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!

 

[frank-germany]

I 'm absolutely sick of this epik promotion

 

[Rob Monster]

I 'm absolutely sick of this epik promotion

Thanks Frank. Sorry about that.

Some more lemonade for you:



Seriously you don't think it is useful to know that WHOIS privacy is being beaten into non-existence?

 

[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.

 

[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….

 

[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.

 

[capybara]

then have to reply from your email to negotiate, if you want to make a sale.

Why? I never reply from the registration email. It is usually the Paypal email (for the sake of making it easier with payments), and as such, is somewhat private. I have a special email address for all domain-sales related stuff, and I would think everyone else is the same way... surprisingly, no.

 

[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]

... 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]

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.




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. Live 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 unfortunately side-effect is potential bias towards TM complainants. The whole system stinks!



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!

Let me check with @Ala Dadan about designing this feature into WhoQ.com. That site is almost ready being developed in @vitigo's team. The Ombudsman feature is new. If you have input on the structured questionnaire, would welcome it. I am thinking like this:

1. File a complaint: User files a complaint with (a) domain name, (b) basis for their complaint of wrongful ownership, (c) their deadline, (d) their proposed compensation to the registrant for voluntary cooperation.

2. Track a complaint: Look up a case based on case number or domain. Follow a case as observer with option to subscribe to email alerts for changes to the case. Add comments to a case, lending support to complainant or registrant.

3. Resolve a complaint: User can look up a case by case number or domain. If they are the registrant, they can submit the auth code for the unlocked domain. If they are the complainant, they can close the case or add an update and indicate whether their comment is public or private to the registrant only.

I think that would be easy and would work. Input welcome.

 

[Lox]

There's no warranty! WHOIS protection services protects your right to privacy to the greatest extent possible. And! You agree to remain entirely responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your Whois and you will not hold service provider or any of its related entities liable for ... possible leaks.

 

[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]

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!

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

Great point.

Two things:

1. The complainant's email address should be visible to the registrant. That solves most issues right there.

2. The registrant could request identity verification. We have a solution there.

Will review with design team. Looks doable.

 

[Ategy]

Actually .. a triple purpose requirement, could be for a $10 fee.

1) It could help in part in assuring who the complainant is.
2) It could filter out a significant portion of the riffraff (volume phishers).
3) It would cover the cost of registration until the next renewal, which ultimately I think is the only compensation that should really be offered if the domain holder is indeed in violation. (And they should be lucky to even get that if they truly are violators)

The fee could be refunded if the parties don't come to an agreement. Although I guess the two-way processing would bite into that amount significantly if not completely.


Sigh .. I seem to be making it more complicated when the point was for it to be easy ... but I'm just really scared for potential abuse, both by the complainants .. and by potential phishers.

 

[Embrand]

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?

 

[Ategy]

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?

No .. @Rob Monster (for the Domain Owner) was the one offering $500 to cover their costs.
(Or at least I'm pretty sure .. looking at the email, I'll agree it absolutely could have been interpreted either way .. and might be the reason they said no? lol .. although I doubt it).

Depending on the TM holder, they often do not want to settle if they lots of people infringing on their trademarks because they want to send a message.

In the case where it's one domainer with only one domain among many that is infracting, then it's a bit overkill .. but there most definitely are domainers who target Trademarks and who have hundreds of domains that infringe on trademarks. I suppose with the privacy up, since they can't tell either way, they decided to go ahead with the legal action.

It's important to note that while $2000-$5000 is a large some of money for most of us, big corporations place huge value on their brands, and have significant budgets to defend their intellectual property. If they always settled, then it would just lead to more and more abusers. Much in the same way most governments don't pay ransoms for kidnappings .. because while paying would save one person, it would also trigger 100 more because the kidnappers know either they'll get paid, or get away with it.

 

[Embrand]

No .. @Rob Monster (for the Domain Owner) was the one offering $500 to cover their costs.
(Or at least I'm pretty sure .. looking at the email, I'll agree it absolutely could have been interpreted either way .. and might be the reason they said no? lol .. although I doubt it).

Depending on the TM holder, they often do not want to settle if they lots of people infringing on their trademarks because they want to send a message.

In the case where it's one domainer with only one domain among many that is infracting, then it's a bit overkill .. but there most definitely are domainers who target Trademarks and who have hundreds of domains that infringe on trademarks. I suppose with the privacy up, since they can't tell either way, they decided to go ahead with the legal action.

It's important to note that while $2000-$5000 is a large some of money for most of us, big corporations place huge value on their brands, and have significant budgets to defend their intellectual property. If they always settled, then it would just lead to more and more abusers. Much in the same way most governments don't pay ransoms for kidnappings .. because while paying would save one person, it would also trigger 100 more because the kidnappers know either they'll get paid, or get away with it.

So we are talking about either a bribe or extortion. Why mention money at all?

 

[Ategy]

I suppose because the trademark holder did incur some costs, legal fees (lawyers aren't free), etc. So the domain holder offered the money because they wanted the claim to end and not need to reveal his identity .. (or potentially lose other domains).

I agree, I would not have mentioned money myself as it makes it look like he's trying to hide something, you'll have to ask @Rob Monster why the domain owner made that move.

Or maybe you're right and the domain owner was asking $500, because maybe the domain owner felt there was wiggle room for interpretation in the trademark pertaining to if it indeed give rights to the particular domain, and thus felt $500 was a fair win/win compromise. Best to wait and ask Rob.

ADDED: It should be noted, that bullying complainants who try to wrongfully steal domains that domainers legally have right to, often offer "compensation" for the time and registration fees of the domainer. Usually a fraction of the real value of the domain.

 

[MapleDots]

I don't think I have ever really cared about domain privacy. In days of old my domains showed and now some do and some don't. I don't even bother to go in and see. My domains land on a developed site or a lander page. In most cases both have my information so I can easily be contacted, so why would I devote any more brain cells to this?

Now some of you will say spam.... well with my google apps the spam is 99.9% controlled, I never see it.

I read about everything going on with whois and the back and forth thereof and I just move on, it does not affect me one iota regardless of which way it swings.

The only concern I have is that I can contact a domain owner who has privacy turned on and in Canada all .ca domains have a form that can be filled out where the domain owner can be contacted.

So now I'm going out to walk the dog and spend some time with my kids, the above was the most energy I can muster up for this whole whois privacy debate.

 

[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.

 

[NicTraders]

@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.

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?...

 

[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.

 

[NicTraders]

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).

I think in this case Rob is saying the proxy service DOES own the domain because the previous registrant gave up the domain. Thus the proxy service is now the actual registrant. I know it's semantics, but it's important semantics in terms of the potential result of this case. It's a messy one for sure - basically there was a different registrant when the case started than there is now!...

 

[Rob Monster]

I think in this case Rob is saying the proxy service DOES own the domain because the previous registrant gave up the domain. Thus the proxy service is now the actual registrant. I know it's semantics, but it's important semantics in terms of the potential result of this case. It's a messy one for sure - basically there was a different registrant when the case started than there is now!...

Not quite. The legal registrant in this case was always the privacy proxy. It is not messy. Anonymize.com can and does own domains. It is legally separate from the registrar, Epik, Inc (IANA 617).

 

[NicTraders]

Not quite. The legal registrant in this case was always the privacy proxy. It is not messy. Anonymize.com can and does own domains. It is legally separate from the registrar, Epik, Inc (IANA 617).

Ah, fair enough. So, is Anonymize the legal registrant of my domains when I have privacy turned on? Or was this a special case?...