1. Constituency Member #37# IPC Trademark owners IPC Intellectual property attorney Corporate Trademark Owner IPC Domain Holder US Public, Domain owner INTA IPC counsel for trademark owner Business INTA Inta Intellectual Property Attorney IP General Assembly IPC Australia NCDNHC IP GA ga ga Individual Domain Name Holder REGISTRY Complainant #51# Respondent #8# Panelist #9# WIPO Japan Intellectual Property Arbitration Center AIPLA eRes, WIPO CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution CPR, WIPO,eResolution,Arbitration Forum WIPO, E Resolution, NAF CPR Institute WIPO Other #60# concerned netizen Avocat Law Department Advising the Company Counsel for complainants ccTLD Registry, and operator of a domain name dispute resolution service speedy adjudication of rights involving trademarks representante de demandados y asesor Attorney Making people aware that authorities know the solution Patent & Trademark Attorney profesor universitario de derecho informático Representative of complainant(s) Curmudgeon who thinks everyone else has it wrong Attorney representing parties before UDRP counsel for party American Bar Association Internet User ICANN@Large Member domain name owner User of internet and future domain name owner Potential domain owner Consumer Making sure the net stays fair. Potential complainant lawyer for complainants Attorney representing complainants counsel for multiple complainants attorney for complainant I hold generic and geo names for development Internet domain owner Attorney attorney representing complainants attorney representing clients in UDRP cases Complainant #38# as an attorney for various complainants trademark lawyer Attorney Attorney representing both complainants and respondents AIPLA Member AIPLA & International Law student Attorney involved with Internet issues, including domain names legal counsel for both Complainants and Respondents Attorney IP attorney attorney in the field Potential Complainant / Respondent student member counsel Member of the GA e-commerce lawyer lawyer who has presented 4-5 claims Concerned Internet User Domain Name Holder Relative of candidate 2. Cost of proceedings 1#136# 2#35# 3#6# 4#11# Speed of proceedings 1#134# 2#33# 3#16# 4#5# Quality of decisions 1#100# 2#24# 3#53# 4#11# Other 1#155# 2#2# 3#8# 4#23# Tactical step to make cybersquatter discuss issue Ease of filing One world wide venue I have advised client not to use UDRP because alternative means were quicker, cheaper and more reliable (issuing C&D, filing complaint in court). We were respondent, were not aware of other options Only means to deal with global problems only realistic way of reclaiming domain name The only remedies of interest was to get back the name The way you are certain to only serve business interests ease of use Clear cut cases of cybersquatting (bad faith) Criteria for determining infringement Advantage of beneficial bad faith test Relaxed evidentiary standards Expertise of Panel PREDICTABILITY OF RESULT enforcement of judgment via registrar only effective cross-border process available LACK OF IMPARTIALITY Wouldn't have got decision in our favour in court 3. Provider reputation 1#146# 2#16# 3#15# 4#4# 5#3# 6#4# Provider's supplemental rules 1#101# 2#12# 3#13# 4#42# 5#11# 6#9# Experience of Panelists 1#112# 2#28# 3#24# 4#13# 5#3# 6#8# Quality of decisions 1#124# 2#34# 3#19# 4#7# 5#2# 6#2# Geographical diversity of panelists 1#98# 2#5# 3#5# 4#21# 5#42# 6#17# Other 1#156# 2#3# 3#0# 4#2# 5#5# 6#22# I was not the Complainant and had no choice in selection of Provider. Familiarity with WIPO's procedure As Respondent, did not select Provider Easy information on Providers web site Lameness n/a Convenience (same time) Familiarity with WIPO Prior decisions Fees Not selected, he was assigned POOR REPUTATION OF SOME OF THE providers other than WIPO Fair play... non fascist or elitist. NUMBER OF DECISIONS THAT WERE FAIR Provider Success rate Cost 4. Yes yes, in the sense that we had an advisor run the process for us. Yes, the process was clear. Although it was time consuming reading it all the first time the instructions were clear and in my case WIPO were very helpful on the telephone. I'm not sure however that if you had to move quickly to file a complaint or a response and were unfamiliar with the process how user friendly they would be. Yes The process was sufficiently clear. Yes, except with regard to the filing of exhibits with the Complaint that cannot be scanned without difficulty. Yes. No problems following the rules Yes Yes Sí a pesar de que las modificaciones de tasas y reglamentarias no fueron comunicadas explícitamente "YES" had studied the rules in advance. Yes Much of process is unclear or unknowable, but I was able to follow the instructions for submission of documents. yes; date enforcement and penalties inconsistent and unclear; amendment procedures unclear and inconsistent yes, mainly due to the model complaint Yes Yes, the UDRP Rules and the Provider's supplemental rules provided clear instructions. However, I am concerned about the number of cases in which the parties are being allowed to submit additional arguments/evidence despite the fact that neither set of rules provides for same. Yes. The guidelines are straightforward and very easy to follow. Yes, all processes and instructions were made clear. No, process was not clear because rules are often complied with in different ways depending on to whom the case is handled both in terms of panelist and administrator yes yes Yes. The supplemental rules clarified it. Yes yes, excellent resource base of decisions and statistics Step-by step process makes it very easy. Yes, but I guess that it is not so easy for the first comer. Yes Totally smoke and mirrors Yes, rules pretty clear. Only had question re what kind of evidence admissible, e.g., settlement discussion info., but read cases on that point. Yes yes reasonably so Yes. yes - I could understand the rules Very clear yes Yes Yes. YES yes; the rules are well-written and the notices are clear Yes Yes yes, very - WIPO in particular has sample complaint, etc. Very clear process and rules Yes Yes, the rules are fairly clear. yes yes Yes. yes While the steps for filing are revealed in the Rules and Supplemental Rules, they are not presented as clearly as they might be. I've never had a problem as Complainant, but I've seen filing problems in proceedings in which I've represented or advised Respondents. Yes; rules are easily accessible and understandable Yes, except when we needed to submit an Amended Complaint Yes. The Rules are clear and well written yes Yes Yes. Using WIPO, the forms were available to simply duplicate and revise per the particular facts. The UDRP and Supp. Rules were very clear. yes, at least the way it was supposed to work Yes yes Yes Yes. I feel the UDRP process is clear and user-friendly. Yes Rules were clear Some guidelines on evidentiary standards would be helpful, but otherwise, once I found it, it was pretty clear. Yes. Rule are available. Yes. The rules are well laid out. yes yes Yes. We are trademark law practitioners. yES Yes the availability and location of rules could be more clear. Yes The process is sufficiently clear, but the standards utilized by panels varies and "case law" is not easily searched. Sufficiently clear - rules and arbitration associations provided assistance. YES Yes with the exception of NAF's rule for calculating the reply deadline Yes. Yes. Yes but I had assistance with the process Yes, but I am accustomed to procedural rules. Some clients have difficultly with the various rules. process was clear other than electronic versus paper service of documents on respondent Yes, although there should be more guidelines on how to get required info (what websites provide the requested info) Yes--the Rules for the Policy are relatively clear as to how the UDRP works Yes, where situations arose that were not clear from the rules, I was able to call the provider for clarification. It was clearly elitist and fascist and played favourites according to wealth Yes, ok YES yes yes yes - using the policy and rules yes - clear rules and easily accessible published decisions yes Yes. 5. Yes. This particular decision was one of the very first ones, so expectations of experience could be nothing but low, but since we won, we were of course quite pleased. Yes as to impartiality. As to experience it seems to be pot luck whether they have relevant experience and much depends on their understanding of the relevant language, marketplace, meaning of the mark and interpretation of bad faith. Yes The panelists in most instances appeared impartial, although one panelist gratuitously and unjustifiably implied bad faith in preparing the complaint. The outcome in that instance was understandable, but the tone of the decision was felt to be inappropriate. On average yes. A few WIPO panelists, however, appear to have an agenda. No. The panelists did not appear to be proficient in nuances of trademark law. yes Impartial - yes. Experienced - somewhat Yes En algunos casos no tuvieron en consideración el objetivo que hay en el UDRP y ejercieron únicamente como jueces "YES" and based on the background provided Yes Yes. I won. panelists follow their own legal/political view; panelists pick and choose which if any prior rulings are controlling yes Yes Yes. The panelist considered all the evidence submitted by both parties, weighed it, and reached a reasoned decision. Yes, I have only had quite good decisions so far, although I must admit I have read other cases where I think the panelists' discussions and reasoning behind the decision have been a bit poor. Yes, based on published biographies, we were satisfied that panelists were experienced and fair. Panelists seem to come to process with bias either pro or against process. My impression is that the trademark lawyers who have been criticized as being too "pro" complainant are in fact bending over backwards to be even-handed. yes yes hard to tell; was a default. The cases were settled prior to decision mostly yes, most had good grasp of law Yes. Yes. I could easily check their CVs from the WIPO web site. In most cases, yes. Nope. The drool was the first tip off. Yes. Will only recommend WIPO to clients, because their decisions are more consistent and soundly reasoned than those of other providers. Yes yes no, some panelists obviously had little if any trademark experience Yes. Yes. As a lawyer, it made a lot of sense. yes - because they made a decision in our favor, which we thought was the right decision Yes, but decisions really depend on their own culture yes Yes Yes. They fairly considered all submissions and relied on appropriate relevant law. yes; for the most part, the decisions have been well-reasoned and supported by trademark law Yes No. The opinion, after laying out the facts, was nothing short of lawless! yes - all had solid background in trademark law Yes We received favorable decisions each time and (obviously) felt the decisions were correct. yes Decision was well written and seemed to grasp the conflicting contentions Yes. some were; some were not because of quality of opinions Yes. I just received a favorable ruling for Respondent by a unanimous three-member panel, including a member selected by Complainant. As a group, yes; however, the preconceptions of certain panelists sometimes clouds their judgment Complaint pending, so I cannot yet say. Yes. Followed earlier decisions and well reasoned yes. addressed arguments for both parties even though respondent did not file a response. Yes Yes. By virtue of their relationship with WIPO. No. The panelists clearly brought with them strong individual biases. I think this is reflected in the fact that in one case I handled the panelists completely ignored several prior WIPO decisions on all fours with our case because he, she or they apparently didn't like the way those cases were resolved. Prior decisions apparently have no precedential value, leaving the ultimate resolutions to the whims of the arbitrators and depriving participants of any ability to predict the outcome and act accordingly.. Frankly, a very disappointing resolution process. Yes no Yes I feel the panelists did an excellent job, being both impartial and professional in their handling of the case. Yes They reached the right result. Yes, because the panelist hit on all of the relevant points. Yes. No. From my case and others that I have heard and studied, the panelists seeem to be grossly slanted in favor of big business. The little guy doesn't have much of a chance. yes yes The decision showed an understanding of the issues. yES -- very smooth procedure Yes NA Yes Impartial. Having researched the panalists I know they did not always find for Claimant (as many critics complain). Yes. Most of them seem to have intellectual property backgrounds. YES Not always--one panelist referred to my client's mark as "famous" even though I hadn't asserted that in the complaint For the most part, although I usually do not pay that much attention to the panelist's past experience. This is a fairly new area to everyone. The concern is that we all continue the process together and domination is not a key word! Yes -- I have been on each side of a UDRP dispute, and I felt the panelists were accurate. yes Yes, long experience with the legal process allowed panelest to consider relevant evidence and dismiss irrelevant statements Yes--their decisions in the cases I was involved in indicated that they were impartial, and when they were appointed, I checked to see if they had decided any other cases and saw that they had. On review, those other cases indicated a familiarity and grasp of the UDRP No, in one case, the panelists were from different countries and, in my view, mishandled choice of law issues. they were paid by the rich to make decisions for the rich Ovious bias towards complainant NO THEY ARE HEAVILY WEIGHTED TOWARD THE COMPLAINANT No - clear bias - more noticeable in some providers than others in favour of complainants No - clearly ignored evidence presented by respondent and cut-and-pasted complainant's evidence into the findings. yes yes - familiar with the legal rules and fair-handed yes test Some of the panelists have a very skewed perception of trademark law. Most panelists are experienced and professional. 