Re: [nc-deletes] Deletes during UDRP

["John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com>]

----- Original Message -----
> I don't see why it is so unsupportable that a domain should go to
> someone who has gone to the trouble of making out a prima facie case
> and paid over a $1,000  to lodge the complaint in comparison to
>someone who signs up to the wait list service for considerable less money
>and effort.

We are concerned here with a complainant who might have to pay on the order
of $20 "twice" if they want to move a domain they've won to another
registrar.

If you want a less "rare" problem, take a look at the UDRP decisions for:

dw.com
paparazzo.com
windsor.com
newzealand.com

There are quite a few more, and they were all determined to be reverse-domain
hi-jacking situations - i.e. the panel determined the complaint to be brought
in bad faith and knowingly without merit.  Now, name four cases where this
"lapse during the UDRP" problem ocurred.  Just four.  In the entire
discussion of the topic, I don't recall anyone ever referring to a single
one.  Rational people act on facts.

The respondents in each of those cases spent thousands of dollars, including
$1500 each to WIPO for a three-member panel, in order to keep the domain
names they already had, and to have a UDRP panel say that the complaint was
brought in bad faith.  Not "prima facie" mind you - but what UDRP Rule 15(e)
deems an ABUSE of the Policy.

Clearly, WIPO is allowing ABUSIVE, MERITLESS, BAD FAITH complaints to get
past this "prima facie" compliance check, and this is costing domain name
registrants thousands of dollars on a regular basis.

So, in this anonymous person's view, even a complainant who might otherwise
be deemed to be abusing the UDRP is "more entitled" to a domain name by the
mere fact that they paid a lot more money to WIPO than someone who took out a
WLS subscription (if WLS ever gets off the ground)?

Again, I have to ask why?

The respondent in tobacco.com paid NAF $1,000 for a three member panel, and
then the complainant withdrew the complaint.  The NAF, to this day, refuses
to refund that $1,000.  No panel, no decision, just a thousand bucks paid to
the NAF in exchange for no services rendered at all.

Oh, I forgot, he was a mere domain registrant.  This is an ICANN task force.
Silly me.

Yes, it would be horrifically unfair to make UDRP complainants actually pay a
domain name renewal fee of less than $35, and then to expect them to pay
again if their whimsy didn't like the present registrar.

Render unto me a break.