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 found no Complainant should be allowed to withdraw any time before respondent has responded; thereafter, complainant should be allowed to withdraw only with respondent's consent. no, except if he withdraws after the response if filed, consider imposing the respondent's costs No. Yes. No case should be allowed to be withdrawn and resubmitted anew. Don't have a position at this time No, usually that means settlement, which is good. If the complainant withdraws, they should be blocked from any future action over the domain If withdraws after Respondent has paid in a 3 party panel situation and too late for a refund should reimburse respondent No, unless respondent can show malicious prosecution and then respondent should be entitled to some recompense. No; the proceedings have no true precedential value or preclusive effects, so why lock the Compainant into a fight it no longer wishes to pursue? Of course, No limits. No No reason for such a limit. no. Yes, they should forfeit any fees paid. No. The parties should be able to settle at any time. No no No - this encourages parties to settle the matter No. Parties should be encouraged to work things out through arbitration and avoid the UDRP process when possible. No No. Yes. Once and if the facts support the decisions. If for harassment no. ? No limits. no. yes. No. Not under any circumstances No Until answer is given A complainantant should be allowed unlimited ability to withdraw any claim or all of the complaint. NO, THIS IS NOT PUBLIC INTEREST No There should be a limit on getting a refund for complainants, in order to deter frivilous filings, but not on their ability to withdra Well a complainant should be allowed to withdraw as this will alleviate unecessary hearings. Likely up to a decision since this can promote negotiations with the parties. However there should be somewhat of a penalty to discourage frivolous filings. No limits to withdraw Can withdraw complaint as matter of right if no response filed. If response filed only with concurrence of respondent It should be allowed until a response is filed. Thereafter it should be dismissed with prejudice. No withdrawal after response. No no, but should bear the full costs of a three judge panel no A complainant should be able to withdraw a complaint, but should not be able to refile unless good cause is shown. No limits, since it fosters settlement and face-saving activities. No. Dispute resolution is the entire point of the process. Any withdrawal of a complaint before the respondent responds and a panelis is chosen should be "without prejudice", while any withdrawal after the respondent responds or a panel is chosen should be "with prejudice". It fairly allocates the burdens of responding to a complaint. Yes, after a response has been filed. Otherwise, there is a strong potential for abuse. Withdrawal permitted before respondent's appearance; otherwise under FRCP. no No Only and only if they sign a piece of paper in which they agree not to take any further action, legal or otherwise, against the domain name owner they filed against. NO No. But respondent should be compensated for time, and mental anguish. no. But there should be a limit on the number of complaints. An UDRP preselection panel should preagree on the reasonability of the complaint. Payment of defendant's costs (above a reasonable value) if complaint is not withdrawn quickly. no unless deemed frivolous no no no No limit, absent respondent showing bad faith -- which would result in cost shifting. yes: unilaterally only if the respondent has not yet filed its response; thereafter, only with consent of respondent (will usually be settlement) No. There should be as little barriers as possible to withdrawing a complaint. If the case would be re-filed (with another provider) the withdrawal should be considered as evidence. Yes, limits should be severe enough as to prevent frivolous complaints. there should be no limits No. no. The respondent should be entitled to clear its name. test If a complainant's filing creates a financial liability for the respondant, the complainant should not be allowed to withdraw the complaint. Otherwise, the complaint could be used as an economic weapon. no never 26. No. Yes. It should never exceed complainant's rights in trademark law. e.g. Sun Oil, Sun Microsystems, ... Satire/criticism should be explicitly recognised. e.g. ibmsucks.com Yes, acquiescence and genericness are just two examples non car il pourrait y avoir un conflit avec les juridictions étatiques No.the UDRP should be as simple as possible and ,therefore,such affirmative defense should not be permitted. Otherwise,such defense will cause difficult and complicated issue such as the conflict of law issue. Yes no yes any equitable defences Yes, laches and acquiescence. So rights to domain names would not be hanging in the air. Those defenses are now reflected in the absence of bad faith, which is perfect SÍ Yes, this allows for a full discussion of the case and gives parties full discretion to use legal