob Monster]

Many registrars provide WHOIS privacy services. I won't name ours because that would be promotional, strictly forbidden by Namepros moderators and severely punished! However, I do simply want to acknowledge that running a compliant WHOIS privacy proxy services in 2019 is a bunch of work, especially if a UDRP action is involved. This case reveals a changing tone on privacy.

I am attaching a procedural document from a WIPO panelist who is giving me a hard time in a case where the respondent asked me to dump their domain. It now happens routinely that a complainant's counsel won't simply accept the domain name, but rather will turn the matter into a drawn-out case with multiple interrogatories, wasting everyone's time for a domain that the complainant would prefer to hand over.

In this particular case, the registrant had previously advised us that he was not interested in defending a UDRP on his domains, which in this case was one domain in a large portfolio of .CO domains. So, in the interest of pragmatism, we sought to settle the matter. In the process, we would save the complainant some fees. Win-win and less work in the end. So, did that work out? Nope!

WHOIS privacy compliance is getting harder and harder. The active discussions at ICANN, including this week in Montreal, further reinforce the direction that Law Enforcement and Regulatory authorities want, which is to be able to pierce the privacy veil whenever they darned well please. I have an issue with that and have stated my position without equivocation in the ICANN Registrar Stakeholder Group.

Nevertheless, the policy changes with RDAP march forward, and it is rapidly approaching a foregone conclusion that a pillar of online privacy is being toppled right now in the closing months of 2019.

Our WHOIS privacy service which shall not be named is in fact an ICANN compliant WHOIS privacy proxy. It is a separate legal entity set up for the express purpose of serving as an ownership proxy for the registrant. From a legal perspective, the WHOIS privacy proxy is the registrant's agent.

All this said, I have been unequivocal that at Epik we do not protect people who are engaged in criminality. If there is a court order, we comply. Beyond that, we have openly stated that known criminality is not operating in a protected class at Epik. The job of discernment is not an easy one but it is comes with the territory. So, make sure to hug your WHOIS privacy provider. They have your back more than you know!

 

[biggie]

Many registrars provide WHOIS privacy services. Epik provides such a service. I won't name ours because that would be promotional, strictly forbidden by Namepros moderators and severely punished!

maybe you could add
"Is this just another promotional thread"
to the choices in these polls

or maybe it's time NP gave you your own section on the forum.
I would favor that, over these guises.

Adam Dicker gave DNJournal, Domain Gang, and the Sherpa, their own sections as well, when he owned the other forum

btw: fabulous has free privacy by default, so you can bulk edit or pick and choose.


imo...

 

[Rob Monster]

What you do looks really, really risky and dangerous for Epik. Why go to such lengths just for one particular customer whose hands are not quite clean?

First of all, thanks for not voting "This thread is stupid". I appreciate that.

As for this being risky, I don't see it that way. Who should own this domain?

There is an energy company.

There is a musician: https://open.spotify.com/artist/4DNiGWScVzTFZVRj0rdja1

There are people named Vito Gaz: https://www.facebook.com/public/Vito-Gaz

There are also Mercedes Vito cars powered by Gaz which comes extensively when searching "Vito Gaz".

This is not to present a defense of the domain. The point is that if the registrant's instructions are to not to defend UDRP names, it is faster and cheaper for everyone to just solve it.

The inescapable fast is that lawyers are abusing WIPO. I have gone on record about it elsewhere in the context of another waste of time case full of attorney over-reach.

UDRP exists to be a fast-track process with minimal friction. If we are going to have a drawn out legal proceedings, then forget WIPO. Let civil courts handle the cases since WIPO is adding zero value.

 

[Rob Monster]

I am not familiar with the procedure enough to comment any of it. But I can see that it has statements like "...registrar failed with the obligations...". If these are true, it can be used further to give Epik more trouble, including PR trouble and legal trouble.

We are actually one of the more compliant registrars when it comes to handling UDRP actions. At ICANN meetings I routinely hear how hard it is to get registrars to answer these. Keep in mind that there are a lot of tiny registrars with little or no people working there or bare bones customer service. UDRP compliance is a no-revenue and thankless task that is getting harder as evidence by the exhibit I provided to illustrate the direction UDRP is going when it comes to domains owned by privacy proxy. The complainants are unapologetic in revealing their true intentions, namely to peek behind the privacy veil. There is a certain tone of "presumptive close" being used by the complainant and their intermediaries, acting as if they are entitled to peek behind the privacy veil when the domain registrant is a sovereign legal entity.

