ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[nc-deletes]


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

RE: [nc-deletes] Deletes during UDRP


Title: Message
There is no WLS yet. And one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Even so, since only one person can have a WLS on a domain, it might already be gone and a UDRP might look pretty inexpensive if the name has value. I think the dispute providers will be spending a lot of time trying to sort out the value of a lot of baseless claims. And does the claimant of an unrenewed domain take precedent over the WLS holder? If so, by what rights? They have none until the claim is resolved in their favor.
 
This idea will never garner anything close to consensus support.
 
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Jane Mutimear [mailto:jane.mutimear@twobirds.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 11:07 AM
To: 'tim@godaddy.com'; Jane Mutimear; nc-deletes@dnso.org
Cc: evelyn.Remaley@wcom.com
Subject: RE: [nc-deletes] Deletes during UDRP

We've agreed a refund in the current proposal, if the registrant also pays.
 
I don't see why it is so unsupportable that a domain should go to someone who has gone to the trouble of making out a prima facie case and paid over a $1,000  to lodge the complaint in comparison to someone who signs up to the wait list service for considerable less money and effort.
 
Jane
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
Sent: 30 January 2003 17:04
To: Jane Mutimear; nc-deletes@dnso.org
Cc: evelyn.Remaley@wcom.com
Subject: RE: [nc-deletes] Deletes during UDRP

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.
 
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?
 
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
________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________
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 >>>