doctrines. Yes, all of the above. " NO. IT WILL ENCOURAGE DISHONEST PERSONS TO GRAB WELL-KNOWN MARKS & TERMS FOR SELF - GAIN Yes - as long as they are generally known in developed legal systems. no as to laches and acquiescence as many domain names are held and not used as web sites which leads many mark holders to monitor and wait for a domain name to be used, even if it has been offered for sale, until taking any action (it is not cost effectiv yes, in order to avoid decision obviously based on wrong facts Laches, acquiescence, domain name is a generic term should be included To my mind paragraph 4(c) of the UDRP should be a defence to paragraph 4(a)(iii). The Complainant should not have to proved 4(a)(ii). yes. the illustrations you mention should be allowed No. It would seriously complicate these proceedings. The parties should pursue parallel court proceedings for those issues. No, it's enough that Complainant must show that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith. No opinion Yes. Generic or descriptive term; respondent has legit. right to name. No Yes, the defenses of laches and acquiesence are appropriate, or create a statute of limitations for challenging a name that has been registered. This would help to provide certainty as to the transferability of domain names. A genericness does not seem appropriate because domain names are not directly related to any goods. A registered trademark may include generic terms that used in the context of its particular goods make less than generic. yes, the ones mentioned No. No. Leave the process to develop on its own No Yes. All of the above, plus obvious complaint names (IE anything-sucks.com), satires and anything elcs that would be considered fair use in US courts (iccan is sponcered by the US) Yes. generic term, complaintant not filing a complaint within a reasonable time (say, six months after the name is registered), complaintant hoarding names, The UDRP should have a necessary protection for unreasonable claims. Yes. Generic terms, satire, parody, protest... Yes. COmplainants have no right to mispellings. They have only one right, to the exact name. "Rightful" owners cannot have it both ways. domain is patently different than any trademark. adding significant terms like 'sucks' 'bites' 'loser' ect is certainly enought to utilize this defense Yes, as is equitable. Yes, generic terms. Any defense the parties want to bring is valid; the UDRP needs to consider all factors. Yes, the burden of proof and injury should be on the part of the complainent. No. A complainant's failure to prove 3 elements are defacto defenses, and panelists already consider laches, acquiesence and genericness of term when rendering decisions. Yes No, burdens already enable such arguements, don't need to add formality of a label. No. Makes no sense in this context. Providers should not turn into triers of fact on litigation issues, especially given teh choice of law issues. yes - the typical defenses available in litigation, including those listed in the question. yes; laches and acquiesence Acquiescense, genericism, and mere descriptiveness should be affirmative defenses. Laches should not, since bad faith registrations can "sleep" for a long time before discovered. no, will greatly reduce speed and efficacy of proceedings Apparently they already do. Yes. generic terms. geographic locations. untrademarkable name for the current use. Possibly - in the nature of those mentioned The current procedure seems to be adequate. Laches should not be used because when famous trademarks are involved, there generally are hundreds or thousands of domain names in the hands of third parties; but the intellectual property owner only goes after those that are most egregious. If a domain name has been owned for a long time but inactive, you can see why the TM owner might wait until there is a web site attached before taking action. Freedom of speech really sums it up. i.e. If someone decides to setup a complaint site about a product, person or corporation they should be allowed to. NO better to leave to Panel's Discretion Affirmative defenses to the extent that their use might prevent miscarriage of justice. Yes - same as with trademark infringement which includes all of the above. Yes Yes, all of the above. Makes for a fairer system. As a caveat, the complainant should be able to respond to any such defense. Yes but only if the complainant is given an opportunity to respond to the affirmative defense. No. Again, this looks too much like the court process. This would defeat the primary advantage of the UDRP - quick and definitive answers. No, these types of issues are dealt with adequately under the current scheme no Trademark defenses should apply No. No Those issues should be decided by courts. I'd have to sit and ponder this one. No time to do so right now. Yes. Fairness should always be a guide. no - it would slow down the process; current defenses are adequate Yes. All those listed. Affirmative defenses should mirror trademark law defenses, with exception of misuse/antitrust. Yes. genericness