 

[Samer]

Give ur business to registrars who offer free privacy...

epik values client privacy like no other,

i get the best of both worlds

Samer

 

[Rob Monster]

I want my customers to find me
how about you?

I generally use SSL landers so the people who want the domain can usually find me just fine.

As for public WHOIS, the problem is this:

When you pick up a pre-existing .com domain, you also pick up that domain's baggage. You never really know who owned the domain before you, nor who they wronged, or disappointed.

You can always decloak, but I find I get a lot less spam from new spammers by keeping WHOIS privacy in place on most names.

 

[branding]

To be honest,I didn't. I did give my wife an extra hug though for supporting me throughout the years. She's amazing.

 

[biggie]

Wow .. just read everything .. those of you complaining about this thread please stop .. this is a VERY important subject .. and an ideal example to use for information and discussion's sake.

Hi

if registrants have right to privacy....
then members have right to complain..
as I am certain that initially, these threads have been promotional in nature


and....if the same person keeps doing the same thing, then they can be judged by their past behavior.... per your logic in below example

That being said .. if an accuser is certain about a deliberate infringement of their trademark, then I can see that they would want the information in order to assure the accused does not hold other infringing domains.

Also important to note, is that the other domains in an accused's portfolio can be used in order to decide the 3rd part of a UDRP, which is whether or not the domain was registered in bad faith or not.

That being said, the first two stages of a UDRP can be evaluated without such a need.

just saying....

but to the subject, I think it ain't as imperative as it is made to seem.

you have a choice to go private or not, some places offer for free and others may charge extra.

and to be real, privacy ain't really private, because if/when you can receive email inquires, then have to reply from your email to negotiate, if you want to make a sale.

additionally, majority won't ever have to deal with potential urdp, wipo, etc actions, unless you are intentionally acquiring tm domains or making bad faith registrations.
or you're sending solicitations that may awaken a tm holder to take action


imo….

 

[Bernard Wright]

After having just transferred some names out from registrars that required privacy be disabled before transfer, I have a newfound appreciation for Anonymize. I dropcatched a name once and then (thought I) had to spring for an extra ~$9 for privacy. I know I'm not the only one. And I'm sure there are plenty of folks paying yearly for privacy at registrars with their renewals. So much money wasted. I'm glad Rob has 1) created the service, and 2) made it known.

Folks are free to air their frustrations regarding the promotional tilt to Rob's posts, but it's plain to see that he and his team are doing a lot for our community, and for the Internet as a whole ...and in this case, Anonymize is free. Worth a thread imo.

And even the paid-for services Rob mentions in his posts/threads are very worthwhile. It seems like a large number of new threads created by NP members these days lack value to the community. Folks try to inflate their new niche idea or some other shtick. Many threads appear to be dopamine-driven from the rush of fresh regs and a few visits on their landers; nothing of substance. Rob's solutions are real, and like him or not, his threads are among the most interesting and worthwhile on these boards.

Thanks for making privacy free, Rob.

 

[DanSanchez]

Funny, the whole process is to achieve exactly what you have granted. To claim this is harming the "Operational integrity of the Policy"is contradicting the very policy itself. The ironic thing is, they own almost all other extensions. Why does the responsibility fall on the respondent when the complainant failed to secure their own name in an unrelated extension? Vitogaz.me is available and so are many others. Typical french litigious company seeking to collect revenue without earning it.

Laissez-faire!

 

[Rob Monster]

Interesting story Rob. It does seem some want to pull the privacy whenever it suits them. But on the other hand I once had someone say, anyone can pull up what I paid for my house and the taxes I pay, why shouldn't I be able to find out who owns any domain name?

That is certainly a reasonable thing to debate.

The challenge you run into is with certain cases like:

- Censorship
- Whistleblowers
- Persecuted persons
- Celebrities

Etc.

