[registrars] Update UDRP Task Force
Listed
below is some feedback from Tim Cole at NAF regarding some of the comments that
I forwarded to him. Any comments on how to address his problem or make the
process operate more smoothly?
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nc-udrp@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-udrp@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Cole, Tim Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 11:51 AM To: 'Michael D. Palage'; UDRP Task Force Subject: 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 |