6. No no No, no difficulties were experienced by language barriers. No, but it is an increasing problem, that many registration agreements are now in not so common languages No difficulties. No. no No In a .biz complaint, I had to provide evidence from a Korean registrar (his address, his general conditions) no "NONE" No No. no no No No. No. No no no no No No. No No. Yes they claimed to speak english, but they were completely uncomprehendable! No. No no problems no No. No. no No no No No. not yet, although I have submitted a complaint in Chinese and requested that the proceeding be in English because the infringement is in English even though the registration agreement is in Chinese; it seems that if the infringement is in English, the proceeding should be as well No None. no No no no no No. no No. No I spoke with the provider re: the Amended Complaint and had no difficulties. No no. No no No no No No. No No. No. Yes. There were miscommunications about the date the brief was due. The due date fell on a Saturday and it was unclear when the brief needed to be filed. It is still unclear to me now. no no No. none, in spite of dealing with overseas attys.. No NA No No. No. YES, WE ARE NOW FACING A CASE WHERE THE RESPONDENT TRANSFER THE DOMAIN NAME TO A KOREAN REGISTRANT, FORCING US TO SUBMITT TO A DIFFERENTE LANGUAGE (KOREAN), AND JURISDICTION (KOREA), NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT DOMAIN IN DISPUTE IS A TLD (.COM) No No. No. I am fortunately multi-lingual. No. no No No No. No. panelists not interested in the opinions of "lesser persons" or those not crawling before their supreme honour Had little time to respond NO no no Complainant and providers continuously sent documentation in Microsoft Office format in direct non-compliance with UDRP rules no test No. 7. Yes. yes We are internal trade mark counsel. We did not use additional external counsel as that would be a duplication of resources. We may consider doing so if the case was particularly time consuming or complicated or if there was a language issue. We acted as counsel for several complainants. N/A we were counsel I am a counsel eramos representantes legales "YES" Yes I was counsel for the Respondent. not applicable no, as we as Trademark Dept. have sufficient know how I was Counsel I was counsel for complainant and will be counsel in upcoming UDRP proceedings We have always been representing our Clients. No, we did not want to take on additional expenses. no, own experience see above I was counsel. Yes Yes. I am a counsel. As a Panelist, I have seen a few badly written Complaints by companies without an experienced counsel. I was counsel for various entities. Lawyers are the Last resort of theives and cowards We are counsel and have represented two clients, who were complainants. I was the counsel yes, Pfizer was represented by outside counsel yess (We are counsel) Yes. yes - for the convenience of using someone with prior experience, to save me time No yes I act as counsel for complainants We are counsel representing others. I am counsel Yes N/A yes Yes yes I was Counsel I was counsel Yes. I am counsel I have been counsel for complainnants and respondents. n/a I am counsel for my corporation. N.A. n/a N/A Yes. I was representing a client who relied on us to inform them of this available dispute resolution tool and complete the procedure quickly and correctly.. I was counsel Yes (I am in-house counsel to corporate client which was Complainant) I am counsel Yes N/A Yes I am counsel - I just went back up to Question 1 and "unchecked" complainant. I was counsel. I was counsel for respondent. yes Yes. I was counsel I am in-house counsel and represented the company NA Yes Was counsel. No. I was the counsel representing clients. ATTORNEY AT LAW I am counsel and have represented several clients. Did not directly come into contact with them; representation I am legal counsel. i was counsel I am an attorney and am an in-house counsel for my company I am counsel, and have represented various complainants in UDRP proceedings I was counsel for Complainant in several UDRP proceedings. No... such was not affordable, nor should it have to be... opponents had unlimited funds to pay lots more. No, could not afford it. YES y (I am counsel) No. Expense I am counsel I am counsel. I represent parties. no I was counsel for the complainant. ##FIN7## 8. No no In the first instance it was difficult to know what type of proof would be acceptable but by looking at other examples of what had been filed and reading the decisions of panellists it became clearer. Difficulty was experienced in the submitting of proof such as TM Certificate copies which are in paper form and are not readily scanned in and therefore to attach these electronically was initially difficult although not impossible once someone with the appropriate technical knowledge was found. A bit, but the provider (WIPO) gave goood guidance to overcome the deficiencies The primary difficulty in presenting a complainant’s case lies in the inability to conduct discovery, in conjunction with the requirement that the complainant prove lack of legitimate rights and bad faith registration and use. In many instances, it is impossible to meet this burden without the benefit of discovery. This difficulty is greatly compounded by the fact that panelists have different views of the degree of proof required. See, e.g., Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, (WIPO No. D2000-0624, Aug. 21, 2000). Some panelists unfairly require a complainant to provide affirmative proof of lack of legitimate rights and bad faith registration and use even if the respondent defaults on the complaint. Especially in the absence of any discovery, this requires the complainant to prove a negative, and is essentially an impossible task. Other panelists specifically consider the respondent’s failure to demonstrate its rights under UDRP Paragraph 4(c) when evaluating the complain! ! ant’s evidence. Still others require the complainant only to make a prima facie showing, and then shift the burden to the respondent to provide concrete evidence of its legitimate rights to the domain. In the absence of any discovery (and any right to reply to a response), the latter approach is the most acceptable. Unfortunately, the language of UDRP Paragraph 4(a) does not require this approach, with the result that many panelis Not except for the issue addressed in response to #4 above. no Yes see question 6 Es evidente que aportar pruebas de mala fe no es fácil, especialmente teniendo en consideración que Internet permite la sutilidad de los daños y UDRP no lo evita "NO" No Yes. Old web pages no longer accessible. Response time not sufficient to acquire official copy of trademark registration to support defense of legitimate right and interest.. impossible to search registration of domain names by registrant accross all registrars no No No. No. No Yes. One panelist found proof sufficient; another panelist in different case rejected same proof on technical grounds no no no. No No. It is sometimes hard to get copies of clients TM Registrations, as time is essential. Another difficulty is to get access to the Whois data, especially from Nudomains. No difficulties, but discovery would be very helpful in some cases. Proof you dont need no stinkin proof, as your decisions aptly show No. None no no No. No. no The proof of bad faith - especially when you do not receive anything written from the Respondent. no No No. no No none Whois limitations made it difficult to find out whether whether respondent had engaged in pattern of registering infringing domain names No no no no No. no No. No Only insofar as the Respondent quickly moved to a different registrar following the filing of my Complaint. No yes- obtaining WHOIS data was difficult because of limits on record retrieval and accuracy of WHOIS data Yes, it is very difficult to search current "WHOIS" services to identify other domain names owned by a particular respondent so as to prove a pattern of domain name cybersuqatting. No. no No no No No. No A list of registrars and how to find out who they are would be helpful. In addition, is a declaration of facts not available on paper necessary, or will a verified complaint suffice? No. Yes. Not everything can be submitted via email and typically mail service don't operate on Saturday. If the due date falls on a Saturday, the UDRP should do exactly what the courts and the Federal Court does. no no Not in this case because Respondent was a repeat 'offender' and there were news stories regarding his activities. no. No NA No Yes, closed "whois" databases in some domains / registrars prevent collection of data on repeat cybersquatters prior to filing a UDRP. Closed registrars generally release information on a user once a UDRP has been filed on a single name. We submit supplemental letters with this information, but the rules do not require the panels to consider a supplemental submission of this kind. Closed who-is domains / registers protect squatters and frustrate pre-litigation settlement attempts. No. YES, SOMETIMES THE RULES ARE NOT CLEAR AS TO THE FORMALITIES WHICH HAS TO BE FULFILLED BY THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED Yes; I had trouble finding the registrar's rules that applied at the time the registrant registered the domain name. (The registrant had challenged ICANN's jurisdiction) No. No. No. The lack of an effective Whois search interface prevents the collection of domains owned by a particular entity. Also, the proliferation of false information prevents an accurate accounting of domains. no As pointed out in 4 above, it was not immediately apparent how to get some requested info about the respondent No Lack of a universal Whois search makes it impossible to establish the "pattern of conduct" prong of the bad faith factor. the proof is that I had registered and developed intellectual property and art on the empty lands of the web, that some rich and powerful person wanted to take and use for themselves without paying me for. No NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DIDN'T ALLOW RESPONDENT TO RESPOND TIMELY no no Yes. Documents sent to us in Microsoft Office format = unreadable to us. no no no No. 9. N.A. - " NO MERIT IN OWN CASE OR UDRP HAS NO FORMAL APPROVAL IN OUR COUNTRY AS A COURT OF LAW Not applicable not applicable N/A I have never been on the Respondent's side. N/A N/A N/A N/A We responded to the complaint. N/A n/a n/a N/A N/A Not applicable NA N/A N/A N/A not applicable n/a n/a Cost and likelihood of success N/A N.A. n/a n/a N/A N/A NA N/A N/A N/A NA N/A NA NA N/a N/A Have never represented Respondent n/a n/a I responded. but the man with the "gun" or power to turn me off found ways to do so. Aesop, the wolf and the sheep. KNEW THE DECISION WOULD AUTOMATICALLY FAVOE THE COMPLAINANT N/A 10. No. no, not necessary. Not yet. All the decisions have been in our favour. No No. No need to. no Yes, after a Belgian UDRP decision from a local provider, because of a poor decision refusing the transfer "NO" Yes. UDRP decision was inconsistent with legal principles that applied to both parties. no no No - never had occasion to do so No. My client was the winning party in the UDRP decision. No. No, we won our case and were satisfied with the result no need was no - decisions either favourable or parties reached negotiated settlement no. No - domain name transferred as part of settlement N/A No, we use it to knock out hard to win cases. No. The decisions were well founded. Yes (in a way). We are pursuing federal claims against a cybersquatter currently. Because I can't afford to out spend the legal department of a fortune 500 corporation. No. No no; we (Pfizer) have prevailed in all our cases client did not want to spend the money No. No. We have won every decision. no - it was not necessary We found other ways to recover the domain name no Yes. The Panelists ignored our bad faith evidence, and the absence of respondent's good faith evidence. We are confident the U.S. federal court will be much more careful and will find in our favor.be No. Never needed to because have never lost one. No; I have prevailed in every proceeding but one; the client is still deciding but probably does not want to spend the money to challenge that one no No. Since it is not binding, my client can sue in Federal court for infringement no - we have won all our cases at the UDRP level No - Decisions have been in our favor No, because they have been decided in our favor no, have always won no No. We have won all decisions. no. not worth the time/expense No. I've been fortunate to have prevailed in each proceeding. No N/A No need to do so no. decisions to date have been in our favor. No No. Each case has resulted in a favorable decision for our clients. No (only UDRP decision in which client involved had favorable outcome) yes. I thought the decision was not based on sound law concerning disclaimers No No. I found the results fair and satisfactory. No Never had an adverse decision No, haven't lost. No. The decision is presently being challenged in court. no - all decisions have gone in our favor. no No. We won. no No No. No; satisfied with results No. I was on the prevailing side each time. NO No. I have been satisfied with the decisions (even where I lost). No, because I have always been satisfied with the outcome. N/a I have not, but I have had Respondents challenge a UDRP decision. no No, we received a favorable decision. I am currently defending my client in a case brought by an unsuccessful respondent. This is one of the worst features of the UDRP, as it seems to be misunderstood by everyone. There seem to be a number of people who think that Paragraph 4(k) of the UDRP automatically entitles them to go into court to challenge a UDRP decision. This may have to do with the manner in which the UDRP was presented to the various constituencies before it was adopted--it doesn't seem to be a drafting problem, but a perception problem. Additionally, there seems to have been a sense when the UDRP was being drafted that UDRP decisions could be challenged under the various arbitration treaties (the New York treaty, for instance)--but this is in serious doubt in the U.S. in light of the decision in the Netlearning case. The way I read paragraph 4(k), it says that nothing in the UDRP prevents the parties from going into a national court--but it doesn't guarantee the parties the ability to do so; whet! ! her a party can challenge a UDRP decision in a national court depends on the laws of the particular nation. At the very least, this needs to be made much clearer to all parties involved. No. But, I may in the near future. can't afford to, and all such proceedings are corruptly slanted to favor the rich and famous. Yes, later proceeded to court, felt UDRP decision was lacking YES A DECISION BY THE NAF WAS COMPLETELY OFF THE WALL AND UNFAIR No - although we are about to sue a panel for accepting jurisdiction wrongly No. Expense. no - I was successful in all proceedings except one where we had only one of two disputed domains returned no. no need to no no Yes. As noted, some of the decisions were inconistent with basic trademark laws and principles. 11. No no. Yes difficulties were experienced. These were really with time delays because it is for the respondent to initiate the request for transfer or to provide a password or make an update which obviously some are not happy to deal with quickly especially where the decision is one they think is unfair. However, the fact that the DN is on hold by the Registry un No No. All transfers have been handled smoothly and efficiently. Registrars should be commended on their cooperation with the process. no No Sí ha ocurrido en dos ocasiones que el demandado ha podido manipular los datos en el periodo de diez días en los que el demandado podría acudir a Tribunales pero fue INCOMPATIBILIDAD de algun registrador "YES. I HAD TO REMIND OUR COUNSEL AND IN TURN WIPO OFFICE, REGISTRAR TO TRANSFER DOMAIN NAME WITHOUT DELAY. THIS TAKES ABOUT 6 MONTHS TIME No Not applicable. not applicable yes (immaterial), but due to an error on our side Yes, the client/Complainant experienced extraordinary difficulties with the Registrar, Network Solutions, Inc. In my opinion, they acted imcompetent. The client/Complainant had to submit the decision three (3) times to NSI because they continued to "lose" track of the client's/Complainant's transfer request. No, all the names we have challenged so far have been transferred smoothely. N/A yes, handling by network solutions defectuous; they screwed up technically no Yes. The registrar did not transfer the domain name & someone else bought it (even after order to transfer). We have probably had 8-10 contacts with registrar trying to get it to transfer the domain name. Very frustrating. ItsYourDomain.com is registrar. N/A Only on the part of Network Solutions. They typically take a long time to do anything. I have had some problems with Network Solution /NSI. They are extremely slow. No. Nope I just sent the JackBooted Thugs in and stole my ill-gotten goods No. No no problems no Yes. Lengthy delays by Registrars post 10 day deadline (several weeks). No. no difficulty No - except it takes a while sometimes. no Some registrars, NSI/VeriSign in particular, make it very difficult procedurally to process a transfer. No difficulty, but the time delay could have been shorter. No, with the exception of the registrar Joker.com, which makes transfers difficult no N/A on one occasion, Tucows failed to implement the order at the proper time. We had to contact Tucows' legal department directly. Once we did, they did implement the order relatively quickly, but it appeared to us that the UDRP order never got to the right place within Tucows and would have been forever lost if we had not followd up directly. The registrars are sometimes slow No, it takes a little while; but it seemed to work out okay. no no No. no, other than some delay The process is unnecessarily cumbersome, particularly as implemented by Network Solutions. Transfers take too long