is a good example. yes. generic term Yes. UDRP should provide for the affirmative defenses of laches, acquiescence, abandment Yes Yes for there may be reasons why the complainant is partially responsible for the situation and that should come out. None. yes, domain name isa generic term, or the trademark lack of disctinicveness Yes; reverse domain name hijacking; and all of the above Not sure, but should state possible defenses but not sure if they should be affirmative. Possibly can be affirmative if amendments are allowed. YES Yes. Laches, acquiensence, and any other defense that would be appropriate to request that registration of mark be cancelled Yes. Essentially all affirmative defenses available in a trademark action. Yes, but I am not sure they need be listed. All traditional affirmative defenses should be allowed no, let the courts handle these cases, UDRP should be for simple ones no - the simplicity of the current test is its primary advantage - introducing further legal concepts to the test will make the process less predictable and less useful Generally not, as the procedure will become too involved, especially given the short time to respond to such a defense, which may take considerable time to gather evidence to re No, not necessary if any should be provided, none of the ones listed. Affirmative defenses should be better spelled out and should include a non-exclusive list of each of these items (laches, acquiescence, domain name is generic or merely descriptive term, non-infringing/non-competitive use), and so on. Yes. Laches and acquiescence should both apply, as one should not sleep on one's rights. No, because panels and UDRP jurisdiction not qualified/proper to resolve these defenses. sure, why not No--panels aren't to decide those issues--they are only to decided if there has been an registration in violation of the UDRP--some affirmative defenses touch on trademark rights, and thus are issues better left to national courts and registration authorities No, the domain name owner should not be forced in any way to prove his ownership. YES, ALL OF THE ABOVE Yes. Generic terms. IMHO this is totally irrelevant to the matter. As there no conflict to be judged but confusion to be clarified. Yes. Use of terms outside business of complainant (eg Macdonalds.co.uk selling hardware), legitimate personal use (macdonalds.co.uk as Macdonald clan site), generic names. Parody and customer compaint sites should also be permitted. yes Can't say yes - and I believe respondents have asserted affirmative defenses Yes. All of the above, plus the DN actually having been in use on the Web for more than 24 months. No, but in the case of generic terms, bad faith use and registration should never happen, as it is not possible for a generic term to cause confusion with a trade or service mark. It is the mark that causes confusion with the term. no - this will make the proceedings more lengthy, complicated and delayed. no adequate means available to adjudicate these issues in this type of proceeding yes statute of repose, genericness, estoppel. test Yes. All reasonable affirmative defenses should be allowed. To do otherwise biases towards IP holders. Barcelona.com is not a trademark or protected mark. It is a common langauge word. This just shows how the UDRP helps rich people steal domains from poor people yes all legal defenses within the jurisdiction 27. Yes. - non car les circonstances peuvent changer No,the same reason as mentioned in 24. Yes yes in certain circumstances Yes so long as there is no material change in the circumstances. orientativos Yes. Yes. "YES. BUT IT SHOULD BE LEFT TO PANELIST TO CONSIDER Yes only if no changes to web site/circumstances/use of domain name/facts no Yes No. There should be no subsequent proceedings save in circumstances outlined at 24 above. yes Yes, to avoid continuous refilings by dissatisfied parties. Not necessarily. No opinion yes yes. Yes Yes no Yes. No. This would be contrary to the nature of the arbitral process and there is a great diversity of legal backgrounds at play. Only when also the facts are identical. This should be a part of the ruling. If it is ruled that the actions were taken in bad faith, then further action should be precluded. Non respondaints should not under any cirumstance be classified as acting in bad faith for not legaly responding to this action. Nope. Most of the current and prior decisions to date were bought and paid for. Until ICANN has some credibility, using these will just continure to destroy ICANN no comment Yes. yes, to prevent corporations from using multiple complaints to financially 'punish' small users with lesser resources Generall yes, if facts same and no changed circumstances. Yes. Yes, there should be a way to have a rapid decision based on prior experiences (without prejudice if they decide to recourse to a full proceedings) Yes Yes, unless new evidence. No yes, if same facts No. Yes. yes unless some facts have changed Yes yes Absolutely. In fact, subsequent proceedings between same parties involving same domain names