RE: [nc-deletes] Deletes during UDRP

[Jane Mutimear <jane.mutimear@twobirds.com>]

Title: RE: [nc-deletes] Deletes during UDRP

As I would get no work done at all today if I replied to all the emails this post generated, I agree.  If the registrars are happy with administering the refund to the complainant when they pay and then the registrant pays, that's fine.

However, we should add to our list that the registrar must inform the arbitration provider of the expiry date - most do anyway, but it is key to our proposals working.

I would also prefer the panellist to be told if the registrant hasn't renewed as this will often be relevant to the considerations.  Eg the panellist has determined that the complainant has rights but is having difficulty with legitimate rights or bad faith (ie thinks there might be an argument that the registrant could have made if they responded).  Where the panellist is concerned as to whether it is appropriate for them to rule that the domain name be transferred in circumstances such as these, it is relevant to know that the registrant chose not to renew the domain name so no longer owns it. 

Perhaps people can just indicate whether they agree with this proposal?  If not, then we just make the change re notification to the arbitration provider of the expiry date.

Jane

-----Original Message-----
From: Jordyn A. Buchanan [mailto:jordyn.buchanan@registrypro.com]
Sent: 30 January 2003 20:42
To: tim@godaddy.com
Cc: Jane Mutimear; nc-deletes@dnso.org; evelyn.Remaley@wcom.com
Subject: Re: [nc-deletes] Deletes during UDRP

I agree.  I think our existing recommendation is a good compromise that 
is at least satisfactory to all parties.

Jordyn

On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 03:33  PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> I suggest that we make no changes to our recommendations based on the
> suggestions/ideas presented in this thread.
>  
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nc-deletes@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-deletes@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 12:26 PM
> To: Jane Mutimear; nc-deletes@dnso.org
> Cc: evelyn.Remaley@wcom.com
> Subject: RE: [nc-deletes] Deletes during UDRP
>
> There is no WLS yet. And one has absolutely nothing to do with the
> other. Even so, since only one person can have a WLS on a domain, it 
> might already be gone and a UDRP might look pretty inexpensive if the 
> name has value. I think the dispute providers will be spending a lot 
> of time trying to sort out the value of a lot of baseless claims. And 
> does the claimant of an unrenewed domain take precedent over the WLS 
> holder? If so, by what rights? They have none until the claim is 
> resolved in their favor.
>  
> This idea will never garner anything close to consensus support.
>  
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jane Mutimear [mailto:jane.mutimear@twobirds.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 11:07 AM
> To: 'tim@godaddy.com'; Jane Mutimear; nc-deletes@dnso.org
> Cc: evelyn.Remaley@wcom.com
> Subject: RE: [nc-deletes] Deletes during UDRP
>
> We've agreed a refund in the current proposal, if the registrant also
> pays.
>  
> 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.
>  
> Jane
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
> Sent: 30 January 2003 17:04
> To: Jane Mutimear; nc-deletes@dnso.org
> Cc: evelyn.Remaley@wcom.com
> Subject: RE: [nc-deletes] Deletes during UDRP
>
> I propose that any fee paid by the claimant to keep a domain from
> expiring