RE: [registrars] UDRP Task Force

[Michael Bilow <mbilow@registrationtek.com>]

The registrar may also be uniquely in possession of information which has
determinative legal significance.  For example, if the domain in question
was registered with a fraudulent credit card or the fee was charged back,
then the registrar would want to make that known to the arbitrator and
possibly also the complainant.  Knowledge of such factors would not only
be relevant to the key controversy about ownership of the domain, but may
greatly simplify the resolution of the complaint.

Michael Bilow
Chief Engineer
  mbilow@RegistrationTek.com
Registration Technologies, Inc.
  http://www.RegistrationTek.com/


On 2002-11-19 at 10:33 -0600, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> There should not be UDRPs in progress that the registrar of record is not
> aware of.
> 
> Otherwise the registrant may attempt to make changes that will fail, contact
> CS, and they won't know what's going on. If we get notice we can reflect it
> correctly in our DB so if the registrant, or someone acting on his behalf,
> has questions we know the answer.
> 
> Tim
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 9:39 AM
> To: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: [registrars] UDRP Task Force
> 
> 
> DO registrars have any input on the UDRP process. I know there have been
> some comments that UDRP Providers should just obtain the information from
> the Thick Registry Whois databases instead of contacting registrars
> individuals.
> 
> Is this a good or bad idea? Do registrars like getting notice of filed UDRP
> proceeding or would they prefer just to get a ruling to implement?
> 
> Any other comments or suggestions?
> 
> Mike
> 
>