RE: [registrars] A WG-B Idea

["Josh Elliott" <jelliott@tucows.com>]

Mike,

I think exploring this alternative is worthwhile.  A modified UDRP is most
likely even better for the registrar group under the correct structure.  How
can we explore the substantive points of the proposal further since NC
should be voting tomorrow on the whole issue?  Would it make sense to
continue discussing it among the registrar group and possibly bring it to
the IP group at or before Yokohama?

Thanks.

Josh Elliott
TUCOWS.com, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2000 9:14 AM
> To: Registrars@Dnso.Org
> Subject: [registrars] A WG-B Idea
>
>
> In the process of preparing Working Group B's Final Report to the Names
> Counsel this weekend, I was reading over all of the comments that were
> submitted during the comment period. And the following idea came to me
> during a brain storming session with another attorney. I think it
> offers an
> interesting idea that was never considered.  I would like to hear any
> "constructive" feedback that people have on this idea.
>
> Temporarily Modified UDRP During the Rollout of a New Top-Level
> Domain Name
>
> Any new top-level domain would be added to the root with no preferential
> pre-registration rights. However, in those top-level domains where
> additional trademark protection would be deemed necessary to
> thwart abusive
> bad faith registration, a modified UDRP would apply for a limited time
> period, say 30 to 60 days. During this start up phrase (30 to 60
> days), any
> third party (Complainant) challenging a domain name registration
> in this new
> top level domain would contact a dispute provider and deposit the required
> fee (approximately $750 under the current provider rules). The dispute
> provider would then contact the domain name registrant and inquire if they
> wish to respond to the third party challenge. (Note: A
> significant number of
> UDRP are default proceeding where the domain name registrant
> never replied).
> If the domain name registrant wishes to respond to the challenge
> they would
> be required to deposit the same required fee as deposited by the
> Complainant. If the domain name registrant (Respondent) declined
> to respond
> to the Complainant, the domain name would be transferred to the
> Complainant
> along with a refund of the initial fee. Unlike the current UDRP
> proceeding,
> there would be no need for a written opinion in a default proceeding.
>
> If the Respondent posts the required fee, the dispute provider
> will conduct
> a proceeding using the existing UDRP rules. If the Respondent wins, the
> dispute provider will collect its fees from the Complainant and refund the
> deposit of the Respondent. However, if the Complainant prevails
> in a finding
> of bad faith, the dispute provider will collect its fees from the
> Respondent
> and refund the deposit of the Complainant.
>
> For those proceeding in which there is a default proceeding, the dispute
> provider will be compensated for their administrative oversight by a fund
> maintained by the registry. In order to share this burden equally
> among the
> entire Internet community, there will be a registry fee surcharge
> (less than
> a dollar) that will be accessed to all domain name registration
> in that new
> top-level domain. After the start-up phase (30 to 60 days) there
> will be no
> addition surcharge on domain name registrations and the UDRP rules will
> return to normal, i.e. a Complainant must pay the full fee in order to
> initiate a challenge.
>
> The benefits of this proposal are that there are no preferential
> pre-registration rights given to anyone. Additionally, the economics of
> abusive domain name registrations would be temporarily altered during this
> land-rush phase to create a disincentive for these types of bad faith
> registrations. Under the current system, a $20 dollar domain name
> registration imposes upon the Complainant an obligation to initiate a $750
> dollar proceeding. However, under the current proposal, people engaged in
> abusive domain name registrations would be reluctant to expand any
> investment in bad faith registrations if they would be required to invest
> several hundred dollars in a potential losing cause.  Finally, this system
> allows individual and small business the opportunity to register a domain
> name of their choice and only have to expend a nominal fee to defend their
> registrant if it is challenged, with the guarantee that if they
> prevail they
> will be refunded their deposit.
>
> Just a last minute idea, any thoughts?
>
> Michael Palage
>
> P.S. Happy Mother's Day to any mothers on the list
>
>
>
>
>