<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [nc-deletes] Deletes during UDRP
On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 12:03 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> I propose that any fee paid by the claimant to keep a domain from
> expiring during a dispute (which THEY choose to initiate, by the
> way) is a cost of the dispute. No refunds, no tears. It would simply
> cover the registrar's cost of handling these.
If we were to adopt this approach, at the very least I think the
registrar would have to perform a renew on the domain. I'm still not
convinced about the fundamental fairness of this approach; I'd need to
see a better case made for it.
> Also the suggestion that an unrenewed domain should go to the UDRP
> claimant is unsupportable. Until a final decision has been reached,
> the claimant has no more rights to that domain name than any one else
> does. If the decision is not in favor of the claimant, it should go up
> for grabs just like any other domain. Otherwise, why go beyond the
> formality check on any dispute?
I agree with this. Filing a UDRP dispute does should not give a
claimant any rights unless the merits of the dispute are resolved in
their favor.
Jordyn
>
> Tim
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nc-deletes@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-deletes@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Jane Mutimear
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 10:47 AM
> To: nc-deletes@dnso.org
> Cc: 'evelyn.Remaley@wcom.com'
> Subject: [nc-deletes] Deletes during UDRP
>
> Dear All
>
> I have had a long chat with WIPO concerning our proposals. Their
> comments on our proposals are:
>
> 1. easy to implement from their end as they generally inform the
> parties of the expiry date anyway.
>
> 2. although generally registrars inform them of the expiry date when
> they respond to the verification request, this isn't one of the things
> which registrars have to confirm. So we should amend our rules to
> include this.
>
> Additional comments/alternatives
>
> They commented that currently most registrars pay the renewal fee
> themselves on the relatively rare occasion that a domain is about to
> lapse during UDRP proceedings. From the large registrars Tucows is
> the only one that doesn't do this. They commented that it might be
> cheaper from the registrars' perspective to all adopt this approach
> (of renewing themselves) rather than what we were proposing. Their
> reason for saying this was because of the hassle of dealing with
> refunds (which they have some experience of due to .info sunrise
> challenges). This is something which the registrar constituency
> should give some thought to. The only cases where the registrar would
> lose out under this scenario is where the complainant loses (so
> doesn't get to renew) and someone else snaps the name up using a
> different registrar before the complainant has the chance to register
> it. I think if we end up going back to this sort of system, the whois
> data should be amended to show that it is on hold pending UDRP
> proceedings.
>
> One concern they had was that under our system we are effectively
> forcing the complainant to stay with the same registrar if they win -
> or they have to pay twice.
>
> More fundamental was a question they raised as to what should happen
> to the UDRP proceedings where the registrants opts not to renew the
> domain. They suggested that the domain should go by default to the
> complainant. I know we discussed this and someone (probably John)
> raised the point that a default scenario in these circumstances would
> be open to abuse. I think that is unlikely for the following reasons:
>
> 1. A udrp complaint goes through a formality check prior to being
> accepted - therefore if there is not prima facie case made out (eg
> there is no right claimed), it is rejected.
>
> 2. A udrp complainant when deciding to initiate an action would not
> know whether the domain name was going to be renewed. If they guessed
> it wasn't it would be far cheaper to file a WLS than to file a UDRP
> claim.
>
> Therefore, I would certainly support a simplified rule that the if the
> respondent hasn't paid 30 days after the renewal grace period, the
> domain goes to the complainant and if the complainant chooses another
> registrar, they have to refund the original registrar's renewal fee.
>
> --
> OK, it would have been helpful if I'd discussed this with WIPO before
> now, but if you would like me to draft a couple of paragraphs saying
> "Alternatively, this problem could be solved by ...." I would be happy
> (well that's slightly too strong a word given what else I have to try
> to get done today) to do so.
>
> Regards
>
> Jane
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _
> BIRD & BIRD
> 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:
> http://www.star.net.uk
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|