and NSI puts up needless barriers, unless of course, you pay for the premium service. No N/A Yes. Registrars refused to transfer. YES. CORE, the registrar in this case, was persuaded to stop the transfer by the Complainant filing a complaint in a court without jurisdiction under the UDRP. Took us 2 months to perduade CORE to implement the decision; the complaint is still pending. No The transfer proceedings could have been smoother, but this is a Registrar issue. Yes! It was very difficult dealing with Network Solutions regarding the transfer. It is nearly impossible to reach anyone at NSI, and it was totally unclear what actions we needed to take in order to get the domain transferred. no Yes. The registrar Joker.com was very difficult to deal with, and it took nearly 4 months from the transfer order to actually get the domain name transferred. None. No Only in that the client's IT person submitted the info and got the NIC number, instead of supplying it to us. The transfer went through smoothly, but from what I have heard, others have been having trouble. Yes. Registrar representatives are unfamiliar with the process or the registrar was slow in executing the order. N/A no yes. Verisign/Network Solutions has never been consistent in notifying the Complainant re: how to effect the transfer. Sometimes they email us, sometimes they don't. Not at this time. yes. some registrars are poorly run, like joker.com. No NA Yes; registrar failed to implement mandated transfer, registration lapsed, and domain name was registered by third party Registrar did not transfer based upon order by NAD. We had to repeatedly request transfer, transfer took place after three weeks. No. LITTEL CONFUSING WHEN CONTACTING THE REGISTRAR No. In fact one regisrar transferred the domain to my client before the expiration of the waiting period. Not usually. Once the domain name registration expired during the pendency of a case in which the Respondent had recently agreed to transfer the domain name during settlement discussions, which complicated matters. However, the delay that this caused was due more to the Respondent's actions than that of the UDRP panel or Registrar. No Yes, NetSol took 6 months to transfer a name after transfer was ordered. I am not sure why. yes but i think it was my client's technical people who could not understand how to effect transfer No. Only difficulty was where transfer was ordered, then respondent filed challenge in court, and while challenge was pending, registration expired (registrar certificate was NOT deposited with the court). NSI refused to transfer even though registration had expired, and even refused to confirm that the registration had expired, going so far as to indicate that the information in its own WHOIS was inaccurate No, other than several weeks of delay, the transfer order was succesfully executed. any complaint I make involves paying large fees to a neo-nazi regime. N/A No No no occasional housekeeping difficulties but nothing serious test Yes. I have had some very bad experiences with certain registrars that refuse to transfer the domains. I also had one instance where the registrar refused to transfer the domain until my client paid the unpaid invoices of the cybersquatter (which was a seven-year registration for numerous domains). 12. Cost of proceedings 1#128# 2#11# 3#5# 4#4# 5#20# 6#20# Speed of proceedings 1#110# 2#9# 3#13# 4#12# 5#17# 6#27# Quality of decisions 1#123# 2#19# 3#12# 4#5# 5#12# 6#17# Language 1#112# 2#2# 3#10# 4#9# 5#29# 6#26# Other 1#161# 2#1# 3#2# 4#1# 5#6# 6#17# The UDRP did not cover the situation NA No Proficiency of Panelists case is not the right type If I want to claim damages I prefer a court case Never decided against filing complaint Please excuse me not answering questions about this fatally flawed system - it would be waste of time. Handling by formal Court system with ability to appeal decision. See #2 Transfer is inadequate to deal with serial cybersquatter. Injunction necessary. UDRP not appropriate for marginal cases. Client choose not to file Complaint. In some cases, our Clients have instructed us to try to buy back the names for a prices less than a UDRP filing, and we have managed to do that. Difficulties in proving all 3 requirements I don't know what "Barriers" means here. The system currently in place does not seem to respect people, only corperations. gayness The utter corruption of ICANN and the "arbiters" it uses to steal domain names. Not to mention that I'd have to hire lawyers in several countries. Lack of uniformity, no precedent, which laws apply? Case against subsequent domain name owner who obtained domain name fourth hand from earlier cybersquatter. Could not prove current registrant's bad faith. Scope of relief and claims I wanted to hammer the opposition with Federal Court litigation Cannot use in many country-code disputes Difficulties to show the use in bad faith - cybersquatters are more and more sophisticated N/A Only when more than cancellation or transfer was needed, such as injunctive relief or monetary damages. client wanted immediate injunctive relief or discovery was needed to show bad faith respondent owned several names, court action preferred N/A legal strength of case We decided that the domain name wasn't worth it. Did not pursue by other means either. n/a only factor - bad law Require different legal standard or remedies Respondent threatened to go to court if adverse UDRP ruling and court with jurisdiction would not enforce it. Complicated issues involved Please see my response to question No. 5. N/A Legal fees to prepare extensive complaint Concluded that UDRP did not cover the dispute Needed remedy beyond tranfer of domain name The reason to decide not to is because unless both sides agree it is fair, then it is a complete waste of time. This should be mediation and not arbitration. UDRP should use skilled mediators. A letter seemed more effective and less costly Not having a "slam-dunk" case. that would be the only reason. Requires bad faith in actual use of the domain name. No injunctive remedies Cases going against known cybersquatters with potentially generic domains. Insufficient evidence of bad faith Was unsure if other remedies were more appropriate since respondent should not have been awarded names in first place and were subject to losing them for filing false information. However, I did not know if I challenged and won, would I received the name. I would have lost my money and the name in that case. never decided for or against against filing UDRP complaint Finality: A UDRP decision is not final if a party files a lawsuit. Lack of skill Because US Trademark law superceded UDRP, we opted to file in Federal court instead any complaint I make involves paying large fees to a neo-nazi regime. NO Decisions appear based on panellist bias & odd prior cases rather than strict interpretation of UDRP rules Public opprobrium futility 13. Complainant #96# Respondent #41# Both Complainant and Respondent #61# Neither, provider should be selected randomly #71# Other #112# It should not matter. The provider's procedures ought to be identical. There should only be one provider who can draw panelists from many sources. Their should be 3 seperate processes established, 1 company to company, one person to person, and one company to person, each with seperate thresholds. Doesn't mater much. Historically, the Taliban are more fair than the Quislings ICANN uses Comp&Resp if they agree, else random; Label numbers missing, unreliable survey data. Was this pretested? Selected randomly from a set of impartial providers. Process as it is seems to work. ? Just as a complainant who files suit selects the venue, similarly a complainant filing this proceeding should select his provider Complaintants should be made aware of the success rate of subsequed actions adverse to the panel members complainant - your form does not allow a single answer The current system is appropriate It should be selected on the basis of the ability to come up with reasoned decisions that both sides can live with. 3 panelists - 1 chosen by complainant, 1 chosen by respondent, 1 chosen by the two initial panelists. Winner theft of anothers property is I-C-A-N-N s work. they should be disbanded, their decisions reversed, all properties returned to those they were stolen from, and compensation paid. the judges should be prosecuted for their neo-nazi dealings Panellists should be montored for bias any modern justice calls for a randomly selected JURY Randomly subject to rejection by both/either party This is stupid. How do I check one of five boxes? test The numbering system for this question is confusing and is inconsistent with the question asked. No one should be bound to use the UDRP. People should be able to register domains without having to agree to the UDRP. court 14. No. This would dely the process. of course speed is of the essence. On the other hand, both parties should be allowed to correct obvious mistakes. And both parties should be allowed a responable chance to respond to an input from the other party in case a new element is brought in. Speed in the decision should be balanced by thouroughness and justice. Yes, each party should have the possibility of responding to the other parties submission (i.e each party should be allowed two submissions) Oui en cas de nouveaux faits, de nouveaux documents Yes, significant change of the understanding of the facts. Yes,but only one time by complainnants or upon the request of panelists. Yes should not be allowed, because of speed up the procedure. However, clearly misspelling case could be allowed. No, as it gives complainants the opportunity to improve their position and goes against the cost effectiveness and speed of the UDRP service. However, complainants should be given the opportunity to submit a Reply to any new issues raised by the Respondent's response. Yes, provided new evidence comes to light that Complaint could not reasonably have discovered at the time of filing the Complaint or Respondent's response requires further or different arguments/evidence to support the Complaint. yes but rarely if circumstances change Yes, to resolve all issues involved in the proceedings as long as the fact was newly discovered in good faith. Yes, to respond to the Repondent's response Sí ya que en el periodo de tiempo que se está tramitando la página web tampoco es objeto de bloqueo Yes, but only once to ensure that form does not take over substance but at the same time not giving the Complaintant too many bites at the apple. No. It would slow proceedings Yes, if fairness and the circumstances require it. The standard should be the same as regular litigation "YES. IF SUFFICIENT CAUSE AND TIME SHOWN BASED ON APPLICATION AND CONSIDERING NATURE OF EVIDENCE Yes, as long as it does not unduly delay the trial. Every developed legal system allows this and it assists in arriving at a decision on the merits. Yes. For response to any new charge/fact raised in the Response. Within 7 days of receipt of Response. yes; to provide further evidence to overcome claims made by respondent; need to add procedures regarding amendments yes, with a short deadline, if otherwise the complaint would have to be rejected. The complainant should be allowed to correct errors to avoid decisions based on wrong facts Yes, Only to deal with trivia - the procress must remain simple and quick, allowing for amendment will encourage slackness in formulation of complaints. Si. Siempre y cuando no se modifique el fondo de la demanda. El plazo debe ser muy breve, no mas de 5 días en haras de la celeridad del procedimiento Yes. If the Complaint fails to meet the filing criteria, e.g., wrong Registrar identified; if the Respondent raises new issues (reverse domain name hijacking) that must be addressed by the Complainant. no. delays matters For matters of form, amendment should be permitted. For matters of substance, the written record must be complete Yes, but only under very specific circumstances, such as new facts in the case etc. Yes, in interest of fairness, but Respondent should be allowed to point out inconsistencies Yes, amendments should be allowed. Nothing to prevent complainant from withdrawing and refiling. Why not just allow amendments. according to civil procedures yes - once Response received new evidence should be addressed No. Yes, if previously unknown information becomes available Yes, to address allegations raised in response not previously considered, but this could adversly affect the speed of the proceedings yes, Yes. New facts or acts of bad faith may come up (registrant may try to transfer the domain name after being notified of the complaint). Yes, to clarify and file material that was omitted inadvertantly. No! It would increase the time and costs for the proceeding. No. It increases the costs for the respondent to have to respond twice. Be thorough to begin with. No. They should be alloud to show additional supporting evidence, but not ammend the complaint itself. No No No No Sure, they need all the time they can get to get their lies straight. No. If the original complaint is incomplete, or otherwise defective, the comlainant should file a new complaint. The procedure to handle complaints should be fast enough that this does not couse unruly problems for complainant. No. File the complaint and be done. No, they should come to the table ready to argue. Either they have a case, or they don't. No. Complaints should be tried in their initial format, and then dismissed with predjudice. No No, make it a simple process. But can supplement in brief Yes, because websites can change, the complaint may need to be updated. yes Yes Yes Yes, if new circumstances. Yes, if good cause is shown yes, if facts warrant it Yes, descretionary and only prior to response filing. To address developements since first filing, fix procedural errors. Yes. There is no good reason not to allow this. no - this will cause delay and more cost, which makes the UDRP less attractive Yes - after a filing, Respondents tend to make up evidences, and Complainant might find out new prooves no, because this is supposed to be an inexpensive quick proceedure, different from court litigation Yes. Particularly if the Complainant has corresponded with Responden before filing a UDRP Complaint, relies on what is stated in the correspondence, and then the Respondent changes his/her/its "story" in the response (although, we have found most Panels willing to accept an additional submission from the Complainant in this circumstance) Yes, but only to correct errors or to add newly discovered relevant information or evidence. yes, under the circumstances in which supplemental pleadings are now allowed(ie for new facts, law, or arguments brought up by the respondent only in response to the respondents' answer Yes. If procedural defects appear or if the panel is of the opinion that there was insufficient proof to sustain the count. Yes, in the event new facts or evidence (including facts or evidence that existed but couldn't reasonably have been discovered) comes to light. No. They have an unlimited amount of time to collect facts and statements. Yes - changed factual circumstances Yes, if additional pertinent information comes to light once the complaint has been filed (particularly if it is learned as a result of the filing.) No. As they initiated the complaint, they should get it right first time round Supplement if Respondent accuses them of bad faith and Complainant has evidence to the contrary and If new and relevant evidence comes to light which could not have been obtaned previously Yes, if additional probative evidence becomes available after complaint filed before the answer is filed and time to answer should extend It depends. Amendment should be allowed to add additional "causes of action," i.e. additional domain names registered by Respondent, or to cure a simple omission, but not as a second bite at the same apple following receipt the Response. If Complainant learns of additional domain names to be put in issue, especially if those registrations were made by Respondent in response to the initial Complaint, it would be unfair to Complainant to deny an Amended Complaint. Both fairness and judicial economy require that Complainant be allowed to amend. What purpose would be served by two successive panels rather than a single panel, other than to heap unrecoverable costs on Complainant, to the benefit of the Provider and the joy of the Respondent? Yes; to briefly respond to Respondent's arguments and/or if new facts come to light Yes. For instance, if the respondent has moved to another registrar, the complainant should be able to so state to the provider to make the latter's task easier. Yes No. Would slow up process. yes. With no discovery, evidence is difficult to come by. If respondent raises new issues or provides new evidence, Complainant should have a short period (20 days?) for response. Yes, if new evidence is discoved that could not reasonably be discovered prior to filing the complaint. Complainants should be allowed to amend their complaints once, in order to comply with outstanding issues identified by the Provider. This, in the event an error is made inadvertently. Only in event respondent raises new issues. Yes, for example to present evidence of further actions by Respondent that indicate bad faith (such as attempting to transfer domain or registering additional infringing domain names) yes. respondents will often make allegations that need to be refuted Yes, to ensure accuracy of allegations (e.g., if new evidence arises that strengthens the case) Yes. It is often the case that the Respondent will introduce new issues or false information and the Complainant should have an opportunity to address it. Yes When the circumstances change after the initial filing or if new facts become available Yes, in cases where it seems appropriate - they should be given one additional opportunity. No, it would impair the expendiency of the action. Yes. Have the ability to have a full and fair hearing for both sides. More mediation less arbitration. yes - inadvertent omission; subsequent developments - within tight time limits Yes. When subsequent pleadings materially change the facts. Sure, but in a very narrow window of time. no opinion Upon major new issues raised by the respondent Yes -- if there is new information or evidence Yes Yes; if warranted by new matter introduced in response or discovered during pendency of proceeding 1) AMEND: To supplement information from closed who-is TLD / registrars (only available after filing of UDRP). 