🔓 Privacy in Domain Name Decisions: A Right to Request, a Power to Redact:

by Pierfrancesco C. Fasano

Public Decisions, Protected Identities

Published domain name decisions promote transparency and consistency. Yet publication can expose an identity-theft victim or amplify harm to a complainant. Depending on the policy, protection involves discretionary redaction, mandatory omission on request, or automatic anonymization. These mechanisms concern decisions, separately from redacted WHOIS or RDAP registration data.

UDRP: Either Party May Ask, but Relief Is Exceptional

Paragraph 4(j) of the UDRP⁠ establishes full publication as the default and permits an Administrative Panel, in an exceptional case, to redact portions of its decision. Paragraph 16(b) of the UDRP Rules⁠ similarly makes publication subject to the Panel determining otherwise.

Either party may request redaction, but neither has an unconditional right to anonymity. The request should identify the information concerned and explain the exceptional circumstances. The decisions below illustrate identity theft and personal-safety concerns.

Redaction may encompass identifying trademarks and domain names. An unpublished annex can preserve details needed to implement transfer. Under Rule 16(b), a finding that a complaint was brought in bad faith must always be published.

URS: Distinguish the Recommendation from the Published Rules

The URS Rules dated February 21, 2024⁠, linked by ICANN, provide in Rule 15(a) for publication of determinations and implementation dates, subject to the provisions governing default and replacement determinations. They do not expressly reproduce the UDRP’s exceptional-redaction clause.

URS Recommendation #2 in the 2020 Rights Protection Mechanisms Final Report⁠, pp. 10–11, proposed giving each party a right to request consideration of redaction of personal information, while preserving discretion over publication. Its examples include identity theft, minors, and political dissidents.

The recommendation should not be presented as an enacted provision in the linked Rules. A URS request must identify applicable procedural authority. No reasoned URS determination expressly granting redaction was located in the materials reviewed. “REDACTED FOR PRIVACY” in a caption may merely reproduce registration data.

ccTLDs: Incorporation and Distinct National Models

ICANN policy does not automatically govern every country-code top-level domain. Protection must be traced to the relevant registry’s adopted policy, procedural rules, or publication practice.

1. ccTLDs Classified by WIPO as Applying the UDRP

The current WIPO ccTLD services table⁠ identifies the following extensions as applying the UDRP:

.ag, .ai, .as, .bm, .bs, .bz, .cc, .cd, .co, .cv, .cy, .dj, .ec, .fj, .fm, .ga, .gd, .gt, .la, .lc, .md, .me, .mg, .mw, .nr, .nu, .pa, .pk, .pn, .pr, .pw, .sc, .sl, .sn, .so, .tj, .tt, .tv, .ug, .ve, .vg, and .ws.

The exceptional-redaction framework follows from incorporation of the UDRP; a separate anonymization precedent was not located for every extension. Entries labeled “UDRP variation” require separate examination.

2. .it: An Express Entitlement to Omission on Timely Request

The Italian Dispute Resolution Regulations, version 2.2⁠, distinguish two protections. Article 4.16 allows either party, before the decision is issued, to request omission of its name and identifying particulars from the decision published on the dispute-resolution provider’s website. The provider must comply.

No exceptional circumstances or success on the merits are required. Protection concerns the requesting party’s identifying particulars in that public text.

Separately, Article 3.11 allows the expert, through a reasoned determination in exceptional circumstances, to exclude publication of all or part of a decision by the Registry and provider. The provision addresses, among other circumstances, serious harm to the parties’ image. It preserves publication of a finding that the complaint was brought in bad faith.

3. .au: Exceptional Redaction Under the auDRP

The auDRP⁠, Schedule A, paragraph 4(j), permits exceptional redaction; Schedule B, paragraph 16(b), makes full publication subject to the Panel determining otherwise. This supports a request by either party, while leaving the outcome to the Panel.

4. .nl: Publication Subject to the Panelist’s Decision

Article 22 of the Dispute Resolution Regulations for .nl Domain Names⁠ provides for full publication unless the panelist determines otherwise. It supplies publication discretion, rather than an automatic entitlement to anonymity.

5. .tm: An Express Exceptional-Case Provision

The NIC.TM Dispute Resolution Policy⁠, under “Notification and Publication,” expressly permits the Administrative Panel to redact portions of its decision in an exceptional case.

6. .ch and .li: Identifying Information Must Be Necessary

Paragraph 25(b) of the SWITCH Rules of Procedure⁠ requires unabridged publication but permits publication of parties’ names and other personal information only when those details are essential to understanding the decision. This is a necessity-based restriction applicable to both extensions.

7. .fr, .re, .tf, .wf, .yt, and .pm: Automatic Anonymization

These extensions are covered by Afnic’s ADR framework⁠. Its official decisions portal⁠ states that natural persons’ identities and contact details are automatically anonymized. It also describes partial omission of material whose publication could harm parties, experts, or third parties.

Automatic protection of natural persons differs from discretionary UDRP relief and should not be generalized into automatic anonymity for corporate parties

.

Decisions Illustrating the Protection

The following decisions are persuasive illustrations; they do not establish binding precedent across different policies.

Complainant Protection Under the UDRP

In [Name Redacted] v. ludashi us / jack zhang, FORUM FA2208002009845⁠ (October 1, 2022), the Panel accepted the complainant’s privacy and safety concerns arising from pornographic use of her former domain. It redacted her name, trademark, and disputed domain name while ordering transfer.

Identity Theft Under the UDRP

In Saudi Arabian Oil Company v. Name Redacted, WIPO D2013-0105⁠ (March 19, 2013), the Panel protected an apparent identity-theft victim and withheld the identifying annex from publication.

In Casale Media, Inc. v. (Name redacted) / PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC, FORUM FA1610001696719⁠ (November 10, 2016), the complainant requested protection of the nominal respondent’s identity because of identity theft. The decision illustrates that a complainant may seek redaction to protect another person. Although it discusses an earlier URS proceeding, this redaction ruling is a UDRP decision.

Mandatory Omission Under .it

In almaverdebiomarket.it⁠ (CAM, January 21, 2021), the respondent’s Article 4.16 request was honored despite the complainant’s opposition.

In sina.it⁠ (CAM, September 8, 2022), the respondent obtained omission of identifying particulars even though transfer was ordered.

In ital.it⁠ (CRDD, December 13, 2021), the respondent’s corporate identity was omitted on request and the complaint was denied. Together, these decisions show that protection is independent of the merits outcome and can extend to legal persons.

Identity Protection Under .au

Marcia Pilkington as trustee for Marcia’s Sushi Express Discretionary Trust No. 2 v. Name Redacted, WIPO DAU2023-0023⁠, redacted the respondent’s name because of potential identity theft.

Bouygues v. Bouygues Construction Australia Pty Ltd, Name Redacted, WIPO DAU2025-0044⁠, similarly protected identifying information associated with an unrelated individual and reserved identifying details for implementation.

Conclusion: Identify the Source and Scope of Protection

Domain name ADR provides different protections: discretionary redaction, mandatory omission, necessity-based restrictions, and automatic anonymization. The right to ask must be distinguished from the right to obtain relief.

A request should identify the governing provision, the information concerned, the justification where required, and the proposed public version. Privacy can coexist with transparent, reasoned decisions.