ICYMI the WHOIS RDAP system is in the process of being designed to allow any "authorized person" to pierce through the privacy veil at will. The criteria for this access is not something the public understands so they will assume it is business as usual when in fact the rules are changing.

I do have concerns about people having the expectation of privacy only for them to find out that they no longer have privacy. The issue of who decides and what is logged is certainly quite important since a centralized system is only as good as the weakest link in the chain.

 

[Rob Monster]

To be honest,I didn't. I did give my wife an extra hug though for supporting me throughout the years. She's amazing.

Obviously I am being a bit cheeky. Wives need hugs.

However, I just wanted to share in the wake of seeing the meeting notes from the ICANN meetings in Montreal, that a lot of WHOIS privacy services are about to be presented with choices.

On the one hand, GDPR is making harder for citizens to find each other.

On the other hand, RDAP is making it easier for certain people to find whoever they want.

Something is amiss there.

 

[branding]

Obviously I am being a bit cheeky. Wives need hugs.

However, I just wanted to share in the wake of seeing the meeting notes from the ICANN meetings in Montreal, that a lot of WHOIS privacy services are about to be presented with choices.

On the one hand, GDPR is making harder for citizens to find each other.

On the other hand, RDAP is making it easier for certain people to find whoever they want.

Something is amiss there.

Couldn't agree more I get your point but must honestly admit I haven't read up enough about recent whois/RDAP protocols to give an educated opinion.

As for whois privacy in general. There are reasons to use it, and reasons not to. I believe they who are not to be mentioned are right to provide it by default

 

[Kai W.]

I found a way to sell contact information and reduce fraudulent emails. My names are protected by privacy, and I put them all on DAN, and add a background image of the mailbox on each page, so I believe to buy The family will find me instead of a fraudulent email.
On the other hand, when I look for the seller's contact information, as I have gained in other posts, I first look through the registrar/WOHIS. If I don't know, I will have to fill out the contact form.

 

[Sutruk]

and to be real, privacy ain't really private, because if/when you can receive email inquires, then have to reply from your email to negotiate, if you want to make a sale.

Who says that you have to reply with the same email of your domain registrar?
I find Whois Privacy very useful. No need to show your email addess, phone number and street address to the Whole World.

 

[Ategy]

... majority won't ever have to deal with potential urdp, wipo, etc actions, unless you are intentionally acquiring tm domains or making bad faith registrations.

That is 100% not true ... I'm currently helping a fellow domainer where a huge global brand is trying to bully their way into stealing the domain. The emails from the company are disgusting, full of misleading statements designed to scare the domain owner.

It seems like it's standard practice in the industry .. particularly when considering who I'm dealing with.

I actually didn't really look at the poll .. I guess the poll and discussion aren't really exactly about the same thing. I'm talking about what's going on in the specific first post at the start of the thread. The discussion is very on point and important to the community .. the poll .. agreed .. not so much.

It should be free to challenge someone's ownership of a domain. The idea that someone has to pay a filing fee and hire a lawyer favors rich people. There should be a fast-track way to invite a registrant to hand over a domain. It can be fully automated based on WHOIS lookup before going to UDRP.

That's actually an good idea .. obviously either side could choose a higher path .. but that would likely eliminate a lot of needless escalations. My only fear on that is the potential for abuse by supposed TM holders. A lot of people who have legitimate claim to the domain might be scared into giving it up. Definitely a very interesting idea to consider and develop. Like seriously what's the point of ICANN being involved with domains if not for things like that?

What bothers me most of the UDRP process is that ultimately panellists are effectively paid by TM holders, so it's actually in their financial interest to create a general environment where there are more UDRP cases than fewer. Of which one unfortunate side-effect is potential bias towards TM complainants. The whole system stinks!

I am tempted to make this part of WHOQ.com -- a free ombudsman service to encourage people to work out their disagreements before one of them hires a greedy lawyer who waste everyone's time

I'm no lawyer .. but that's a job I'd take in a heartbeat. Abuse from both sides really pisses me off and taints the industry as a whole!

 

[Rob Monster]

I think your heart is absolutely in the right place on this one @Rob Monster, you are trying to stand up for one of your clients which is admirable. I also agree with the point that you, and others, have expressed that it seems that UDRP panels are being used at times inappropriately. I have a lot of concern that the precedents seem to be making the doors more and more open, and that some lawyers have an interest in sending as many cases to UDRP as possible, rather than resolving simply with a request letter.

