RE: [nc-udrp] Update from the Registrars
Mike and
others- Thanks for
raising this issue. Although most
registrars are responsive and cooperative in the verification process, the few
who are not produce one of the most difficult aspects of case administration we
face as dispute providers. First,
however, let me correct one statement you made. The initial contact with a registrar happens well before “commencement”
of the case. The UDRP actually
requires transfers to cease “during a pending administrative proceeding…” and
makes no mention of “commencement” (which is a term with a specific meaning
under the UDRP Rules). From a
dispute provider standpoint, the proceeding is “pending” as soon as the
complaint is filed. This is
significant because a proceeding cannot be “commenced” until the provider has
conducted its review of the complaint for administrative compliance, which
includes acquiring verification that the name is registered with the registrar
and confirming the identity of the registrant. (In fact, the Forum presently has one proceeding that was filed
over a month ago and we have yet to receive a response to at least nine
requests made of the registrar. Therefore
it has not commenced. Our only
recourse at this time is to contact ICANN (repeatedly) and request assistance,
but so far that has not produced results in this instance.) What
should be understood is that this initial communication with the registrar actually
is intended to accomplish three things.
First, it puts the registrar on notice that a dispute is pending and requests
that a lock be placed on the domain name(s). Second, it requests from the registrar the actual registrant
of record as of the date of the complaint filing, which is necessary because it
often does not match the information available to the complainant (or dispute
provider) in the Whois database.
Third, it requests confirmation of the language of the Registration Agreement
to assure compliance with Rule 11. With that
in mind, the real question is whether a centralized notification mechanism would
be able to fulfill all three of those tasks. If so, we would welcome it gladly. At present we maintain a list of contacts for each registrar
or, if we have none we use the contact information at http://www.internic.net/alpha.html. Timothy S. Cole Director,
Internet Dispute Solutions National
Arbitration Forum 651.604.6725 800.474.2371 -----Original
Message----- Hello All: I have received a
lot of feedback from the registrars regarding the notification and verification
process in connection with the initiation of UDRP proceedings. It appears
that the majority of registrars that have provided initial feedback strongly
support the continued practice of receiving notification at the commencement of
a proceeding to verify the whois data and lock the domain name. During our call
yesterday, the dispute providers had mentioned problems with contacting some
registrars and getting names placed on hold. The question I ask of the
providers is how are they now contacting registrars. One of the thing that I
have seen as the Chair of the Registrar Constituency is customary turn-over in
management and staff. Would a role account such as UDRP-Notification@ICANNREGISTRAR.TLD
be preferred if it is not already in place. How do the providers currently
handle incidents where they are not able to get a registrar to timely lock a
domain name? Best regards, Mike |