Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. GoDaddy.com, Inc.

Filing 113

Declaration of John L. Slafsky in Support of 112 MOTION for Summary Judgment Notice of Motion, Motion, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Go Daddy's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byGoDaddy.com, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15)(Related document(s) 112 ) (Slafsky, John) (Filed on 11/2/2011)

EXHIBIT 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD
(PETRONAS),
Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09-CV-5939PJH

VS.

GODADDY.COM, INC.,
Defendant.

::: CONFIDENTIAL :::

30(b)(6) DEPOSITION OF JESSICA HANYEN

DATE:

Thursday, October 20, 2011

TIME:

10:25 a.m.

LOCATION:

BALLARD SPAHR, LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, Arizona 85004

REPORTED BY: JANICE HARRINGTON, RPR, CRR, CLR
AZ Certified Court Reporter No. 50844
Registered Professional Reporter
Certified Realtime Reporter
Certified LiveNote Reporter
MBreporting
111 Deerwood Road, Suite 200
San Ramon, California 94583

10/20/2011
Jessica Hanyen

Berhad/Petronas v. GoDaddy

1

designated last time? I wasn't the --

2

MR. CLARK:

3

THE WITNESS: I had previous topics.

4

MS. KLAUSNER: But for today, purposes of

Probably.

5

today, those are the topics.

6

BY MR. CLARK:
Q.

7

Okay. Great. All right. I just wanted

8

to be sure I wasn't missing any. All right. So

9

topic number 22 says what Go Daddy did regarding the

10

domain name petronastower.net after it was contacted

11

on November 26, 2009, December 14, 2009 and December

12

16, 2009 concerning the domain name petronastower.net

13

including the identities of all persons involved in

14

the foregoing and all documents related to the

15

foregoing. Do you see that in topic 22 there?

16

A.

Yes.

17

Q.

Okay. So can you tell me what Go Daddy

18

did regarding the domain name petronastower.net?
A.

19

What Go Daddy did was looked at the

20

correspondence that we received and looked at how it

21

applied to our role as a registrar and our role as a

22

hosting provider. As a hosting provider, since the

23

website content wasn't hosted with us, we directed

24

the complainant to contact that hosting provider to

25

address that issue. As a registrar, we are bound by

MBreporting

::: CONFIDENTIAL :::

Page: 6

10/20/2011
Jessica Hanyen

Berhad/Petronas v. GoDaddy

1

the Uniform Domain. Name Dispute Resolution Policy

2

under ICANN so we directed the complainant to pursue

3

the domain name issue through the UDRP.

4

Q.

Okay. Now, the procedure you described

5

is consistent with Go Daddy's standard operating

6

procedure for domain name disputes; is that correct?

7

A.

Yes.

8

Q.

Okay. Now, does Go Daddy treat issues

9

related to domain name differently if they relate to

10

say its cash parking service as opposed to strictly

11

domain name registration?

12

A.

Can you clarify?

13

Q.

Sure. So Go Daddy offers -- it's a

14

hosting service, correct?

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

Okay. Go Daddy offers domain name

17

registration, correct?

18

A.

Yes.

19

Q.

Okay. Go Daddy offers a cash parking

20

service; is that correct?

21

A.

Yes.

22

Q.

Okay. What other services does Go Daddy

23

offer to its customers?

24

A.

That's a very long exhaustive list.

25

Q.

Okay. Are there any that come to mind

MBrepoiling

::: CONFIDENTIAL :::

Page: 7

10/20/2011
Jessica Hanyen

Berhad/Petronas v. GoDaddy

1

temporary restraining order?

2

A.

Yes.

3

Q.

Okay. And was this handled differently

4

than the trademark claim that Go Daddy received on

5

December 16th?

6

A.

Everything that was handled was

7

consistent with the UDRP. So as far as trademark

8

claims goes, we were limited by that from being able

9

to take action on our own. Once this notice came in,

10

then domain disputes was also able to take the UDRP

11

into account and lock down the domain name.