That being said, if I correctly understand the situation, my personal opinion is that you should comply with the panelist request. I say this for two reasons. While it is great for you to try to promote worthy ideas, at the same time it is also essential that you do what is in the best interests of all of your customers and for Epik and its employees (and yourself incidentally!).

Secondly, I see some danger in, once a UDRP process has commenced, to have the process stopped (except in cases where a clear error has been made). The reason I say that is if this became commonplace there might well be inappropriate pressure brought on those ho had started proceedings to instead solve it outside the panel.

The reason the contact information is requested is to meet the requirement that notice of the UDRP has been sent by both email and postal mail.

On the general question of privacy, I do invoke privacy on my names to try to mitigate the tide of offers to get on the first page of Google, and I am not convinced that a significant number of purchasers use Whois and any domain name I want to currently sell has a lander so I don't see the need to make my whois public.

That being said, I have always thought somewhat along these lines.
I would be fine with all domain transactions having a record of owners as long as those gave an email and name and not a phone number and street address. I realize, and accept, that most think differently.

I hope this sorts out without too much pain for you, Epik or the client. As I said your heart is in right place, mind too, but do what is best for Epik.

Bob

Thanks Bob. Of course we comply. In fact, last week, on the heels of returning from ICANN Compliance, I named @Sufyan Alani to the secondary role of Director of Compliance. This was a role previously occupied by Joseph Peterson, and indeed quite masterfully, I might add! My personal tolerance for nonsense is not as high as either of those guys. That does not mean I lack patience. I simply have low appreciation for people who get paid to waste other people's time.

I share this example only for folks to have some vague understanding of the role of WHOIS privacy proxies, and the shifting landscape, both for WIPO panelists but also for attorneys who don't want to just take the domain from the offending registrant but want to extract their identity, even in cases where it might be ambiguous as to whether the UDRP action was valid in the first place! Some people just don't want to be bothered.

 

[Ategy]

Wow .. just read everything .. those of you complaining about this thread please stop .. this is a VERY important subject .. and an ideal example to use for information and discussion's sake.

This case is a perfect example of how the system is a mess!

First of all .. for myself, I want to distinguish a night and day difference between Law Enforcement having access to info with an order from a judge (in cases such as child pornography, terrorism, etc), vs UDRP cases where it's trademark issues in question.

Almost all my domains are public. Although I've had a handful private where I thought I would be wrongly accused of TM infringement. And I have had a very small number of which I thought would be appropriate for certain existing businesses that I'm a fan of that I'd be happy to just give the domain to (but like never getting around to outbound on my other domains, I usually never get around to contacting them, and just forget about those and mostly let them expire).

That being said .. I do think a FAIR UDRP process is important because there certainly is a lot of abuse by domainers. However .. it can NOT be ignored that there is also a lot of abusing behaviour by TM holders in trying to scare domainers into giving up domains that aren't actually infracting on the rules or the particular TM.

While definitely there are arguments overall about whether domains should ever be private or not .. that is a different argument for a different day. The fact is that today there is the right to privacy, and as such, registrants should be able to expect for the right to privacy be upheld.

I see no reason that a registrant be forced to reveal themselves BEFORE being found guilty.

That being said .. if an accuser is certain about a deliberate infringement of their trademark, then I can see that they would want the information in order to assure the accused does not hold other infringing domains.

Also important to note, is that the other domains in an accused's portfolio can be used in order to decide the 3rd part of a UDRP, which is whether or not the domain was registered in bad faith or not.

That being said, the first two stages of a UDRP can be evaluated without such a need.

There's also the irony in that the accuser has a right to defend themselves .. but the very act of doing so voids their right to privacy.


I'm not really against such severe de-privatisation actions .. but only if the accused domainer loses the first two parts of the UDRP ... and then beyond that .. that there be SEVERE consequences to the accuser in the case they do not win the overall UDRP, on par with the huge penalties of current privacy non-compliance laws, where there is a real and significant deterrence for abusive complaints.


It's a very complex issue in general.


