[nc-udrp] A further thought on the response deadline

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

Actually, having an "intent to respond" act in the same manner as a waiver
of service in US civil litigation, by extending the deadline, would have a
benefit to complainants as well.

Compare:

Currently - Respondent defaults in twenty days.  Case goes to panel.  If it
is a WIPO panel, a decision takes at least a month.  If it is an NAF panel,
the default decision takes about three weeks at most.

Proposed - Respondent defaults in twenty days.  Same result.  But if
respondent affirms an intent to respond within twenty days, then the
respondent receives an additional twenty days to respond.  If the respondent
then defaults, the domain name is automatically transferred and the
complainant receives a refund of the panelist portion of the fee.  So, even
with the extension, a default case moves faster and more economically for
the complainant.

Extending the response period also works toward a fair solution of the
"cyberflight" problem - where the respondent alters the registration data or
deletes the domain name prior to compliance review by the DRP.  As I
mentioned earlier, the _de facto_ solution to cyberflight has been chronic
failure of complainants to follow the service rule, which should be
eliminated anyway, as there is no consequence for a violation.  Yes, we're
all "nice people", but we are all people... and making a rule for which
there is no penalty is simply not a rule anyone can expect to be followed.
But the result of the actual situation on the ground is to shave off time
that would otherwise be spent preparing a response or simply settling the
dispute.