2) REPLY: If Respondant responds, Complainant should get a sur-response (and the Respondant should have a sur-reply to that filing). , Complainant should be able to answer issues raised in reply. NAD of the Better Business Bureau has good quick model for "sur-replys". Yes. If respondent changes its actions in response to service of complaint. YES, SPECIALLY BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT IS PREVIOUSLY INFORMED OF THE FACT THAT A PROCEDURE HAS BEEN INITIATED AGAINST HIM, AND THEN HE COULD REACT USING THE DOMAIN NAME IN A DIFFERENT WAY Yes, to correct errors or add new evidence. Yes, if information/evidence is acquired after the filing of the complaint that was not available before filing. Yes, if the rules change and the new rules are going to apply, then complain should be allowed to amend and where there was unclear explanations in the first place. Amend Yes, in response to new issues brought up by repsondent Yes, if new facts come to light. No. Without a discovery process there is no need. Yes -- Same standred as U.S. Courts Once should be able to amend for short period if no obvious prejudice to Respondent, and respondent has opportunity to respond to amendment Yes, to correct significant typographical errors and if additional significant information comes to their attention (e.g., other URDP complaints/decisions regarding the respondent). Yes, as a result of discovery or finding more information. yes. at least once without penalty Yes, but only when (1) they have new facts to allege that they did not know when they filed their original complaint, or (2) to inform the panel of a change in the underlying law that occurred after the filing of the original complaint. Only under the circumstances of new action by Respondent (i.e. Respondent registers new domain names) or in the case of subsequently discovered fraud. Yes, same as FRCP Yes, within a short time, for any reason. Yes, if new information has come up. If they did a poor job submitting the complaint, then it is their bad fortune. But if they uncover more information (such as furhter evidence of cybersquatting, significant evidence of confusion, etc.), then it would be approriate to allow an amendment. Also, if the other party amends their response, a rebuttal must be allowed. No. Never. They can take as much time to prepare their complaint and collect all evidence before submitting. No YES IF DISMISSED ON A TECHNICALITY Only where the respondent has not yet answered - or where panel requests further information - any amendment should restart the respondent's period for reply. We have seen a number of cases where the Complainant has deliberately filed false information. Once the Respondent answers they correct the information or amend information to defeat legitiamte claims by respondents. (In 2 cases this has occurred in court and we have had complainants held in contempt of court - no similar proceedings are possible in UDRP) No. No. there should be no complaint only an information to the Global Internet Community of a user confusion introduced by a wrong name of domain choice no NO NO NO Yes, to include additional facts learned during the proceeding. no, unless in the nature of a technical mistake or typo that could prevent just result Only on the strength of new evidence of bad faith registration No. There must be an existing basis for complaint. Amendments would only serve to provide complaint without basis. yes, but only if material facts have changed since the initial complaint was filed. Restrict amendments lest you allow proceedings to be drawn out. yes. New facts no. test Yes. Respondents occasionally file responses that raise new issues or make claims that are untrue or misleading (e.g., the complainant acquiesced to the domain registration). No. Complainants should state their case fully when beginning the process. yes, with reasonable notice 15. No. This would delay the process. cf. 14 Yes, each party should have the possibility of responding to the other parties submission oui en cas de nouveaux documents ou de nouveaux faits Same as #14 Yes,but only when requested by panelists. Yes should not be allowed. No, as it gives respondents the opportunity to improve their position. Yes, but only in response to new arguments or evidence advanced by Complainant in an additional submission or evidence newly discovered that could not reasonably have been discovered at the time of filing the Response. yes but rarely if circumstances change Yes, to resolve all issues involved in the proceedings as long as the fact was newly discovered in good faith. Yes, to answer to the Complainant's amended complaint. Respondent should have the last word no, porque es clara la posición del damandado desde el principio Yes, but only once to ensure that form does not take over substantive arguments. No. It would slow prceedings. Yes, same as above "YES. IF SUFFICIENT CAUSE OF TIME SHOWN BASED ON APPLICATION AND CONSIDERING NATURE OF EVIDENCE Yes, every developed legal system allows this and it assists in arriving at a decision on the merits. Only if new charge/fact is raised in rebuttal or oficial copies of evidence, cited but not supplied, in original Response (i.e. copy of tm registration) is now available. yes; to provide informaiton requested by panelist; to overcome amendments to complaint yes, see 14 mutatis mutandis Yes Ditto Si. Cuando no se modifique el fondo de la contestacion, cuando se trate de añadir hechos nuevos a los cuales no tuvo conocimiento al momento de la contestacion y en un plazo muy breve Yes, but only under limited circumstances; for instance, if the Complainant amended their Complaint. no. delays matters Yes, but only under very specific circumstances, such as new facts in the case etc. Only if Complaint is amended Same as above according to civil procedures no No. Yes, if previously unknown information becomes available Yes, Same as 14 yes Yes, only if they are facts that could not have been obtained after they had received the complaint. Yes, to clarify and file material that was omitted inadvertantly. No! They have the benefit of reading the Complaint before they respond. That should be enough. No. Individuials, yes. Corperations, no. Yes Yes Yes Yes Absolutly. It's not like they'll ever win, but let them kill trees, it'll give ICANN the appearance of fairness. Yes. The respondant should hae a set deadline before which he should respond to the complaint. Before that deadline is met, the respondant should be able to amend their response, even if they have filed a response earlier. Yes. As the party likely to be deprived of an existing domain, there should be a presumption of validity and the UDRP should favor the respondent. Same as above. Yes. Many respondents have implemented or planned to implement social, political, and other non-commercial or various free speech sites, and should be granted the greatest possible protection from being squelched by those of differing viewpoint. Yes No, but supplement in brief Yes, in response the a change in the complaint. yes Yes Yes Yes, if new circumstances. Yes, where justification is shown yes, if facts warrant it Yes, descretionary and only prior to decision expected date. To address developements since first filing, fix procedural errors. Yes. There is no good reason not to allow this. no -for the same reasons as 14 As I think Complainant should be able to amend their complaint, it makes sense the Respondents to be allowed the same opportunity no for the same reasons set forth in answer to # 14 Yes. Same reason in #14. Yes, but only to correct errors or to add newly discovered relevant information or evidence. no, unless the complainant files supplemental materials after the answer has been filed or new facts some to light after the response has been filed; this is because the respondent has full opportunity to answer all of the allegations in the complaint the first time he answers no Yes. All facts should be before the panel. Yes, in the event new facts or evidence (including facts or evicence that existed but couldn't reasonably have been discovered) comes to light. Yes. When the respondent is requested to present additional information new facts should be allowed to amend the response given. Yes - same Yes, if additional pertinent information comes to light once the response has been filed (particularly if an amended Complaint is filed.) As the burdon of proof is on the Respondent (i.e. Guilty until proven innocent) yes, they should have this ability If new and relevant evidence comes to light which could not have been obtaned previously yes, if exculpatory evodemce becp,es available after the response is filed. no; additional filing is permitted by either party As for Complainant, Respondent should be granted an opportunity to cure a simple omission in the Response. The "second bite" issue doesn't arise because the Response is the last pleading. No; Respondents already have a chance to respond to every point raised by the Complainant and even if Complainant is given an opportunity for rebuttal, Complainant will not raise new issues but only respond to those issues raised by Respondent Yes, but only if the facts change significantly such that it would be unfair to preclude an amendment. (I should not think this would be the case often.,) Yes No. Would slow up process. Yes. Short time frame to allow rebut of additional/new evidence. Why? They stand to lose their domain. Should be awarded every opportunity to fight for it- but shouldn't slow the process unduly. Yes, if new evidence is discoved that could not reasonably be discovered prior to filing the response.. Same as #14 Yes, but only to respond to an amended complaint no, they already had a chance to respond to the allegations Yes, if new evidence arises to strengthen their defenses No. I feel that the Respondents have an adequate chance to express their claim. If they have a legitimate interest in the domain name, then they have more than adequate opportunity to state so in their response. Yes When the circumstances change after the initial filing or if new facts become available Yes, in cases where it seems appropriate - they should be given one additional opportunity. No. See 14. Yes, see above. yes, but within tight time limits Only in response to an Amended Complaint, or newly discovered evidence, before a decision. same no opinion no. Yes -- but only in response to amended complaint Yes Same as answer to 14. No. NO, THE HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO PREPARE THEIR DEFENSES Yes, for the same reasons Yes, under the same circumstances as mentioned in Quest. 14. same as in previous answer. Yes Yes, only if complaint amended Yes if new facts come to light. No. Yes -- Same standard as U.S. courts Once only in response Yes, for the same reason as Complaintants. Yes, as a result of discovery or finding more information. yes. at least once without penalty Yes, as above, when (1) they have additional facts to allege that they did not know when they filed their original response, or (2) to inform the panel of a change in the underlying law that occurred after the filing of the original response. Only in the case of subsequently discovered fraud. Otherwise, there is too much potential to protract the action. Yes, same as FRCP Yes. Similar Yes, under the circumstances currently allowed now--where there is some procedural irregularity (i.e., an incorrectly named party or an inartfully drafted consent to jurisdiction) Very similar to above. If new evidence in uncovered after submission of the response (evidence that the complainant knew about the domain conflict for years and ignored it, or that they are sytematically harassing legitimate domain owners), then this update should be allowed. Also, if the complainant amends their complaint, then an amendment to the response must be allowed. Yes. the respondent is defending their right to free speech and ownership of the property they have developed Yes, when they cannot collect evidence reasonably in the very short time they have to repond. Yes YES, IN ORDER TO RESPOND TO NEW INFO PROVIDED BY COMPLAINANT IN RESPONSE TO ANSWER. Only where panel requests further information Only where panel requests further information No. No. there should be no response when the site is in operation - there should be no possible complaint when the site is not in operations - the display of the site must only be taken into consideration to know if the name is apropriately chose or not. no NO NO NO Yes, to include additional facts learned during the proceeding. no, unless in the nature of a technical mistake or typo that could prevent just result Only on the strength of new evidence of bad faith name hijacking Same answer - only if material facts have changed since the initial answer was filed. yes. New facts only after the complainant amends its complaint. test No. Unless unusual circumstances arise. Such an amendment would delay the proceedings and tempt respondents to file incomplete initial responses with the intention of amending them later. No. For the same reasons as given in #14 above. yes, with reasonable notice 16. No transfer should be allowed. ? none Do not know uniquement en cas de difficulté majeure : faute, absence d'indépendance, comme dans les cas d'arbitrage : uniquement dans des hypothèses limitées Mutual agreement or resignation Grounds for the transfer should be limited to the cases where there exists any appearance of bias or where the parties agree to do so. chaos should not be transferable. Only in exceptional circumstances, for instance if a conflict of interest arises as between one of the parties and the original provider. It is suggested that a published policy sets out a non-exhaustive list of potential grounds for a transfer. A suggested process is