should not be permitted. Decisions should be final unless a party can show abuse of proces yes Not necessarily. Yes. Only allow facts of new events occuring after initial UDRP. Possibly Yes, unless see 24. No. Cases should be looked at in the light of evidence presented. The UDRP is a set of rules, not an instrument to create case law no Yes Yes, if the same domain names and same parties only. Otherwise, different case and set of circumstances. Yes. yes Yes, unless there ia a demonstrable change in circumstances. Yes. No. Each case should stand on its own merits and be proven independent of any other proceeding. Not until there is consistency among the arbitrators. Yes, but see 25 no No, so long as there's new evidence Yes. Yes Yes Yes. Harassment is always a concern. yes If same parties and identical names, decisions should be final as to parties. depends. as a rule, yes, or there should be a contempt mechanism. yes Yes I am not sure what you mean. No opinion. no Yes Well this would give predictibility, but if there are Supreme Court decisions otherwise then they should not. Yes Yes, should have res judicata effect. Yes. Claim preclusion, res judicata and collateral estoppel. Yes. Between parties and privvies yes yes yes Yes, provided the parties had a full and fair opportunity to make their cases, including discovery. yes, if there is identity of parties and issue. Only with regard to subsequent UDRP proceedings. Since the UDRP is not binding arbitration, lawsuits should not be precluded. Yes. No. yes, as in court Yes. One try is enough. If you lose, go to court, which respondent has to do anyway if he loses. Why make it easier for complainants? YES No. no. We would lose fun. Not sure. Withdrawal of a complaint and then re-instatement should way against the complainant (i.e. presumption of fair use on part of defendent unless proven unfair.) no poor quality to date np np np Yes, or it's not a system, is it? (That is, absent new facts that were prevented from coming to light in round 1.) subsequent UDRP proceedings should not be permitted between the same parties regarding the same domains Yes. There should be no subsequent UDRP proceedings involving the same parties and same domain names. yes, unless the material facts have changed (i.e, the trademark has been abandoned) yes yes. test Yes. It will be a check against unrestrained abuse by IP holders. No 28. Yes. yes Prior decisions should not be "binding", but to the extent that the facts of vtwo cases are the same, the should result in the same outcome non car les circonstances peuvent changer No. The panelist should not be bound by .but consider prior decisions. Yes yes Yes yes Yes, to promote uniformity and predictability in the resolutions of cases. Yes, as regular arguments, but not as binding precedents SÍ Yes, this creates a uniform body of authority and allows for minimal inconsistencies. Yes. "YES. FOR CONSISTENCY & CONFIDENCE BUILDING Yes- it is the only way to develop consistent deci yes, to provide the parties and all web users confidence in the UDRP, providers and panelists yes, but as a matter of fact only. Precedents should not bind legally. Yes No - too many di Si. Aún cuando hayan decisiones que no sean buenas, las mas de 300 que existen actualmente son un precedente importante yes Nonbinding precedent, along the lines of stare decisis. Only the rules themselves should bind the arbitrator. Yes, in order to create and maintain some kind of legal security. The consistency of deci Panelists should be guided but not required to follow precedents no, law changes with society Yes There should be an attempt at creating uniformity in the decisions. In the very least prior decisions should be considered persuasive. yes Yes...they should be treated like case law. No, for the same reason. In a way thaey have that in practice allready. However, all facts must be considered case by case. Yes. UDRP should be clearifing issues. Nope. There's no consistency in the decisions now, other than the DNO almost always loses. No. Thwe UDRP decisions have proven to be mostly random so far, so the priort UDRP decisions should not have any effect on future procedings within the UDRP until the process works as intended. No. The proceedings thus far have been marked by incompetence and a clear favoritism for corporate complainants. Each bad decision serves as precedent for subsequent bad decisions and this must be stopped. yes, so that consistant standards can be set. Not with current quality. Not without appellate process to weed out bad decisions. Allow precedent be seen but no authority, akin to USA law of a different federal circuit, influence but not binding authority. Yes, to speed things up. Yes, of course, how can they not? Consistency, and transparency, and the ability to use a base of "case law" for future decisions, are critical and obvious. Yes Yes. Stare decisis. No, different parties yes No. Yes. not sure prior decisions should be binding precedent YEes - otherwise the UDRP is just a big lottery depending on the appointing panelist no yes They shouldn't; unless