12

Q.

Okay. So after Go Daddy received the

13

December 18, 2009 e-mail regarding the Motion for

14

Temporary Restraining Order, domain disputes went

15

ahead and locked down the domain name

16

petronastower.net; is that correct?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

And domain disputes, is that a team

19

within Go Daddy or a group of employees at Go Daddy?

20

A.

Yes.

21

Q.

Okay. And after locking down the domain

22

name petronastower.net, did the domain disputes group

23

do anything else?

24
25

MS. KLAUSNER: Object to the form. Its
vague.

MBreporting

::: CONFIDENTIAL :::

Page: 16

10/20/2011
Jessica Hanyen

Berhad/Petronas v. GoDaddy

Q.

1

And now just to recap, looking at the

2

notification that Go Daddy received on December 18,

3

2009, how did Go Daddy handle that notification?

4
5

MS. KLAUSNER: Objection; asked and
answered. You can go ahead and answer it again.

6

THE WITNESS:

7

18th?

8

Which one was the December

BY MR. CLARK:

9
10

Q.
Exhibit 26.
A.

11

12

The one to [e-mail]. Its in

That would have been handled under the

domain dispute standard operating procedure.

13

Q.

Okay. And under the domain dispute

14

standard operating procedure, what would Go Daddy

15

have done first after receiving the December 18, 2009

16

notification?

17
18

A.

Go Daddy would have maintained the status

quo on the domain name.

19

Q.

Which means?

20

A.

Locking the domain name from having

21

changes made to it.

22

Q.

Okay. Would Go Daddy have done anything

24

A.

Not to my knowledge.

25

Q.

Okay. And with respect to -- with

23

else?

MBreporting

::: CONFIDENTIAL :::

Page: 23

10/20/2011
Jessica Hanyen

Berhad/Petronas v. GoDaddy

A.

1

2

This is a trademark claim that would have

been received by trademark claims at godaddy.com.
Q.

3

Okay. And after looking at Exhibit 21,

4

can you tell me what Go Daddy did after it was

5

contacted on July 7, 2010 concerning the domain name

6

petronastowers.net?
A.

7

At that time going by the standard

8

operating procedure, we would have advised the

9

complainant that the content of the website is not

10

hosted with our company and directed the complainant

11

towards the UDRP.

12

Q.

Okay. And is that what Go Daddy in fact

14

A.

To my knowledge.

15

Q.

Okay. And do you know who was involved

16

in that process?

17

A.

That would have also been Rod Simonini.

18

Q.

Anyone else?

19

A.

Not that I'm aware of.

20

Q.

Do you know which policy was applied to

13

did?

21

the notification that was received on July 7, 2010

22

which is reflected in Exhibit 21?
A.

23
24

This would -- the exhibit would have been

covered by the trademark claims on hosted sites.

25
MBreporting

Q.

But not the domain disputes policy?
CONFIDENTIAL

Page: 25

10/20/2011
Jessica Hanyen

Berhad/Petronas v. GoDaddy

1

that would have been generated or created for that.

2

We simply would have evaluated it, determined that it

3

wasn't actionable under that standard operating

4

procedure, advised of the hosting -- advised of

5

directing the complaint to the hosting provider and

6

to follow the UDRP.

7

As far as with the domain disputes,

8

again, I can't think of any documents that would be

9

generated in regard to that. It would be more that

10

we would be on the receiving end of that, interpret

11

what needs to be done through the standard operating

12

procedure under UDRP and proceed as we are required

13

to.

14

Q.

Okay. So now returning to Exhibit 1 and

15

numbered paragraph 24, that is topic 24 says, "Go

16

Daddy's intent regarding the registration or

17

maintenance of the domain names petronastower.net and

18

petronastowers.net and any trademark of Petronas

19

including the identity of all persons with knowledge

20

of the foregoing and all documents related to the

21

foregoing." And you understand you're Go Daddy's

22

designated deponent on that topic?

23

A.