That being said .. with regards to the specific domain .. I've never heard of vitogaz at all. Was there any advertising or content up on the site that could confuse the accused website with the complainant's business? If the answer to that is yes, then I am less sympathetic to the domainer in question.

Also .. ultimately I do think it's important that trademark holders have the right not accept settlement in cases where they do think a domainer is abusing trademarks. But at the same time, domainer owners need to be protected from trademark owners who abuse the system to try to steal domains that ultimately they re not entitled to.

That ultimately is the real problem in the end .. that there's lots of abuse on both sides.

 

[Rob Monster]

Wow .. just read everything .. those of you complaining about this thread please stop .. this is a VERY important subject .. and an ideal example to use for information and discussion's sake.

This case is a perfect example of how the system is a mess!

First of all .. for myself, I want to distinguish a night and day difference between Law Enforcement having access to info with an order from a judge (in cases such as child pornography, terrorism, etc), vs UDRP cases where it's trademark issues in question.

Almost all my domains are public. Although I've had a handful private where I thought I would be wrongly accused of TM infringement. And I have had a very small number of which I thought would be appropriate for certain existing businesses that I'm a fan of that I'd be happy to just give the domain to (but like never getting around to outbound on my other domains, I usually never get around to contacting them, and just forget about those and mostly let them expire).

That being said .. I do think a FAIR UDRP process is important because there certainly is a lot of abuse by domainers. However .. it can NOT be ignored that there is also a lot of abusing behaviour by TM holders in trying to scare domainers into giving up domains that aren't actually infracting on the rules or the particular TM.

While definitely there are arguments overall about whether domains should ever be private or not .. that is a different argument for a different day. The fact is that today there is the right to privacy, and as such, registrants should be able to expect for the right to privacy be upheld.

I see no reason that a registrant be forced to reveal themselves BEFORE being found guilty.

That being said .. if an accuser is certain about a deliberate infringement of their trademark, then I can see that they would want the information in order to assure the accused does not hold other infringing domains.

Also important to note, is that the other domains in an accused's portfolio can be used in order to decide the 3rd part of a UDRP, which is whether or not the domain was registered in bad faith or not.

That being said, the first two stages of a UDRP can be evaluated without such a need.

There's also the irony in that the accuser has a right to defend themselves .. but the very act of doing so voids their right to privacy.


I'm not really against such severe de-privatisation actions .. but only if the accused domainer loses the first two parts of the UDRP ... and then beyond that .. that there be SEVERE consequences to the accuser in the case they do not win the overall UDRP, on par with the huge penalties of current privacy non-compliance laws, where there is a real and significant deterrence for abusive complaints.


It's a very complex issue in general.


That being said .. with regards to the specific domain .. I've never heard of vitogaz at all. Was there any advertising or content up on the site that could confuse the accused website with the complainant's business? If the answer to that is yes, then I am less sympathetic to the domainer in question.

Also .. ultimately I do think it's important that trademark holders have the right not accept settlement in cases where they do think a domainer is abusing trademarks. But at the same time, domainer owners need to be protected from trademark owners who abuse the system to try to steal domains that ultimately they re not entitled to.

That ultimately is the real problem in the end .. that there's lots of abuse on both sides.

@Ategy.com - Articulate wisdom here. Thank you.

Quick thoughts:

- I think privacy is a right not a privilege.

- It should be free to challenge someone's ownership of a domain. The idea that someone has to pay a filing fee and hire a lawyer favors rich people. There should be a fast-track way to invite a registrant to hand over a domain. It can be fully automated based on WHOIS lookup before going to UDRP.

- If someone wants to just dump a domain rather than de-cloak, that should be their option. I don't even think WIPO needs to charge a fee for this. Give registrants a short window of say 72 hours to simply hand over a domain.

I am tempted to make this part of WHOQ.com -- a free ombudsman service to encourage people to work out their disagreements before one of them hires a greedy lawyer who wastes everyone's time.

 

[Ategy]

One very important feature would be to somehow verify the identity of the complainant as the legitimate TM holder (I don't see how this could be done without manual/analogue involvement by the Ombudsman or someone else). Because after a while, the process could and likely would be a serious target of phishers trying to steal domains!