the facts and law are exactly the same. No. The cases are so scattered in value that anyone can find a conflict. Tough question. Precedential value is in many ways desirable, but the varied quality of UDRP decisions undermines that value. Yes. No. As before, the UDRP is a set of rules, not case law only if an appeal body is established and starts making decisions If a decision is well reasoned and supported in the law, it would make for uniform applicability of the laws and make the process more predictable Yes. It is necessary, in order for previous decisions to have credibility with all panels. Yes. no, because the quality of the decisions so far is spotty at best Yes. Makes for better and fairer system. yes- promotes consistency; gives UDRP weight and credibility. Yes, to establish a uniform and coherent legal structure. No. Each case will be extremely fact specific. Complainants should not have to be concerned with precedent in preparing their particular case. Please see above. No, but should be able to be cited for persuasive authority yes Yes - clarifies the law and makes it predictable Yes. Only persuasive value Yes No. These are not judges nor could UDRP be in a position to hire the same. many cyber-squatters engage in a pattern of unlawful conduct that should be easier to challenge yes - fro consistency Depends on thoroughness of analysis, whether they are public. They should be persuasive, but not necessarily stare decisis. probably not -- too fact specific. yes Yes. Yes Yes, better counsel if we are learning from past decisions. No opinion. YES No---only informally (already too many inconsistent and bad opinions) To the extent that the cases are argued similary or that the facts can be shown to be similar this will have a level of predictibility and reduce frivolous filings. Yes Minimal, if any precedential value, since provider not always same. Yes to give guidance to parties in future disputes. Yes. Yes yes to build a consistent record yes - why reinvent the wheel? Yes, stare decisis. yes, for general matters. However, these disputes are highly individual. Prior UDRP decisions should have *some* precedential value, as we are currently seeing, but they should *not* be binding precedent because different UDRP decisions are often decided under the law of different countries. Yes. The rules propounded are too vague to be applied without some "common law" type interpretations. No, based on poor quality. yes, for consistency Yes--it lends predictability to system This would be good in itself, but does not make sense right now, because the decisions are often contradictory. First we need an appeal body under the UDRP. YES Not with the current system - too many poor decisions made by biased panels. same. If this is properly constructed and not let up to the whim of individual panellists / providers, it would have a degree of value. Needs careful control. no poor quality Persuasive, but not binding. Or it's not a respectable system. yes - for sake of uniformity. The problem is that there are some bad decisions that should not be followed. Yes. It will create a body of accepted jurisprudence No. The stipulations for determining bad faith are clear cut, and much more easily interpreted than previous, possibly incorrect decisions. they already have persuasive value in future proceedings. no change seems neessary now yes, Never in default cases. test Yes. To do otherwise allows for arbitrary decisions within the UDRP framework. No, because the decisions to date have been so bad. but court decisions should be followed mandatorily. 29. No. Yes. I find this very important for the sake of legal certainty an thus the image of the UDRP oui No, final for cost savings. No. Yes no, within the service provider. That role should be domestic courts no it will chenge the basic premise if speed and cost effectiveness No No, regular court cases are the appeal SI Yes, broad appeal rights are important to ensure the Providers stay within the bounds of their charge. No. MAY BE yes, when a ruling has issued that is contrary to prior precedential UDRP decisions and/or shows egregious errors on its face No. The proceedings should be short. The option to bring the matter to ordinary courts suffices No No. El proceso perdería su esencia de ser rápido no Yes, because the quality of arbitrators is not uniformly excellent and people will make mistakes. No opinion yes No. Loses the speed advantage of UDRP proceedings No, the courts are available No. To preserve the speed and finality of UDRP decisions, appeals should not be allowed. YES! to ensure uniformity within the system No. Other options should be considered if the UDRP does not work out. Yes for quality control The UDRP is a sort of arbitration, and you can not appeal such decision. I believe that it is enough to have the possibility to ta Yes. Without the built in safeguards and reviews, this is truely a kangaroo court. Yes. The question is to whom? Yes. The quality of UDRP decisions so far has been very bad, so there should be an appeals procedure. Yes. Too many bad