RE: [wg-b] An idea?

["Roeland Meyer \(E-mail\)" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2000 9:11 AM

Michael,

I saw this and couldn't believe my eyes. So, I took a step back, built
up a Unix server, and came back to this.

> 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.

I hope that you have the clue that sunrise+20 isn't going over very
well. The mildest response is <yech!>.

> 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.

Rather than simply explode, I'll go over the objections.

1) Last point first, no audit trail. That written opinion keeps the
system honest. I'm surprised that you don't see that.

2) Presumptive transfer on null response. Eh-eh, that flies like
pig-shit. Not only does a domain name holder never get to go on vacation
anywhere, he has to fork over $750 for every Tom, Dick, and Harry
mark-holder that wants to harrass him. Not "no", but "Hell No!"

What this amounts to is a $750 license to steal domain names.The poor
sod comes back from a wonderful vacation only to discover that his
livelyhood has been stolen from him, and the thief doesn't even have to
say why and how! If we are going to allow pilferage, then let's at least
keep proper account of it.

Don't tell me that lawyers don't press home time limits, to the limit.
I've done, seen, and had done this on numerous occasions, in the last 25
years. It's what's known as a "cheap win". If it's there, some legal
schmuck will abuse it.

> 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 challen

No registry should be burdened with having to maintain escrow accounts.
First of all, that only works with lawyers because all manner of
agencies are watching you guys like hawks and still the occasional
schlemiel absconds with the escrow funds. Not having escrow accounts
means not having the responsibility, less opportunity for error, and no
required oversight.

> 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
>
>