RE: [nc-deletes] Minutes - Conference Call, November 15
Title: RE: [nc-deletes] Minutes - Conference Call, November 15 Where in my response did I say that my proposal was going to be one which required the registrant to remain the owner against their wishes? Calm down. And some UDRP cases end up taking a lot longer than the norm, so these things can happen without the complainant's attorney being an idiot. If you have a domain which is coming up for renewal in 2-3 months but the client is very keen to resolve the problem, you would not advise them to wait for that length of time to see whether the domain was renewed, because if it is, then you are 2-3 months behind. Obviously it is different if the renewal is due in a couple of days. To a certain extent the wls would solve quite a bit of the problem - provided the complainant was the one who purchased the wls. Jane -----Original Message-----
I have also seen it happen, but do not understand the need for a policy to deal with it. The simple fact is that domain registrants who do not pay their bill, or do not keep track of the expiration date, lose the right to continued service under the domain registration contract. Similarly, there are people who just as carelessly and incompetently file UDRP complaints prior to an impending expiration date of the domain name. The mere fact that these complainants cannot adequately consult a calendar is not a grounds for a unilateral extension of a contract that the registrant does not desire to extend. In fact, by forcing domain registrants to maintain extended registrations, outside of the contract terms on which they registered the domain name, does not strike me as being legal. An apt analogy would be seeking to obtain an order confining a tenant to the premises from which you are trying to evict him. In what area of law is the plaintiff encouraged to maintain the claimed injury for the purpose of a legal proceeding? Why do we regularly dispense with established legal norms when the subject is the internet? When a person registers a domain name for one year under a contract, then they are ENTITLED to be released from that contract upon the termination of one year. Anyone who cannot grasp that basic fact of contract law should find a profession other than law. The only thing brought into disrepute is the competence of people who file UDRP complaints in the face of an impending expiration date. In the real world of trademarks, what idiot lawyer would file, for example, a cancellation petition against a registered mark which is weeks away from its renewal date? A normal person might want to see whether the registration is renewed, or lapses on its own. But again, when the subject is the internet, there is an assumption that we need to save stupid people from doing stupid things. That's not the way the world works. It is indeed unfortunate that there are lawyers who have styled themselves as "experts" in domain proceedings, and are confronted with their own ignorance from time to time. That is not a DNS policy issue. Additionally, there are registrars through which it is difficult to manage transfers or to delete domain registrations. I have seen numerous instances where a domain registrant has, upon receipt of a cease and desist letter, decided to simply not renew the domain name, if the renewal date is near. There are many fire breathing attorneys who will not compensate for registration and transfer costs as permitted under the UDRP by its own terms. Anyone who regularly deals with transfers of domain names knows that there are registrars who make the procedure difficult, frustrating, and a waste of time. [1] The idea of frustrating the intention of the domain registrant to comply in good faith with such a letter by forcing them to maintain the registration against their will, is absurd. John [1] For example, some registrars require notarized documents, and some US attorneys have NO idea whatsoever how expensive notary services can be in some countries. Domain registrants regularly choose to allow names to expire, rather than to pay what can be several hundred dollars to find and utilize a notary. -----Original Message-----
OK. This problem has arisen more than I expected - the case manager at WIPO that I've just spoken to says she knows of between 20 and 30 cases. With registrars that they know won't continue the lock past expiry, they ask up front whether the domain will expire and advise the parties to contact the registrar. There have been several cases where after the decision the complainant wonders why the decision hasn't been implemented and then discovers that the domain lapsed and was purchased by someone else in the meantime. WIPO don't like this as it brings the whole procedures into disrepute. I'm still getting feedback from IPC members - I should have a proposal by Friday. Jane
I'm trying to get some feedback as to how often this problem has arisen. I think it's likely to be relatively rare. Jane -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp]
>DELETES TASK FORCE, CONFERENCE CALL NOTES
>
I asked on the call if this was a common problem. Seemed to me that it would be a rather rare, though the reaction then was that it was enough of a concern that it needed addressing. Since, two people from the NCC have asked the same question and I'm wondering if there's data on how many times a name has been deleted during a UDRP dispute? I understand that registrars should not be required to pick up the costs of something they have no control over. But if it's a rare occurrence, perhaps it's not much of an issue? And I can't see how the situation could be gamed to put registrars at serious risk. Thanks, Adam -- ________________________________________________________________________
addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. Further, we make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to verify that this email and any attachments are free of viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which might be transferred by way of this e-mail. Please refer to http://www.twobirds.com/fsma.cfm for our regulatory position under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 of the United Kingdom. A full list of partners is available on request. Details of our offices are available from http://www.twobirds.com This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. Further, we make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to verify that this email and any attachments are free of viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which might be transferred by way of this e-mail. Please refer to http://www.twobirds.com/fsma.cfm for our regulatory position under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 of the United Kingdom. A full list of partners is available on request. Details of our offices are available from http://www.twobirds.com This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ BIRD & BIRD The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information which may be confidential and which may also be privileged. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. Further, we make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to verify that this email and any attachments are free of viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which might be transferred by way of this e-mail. Please refer to http://www.twobirds.com/fsma.cfm for our regulatory position under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 of the United Kingdom. A full list of partners is available on request. Details of our offices are available from http://www.twobirds.com This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________
|