EDIT .. It should be to identify who they say they are .. as obviously the legitimacy is what's in question here.

Also, as part of (B), a checklist the complainant would need to tick indicating they are taking this action because they feel each of the 3 equivalent of the UDRP requirements have been breached. Basically they're being required to check all 3 would be a filtration process eliminating a lot of random uninformed complaints.

(D) I like the concept of a potential pre-UDRP compromise, but I'm hesitant to bring money into play here. It kinda takes away from getting to the fundamental truth of the matter.

Maybe have a section for "additional comments", where as part of the form, the instructions for that section could include "Suggested comments include: 1) Proposed compensation 2) etc ...". Even then .. the process should be about if the complainant legitimately has the right to the domain or not .. if they do, then they should ultimately get the domain .. if not, then they need to buy the domain outside of the process if they want it.

Maybe have a money field only if less than all 3 requirements have been checked .. although in that case it's effectively a domain sale if you ask me. lol

 

[Rob Monster]

If the registrant doesn't want to defend the case, why didn't you just hand over the domain instead of demanding $500 as stated in the document?

@Embrand as you are an ICA member, and as I know you personally to be a an intelligent guy, I think you will appreciate my approach once I explain it.

However, first of all, let's talk about the procedural change that has happened here. As for this domain Anonymize, Inc is more than the privacy proxy. In this case, it is also the legal registrant.

What the panelist is asking is who was the prior registrant who bought the domain and assigned it to Anonymize, Inc. In this case, the domain was actually registered directly by Anonymize, Inc.

The bigger question is why does WIPO defend this thuggery when there is not even an entry for "VITOGAZ" at USPTO. There is not even one!!! And even if there was one a trademark, which there isn't, there is no content being used that trespasses on any trademark because there is no content on the page beyond that the domain was open to offers!!! (On DAN by the way, not Epik).

As for why I suggested a nominal settlement fee:

1. Legal consideration: In order to make a settlement legally binding, there is the notion of "sufficient legal consideration". If you look it up, you will see that in contract law, this is a commonly understood term. The amount of $500 is not nothing but is nominal for anyone who engaged an attorney.

2. Due Process: As of August/September, the domain had presumably not been notified that a panelist had been appointed. Even to this day, we have not received a notification that a panelist was appointed. This request for information apparently coincides with that notice but the timing is actually suspect.

3. Reasonable penalty: The complainant is wasting people's time. If you reward that behavior with free domains, it is rewarding thuggery. In case you missed it, I have a problem with thugs. The amount of $500 is a nominal amount. They could have offered a lesser amount. That invitation is equally clear.

Long story short, it appears that WIPO's role is shifting when it comes to UDRP.

The prior role of UDRP was to be like small claims court for domains. The objective was to just get a domain handed over for the lowest possible cost short of taking up a civil action against the registrant in their jurisdiction.

In this case, and in other cases that I have seen recently, WIPO is appointing "bounty hunters" whose true mandate is not to get the domain but to actually uncover the identity of the registrant. I find that to be a very significant shift in mandate.

And now, the most interesting really, is the presumptive expectation that WIPO is ENTITLED to extract the identity of the registrant. This is ironic because WHOIS privacy proxies are a legal entity under ICANN and therefore allowed to hold domains. That was the whole point of establishing legal entities!

I don't know about you but I find this very troubling. The next step is going to be to regulate WHOIS privacy proxy services, and to accredit or de-accredit them. When that policy is proposed, I surely hope ICA will defend the virtue of WHOIS privacy proxies who protect the privacy of persons and entities who are legally engaged in content, community or commerce.

Indeed one of the reasons I am not an ICA member is because I think ICA has gone too soft on protecting registrant rights. I lay that at the doorstep of Phil Corwin but ICA members can certainly defend their policies on the matter of defending the integrity of WHOIS privacy proxy services.

Go ahead, I am listening.

 

[Rob Monster]

If I ever get UDRP'd I'll be glad to have you on my side Rob. From a few examples I've read bits of lately I do think it is troubling the way WIPO is going with UDRP cases.
So, how is your submission to the panellist coming along?...

Thanks.

