ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[nc-deletes]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [nc-deletes] Deletes during UDRP


On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 12:03  PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> I propose that any fee paid by the claimant to keep a domain from  
> expiring during a dispute (which THEY choose to initiate, by the  
> way) is a cost of the dispute. No refunds, no tears. It would simply  
> cover the registrar's cost of handling these.

If we were to adopt this approach, at the very least I think the  
registrar would have to perform a renew on the domain.  I'm still not  
convinced about the fundamental fairness of this approach; I'd need to  
see a better case made for it.

> Also the suggestion that an unrenewed domain should go to the UDRP  
> claimant is unsupportable. Until a final decision has been reached,  
> the claimant has no more rights to that domain name than any one else  
> does. If the decision is not in favor of the claimant, it should go up  
> for grabs just like any other domain. Otherwise, why go beyond the  
> formality check on any dispute?

I agree with this.  Filing a UDRP dispute does should not give a  
claimant any rights unless the merits of the dispute are resolved in  
their favor.

Jordyn


>  
> Tim
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nc-deletes@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-deletes@dnso.org]On  
> Behalf Of Jane Mutimear
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 10:47 AM
> To: nc-deletes@dnso.org
> Cc: 'evelyn.Remaley@wcom.com'
> Subject: [nc-deletes] Deletes during UDRP
>
> Dear All
>
> I have had a long chat with WIPO concerning our proposals.  Their  
> comments on our proposals are:
>
> 1.  easy to implement from their end as they generally inform the  
> parties of the expiry date anyway.
>
> 2.  although generally registrars inform them of the expiry date when  
> they respond to the verification request, this isn't one of the things  
> which registrars have to confirm.  So we should amend our rules to  
> include this.
>
> Additional comments/alternatives
>
> They commented that currently most registrars pay the renewal fee  
> themselves on the relatively rare occasion that a domain is about to  
> lapse during UDRP proceedings.  From the large registrars Tucows is  
> the only one that doesn't do this.  They commented that it might be  
> cheaper from the registrars' perspective to all adopt this approach  
> (of renewing themselves) rather than what we were proposing.  Their  
> reason for saying this was because of the hassle of dealing with  
> refunds (which they have some experience of due to .info sunrise  
> challenges).  This is something which the registrar constituency  
> should give some thought to.  The only cases where the registrar would  
> lose out under this scenario is where the complainant loses (so  
> doesn't get to renew) and someone else snaps the name up using a  
> different registrar before the complainant has the chance to register  
> it.  I think if we end up going back to this sort of system, the whois  
> data should be amended to show that it is on hold pending UDRP  
> proceedings.
>
> One concern they had was that under our system we are effectively  
> forcing the complainant to stay with the same registrar if they win -  
> or they have to pay twice.
>
> More fundamental was a question they raised as to what should happen  
> to the UDRP proceedings where the registrants opts not to renew the  
> domain.  They suggested that the domain should go by default to the  
> complainant.  I know we discussed this and someone (probably John)  
> raised the point that a default scenario in these circumstances would  
> be open to abuse.  I think that is unlikely for the following reasons:
>
> 1.  A udrp complaint goes through a formality check prior to being  
> accepted - therefore if there is not prima facie case made out (eg  
> there is no right claimed), it is rejected.
>
> 2.  A udrp complainant when deciding to initiate an action would not  
> know whether the domain name was going to be renewed.  If they guessed  
> it wasn't it would be far cheaper to file a WLS than to file a UDRP  
> claim.
>
> Therefore, I would certainly support a simplified rule that the if the  
> respondent hasn't paid 30 days after the renewal grace period, the  
> domain goes to the complainant and if the complainant chooses another  
> registrar, they have to refund the original registrar's renewal fee. 
>
> --
> OK, it would have been helpful if I'd discussed this with WIPO before  
> now, but if you would like me to draft a couple of paragraphs saying  
> "Alternatively, this problem could be solved by ...." I would be happy  
> (well that's slightly too strong a word given what else I have to try  
> to get done today) to do so.
>
> Regards
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________________________________ 
> _
>



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>