that the party seeking a change of provider supply a submission of an application to transfer (which is limited in length), and that there be a mechanism for an independent decision on each application. None. none If it is for the convenience of both parties. The moving party should get the written consent of the other party. no When it is discovered the that Provider is not neutral. Both parties must agree and should start back from square one. none Should not be able to ON SERIOUS CHARGE & EVIDENCE OF FAVOUR / APPARANT CONNECTION / INTEREST Rarely if ever. Only if the Respondent can show good cause (provable corruption, bias, etc.) should a Motion with specific facts and allegations to ICANN be permited seeking to change Providers. Why, when the process is electronic, would you want to do this? Because you think you will get a more favorable result - as with certain providers. Forum shopping wihtout basis in fact or law is pretty corrupting, especially when dealing with start up companies desperate to get business. We are not talking about developed Court systems. only if a conflict can be shown with written or other documentary proof yes, as an exception, if the provider fails to handle the case within a reasonable time frame (to be defined) If Provider represents both complainant and respondent interests Only in circumstances where provider has shown itself to be partial - I suspect the procedure would have to be an appeal/petition to ICANN. Depende do como se haya seleccionado el proveedor. SI se hizo de mutuo acuerdo entonced de mutuo acuerdo podría transferires, caso contrario, deberían ser intransferibles. I cannot think of any circumstances under which a party should be able to transfer a UDRP case from one Provider to another Provider. none I would not permit transfer once the provider is chosen. Under no circumstances. No opinion no way to transfer if quality of provider has proven to be unsatisfactory None. No such circumstances. If the case goes "bad", the courts are available. Limited change when there is a conflict of interest. Otherwise, the provider should be selected randomly to avoid provider shopping and then the parties must live with the draw. Never. I do noth think that they should do so. Not a good idea, as it would increase both costs and time. Only in the case of demonstrable bias. Hardship. A respondant should be able to have it transfered to a venue closer to their physical location. None None None None By all means, let the complaintants change providers until they get one that'll stay bought. The complainant or the respondent should be able to switch the provider, when he can show a reasonable doubt for the impartiability of the provider. If either party can show bias or incompetence, randomly draw a new Provider. Where either prejudice or a lack/loss of capacity or impartiality (or the appearance thereof) on the part of the provider is shown, and the process should be a public hearing presided over by recognized legal authority. When the respondant has no convienient venue transfer, but successor stands in shores of predecessor, joined in dispute process. Should not be allowed to transfer cases. if providers are randomly assigned, then each party should have the right of one refusal for any reason Yes Yes If you specifically select a particular provider, and end up with panelists from other provider. ? none None. None. if the Provider fails to take up the matter in a timely manner or permits use of a panelist with a conflict of interest. NO - this is too complicated none I don't think that should be permitted. The major benefit of the UDRP procedure is speed. Permitting such a procedure would likely slow the process down to the point where it would probably be just as quick for us to go into U.S. federal court and obtain an injunction. If respondent can make a persuasive argument that another provider is better suited to fairly handle the complaint, it should be allowed to move for transfer, but complainant should be allowed to respond, and impartial panelist should decide. there is no reason to inject this level of administrative complication into the system tough question; we have been pleased and not seen a need for this No opinion. I don't see why this would ever be necessary. None if the respondent selects the Provider... stop the forum shopping Thars depends on the selection process employed Can't think why that would be necessary. If both agree that the provider is incompetent w.r.t. the case none not necesaary mutual agreement only should not By stipulation of the None None. No. No transfer should be allowed except where there is a clear abuse of the process by the panelist; or demonstrated bias. Then, no provider change; only panelist change. None. Under no circumstances. This process would defeat the primary advantage of the proceedings, which is the quick turnaround time for decisiions. Transfer may enable manipulation o f the process I can't see why this should be allowed none None- prevent forum shopping No comment. See no reason to permit transfer from one provider to another unless the initial provider ceases providing services It should be done by simple request, with any excess fee charged to the moving party, and any refunds given to the payee Under no circumstances, in my opinion. On the basis of bias. Someone who only represents big trademark holders should not be allowed to decide cases between a big guy and a small one. There is an inherent bias there. The complete background including the type of cases the Provider did or does should be disclosed and then the parties can decide. Basically, UDRP needs to hire more small firms or individual practitioners. ? never Conflict of interest. None. for what reason? no opinion Never None No transfer if system proposed in 13 implemented. Under no circumstances except conflict of some sort with provider that prevents fair finding of fact by panelist(s). Never. Never--if respondent is unhappy with the provider he at least has the option of choosing a panelist from another provider Not sure Transfer rules should be discussed per case Provider has conflict or unable to perform provider function. Same as selection of original provider Proven bias I do not think a transfer would be appropriate under any circumstances. This would detract from the cost/speed savings of the UDRP. Conflict Never I don't think such a provision is necessary. Should be able to transfer only with permission of the other side. appearance of prejudice. and another selection made randomly Under no circumstances. In the case of a conflict of interest, or mutual agreement. No idea on process. None. none They shouldn't be able to do so--the only reason a respondent is going to transfer a proceeding is because of an alleged provider bias--transferring providers would make sense if there was some basis for it other than perceived provider bias--but the fact that UDRP cases are decided based only on papers removes most, if not all of the other reasons for transferring providers. If respondents are allowed to transfer, there should be a fee associated with that, and the complainant should have the opportunity to object to the provider the respondent wants to transfer to (of course, such an objection, and even such a transfer, defeats the purpose of the UDRP, which is to provide QUICK results). Generally it should not be allowed unless there is either a conflict of interest or of the provider cannot complete theri obligation in a timely manner. The process should be a simple, but formal application to the oversight panel. "Provider" is a misnomer. these entire proceedings are designed to take away something, generally from someone with not much money, to give to a rich and famous person who pays these mercenaries to attack individual domain name owners rights. If the provider cannot deal with the case quickly enough, perhaps. Under no circumstances, forum shopping should not be allowed WHAT'S THE POINT? Never Never When the provider clearly breaks the UDRP rules - National Arbitration Forum supplementary rules do. This consider a minor change in he existing procedure. Fundemental changes are needed to make the UDRP relevant to the addressed matter (user confusion) in an international arena (UDRP is US law centric and based upon an US inaprorpiate conception of the name of domain). Appeals should be automatically directed to a different provider never NEVER No opinion none Only if both parties would agree that their dispute is better judged by another provider. I don't think such transfers should be allowed bias test I don't see why this would be necessary. Provider selection should be random. Under a random model, transfer should not be allowed, as it should be unnecessary, except in cases of malfeasance. None. The courts are the proper venue for solving these disputes. The UDRP shouldnt exist except as a voluntary program respondent at any time without restriction 17. Yes. ? ? The work fine oui Unknown Yes. ???????????? yes Yes, but the obligation to send each item of correspondence by every one of the methods outlined in the rules can become cumbersome once contact with the Respondent has been established. There should be more flexibility in that the parties should be able to appoint a fast track means of response. Yes. yes Yes. Adequate sí "YES" Yes - they are very clear and reasoanble. Respondent should have more time to respond. yes; but registrars need to better police the accuracy of registration information substantially yes; it could be discussed to delete the paper form notification requirement. It is up to the parties to give reliable e-mail contact details The notice provisions under the UDRP are adequate OK, so far as I am aware. Si. Es responsabilidad del titular mantener al día su dirección de contacto I believe the notice provisions are adequate as long as the parties, and in particular, the Respondents, provide current and correct information about themselves. adequate I find them adequate Yes, I do find them adequate. We were satisfied with all notification procedures. yes Yes. No. There is very little time afforded Respondent. Yes Yes. Yes Yes. Yes they are adequate. Lots of room for improvement. By massive bribery, cash rules dude NO. no comment No. The notice provision fails to provide time for respondent consideration, and further, fails to incorporate provisions for the defense of impoverished respondents. Yes, adeequate. yes No, give more time Yes. Yes yes, seem adequate yes Yes. Yes. not sure - they seemed to work for me They are fine yes Yes. Adequate. yes; they are clear and concise and sent in manners designed to actually reach the parties yes Yes. Yes - since the notice is given by email, these provisions are adequate. Email is often the only reliable way to reach the respondents, and requiring anything beyond that would be superfluous and would only generate extra time/cost. No. 20 days does not allow for some communications to be completed.. Should have a public notice requirment! Yes They should be adequate if domain name registrants provide accurate and reliable contact information. No. People can take vacations or be away from the office. Physical delivery of notice must be made - obviously this means that the WHOIS database must have 'clean' information in it yes yes yes Yes Yes, they are adequate. Yes. Adequate notice is provided. Yes. Yes. Yes no Yes Yes. Yes Yes - I haven't had a problem. Yes Yes. Extend time to 30 days plus one extension of time of 30 days. yes yes Yes. yes. no opinion They are adequate Yes Not sure Yes Entirely adequate. It is the responsiblity of a registrant to give real contact information and keep it updated. Yes - Adequate. THE NOTICE SHOULD ALWAYS BE GIVE IN TWO LANGUAGES , BEING ENGLISH ALWAYS MANDATORY Respondent should be given a longer time to respond Yes. Yes. Not sure Fair I believe they are. Whois information should be accurate. If not, then that's the registrant's folly. Yes Possibly slightly longer timeframe adequate I do think they are adequate. Yes. yes Respondent should have more time to respond, especially if email to respondent bounces back. Yes. Yes. yes Yes They are adequatre. If a domain owner uses false information when applying for a domain to avoid contact, it is their fault for missing notice of action. If they do not read their email or open their postal mail in time, then they are impedingthe timely resolution of important matters. by abolishing this evil system of theft by the rich, for the rich. Respondents should have much more time. If away for a week, or two, when the notices arrive, respondent has no chance... Also take account of the time postal mail takes! ok THEY'RE O.K. BUT THE NAF'S TIME FOR RESPONSE IS HEAVILY WEIGHTED TOWARD THE COMPLAINANT Unsure No. Enforce text-only communication. Give option of no hard-copy (no danger of Anthrax) OK No. Notices No opinion yes - usually result in getting notice three times No. All notice provisions should be at least twice as long. No. More time is needed to formulate a response, given that a complainant has an infinite amount of time to form their complaint. yes yes no. Under present rules, the twenty-day period runs from emailing the Complaint, but it can take many days or weeks for the exhibits to arrive. test Yes. The Respondent has an obligation to maintain accurate contact information and the complaint is sent to the mailing and e-mail address. No. They allow the complainant and/or Provider to make minimal effort and assume a respondant is unresponsive when they have simply never been contacted. Longer time periods would cause little harm and add greatly 18. No ? ? - non Unknown No. ????????????? supple mental rules should be placed in UDRP Rule. No. no No. No Considero que algo a modificar es que los tres condicionantes de presentación de una demanda mediante UDRP deberían tener unas lineas interpretativas claras de acuerdo con el objetivo a conseguir y sería precisable qué es marca registrada No "NO" No There should be a limit on the number of attachments/exhibits that can be added to the Complaint and Response (many cases involve hundreds of pages of documentation such as irrelevant corporate annual reports and copies of dozens of trademark registrations where one or two would be sufficient). Suggest number be limited to 20 pages. Any internal policies or practices should be revealed, such as the policy on selection of presiding panelists. yes; WIPO -- provisions for amending complaints/responses, penalties/results of missed dates, requirements for panelists and parties to adhere to dates (and possible recovery therefrom) Not in WIPO rules, others are not known to us No I do not know whether this is the relevant place to mention it, but I believe that a finding of reverse domain hijacking ought to lead to a sanction. No. none needed Not that I can think of. We were satisfied with the rules in our case no No. I think that it should be clear that an Administrative Panel can allow replies. No Yes, the rules are slanted too far in favor of corperations. no comment No there must be lower-cost options for not-for-profits Yes. See no. 4 above. No yes No. No. not sure No no opinion See my response to #14 and #15 above. No comments at this time. no No opinion. No All Providers should use one set of standard rules.... No Supplemental Rules allowed... no No no No Don't know. All Supplemental Rules should provide that the complaint and decision be in complainant's language even if another language is specified as well. No. Some restrictions on arbitrator's unfettered discretion, such as more defined rules, which would provide predictability and some level of legitimacy. Not aware of any no No No. No opinion Add evidentiary guidelines - acceptable/unacceptable/recommended. Drop the multiple copy requirement in addition to e-mail and take Annexes in forms other than Word documents No. No opinion. no No. not offhand. no opinion No. Don't know No They should be uniform. LANGUAGES All providers should permit reply briefs. Do not have any changes in mind. Not sure Yes No have only reviewed WIPO's in detail - no concerns unfamiliar with them no. I think the supplemental rules need to be addressed, once the UDRP is amended. None More emphasis on dismissal based on legal and equitable defenses. no No Unknown "Provider" is a misnome An extra chance for complainants to file new 'thought' should be done a way with. This is NAF, isn't it? YES. THE NAF'S SUPPLEMENTAL RULES PROVIDE THAT NO FURTHER PLEADINGS WILL BE ACCEPTED MORE THAN 7 DAYS AFTER RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE. IF COMPLAINANT RAISES NEW ISSUES IN ITS PEPLY TO RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE AND FILES ON THE 7TH DAY, RESPONDENT HAS NO OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES AND CAN BE BLINDSIDED BY THE COMPLAINANT. Ability for potential respondent to commence action for declaration that they are not infringing rights NAF rules are in contravention of UDRP Rules: NAF Supplementary Rule 7 contravenes ICANN UDRP Rules 10.