People enable WHOIS privacy thinking it is not useless but the direction things are going, it is becoming useless due to RDAP policy and presumptive close by WIPO. I call that nonsense.

When people have their WHOIS identity released because WIPO pierces the privacy veil, the registrant can get upset. It could even put them in danger. This is no light matter.

As for the response, Sufyan and I will finish it on Monday. However, in the meantime, we can discuss it openly and co-create the response.

For now, I am taking the matter to the courthouse steps because I have an issue with thuggery and nonsense. It needs to be met at the gate and beaten back to the property line.

 

[Ategy]

What a mess .. the lack of informing you of a panellist being chosen is an important point.

I'm not sure how far you're going to get saying the proxy service owns the domain. I certainly do understand where you're coming from, but ultimately it is a proxy, and it should be the registrant who makes (or confirms) every significant decision, so ultimately I don't see how that person could be anyone but the person "responsible" for the responses, aka the registrant/domainer (even if it is via the proxy, aka you).

That being said .. while it probably is the more obvious argument .. I really don't see the need for revealing the registrant's identity until at least the 2nd (if applicable) and even 3rd part of the UDRP. And possibly not even until he/she is actually found guilty. That would be a great precedent to establish, as complex as it would likely be.

Either way, most definitely I do not see the need to reveal who he/she is before the UDRP. Otherwise if that were the case it would simply be a fishing frenzy from supposed trademark holders and TM interest groups.

Again .. I'm not at all against the revealing of such information if the registrant loses the case, but in this particular case the complainant's right to the trademark (and ultimately the domain) hasn't been fully established yet (stage one), until that is done, then I really feel the registrant should be allowed to maintain his right of privacy.


As for the ICA .. I think they are trying to do some good work. It's a challenge fighting the hulking mammoth of stupidity that is ICANN .. maybe a better solution is for you to help the ICA shore up the minimums .. while you also continue your battles for what you see as the bigger fights. Honestly, the more fronts we have the better .. regardless of size .. as long as everyone is fighting the problems in the current/future UDRP/RDAP processes and working to make it better.

It really is going to be a raging disaster in the upcoming year or two .. those who are standing against the big institutions can't afford to be fighting each other. The current system is bad .. and they're actually trying to make it potentially worse .. there are plenty battles for everyone .. both big and small.

 

[Rob Monster]

@Rob Monster

Perhaps you could answer this question for me. If I elect to use privacy protection, does that prevent the registrar from selling my info to spammers?

I don't usually use privacy, but seems my telephone does not stop ringing. Is there a separate opt out for that?

I doubt registrars are selling your info.

What can happen is that you buy a domain and the domain is briefly in your name and then your privacy proxy is overlaid.

Also, some registrars force you to de-cloak before you can transfer out as if removing anonymity should be some requirement to change registrars. That would be nonsense.

At Epik, privacy is enabled by default and it is easy and free to add and remove at will. If you use privacy, there is a forwarding email address.

We have a RDAP solution coming online that will still use privacy, so that means that the registrant data we will publish even through RDAP will be the legal entity on record, which can be Anonymize, Inc.

I am not sure which other registrars are holding the line on registrant privacy with RDAP. I bet not many.

 

[Rob Monster]

Updates here on this thread:

- A UDRP was resolved this week without disclosing a registrant beyond that the domain was held by Anonymize, Inc. The domain will go to the complainant.

- A number of folks have noted that some registrars do require you to remove their WHOIS privacy to transfer out. There is a free solution there, which is to use Anonymize.com WHOIS privacy first and set the WHOIS to Anonymize.com before initiating a transfer. Per ICANN, that update may require a 60-day wait to move it, but it means that if/when you sell or transfer the domain, you don't have to de-cloak.

- I did see some chatter this week in some blogs about the prospect that there is a push to penalize registrants if they lose in UDRP, essentially forcing them to defend themselves since a loss by default would come with some reputation cost. That is essentially a Draconian forced tax on a process that is increasingly rigged against the registrant. @Zak Muscovitch and others are thankfully vigilant here.

Our marketing team has reached out to ICA this week about joint programs to help grow the ICA member base to add support. I hope to give out some free ICA memberships soon as a way to expand the support of ICA in parts of the world where ICA membership would be a luxury for some.