[registrars] UDRP Task Force

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

This is an email I sent to the UDRP Task Force with regard to domain names
that expire during the pendancy of a UDRP proceeding.

I have relayed to the Task Force the comments expressed by several
registrars regarding the additional administrative costs associated with
this potential isolated incident.

Any ideas on how Registrars can work with complying with the increase policy
mandates from ICANN?

I have had a number of registrars ask if they could impose additional fees
for these new policies manadated by ICANN. I do not know the answer to this
question but I do not think that it is totally unreasonable to have a
registrar be compensated for additional work.

Assuming that registrars could charge for these services, would this
potentially run afoul of the transfer and delete task forces efforts if a
registrar was to lock a domain name for non-payment of these additional
registrar expenses?

Just some ideas I wanted to run up the flag pole, any feed back would be
welcomed.

Mike





-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 2:50 PM
To: UDRP Task Force
Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] Fw: <bloombert.com> Domain Name Dispute]


Hello All:

John raises some good arguments but I wanted to provide the following data
points to shed some additional light onto this discussion.

Data Point #1: According to ICANN a Registrar is permitted to delete a
domain name pending a UDRP proceeding for non-payment, see email below from
ICANN General Counsel. I would like to thank ICANN for this timely response
to my original inquiry.

Data Point #2: Trademark owners cannot authoritatively rely upon the
information available in the Whois to determine when a domain name will
expire. There are some registrars that when taking a multi-year domain name
registration only pay the registry one year at a time.

Data Point #3: During the Afilias LR2 process once a name was cancelled in
accordance with the Sunrise Challenge process, the Whois was updated to
reflect that the domain name was pending reallocation.

Data Point #4: Those registrars that have voiced an opinion on this issue
have raised their concern about the administrative costs that will be added
to protect against this isolated problem.

Data Point #5: Some UDRP proceedings are delayed due to the lack of
registrar confirmation.


Listed below are my personal viewpoints.

As John properly notes a little bit of homework/investigation by legal
counsel for the complainant prior to the filing of a UDRP proceeding can go
along way towards preventing this type of scenario. It is my personal
opinion that most registrars endeavor to work with UDRP providers to timely
resolve these situations, however the fact remains that Registrars receive
no compensation for these administrative duties. Although I am sure certain
people will argue that this is a cost of doing business, the cost associated
with potential mandated DNSO policies as well as ICANN imposed fees are
escalating significantly.

In 1999 the price of a domain name was $35 a year. I would estimate that
this price has now fallen to approximately $15 dollars a year, although
there are some registrars offering services in the $7 to $8 dollar range.
Last year ICANN's imposed registrar fee was approximately 8 cents a domain
name year. This year it was raised to approximately 12 cents a domain name
year. The projected budget for ICANN 2.0 estimates this fee to climb to 18
cents a year. Registrars have also incurred additional costs in connection
with ICANN's new internic.net web site designed to identify false and
inaccurate data.

I guess what I am trying to get at is in the current registry-registrar
business model, there is a symbiotic relationship between registries,
registrars and registrants, and that if the registrar leg of this triad is
broken we go back to when registrants had to deal exclusively with registry
providers.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage




MESSAGE FROM ICANN

-----Original Message-----
From: Louis Touton [mailto:touton@icann.org]
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 7:27 PM
To: Michael Palage
Cc: Dan Halloran
Subject: [Re: Advisory Request]


Mike,

To the extent that a domain-name registration is appropriately subject
to cancellation in accordance with the terms of the domain-name holder's
Registration Agreement, Paragraph 7 of the UDRP does not prohibit its
cancellation.

Best regards,

Louis Touton




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nc-udrp@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-udrp@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 1:19 PM
To: UDRP Task Force
Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] Fw: <bloombert.com> Domain Name Dispute]




As Mr. Evans mentioned, the Deletes Task Force has taken up this precise
subject, and is considering dealing with this issue from the standpoint of
registrar delete procedures.  It would probably be unwise to have two Task
Forces developing independent solutions to this perceived problem, as the
solutions then generated would result in conflicting registrar obligations.

The UDRP is a provision of a domain registration contract, and is a set of
contract terms binding on the registrant.  It is not at all clear how one
can
(a) force the registrant to renew a domain name when the contract term has
expired or (b) force the registrar to have to pay for continued registration
of a domain name simply because someone has filed a dispute and has not yet
proven entitlement to the domain name.

It has been noted in the Deletes Task Force correspondence that a domain
name
registrant who has decided to abandon a domain name rather than to engage in
a dispute is entitled to the contractual expectation that the domain name
registration contract will expire on the date which the registrant
contracted
for the domain name to expire.

At least one registrar notifies both parties to a dispute if the domain name
is about to expire, and provides either side with the opportunity to pay the
renewal fee.  Quite frankly, if a complainant is unable to read a calendar
to
ascertain that fact independently, then there is little that is likely to
help save such a complainant from its own incompetence.


> This would appear to be a reasonable request
>
> Tony Harris

> >  I know this issue is being reviewed by the deletes Task Force.
> >
> > J. Scott Evans