- Impact
- 18,367
As many of you know, and as discussed here, Epik provides a WHOS privacy service through an affiliated but separate legal entity. WHOIS privacy has been around for a long time, but the climate is changing rapidly in 2019, particularly in case of a dispute. For one thing, the trajectory that the industry is on is that if you intend to defend your domain in UDRP, you should be prepared to de-cloak.
Although I have no interest in protecting criminals, I am not really a fan of this change in policy. The writing was on the wall with the RDAP rollout. I thought it was going to be law enforcement with an eye towards chasing criminals by piercing the privacy veil. However, here we have an indication that the privacy veil should also be pierced in the case of mere presumption and in a civil case too!
Now, here is an actual case from this month:
A UDRP has been filed again IBM20.com. It is a LLLNN.com domain that someone picked up recently in a large (10,000+) bulk buy of available LLLNN.com. Now IBM wants it asap for whatever reason. WIPO is also determined that the end contact should be disclosed. As you can see below, our compliance team's previous response identifying the privacy proxy as the legal owner appears to be insufficient.
In other words, whether or not someone wants to defend, WIPO wants your digits.
As WIPO's tactics clearly appear to have changed, now requiring, the disclosure of the end-registrant already at the start of the process, I am wondering if we need a clearing house where UDRP-entangled domains can be either sold or contracted, in very short order (e.g. 48 hours), to an entity that does not object to having their identity disclosed as the respondent for a particular UDRP proceeding.
The reason this matters is that there have been many cases where a domain prevails in UDRP in favor of the registrant, likely because they had capable counsel and paid the additional cost of a 3-person panel. In some cases, the complainant absolutely needs that domain and UDRP was simply viewed as a way to force the registrant to the bargaining table on favorable terms. ICYMI, those can be high value sales.
In order for WHOIS privacy-protected domains to not be tagged as easy targets for UDRP, I am wondering if there needs to be some kind of private sector counter-measure to offset the perception that UDRP can be used to compel a default judgement in favor of complainants due to procedural shortfall, or due to no-contest response at the start of the UDRP procedure.
Input welcome on this apparent change in WHOIS policy, and what do about it.
Although I have no interest in protecting criminals, I am not really a fan of this change in policy. The writing was on the wall with the RDAP rollout. I thought it was going to be law enforcement with an eye towards chasing criminals by piercing the privacy veil. However, here we have an indication that the privacy veil should also be pierced in the case of mere presumption and in a civil case too!
Now, here is an actual case from this month:
A UDRP has been filed again IBM20.com. It is a LLLNN.com domain that someone picked up recently in a large (10,000+) bulk buy of available LLLNN.com. Now IBM wants it asap for whatever reason. WIPO is also determined that the end contact should be disclosed. As you can see below, our compliance team's previous response identifying the privacy proxy as the legal owner appears to be insufficient.
In other words, whether or not someone wants to defend, WIPO wants your digits.
As WIPO's tactics clearly appear to have changed, now requiring, the disclosure of the end-registrant already at the start of the process, I am wondering if we need a clearing house where UDRP-entangled domains can be either sold or contracted, in very short order (e.g. 48 hours), to an entity that does not object to having their identity disclosed as the respondent for a particular UDRP proceeding.
The reason this matters is that there have been many cases where a domain prevails in UDRP in favor of the registrant, likely because they had capable counsel and paid the additional cost of a 3-person panel. In some cases, the complainant absolutely needs that domain and UDRP was simply viewed as a way to force the registrant to the bargaining table on favorable terms. ICYMI, those can be high value sales.
In order for WHOIS privacy-protected domains to not be tagged as easy targets for UDRP, I am wondering if there needs to be some kind of private sector counter-measure to offset the perception that UDRP can be used to compel a default judgement in favor of complainants due to procedural shortfall, or due to no-contest response at the start of the UDRP procedure.
Input welcome on this apparent change in WHOIS policy, and what do about it.
