DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[nc-udrp] Another Interesting NAF Rule Asymmetry

Over the last year or so, the NAF has commendably eliminated several
asymmetries in its rules relative to supplemental filings and refunds of
three-member panel fees paid by respondents in withdrawn cases.  Apparently,
further work remains to be done in this area.

Under the NAF rules, the Complainant may submit a complaint, and is then
given ten days in which to pay the complaint fee.

Interestingly, if the Respondent requests a three-member panel, no such
period of time is provided for payment of the fee.

I have been informed today of a situation where a Respondent requested a
three member panel in the response, but the page with the Respondent's credit
card data apparently passed through the fax machine incorrectly - stuck to
the previous page.  While it is clear from the filing that the cover page
correctly recited the contents of the transmission as including the credit
card data, the NAF has taken the position that because the fee wasn't paid
that day, they will not allow the Respondent to pay for the three-member
panel expressly requested by the Respondent in the response.

It is a curious thing that Complainants are provided a file-now-pay-later
policy by the NAF, but Respondents are not provided the identical terms.
Once again, these sorts of asymmetries in the treatment of Complainants and
Respondents are only perceived by the public as evidence of bias, and
needlessly so.

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