(b.) and 12. NAF Supplementary Rule 7 goes beyond the definition of *Supplementary Rules* as defined in ICANN UDRP Rule 1 and attempts to amend the ICANN UDRP Rules, in contravention of ICANN UDRP Rule 21. NAF Supplementary Rule 7(b)(2) contravenes ICANN UDRP Rule 19(a). NAF rules are in contravention of UDRP Rules: No opinion no There should be no supplemental rules. we have had cases where the name at issue was transferred during the proceeding, contrary to the rules. This causes major problems and should not be allowed. no test N/A 19. Yes. ? Not necessarily. OK with variations within the borders of the Policy and the Rules Plutot oui, il serait plus facile pour les parties Yes, for consistency No,I don't think it is necessary to be uniform. Since they are bound by the basic rules set forth in the ICANN Policy and Rules,they should be free to provide their supplemental rules. This freedom will contribute the improvement of the UDRP. Yes yes No need for it. The variations in the rules is part of the decision in which provider to select to hear the matter. Yes. Prevent forum shopping. not necessarily Yes, to avoid forum-shopping and to be able to provide consistent rulings. Yes, provides for a fair process where parties do not "shop" for the most advantageous rules but rather "shop" for the most qualified Provider. Yes, for more consistent results. Yes "YES" Yes - consistency of results is critical for long term credibility. No. I'd like to see some competition in the provision of services a yes; prevent forum shopping; provide even playing field to parties among providers no, competition should be allowed Yes Yes - see answer to 13 above - there should be no need to forum shop. Si. Para evitar que la preferencia de un proveedor sobre otro se deba a la palicación de reglas. Substantively and to some extent, yes, they should be uniform. The supplemental rules must provide for the consideration of the same elements in reaching a decision%2 there should be uniformity Uniformity would benefit users and reduce the incentive for forum shopping among providers Yes, they should in order to minimize the differences between the Providers. No opinion yes Yes. Ease of administration. Yes. Yes. Uniformity may cut down on provider shopping and provide a level of comfort to parties, in that they will not have to alter their practice for any given forum. yes Yes. Easier to understand and implement. No. Users should have a choice - within reason Yes. Would make it easier to compare Service Providers. Yes. They SHOULD be uniform. Yes. Having non-uniform rules creates bad presidents. no comment Yes. Consistent rules provide a more stable foundation for the internet. The number of those consistent rules, however, should be kept to an absolute minimum. Yes, to ensure fairness. generally they should be uniform. WIPO's treatment of international issues might justify some variation, but it should be minor. Yes Yes Yes. Not necessary no Yes. Yes. One procedure; one set of rules. It is a matter of basic fairness. Helps prevent forum-shopping. not sure They should be uniform - the contrary leads to some sort of "forum shopping". yes to provide uniformity and prevent forum shopping Yes. Consistency. Yes, to reduce the appearance of any provider being more fair than another, to either party. no yes Yes. The whole idea is to create a uniform system. This would be nice, but I don't think it is necessary - the system is working fine as it is. Yes... They shold be part of the overall rules... everyone play from the same rule book with the Respondent selecting the Provider! Yes - to discourage forum shopping not necessarily Yes Yes it would be easier for everyone and save inconsistencies yes yes; would make it easier for everyone to udnerstand and promote uniform application of the rules No; each provider, like individual courts, should be able to set its own local rules Yes. Efficiency! Yes Yes, for consistency and uniformity. Yes. Yes. Everyone should be "playing by the same rules" Yes. No -- providers should be able to distinguish themselves from one another, offer some choices in procedure/policy yes Yes - prevent forum shopping It woud be helpful depending on which Supplemental Rules were implemented. No opinion YES, if they were all the same, one could easily choose to use different Providers, rather than having to research and set up a new type of compaint. No, parties are free to choose. Not necessarily. It depends on the case and what the parties are willing to agree to. generally, yes - streamlining procedure no - free market principles Yes. Uniformity will support fair treatment. Substantively, of course. otherwise, variations are ok. no opinion Yes. No Yes. Yes; simplicity Yes, if they could be Yes. To remove the temptation for forum shopping. YES Yes. To the extent that they can be, they should be, with the realizations that certain factors may not be able to be identical. To the extent that they can be, they should be, with the realizations that certain factors may not be able to be identical. Not sure No - individual cases again Yes, to avoid forum shopping. Yes, to greater curb legal expenses. Yes Yes for a uniform process as much as possible - different rules become a trap for the unwary, and detract from the uniformity provided by the UDRP in the first place I do not belive they need to be uniform, but I believe they should be reviewed on a regular basis by ICANN to consider adding them to the UDRP. not necessarily. no. experimentation at this stage will help find a good process. No, uniformity is not necessary. Let the providers experiment with procedural changes to determine what works best. A variation in rules is one of the reasons to have a variety of providers. Otherwise, why bother? Yes. Otherwise would promote provider shopping. no YES--it seems somewhat problematic for the NAF to allow the submission of responses while the other providers do not--the NAF has basically subverted the UDRP--UDRP caselaw adequately indicates when responses are allowed, and this is not a matter for each provider to decide for itself. If each proivider can decide this for itself, then it adds to the perception (right or wrong) that there is bias against respondents No. This is why there can be multiple providers. If the basics are the same and only the supplemntal rules vary, then it seems OK. They should be uniform in as far as the rights of respondents are concerned. YES THERE SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROVIDERS Yes - too many variables Yes. Negates (to an extent) the forum shopping we're getting right now. they should be uniform by TLD and if complainant choses the panel. Yes. We need a level and understandable playing field. Trademark law is relatively uniform and simple. The obscure legal agruments used in domain "threat" letters, primarily from ignorant US-based corporate council need to be stopped. They are bringing a neceassry and (at heart) fair system into disrepute. yes fairness yes, to reduce the bases for forum shopping yes - for ease of use and uniformity of results Yes. Respondents may be confused by a multiplicity of supplemental rules No. There should be no supplemental rules. I think providers should be allowed to formulate their own rules yes test No. It is beneficial for providers to offer different levels of service and options. The competition will benefit all parties. yes. Because Providers shouldn't operate under a free-market model. It allows for bias towards profit, which creates unfair, inequitable, and poorly-balanced decisions. no competition should dictate 20. No. yes, openness is preferable. yes. No, the content is adequately reflected in the decisions non pour des raison de confidentialité ou de respect de la vie privée Probably not No,it is sufficient to make public the decision only. The procedure is a kind of ADR and accordingly unless there exists a special circumstance the confidentiality should be kept. Yes not necessary. too complex. No, so long as the decision recounts the factual background and the parties' submissions. The objective should be to make the decision a standalone document. If it became necessary to read not only the decision but also the parties' submissions in order to gain the full background to a dispute, it would become unduly onerous for prospective parties, their advisers and Yes. yes for precedent Yes. To appraise and guide the public as to the possible arguments they can submit and the possible rulings they may obtain by submitting a particular argument. No, only the decisions is okay, because this is also true for regular court cases (at least in my country, Belgium) no, ya disponen de ellas los interesados No, each dispute is unique in many respects and both parties should consent before the dispute is publicly accessible. No. Unnecessary disclosure of private information. Yes "NO - BUT IF PROPER CAUSE IS SHOWN NO HARM IN SUPPLYING COPIES" Yes - in the vast majority of cases making them public helps in both credibiltiy and understanding the results. no; should be kept confidential to avoid promulgation of false and defamatory information promoted by the parties yes, that could reduce statements in bad faith No It would simplify the task of the panelist - the Decision could link to the pleading rather than call for the panelist to produce a summary. Me es indiferente yes, public has the right to know They should be available to the public as part of the record. This would put into better perspective the final decision. Yes, to increase the transparency of the process. Yes, so participants in future cases can better prepare they should not be public because that will make the process even more political no, commercial secrets to be kept Yes. Would help potential complainants determine whether someone is actual cybersquatter or has right to domain name. Yes. Yes. They provide examples to guide conduct, a record of the parties positions, and are useful in maintaining confidence in the system. no No, only decisions. Yes. The process leads to a public result. In principle, it is a good idea, however there will be practical problems as there is a lot of papers filed, with pictures, lists, copies of news articles, etc. My answer is therefore NO. Yes. It will help others go after frequent cybersquatters and reduce legal fees. Yes. This process must be transparent if it is to be respected. It also allows the public to watch for any abuse of the system. Yes. Because the world has a right to see how ICANN is screwing everyone in sight. Both should be publicly accessible. The process needs to be as transparent as possible, so that everyone can trust that the resolution is fair. Yes. The shady dealings that have thus far characterized the UDRP demand public scrutiny. Yes, the internet is a public place and should be open to scrutiny. Yes, as the copies of complaints, responses, and decisions are a vital guide in determining future conduct of net participants at all levels. yes. Nearly all complaints are big corporations trying to grab URL's from small operator, a process which you allow them the exploit to their advantage. Yes. Light diminishes incentive for error and falsehood. Yes, to judge the fairness of the Providers. Yes, all of ICANN's procedures should be transparent. Complainants should waive any right to confidentiality. Yes, the more openness there is in the system the less supidity will slip through the cracks Not necessary. Yes, similar to a court yes Yes. Secretive adjudication breeds disrespect of process. Yes. yes, after the matter is concluded - so people can learn from the material No, they should not be accessible - yes to see if a particular party has a tendency to cybersqquat od be too aggressive in filing complaintts Yes. It would be nice to use cybersquatters responses against them as evidence in other UDRP proceedings. Yes, just as court documents are. no yes Yes. Yes - helps assess performance of the Provider, helps show patterns of conduct by the Respondent Yes. To have an open forum and remove all special and sweet deals. Yes, subject to seal being avaialble under appropriate circumstances. As a brand owner, information about potential infringements encountered by othe brand owners is invaluable. yes, because it would allow complainants to see if a particular cybersquatter has engaged in a pattern of cybersquatting. Yes. Most definitely. It would show that the UDRP was being used and applied correctly yes yes. Should be public record. Use to improve quality of subsequent proceedings yes; the only precedent available Yes; it is highly unlikely that they contain any confidential information and given the brevity of some decisions, it is impossible to understand the decision without reference to the complaint and response yes, they should. It sends a message to cybersquatters. Yes Yes, as is true with most court proceedings. YES. To improve the quality of submissions to the Panelists and to allow for the development of a body of precedent. Yes. Yes. Domain name information is already readily available. These proceedings should be as accessible as other administrative proceedings, e.g. before the USPTO. Yes. Yes yes. it will help others file/respond to complaints Yes - good precedential value and research tool Yes. They should be a matter of public record. Yes Unless a party requests confidentiality Yes, with provisions for privileged information to be redacted or otherwise protected upon motion from party/parties Yes, for research and analysis purposers. Yes. Encourage complete disclosure. Find the truth and the fair answer will follow yes - deterrence Yes. Public access and opportunity for criticism enhance the responsiveness and perception of fairness of the system. Yes. no opinion Yes. To understand better the rulings Yes Yes Yes, in the interest of public disclosure and to reduce the cost of researching decisions. YES Yes Yes, as it is worthwhile to know what facts a panel focused on in making its decision, as can be discerned by reading the opinion, it might also be worthwhile to read the pleadings to discern what facts were overlooked as unimportant by the panel. Not sure, but if they are, personal information should be protected. YES! Only if complainant and respondent agree Yes, in order to fully understand the decisions. No. I see no need. Yes -- Public review provides better decisions Yes, unless trade secrets are included - those portions could be excluded there is no strong argument to keep them confidential, or to make them public. They should probably be public after the decision is issued, so the decision can be assessed in terms of the evidence and arguments that were before the arbitrator. Yes, as a public record. No. Could give away corporate strategies before complainant is ready. yes. they should be made into forms. Yes, the complaints and responses should be public for comparison against the UDRP decisions. The decisions alone provide an insufficient window on the process. No. At least not mandatory. There is some possibility the complaints may contain confidential information, especally concerning marketing practices. Yes, in order to curb improper, frivolous, or scandalous pleading. no Yes, to foster transparency of decisions--some decisions are very short, and it is hard to figure out why they were decided a certain way without seeing the underlying papers. Yes. Public oversight