Common use of Provider Process for Intake of Requests Clause in Contracts

Provider Process for Intake of Requests. 1.1. Provider will establish and publish a point of contact for submittingRequesters to submit complaints that registration or use of a domain name for which the Provider provides privacy/proxy servicesServices infringes the copyright or trademark rights of the Requester. The point of contact shall enable all the information described in Section 2 of this Specification to be submitted electronically, whether via email, through a web submission form, or similar means. Telephonic point of contact may also be provided. 1.2. Nothing in this document prevents a Provider from implementing measures to optimize or manage access to the Request submission process. This could include: 1.2.1. Requiring Requesters to register themselves and/or their organizations with Provider. 1.2.2. Authenticating complaint submissions as originating from a registered Requester (e.g., log- in, use of pre-identified e-mail address). 1.2.3. Assessing a nominal cost-recovery fee for processing complaint submissions, or to maintain Requester account so long as this does not serve as an unreasonable barrier to access to the process. 1.2.4. Qualifying Requesters meeting certain reliable criteria as “trusted Requesters” whose requests would be subject to a streamlined process. 1.2.5. Revoking or blocking Requester access to the submission tool for egregious abuse of the tool or system, including submission of frivolous, vexatious, or harassing requests, or numerous Requests that are identical, (i.e., that concern the same domain name, the same intellectual property, and the same Requester). 1.3. Nothing in this document prevents ProvidersProvider from sharing information with one another regarding Requesters who have been revoked or blocked from their systems or who have engaged in misconduct under this Policy, including frivolous or harassing requests. 1.4. Nothing in this document prevents a Provider from adopting andor implementing policies to publish the contact details of Customers in WHOIS, or to terminate privacy/proxy serviceServices to a Customer, for breach of Service Provider’s published Termsterms of Service,service or on other grounds stated in the published Termsterms of Serviceservice, even if the criteria outlined in this documentSpecification for a Request have not been met.

Provider Process for Intake of Requests. 1.1. Provider will establish and publish a point of contact for submittingRequesters Requesters to submit complaints that registration or use of a domain name for which the Provider provides privacy/proxy servicesServices Services infringes the copyright or trademark rights of the Requester. The point of contact shall enable all the information described in Section 2 of this Specification to be submitted electronically, whether via email, through a web submission form, or similar means. Telephonic point of contact may also be provided. 1.2. Nothing in this document prevents a Provider from implementing measures to optimize or manage access to the Request submission process. This could include: 1.2.1. Requiring Requesters to register themselves and/or or their organizations with Provider. 1.2.2. Authenticating complaint submissions as originating from a registered Requester (e.g., log- in, use of pre-identified e-mail address). 1.2.3. Assessing a nominal cost-recovery fee for processing complaint submissions, or to maintain Requester account so long as this does not serve as an unreasonable barrier to access to the process. 1.2.4. Qualifying Requesters meeting certain reliable criteria as “trusted Requesters” whose requests would be subject to a streamlined process. 1.2.5. Revoking or blocking Requester access to the submission tool for egregious abuse of the tool or system, including submission of frivolous, vexatious, or harassing requests, or numerous Requests that are identical, identical (i.e., that concern the same domain name, the same intellectual property, and the same Requester). 1.3. Nothing in this document prevents ProvidersProvider Provider from sharing information with one another Service Provider regarding Requesters who have been revoked or blocked from their systems or who have engaged in misconduct under this PolicySpecification, including frivolous or harassing requests. 1.4. Nothing in this document prevents a Provider from adopting andor or implementing policies to publish the contact details of Customers in WHOISthe Registry Data Directory Service, or to terminate privacy/proxy serviceServices Services to a Customer, Customer for breach of Service Provider’s published Termsterms Terms of Service,service Service or on other grounds stated in the published Termsterms Provider’s Terms of ServiceserviceService, even if the criteria outlined in this documentSpecification Specification for a Request have not been met. 1.5. The use of high-volume, automated electronic processes (for example, processes that do not utilize human review) for sending Requests or responses to Requests to Requesters or Customers in performing any of the steps in the processes outlined in this Intellectual Property Disclosure Framework Specification shall create a rebuttable presumption of non-compliance with this Intellectual Property Disclosure Framework Specification.

Provider Process for Intake of Requests. 1.1. Provider will establish and publish a point of contact for submittingRequesters Requesters to submit complaints that registration or use of a domain name for which the Provider provides privacy/proxy servicesServices Services infringes the copyright or trademark rights of the Requester. The point of contact shall enable all the information described in Section 2 of this Specification to be submitted electronically, whether via email, through a web submission form, or similar means. Telephonic point of contact may also be provided. 1.2. Nothing in this document prevents a Provider from implementing measures to optimize or manage access to the Request submission process. This could include: 1.2.1. Requiring Requesters to register themselves and/or or their organizations with Provider. 1.2.2. Authenticating complaint submissions as originating from a registered Requester (e.g., log- log‐ in, use of pre-identified e-mail pre‐identified e‐mail address). 1.2.3. Assessing a nominal cost-recovery cost‐recovery fee for processing complaint submissions, or to maintain Requester account so long as this does not serve as an unreasonable barrier to access to the process. 1.2.4. Qualifying Requesters meeting certain reliable criteria as “trusted Requesters” whose requests would be subject to a streamlined process. 1.2.5. Revoking or blocking Requester access to the submission tool for egregious abuse of the tool or system, including submission of frivolous, vexatious, or harassing requests, or numerous Requests that are identical, identical (i.e., that concern the same domain name, the same intellectual property, and the same Requester). 1.3. Nothing in this document prevents ProvidersProvider Provider from sharing information with one another Service Provider regarding Requesters who have been revoked or blocked from their systems or who have engaged in misconduct under this PolicySpecification, including frivolous or harassing requests. 1.4. Nothing in this document prevents a Provider from adopting andor or implementing policies to publish the contact details of Customers in WHOISthe Registry Data Directory Service, or to terminate privacy/proxy serviceServices Services to a Customer, Customer for breach of Service Provider’s published Termsterms Terms of Service,service Service or on other grounds stated in the published Termsterms Provider’s Terms of ServiceserviceService, even if the criteria outlined in this documentSpecification Specification for a Request have not been met. 1.5. The use of high‐volume, automated electronic processes (for example, processes that do not utilize human review) for sending Requests or responses to Requests to Requesters or Customers in performing any of the steps in the processes outlined in this Intellectual Property Disclosure Framework Specification shall create a rebuttable presumption of non‐compliance with this Intellectual Property Disclosure Framework Specification.