RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions
--- Rodrigo Orenday Serrato <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Nevertheless I agree with comments in the sense that a printout of an
> allegedly sent to the registration contact, which may sit in his
> inbox for a
> period of time without being read, is not sufficient evidence that
> contact has had knowledge of the email's content.
> Here's a thought I just came up with. If you've registered a domain
> name and
> you actively use it for your website, and you have a number of pages
> in sai
> website, perhaps it wouldn't be too much trouble to include one
> someone suing you as per the UDRP could serve the process on you and
> proof of service thereof.
> De: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]En nombre de
> So you think that the UDRP should duplicate the full legal aparatus
> serving process?
I think it can be streamlined a bit, but should be consistent with the
principles of serving process, i.e. that the clock begins when the
respondent actually receives notice of the action, or is DEEMED to have
received notice. For UDRP, there's less pressure on the 20 day period,
as the real time period for losing the name is 20 days + time for
WIPO/NAF to render a verdict + time for appeal, which might add up to
60 days or more before losing a domain.
For WHOIS Accuracy challenges, though, the time pressures of 15 days to
deletion/deactivation are much more worrisome, as that clock seems to
begin the moment the notice is sent (but not received or deemed to be
received), and as others have pointed out could be much less, as the
registrar needs to make the decision within 15 days and gives their
registrant client sometimes only 7 days to respond.
Many countries (all the G7 ones, for instance) adhere to the "Hague
Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial
Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters". See:
for instance (which is talked about in Rule 17 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, for those in Ontario, Canada, and I'm sure other comparable
sections of people's local laws).
Our (Ontario) rule 18.01 gives folks up to 60 days to respond to a
statement of claim, if they're served outside of the US or Canada, to
give an example of real-world laws. I think these time-frames recognize
the difficulties that are involved when dealing with international
legal issues (I'd be curious to know what similar time-scales are in
force in other jurisdictions; reminder to readers -- I AM NOT A LAWYER,
and I don't play one on tv, either; just happen to be interested in
these issues, as anyone doing commerce on the internet or in the
realworld might also be). ;)
That being said, I'm sure that the process can be streamlined, but of
course when Jones Day or whoever drafted the various rules that are in
force now, they perhaps didn't think things through....having greater
input of the stakeholders (outside of only the IP constituency) would
help make the best policies.
If we can start to build a consensus on principles, such as:
1) the clock should start when notice has been received, or deemed to
be received [is this controversial?]
2) methods/guides on dealing with the "deemed to be received" in #1
3) time frames
that might lead to an improvement in the current state of affairs.
While I disagree with Rodrigo's suggestion about use of a website for
giving notice (for the same reason others gave, i.e. not everyone has a
website associated with a domain), I'm curious if he or Kent or the IP
constituency would support the "Legal Contact" in the WHOIS that I've
mentioned in the past? (also helps in relation the privacy aspects,
conceivably folks could use ONLY a Legal Contact, if they want to keep
their private details out of the WHOIS)
That Legal Contact could be the official contact point for service of
UDRP and/or other legal issues related to a domain (e.g. abuse). One
can even add a special "Registration" procedure or validation of those
special "Legal Contacts". e.g. law firms or other special agents can
pay $50/yr or something to Verisign or another company like a Dun and
Bradstreet (DUNS Numbers), and be specially registered to act as a
Legal Contact for unlimited numbers of domain names for a specific time
period, which is renewable. That Legal Contact's WHOIS details would be
*deemed* to be accurate (thus also providing the basis for a
"white-list" of domains which are immune to a WHOIS accuracy challenge;
any domain holder using the registered Legal Contact need not worry
about losing their domain after a 3 week holiday, and can sleep easier
Anyhow, I've tossed out some ideas, and would appreciate any comments
and other input. Perhaps we can start to form a consensus that others
on the task forces can use to improve on their current work.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html