is important. Keeping UDRP paperwork private denies the public the ability to view the process. With secrecy, only conspiracy theories will result as various factions "decide% No. Privacy considerations. NO Yes -subject to reasonable redacting of publicly sensitive information - such as lists of domains held etc Yes. Definitely. Panels make decisions knowing that it is unlikely that it will be revealed that they ignored evidence. Parties will be less likely to submit evidence they know to be false. the whole process should be online. Jugements are public except in some dictatures. This is the only protection of the loser since this is one shot drum justice Yes. These are basically legal papers. We need information to determine whether or not a case is both sensible (PR) and likely to succeed. yes transparency yes, to enhance the appearance of openness and fairness yes - to help understand rulings Yes. Either party can publish these on the web anyway. Yes. It is necessary to determine decision validity. Domain names are publicly visible, so a dispute involving the name should be equally visible, despite private interests. Sure. They are quasi-judicial documents just like complaints and answers in court no. Would slow down pre-filing process yes, so that we can see what proofs were offered. test Yes. Accessing other complaints can be helpful in showing a bad faith pattern against certain cybersquatters. yes. To do otherwise allows Providers to operate without oversight. Much like ICANN does now. Yes anything less is improper - star chambers 21. mandatory At any time Mandatory, at the time of filing. mandatory After the decision has been rendered. mandatory - Mandatory immediatley. not applicable mandatory after decision I do not understand the question - if "19" should read "20", at the time the decision is rendered. mandatory Mandatory, upon publication of the final decision. Only after the decision has been communicated to the parties. At discretion of parties, as soon as possible after decision rendered mandatory If this question is referring to question 20, documents should be automatically accessible as soon as they may be published, and publication should not be in the discretion of the parties. mandatory After the decision N/A I don't understand the question. Are you asking when the uniform rules should not be uniform? If you mean #20, I would argue that the various documents should only be considered valid if they are publicly filed and centrally available, and not available to be acted upon until that requirement is met. This isn't a trade secret or divorce hearing. Make it all public, at least for five years or Net storage costs rise too much. mandatory, updated as soon as possible, even while the case is ongoing. Under all circumstances. Complainants or respondents should have the right to didact only a very small portion of their materials (e.g. to protect trade secrets). There is really nothing in the complaint process that justifies any secrecy. At or before the decision Mandatory. after after decision All. As the case is proceeding, just like any other legal proceeding. yes, after decision rendered; disclose unless both parties say "no. Mandatory After decision rendered. n/a at all times as in a court proceeding Mandatory; after soliciting views and reaching a consensus. After decision is rendered mandatory .. no exceptions After decision. Mandatory always This question doesn't seem related to 19. this survey is too long and I have not time to complete it; sorry If you mean question 20; copies should be made accessible at the time the decision is rendered I think you mean question 20 . I believe it should be public record. mandatory Mandatory. After the decision is rendered. Should only be after decision is rendered Mandatory After decision is rendered. Unless one of the parties requests confidentiality; before the decision. Public record at all times, subject to request for privileged information (sales figures, for example) to be redacted or otherwise kept private All Mandatory. However, should be sealed to preserve trade secrets and the like. ? Mandadory, after decision rendered. ? You mean #20? no opinion Mandatory after the decision Mandatory Mandatory! At discretion of parties After a decision is rendered. Mandatory mandatory after the decision see answer 20 I belive they should be available after the decision is rendered, unless the prevailing party requests that they not be made public. I think the papers should be public upon filing. Only at discretion of the parties. Mandatory in all cases. At the discretion of the parties, after decisions are rendered--there has to be a way of protecting confidential or proprietary information in the pleadings--for this reason, disclosure of papers should not be retroactive UNLESS all parties are contacted and their permission is received N/A Indicate at time of filing - giving reasons. The Panel determines if this is applicable. Either party may object to information in a submission being public. Copies of Complaints and Resonses made public at time of decision Mandatory, at the time of submission of the item. Assuming you mean Q20 - mandatory, preferably at filing, but certainly as part of the decision. Remember the use of prior cases to decide future ones (against UDRP rules) mandatory Do you mean question 20? at time decision is rendered, for ease of administration Presuming you mean question 20, not 19, I would say: at the discretion of the parties, after the decision is rendered. mandatory. at all times This is stupid. You mean question 20, I guess. Mandatory. Mandatory disclosure under all circumstances. 22. Yes. yes Yes, definately. Very important to all parties. oui : garantie de bonne justice et développement du droit Yes,it is convenient for interested parties to make search on prior decisions. No yes Yes. Having access to the decisions greatly aids finding authority to support actions under the UDRP. yes for precedent and to encrage consistency Yes, it is more convenient to everyone concerned. Yes, transparency is important in legal matters sí Yes, easy of searching for opinions is key to uniform application of rules. Yes. Convenience and thorough legal research. Yes "YES. FOR ENHANCED ACCEPTANCE, RECONGNIATION & ACCESSIBILITY" Yes - see 20. yes, but only if there is going to be precedential effect accorded to decisions by panelists and to give the public at large the ability to gauge whether their actions may be an offense and to gauge the chances of success of a current pending matter in vi yes, for the sake of consistency of decisions Yes Yes - for reasons of transparency and consistency. Si. Es indispensable para los accionantes y para el público en general interesado en la materia yes,a la westlaw Yes, to serve as a convenient repository of precedent so future decisions are better informed. Yes, for study purposes it is great to have the decisions available. Yes, so participants in future cases can better prepare should be availalbe. yes yes. Will make it easier to do research to prepare and respond to complaints Yes Yes. Centrally located decisions would help in searching, encourage uniformity in panel decisions, and make it easier to track the interpretation of the UDRP through the panel decisions. yes Yes. For citing purposes. Yes. For guidance and as a check on quality Yes. That will form a source for practice and make it easier to compare decisions. Yes Yes. This is too importiant to the public to make a mokery out of by hiding the information. Yes. Same as #20. Yes, accessing the decisions should be as easy as possible for everyone. If the process is not as transparent as possible, people start to form conspiracy theories and distrust the resolution process. Yes. See resp. 20. Yes, it would be more efficient. Yes. Failure to have a central registry and publicly available record of such decisions mandates repeated revisits to the same or similar issues by subsequent parties to obtain the same decisions for additional exhorbitant cost, and further, shields the decision maker from public criticism and/or guidance yes, as the panelist should have their decisions subject to public scrutiny yes. Light diminishes incentive for error and falsehood. Public has to find the light to see it. Yes, centralized information that is trusted. Yes, of course. UDRP is working for the public. Yes, make it easy to look for precidence and for organizations abusing the process (ie aol,vivendi) Yes, make it easy to look for precidence and for organizations abusing the process ie Aren't they now, at ICANN's site? Yes yes yes Yes. Yes. On line. It is certainly easy enough to do. yes, for convenience Yes, this would be more convenient - Case precedents should not differ according to the provider yes Yes. To facilitate the purpose of the UDRP, namely to allow quick resolution of cases. If the public and other mark owners are mor easily able to gather information about cybersquatters to use as evidence (and decisions are generally great evidence), it will be easier to file and support UDRP Complaints (and may put psychological pressure on cybersquatters if decisions against them are easily available for the public and press to find.) be Yes, for ease of research. yes, for ease of reference yes, body of precedent, even if not precedential value in a proceeding Yes. Sure - most convenient for research. Yes. To maintain the credibility of the process. Yes - To help ensure consistency Yes, it would be helpful for legal research purposes Don't care. However they must be accessble yes yes. Some are. Useful precedent value. Yes. Ease of access. An emphatic YES! Furthermore, the databases for searching the decisions should be made much more robust, like LEXIS or WESTLAW in the U.S. Yes. Again, it is efficient and why should this be a secret?? Yes. There is no reason why this should not be done. Yes. Precedents should be readily available to everyone. YES. See #20. Yes so that decisions could be adequately searched. Yes. Online access would be great. Could be used for guidance in filing a particular claim under particular circumstances. Yes. Again, see above comments. Yes, they have persuasive value, even if not precedential binding effect yes it will make for a more informed process all around Yes - good precedential value and research tool Yes. It would be very helpful for both Complainants and Respondents. Yes Unless a party requests confidentiality YES, Yes, see 20. Yes. Full disclosure. yes - deterrence, tracking of general trends in enforcement, outcome yes - for information purposes - they are available in LEXIS and WESTLAW Yes. Same as 20. yes but I'm not sure that they should be citable as precedent no opinion Yes. They should be available centrally to permit finding the jurisprudence Yes -- create uniform body of decisions Yes, that would help counsel provide better counsel by knowing how they would rule in most instances. Yes Yes, to reduce the cost of researching decisions. YES Yes Does not seem necessary. If one wants to know how a particular provider has been deciding cases, they can search their web site. Does not seem necessary. If one wants to know how a particular provider has been deciding cases, they can search their web site. Generally yes, unless there is a reason to protect the information for a particular case YES - ease Yes, for the purpose uniformity and ease of access Yes, in order to provide a searchable database. Yes. As the UDRP grows, the need for accurate and uniform research of prior UDRP decisions grows. Yes -- Public review provides better decisions yes, central resource yes - having precedent available is the standard western system of law Yes, to allow a uniform practice to develop in applying the UDRP. Yes. Furthers the priniciple of stare decisis. yes. for ease of research. Yse, so that all panelists and the public can search the opinions and learn how the jurisprudence is developing. Yes. Ease of reference and precedent setting. Yes, but based on quality of current decisions, prior decisions should not be precedential. yes. for consistentcy YES--this would foster use of previous decisions as precedent, something which is done now and lends some predictability to the UDRP, even though previous decisions do not have precedential value. Yes, for ease of reference. YES Yes - allows proper peer review of decisions Yes. A central, searchable database of all data. the least that they can do is to bear the responsibility of their judgment and public sarcasm. This is the only warranty when there is no appeal. Yes. It is supposed to be a Uniform system - we need uniform information. yes yes yes yes Why not on a website? yes - for ease of accessing earlier rulings Yes. This would lead to greater uniformity and the formation of an accessible body of case law. Yes, in order to ease determination of decision validity, decisions should be made as publicly visible as possible. yes. facilitates research. yes. Conserve resources, establish some sort of precedent Yes, because the way it is now, a provider could modify the decision without telling anyone. Yes. For convenience and consistency. Yes. Because to do otherwise would reduce visibility and transparency by increasing confusion and decreasing ease-of-access. yes, anything improving transparency should be used. 23. Public domain. public Public Domain les décisions devraient être dans le domaine public car il s'agit d'une décision juridique et que les règles concernant les noms de domaine devraient être publiques et prévisibles I think that taking into consideration the nature of the domain name the decision will be in the public domain.l Public Domain should be public domain Public domain. public domain In the public domain name to at least serve as reference even if not precedential. Public domain, the law should be available at no cost to anyone Deben ser de dominio público ya que bajo unas directrices públicas se ha resuelto y, además, los mismos panelistas son elegidos o aconsejados en el organismo público Public domain because the decisions may be used for precedential value. Public domain. "BOTH AS IT LOOKS MORE TRANSPARANT & ESTABLISHES RATIONAL OF DECISIONS Public - see 20. public domain; see response to 22 general rules of copyright should be followed as long as free citation is not made unduly difficult The decisions should be in the public domain In the public domain. For the above reason. Son del dominio público como decisiones que son y que han sido realizadas por los panelistas a cambio del pago de honorarios should be public domain Public domain, just as other public decisions are public domain. The decisions should be in the public domain so that you can see how the panelists have reasoned and come to their conclusions. Transparency again. Public domain, so participants in future cases can better prepare in the public domain just like court decisions public domain, shouldn't be source of unfair business for info delivery public domain. It would be crazy to have this be I.P. of providers. Would make providers look like money hungry mercenaries instead of providers of quasi-governmental process. Public Domain These decisions should be in the public domain. We should not provide additional means for providers to exploit their captive audience. public domain Public domain name...just like case law. Public domain. The process leads to a public result Public Domain, just as a court decision. Public domain, as court decisions are. Public Domain. The providers are resolving a dispute, not creating IP. Public domain. Secret courts destroying people and businesses usually result in an armed uprising. no comment Public domain. The Internet is collapsing under a chokehold of IP. In the public domain. Again, the decisions must be public domain and freely available in order to offer guidance to the net participant in their plan Public domain Decision text should be PD. The decision itself (yes, no, etc) is not anyone's property, its free information, a fact. public domain. They don't need to be in the public domain, but do need to be available to anyone. A non-exclusive license to view & quote from materials is critical. (I'm not saying GPL...just open) Public domain 