[nc-deletes] Comments and impact statement
Title: Comments and impact statement Comments on draft (and apologies if some of these have already been made - although I have tried to catch up): Intro: delete additional "more critical" in first sentence 2.1; 3rd sentence - something's gone wrong - there are two many words before the first comma: "This automatic In current practice," 2.3 We have Add Grace Period in caps but haven't mentioned it before now (in fact we explain what it is in 2.4). We should explain the term first time we use it and then define it. We should do the same with Renew Grace Period which we use for the first time here. If we do this it might make our proposals (i) to (iv) easier to follow. 3.1.1 - I like Tim's suggestion (which was in his impact statement) to replace the first sentence here as it makes it clearer. 3.2.3 Why did you fiddle with my wording? The reason I liked my more verbose wording was because it made it clear that if the complainant doesn't cough up the renewal fee before the domain name lapses, the registrant just gets the normal grace period. Now you have to deduce this. I won't have a tantrum about this though. 3.2.5.3 - add "name" after domain in second line (and yes, I missed this on my version) 3.2.7 I'm with John on this one - it confuses me - it makes me think that some of what went before does impact on the outcome of a UDRP decision. Do we need it? ------------------------------ Draft Impact Statement of the Intellectual Property Constituency on the report of the Deletes taskforce ISSUE 1: determine whether a uniform delete process by gtld registrars following expiry is desirable, and if so, recommend an appropriate process. TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: 1. Domain names not explicitly renewed must be deleted by the end of the registrar's grace period. IMPACT ON IPC: This will give intellectual property owners more certainty in relation to the treatment of their own and other's domain names when a renewal fee is not paid and is welcomed. 2. Deletion/Renewal policies to be made clear at date of registration and to be in a prominent place on the web site IMPACT ON IPC: The IPC approves of registrants being put on notice as to the registrar's particular deletes policy and also support the requirement that the policy be made conspicuous on the website of each registrar, in order that registrants who inadvertently permit their domain names to lapse can easily locate the rules which apply in order to evaluate the status of their domain name. 3. Domain names the subject of UDRP actions when lapsing will be capable of being renewed by the complainant to the UDRP action IMPACT ON IPC: although it is relatively rare that domain names lapse during a UDRP complaint, this has happened on a number of occasions. In addition, a potential complainant under the current system may wait to bring its complaint until it knows whether or not a domain has been renewed, which may result in unnecessary delay. This proposal gives certainty to trade mark owners wishing to bring UDRP complaints against domain names which are due to expire relatively shortly, so as to enable them to avoid the scenario of a decision being rendered in their favour in relation to a domain name which is now owned by another party. ISSUE 2: determine whether a uniform delete process by gtld registrars following a failure of a registrant to provide accurate WHOIS information upon request is desirable, and if so, recommend an appropriate process. TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: 1. Domain names deleted for false WHOIS data will need to have their WHOIS data verified before being able to take advantage of the Redemption Grace Period. IMPACT ON IPC: it is important to intellectual property rights owners that registrants of domain names who have their domain name cancelled because of false WHOIS data are not able to simply register them with the same or similarly false date via the RGP. Therefore, the IPC welcomes the proposals. Speak to everyone tomorrow Jane ________________________________________________________________________ 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 ________________________________________________________________________
|