DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [nc-deletes] IPC statement on deletes

Title: RE: [nc-deletes] IPC statement on deletes

Thanks Bret.  I'll remember to do that next time.


-----Original Message-----
From: Bret Fausett [mailto:fausett@lextext.com]
Sent: 22 November 2002 23:30
To: nc-deletes@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [nc-deletes] IPC statement on deletes

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> If anyone is able to convert Ms. Mutimear's file into a
> non-proprietary format, I would be greatly appreciative.

Intellectual Property Constituency Position Statement on Deletes Issue Paper

                             22 November 2002

This is the position of the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) on the matters raised in the Deletes Issue Paper, using the numbering appearing in that document.

Issue 1: Uniform delete practice after domain name expiry by registrars

As users of the DNS, the members of the IPC and those they represent would favour a uniform approach by all registrars in relation to deletion practice.  This would help ensure certainty and avoid confusion on the part of the user (both in terms of a user who has inadvertently allowed a domain to lapse and one wishing to purchase a lapsing domain).  However, we recognise that at least some of the registrar community want to retain the freedom to set their own practices in this respect.

Therefore, we would suggest a compromise scenario whereby there is a minimum standard which all the registrars would follow under which no deletion request would be sent to the registry within the first say 15 days of expiry, but that a delete request must be sent after x number of days (either the current 45 or a shorter period), leaving it to each registrar to elect which day in that latter period on which deletion requests would be sent.  A shorter period may be appropriate considering the introduction of the Redemption Grace Period (RGP) will give registrants an extra 30 days in which to redeem a lapsing domain name.

Each registrarıs policy should be made clear to registrants upon registration and the policy should be posted on the registrarıs main website, so that a registrant who has accidentally failed to renew a domain name can easily ascertain what stage a lapsing domain name has reached.

Deletions during UDRP action

Currently there is no uniform approach to what happens in the event that a domain name expires whilst a UDRP action is ongoing.  Some registrars will not send the delete request to the registry, effectively paying for the renewal themselves, although the ³lock² which they are obliged to put on the domain name under the UDRP procedure does not require this.  Other registrars allow the domain to lapse, meaning that the domain name may have a new owner by the time the UDRP decision is handed down, making the decision ineffective.

Although this happens relatively rarely, its occurrence is enough to justify
trying to unify the system to make it fair to all participants.   A case
manager at WIPO mentioned informally that she has seen between 20 - 30 cases where the domain name has lapsed and been registered by a third party prior to the UDRP decision being handed down.

In some cases where an infringing domain name is coming up for renewal it will be appropriate for the trade mark owner to wait and see if the domain is renewed before commencing a UDRP action.  However, where several months of the term are left and the infringement is such that the rights holder needs to take prompt action, waiting to see whether the domain will be renewed will not be appropriate.  Although most UDRP cases are concluded within 2 months, on occasion the time taken for a decision to be issued is longer.

Any proposal for resolving this system should ideally take into account the

  1. It is not appropriate for the registrars to be out of pocket by maintaining a domain name registration in these circumstances, although the IPC appreciates the actions of those registrars who have taken this approach in the meantime.

  2. A registrant who wishes their domain name to lapse should not be forced to continue as the registrant against their wishes.

  3. A registrant whose domain name lapses during a UDRP action should be afforded the same safeguards as any other registrant.

An ideal solution would be as follows:

The lapsing domain name is treated the same as any other lapsing domain name in that it is subject to the registrarıs delete practice and once a delete request is sent to the registry, it is subject to the RGP (once operational).  However, on expiry of the RGP (assuming the domain is not re-registered by the original registrant) the domain goes on hold, pending the outcome of the UDRP.  If the UDRP decision results in a transfer, then the complainant is given say 15 days to register the domain.  If the UDRP decision results in a cancellation or the complainant fails (or if a successful complainant does not apply to register the domain within 15 days) then the ³hold² on the domain is released.

This proposal involves the registries in the system, but hopefully would be a relatively simple system to implement, being similar to the ³hold² system operated by Network Solutions under its previous domain name dispute policy.

Under this proposed system the only participants placed at a slight disadvantage as compared to the current system are the registries.  There will be a small delay in the domain name being renewed, although it seems very likely that where a complainant felt strongly enough to bring a UDRP action they will want to purchase the domain name once available and therefore this will be a delay in payment to the registries only.  Also, the need for a domain name to be placed on ³hold² will occur relatively infrequently and therefore would have a minimal impact on the registryıs cash flow. 

Issue 2: Deletion following a complaint on WHOIS accuracy

The IPC believe that the current 15 day period for inquiries to be answered has not been shown to be unworkable.  Given that a deletion for inaccurate WHOIS data will enter the Redemption Grace Period, we do not currently see any need to extend this time period.

We consider that it is important that where a domain name which is deleted for inaccurate data but is re-registered during the RGP, the WHOIS data supplied at that stage must be verified prior to the registration being accepted. 

These are the only issues raised in the paper which the IPC wish to comment upon.

Jane Mutimear

President, IPC

The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only.
It contains information which may be confidential and which may also be privileged.
Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. Further, we make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to verify that this email and any attachments are free of viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which might be transferred by way of this e-mail.
Please refer to http://www.twobirds.com/fsma.cfm for our regulatory position under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 of the United Kingdom.
A full list of partners is available on request.
Details of our offices are available from http://www.twobirds.com

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>