100%. This whole URDP is an attempt to set up a kangaroo court. If the process is to get any respect it has to be open and public. Public domain. How else to know how to frame a complaint if not by reading complaints with winning arguments? Public Domain public domain Public domain. Public domain. They affect the public. The notion that a provider would own its decisions is absurd. public domain because they are legal dispute resolution proeedings yes Public domain (just like court decisions%2 Public domain, just like court decisions. they should be in the public domain so that they may be cited as authority or examples public domain Public domain. Public domain - this is consistent with the practice of the courts, at least in the US - making them IP could cause problems for ability to use them in future proceedings, appeals, commentary%2 Public Domain. These decisions are not "intellectual property" of any party. They have an effect on all domain owners. Public domain if they are to function as precedent in other UDRP proceedings Public domain, citable as precedent Yes. They should not be the intellectual property of the providers - the providers are providing a service to the complainant and respondent and are creating any more value public domain Public domain. This is a quasi judicial process and should be open to avoid appearance of unfairness or bias. They should be treated as court decisions, so that they may be quoted with precedential value. Public domain; would allow professional database companies like LEXIS and WESTLAW in each country to index the decisions in their local languages removing this burden from the Providers, who are unlikely to invest the time or money necessary. Public Domain. I think this is obvious - consider the purpose of the decision and query why it should be proprietary! Public domain. Yes, similar to court decisions. public domain. Public domain. Decisions should be in the public domain. See #20. Definitely should be public domain. Public needs transparency and, hopefully, the ability to determine future behaviour based on predictable resolutions of disputes. Public domain -- UDRP is a de facto court system for domain names public domain public domain, should be treated like judicial opinions in court Public Domain. In the public domain, unless one of the parties requests confidentiality Public domain. Public domain with the caveat set forth above about trade and business secrets. public domain - as adjudications of public rights between parties, they are important public information public domain - are you implying that someone could not use the decision without getting permission??????? They should be in the public domain as court decisions are. public domain. what could be more public than a domain name? public domain Decisions should be in the public domain Public domain -- like court cases Public - see 22 Public domain Public Domain. NO Like court decisions, they should be in the public domain They should be in the public domain, just like court decisions, in order to guide practitioners in fashioning their own pleadings. Should be public domain. It will help other potential filers know whether they should file or not. Give some predictability and accountability. Pub domain Decisions should be in public domain. Allows for ability to determine what should be precedent Public domain, so that the public can understand the decisions. Public domain. Public Domain yes, providers did not pay for them, they were hired to do the cases in the first place they should be public domain - they lack the originality to be protectable, and should be reproducible w/o permission for the public interest Public domain, since they proviode guidance about how the public UDRP will be applied. Public domain. They are providing what is essentially a government function, and should be distributed freely. public domain. Dispute resolution is a government function currently being privately administered. The decisions as written should be in the public domain so that they may be freely copied and more easily criticized. Public domain. See above. Public domain, in order to promote public confidence in impartial decisions. public. same reason Decisions are in the public domain As long as they can be quoted, I do not care about copyright. PUBLIC DOMAIN AND STARE DECISUS Public Domain - as court decisions are - otherwise this will stop reporting and discussion of sily decisions Public domain. Keep the providers accountable. Public domain. Fully open to critic and comparison. Anyway I hope they are the property of the parties. Or may be the loser could sell them to foot the bill? Don't care, as long as we have access and right to free (monetary) use. I would object to having to pay for access to decisions - (use of prior cases, again.) public public domain public domain public domain Public domain public domain - like court rulings In the public domain. The Providers have been paid for their work. The decisions should be in the public domain, as making them intellectual property can only serve to hide information that needs to be disseminated and validated on as broad a scale as possible. public domain. no copyright exists in court decisions, and none should exist in these quasi-judicial decisions public domain They must be in the public domain. test Public domain. They are helpful in showing a bad faith pattern against certain cybersquatters. Public domain. Because Providers should not operate on a for-profit model if that profit is impacted by their decisions. Public the secrecy issue is a non-issue. you have personal whois data public. 24. No. There is recourse to the ordinary courts. Yes, if the circumstances have changed e.g. if new evidence emerges oui s'il s'agit d'un appel Yes,I think a complainant may freely re-file because the UDRP is simple and the chance to challenge should be given to him. But in frivolous or abusive cases the costs and expense the respondent has spent shall be borne by the complainant. ???????????? no Yes, provided new evidence comes to light, or the complainant loses for failure to meet evidentiary or similar concerns of the panelist that can easily be corrected. (For example, I think refiling should be permitted in a case such as one against John Zuccarini where the panelist said it is clear the respondent is Zuccarini, but not clear that it is the same Zuccarini who has lost a number of ICANN proceedings. This failure is one important reason the complainant no Yes, if there are material changes that were not prevailing during the previous proceedings. Yes, if the factual context has changed Debería tener la posibilidad de recurrir ante un panel de tres personas SIEMPRE No second chance at the apple should be premitted after a case goes to completion but there should be appeal rights. No. Res judicata. " NO, UNLESS EVIDENCE & GROSS INJUSTICE IS SHOWN . BUT RESTORATION OF DEFAULTED COMPLAINT BE ALLOWED No - if this is an issue, establish an appeals system. There shoudl be one anyway to promote consistently good decisions. yes: if a party can succeed in showing an egregious decision was issued by the panel(ist); changed web site content yes, if he shows new evidence No Only where (a) the panel behaved improperly (b) the Respondent filed materially false evidence or (c) new evidence of materiality to the decision has become available since the first decisions. No. Caso contrario no sería un arbitraje como el que debería ser (y que no es) no I have permitted re-filing when entering a default ruling where the complaint does not properly allege all elements. Otherwise, No. Yes, but only if the circumstances change, e.g. if Respondent puts up a website that can harm the Complainant. No yes yes--in court. No, the courts are available. no, but there should be an appellate process No. They should look at other options and consider if it is even worth it anymore. No, unless new information comes to light. An endless process is not desirable. Only in the rare cases where there are new and important facts. Yes. If the respondentdefendant's conduct post-decision indicates that complainant defendant should have lost. Nope. In the unlikely event that they lose, they're just going to ignore ICANN and file civil suit, or criminal charges against the domain name owner. Yes. The complainant should be able to refile, if it can provide significant new information. Yes, if the complainant can show bias or incompetence by the Provider. No. no No refile, estoppel, on same facts, parties, etc. Differenct, yes. No. You need an appeals procedure for any circumstance; either side should be able to appeal, but the initial decision should take place immediately (e.g., if a transfer of domain is decided on, then that should happen while the appeal proceeds) They should be allowed to appeal but ONLY if a respondent who loses a case can refile as well. No . . . unless new evidence becomes available after decision is rendered. Depends on facts yes, if circumstances change No - they can go to court to contest. Yes, but only if there are newly-discovered facts. Otherwise, you would have forum-shopping only if there are new facts or a new circumstance that change the case Yes - Some decisions are just completely against all decisions made before - it makes the UDRP quite unsafe: you cannot rely on case precedents as you may always have an arbitor that disagrees with what 99% of the other panelists decisions! no Only for a failure or abuse of process; otherwise decisions should be considered final. no; the intent is to have a sim ple administr no, and if so, there should be a test for exceptional circunstances as to why he gets a second bite at the apple Yes; just like jmol. Yes. But only be allowed to present facts of events that occur after the initial UDRP decision. Yes - new material evidence Not unless it is under some standard like "abuse of discretion" No. They had their chance to complain, and if they messed it up, the respondant shouldn't be penalized by having to go through the process again If important new evidence previously unavailable comes to light If violations of Lanham Act are involved, same remedy might be available in U.S. Federal litigation. No, except via an appeal process. Yes; if there was a fatal defect in the complaint and the respondent failed to respond but prevailed. No. No. Why should a complainant keep getting chances to get lucky? Only if there is a demonstrable change in circumstances. Yes. No. No. Again, this would defeat the advantages of the process. Quick and definitive answers. Yes, e.g., in order to argue error in prior decision and/or present new facts only if the relevant facts cahnge Yes, if substantial and compelling evidence arises to prove the case Yes, under circumstances where the Complainant can prove that there is a legitmate need for such a re-file (i.e. lost the case on a technicality but clear on the merits they should have won) No, unless circimstances change or new facts become known No. No. One shot at UDRP and then it's on to the court. no - UCPA procedure is available through courts Only if there is new evidence, change in circumstances, fraud, etc. not if it loses for substantive reasons. no No Not unless some important fact changes. No, there is an adequate appeal process available at the present time. YES No--not against the same party absent very unusual circumstances They should be able to refile in court, but not to a provider, otherwise the case is more likely to drag on until the wealthier party wins. They should be able to refile in court, but not to a provider, otherwise the case is more likely to drag on until the wealthier party wins. Only under certain circumstances, such as a Supreme Court or shift by a UDRP ruling that would likely favoe the loser. But for continuity purposes, should not be too open to allow this feature. YES On refile, only if new relevant facts included No. Res judicata and collateral estoppel. Yes, if the Registrant changes. Yes yes, if a reason for the decision changed - i.e., if a decision was due to a website not being active and a website goes active after the decision, then the ability to refile should be allowed no. Yes, if significant new information that was not readily available at the time of first filing (a showing should be made before refiling is permitted). Yes, until the day the URDP permits discovery and amendment of pleadings. yes, if the C has new information not previously available. Yes, but only if there are new facts to allege that were not available or discoverable prior to or during the original case. Only in the case of a subsequently discovered fraud. No refiling in UDRP forum; only in court. yes. once is enough. it should be an estoppel No Not under the UDRP. They can go to court. We do not want domain name owners hassled continuously for cheap! NO Only where circumstances alter significantly or where significant new evidence (not available at time of original case No. Good idea, but will keep the Panel business buzy. An appeals system should be in place. need an appeal process one can re-file in courts no - that's what judicial review is for No. If this would be allowed a Domain Holder could be harrassed endlessly. No. If the UDRP decision finds that the domain name was not being used in bad faith, a complainant's recourse should be to a court of law, where the dispute should have been settled to begin with. yes, but only if material facts have changed. Same case alleging same facts should not be allowed to be refiled Not within UDRP no. test Yes, if the circumstances have changed. For example, if the complainant loses because there is insu No. If you're going to have binding arbitration, treat it as such. No never 25. No. No, a complaint should always be subject to the possibility of withdrawl non No. ???????????? should be allowed only before appointment of panelists. no Yes, the withdrawal should not cause undue prejudice to the defendant. No limits NO Withdrawal of complaint should be done with prejudice to the Complainant's claim. Yes, but with prejudice. "NO. UNLESS GROUND EXIST. PENALTY BE IMPOSED Only if a hearing is imminent. no; should allow withdrawal up until date a ruling is due to be issued; promotes settlement; allows for filing of traditional law suit when it becomes clear that facts are too murky for a useful decision under the UDRP no No No, subject to forfeiture of the fee. Si. Una vez notificado el demandado no debería haber posibilidad de retirar una demanda ya que se ha hecho incurrir en gastos al demandado no Permit withdrawal until the response has been served. Thereafter, the matter should go to completion. I don't think a Complainant should have any limits for withdrawing a complaint. No limits no limits Yes. Should not be able to withdraw after respondent has filed answer unless agrees to withdraw WITH prejudice. No limits No. Other than paying the cost of a respondent that has participated, no. No If they choose to withdraw, then the domain name owner should be given a decision that shows they own the domain name. Otherwise you're going to get these stalkers who harass people day and night by filing and withdrawing complaints every few months. Yes, there should be limits. The comlainant should not be able to withdraw and refile the comlaint to get a more favorable provider. The complainant should only be allowed to refile the claim if it can provide significant new information. If withdrawn, it can never be re-filed. Withdrawing should equal conceding of the case. yes, to prevent If withdraw and respondant has engendered costs, reasonable costs should be paid to respondant, if there were a reliable enforcement mechanism. No limits on withdrawing the complaint. But also not allowed to re-file after withdrawing. They paid for it, they can withdraw it. No limit on withdrawl No, as long as Respondent can file action for reverse domain name highjacking if Complainant withdraws nonmeritorious complaint. Yes, timing issue only with prejudice if answer has been filed Yes, cannot withdraw after filing of response. No. Can withdraw a complaint until the respondent files an answer. No limit - withdrawal means often than a compromise with the Respondent has been