Yes.

24

Q.

Okay. So do you know if Go Daddy had any

25

particular intent with respect to the registration or

MBreporting

CONFIDENTIAL :::

Page: 29

10/20/2011
Jessica Hanyen

Berhad/Petronas v. GoDaddy

maintenance of the domain names petronastower.net and
2

petronastowers.net?
A.

3

Our intent was to follow the rules set

4

forth under the UDRP which is true for any of our'

5

registrations.
Q.

6

Okay. And do you know who within Go

7

Daddy decided to follow the rules of the UDRP in

8

connection with the Petronas Tower and

9

petronastowers.net domain names?
MS. KLAUSNER: I'm going to object to the

10
11

form of the question. Assumes facts that are not in

12

evidence.
THE WITNESS: Can you clarify?

13
14

BY MR. CLARK:
Q.

15

Sure. Well, actually, let me ask you

16

this. With respect to Exhibit 15, the standard

17

operating procedure for trademark claim on hosted

18

sites, do you know who drafted that policy?
Okay. Are you asking who drafted this

19

A.

20

document?

21

Q.

Sure.

22

A.

Okay. I did.

23

Q.

Okay. And do you know who decided that

24

the content of Exhibit 15 would be Go Daddy's

25

standard operating procedure for trademark claims on

MBreporting

CONFIDENTIAL :::

Page: 30

10/20/2011
Jessica Hanyen

Berhad/Petronas v. GoDaddy

1

A.

Not to my knowledge.

2

Q.

Okay. So it's your understanding that Go

3

Daddy's policies reflected in Exhibits 15, 40, and 41

4

are based on the requirements of the UDRP?

5

A.

As a point of clarification, these are

6

not policies, these are procedures. Everything that

7

we do as a registrar, we adhere to the ICANN

8

policies. So any procedure that we have in place is

9

going to reflect that. With intellectual property

10

matters specifically, the UDRP is going to be the

11

paramount policy that's going to govern our actions.

12

Q.

Okay. And this is a yes or no question.

13

Did you make an independent determination as to what

14

the governing requirements were of the UDRP as it

15

relates to Go Daddy's policies or standard operating

16

procedures?

17

A.

Can you clarify?

18

Q.

Right. So you said that the UDRP is

19

going to be the paramount policy, and that's going to

20

govern Go Daddy's actions with respect to formulating

21

its standard operating procedures;'is that correct?

22

A.

Yes.

23

Q.

And did you make an inspected

24

determination without input from anyone else at Go

25

Daddy as to what the requirements of the UDR policy

MBreporting

::: CONFIDENTIAL :::

Page: 36

1

CERTIFICATE

2

I,

3
4

Reporter

for

lTanice E.

the
That

5
6

by me; that

7

that

8

by me to

9

questions

I

Stat,e of
the

foregoing

testify

before
to

the

propounded

10

the

witness

were

11

thereafter

I2

transcription

13

revi-ew and signature

L4

foregoing

15

t,ranscript

of

all

15

the

of

said

T7

skill

by

reduced

to

under

pages are

t,aking

cert,ify:
was taken

administer

an oath;

testifying,

was duly

truLh;

counsel

that.

and the

down by me in
print

I

L9

rel-ated

20

nor

was requested;
true,

proceedings

answers

of
and

deposition

that

the

and accurate

and testimony

deposition,

all-

am I

to
in

FURTHERCERTfFY that

nor

employed

by any of

any way interested
DATEDthis

23

il;i
25

t.he

shorthand

that

to

31st

in

day of

f

had upon

t.he best

of

my

am in

no way

the

parties

the

ouLcome hereof.

October,

22

24

sworn

by compuLer-aided

my directj-on;

a fu1I,

Court

deposition

to

whole

ied

and ability.

18

2t

taken

Certif

ArizorLat

am authorized

witness,

the

Harrington,

-E:-ilililsril-

Certified
Court Reporter
For the St,ate of Arizorra

hereto

20LL