decisions have been made. yes, every process needs an appeal. Not if an adverse decision can be "appealed" by taking same question to a national court. No. Yes, see #24. Yes No. To whom?? No yes Yes. Help to quickly and cost effectively address obviously inappropriate decisions. No. Too bureaucratic. Everything would be appealed. Lots of cost and wasted time. no No - this is not the gist of an arbitration no no, there is the ability to go to court No. Go to court if you think you are right. Yes. Were the panel relied on an untrue fact that made the case. Don;t have a position at this time Not unless see 24. Yes. Only for the respondent. maybe depends on rules There is. Recourse to the courts is possible. Yes. No. It would go on forever! yes Yes, if the appeal process is an expeditious one. no. there will always be recourse in the courts. NO. No. If one party is not happy with the outcome, the traditional forms of recourse are available. Appeals would delay the process ad defeat the primary advantages of the UCDRP No, refiling in UDRP and filing in court offer sufficient appellate options no, it will make it too cumbersome a process No - can always do this in a court of law No. No Yes. Yes. To ensure fairness and have due process with a court if necessary. no Possibly, if it wouldn't detract from the speed and economy. no. streamlined is streamlined no, too costly No. To permit quick finality No No, you can go to court if you don't like the result. No No. YES, IN ORDER TO CONCLUDE THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE SAME JURISDICTION Yes; clearly bad decisions should be appealable There should be an appeal process since UDRP may make a mistake. Appeal after 3rd time is ridiculous - limitations should be set No. The theory is to provide prompt and inexpensive resolution. Yes. No yes it would make sense, but the biggest concern is that the appeal process will be most advantageous to those with the greatest economic power No. Claimant can still go to court. yes, to court, where there is clear error. I think the best way to keep the process streamlined is to keep the process simple. If another layer is added to UDRP, then (1) it should require *both* parties to consent to binding arbitration (so that there is no follow-on court case), and (2) it must be decided by at least three panelists at no greater cost than the present 3-panel system, and (3) each panelist must have participated in some minimum number of UDRP proceedings prior to qualifying for appeals duty. Perhaps. No, because poor appellate record. no, it would increase costs. Yes--this would lend the ability to resolve inconsistent decisions--but it would lengthen process--perhaps appeals could resolve inconsistent decisions without actually deciding cases--maybe iossuing advisory opinions of some sort Yes, to arrive at more consistency. To give indiiduals, who usually cannot afford to appeal in court, a fairer chance. YES Yes. Peer review. if one accept the UDRP erroneous system. Yes. This is the least you can do among civilized people. Yes. yes fairness yes poor quality of decisions to date Yes, with substantial limits, to provide an opportunity to correct significant errors. yes - much less expensive than a judicial proceeding. Perhaps provide for appeal to a panel of three. Yes, for the sake of better justice. But it should be kept as simple and cheap as possible. No. As long as providers are selected randomly, there should not be an appeal process withing the UDRP, as the parties will still have the avenue of the court to pursue an appeal. no - you already can appeal by filing suit in court. the existing model is good and efficient. don't mess it up. no etst Yes, in circumstances where bias or other malfeasance is suspected on the part of the Provider or Complainant. No just go to court 30. One single Appeal Body should be established with three panelists on each case. The Apellant should bear all the costs. Il devrait y avoir plus de membres de la Commission administrative, le même fournisseur devrait être choisit, les coûts initiaux devraient être à la charge de l'appelant et les coûts globaux à la charge du perdant ????????????? mismo proveedor pero en un panel de tres personas con las tasas que se fijan actualmente 3 Providers is adequate for an appeals panel and if possible should be heard by a single, centralized institution that did not play a role in the initial decision. The party seeking the appeal should pay for 2/3 of the cost with the remaining 1/3 going to the appeal who is forced into the appeal process. 3 - 5 PANELIST AT CENTRAL PLACE BOTH PARTIES TO FINANCE permanent appeal board/panel/department set up within each provider; paid for by appellant A 3-member panel not including the arbitrator(s) below. A fixed fee (~$20K) and only on the written record below. 3 panelists ICANN coordinates single instutuion, appelant bears most of costs The party who appeals the decision should have to pay for it. They should be able to choose how many panelists, and they should not get the same one. Three. No. No. Paid and absorbed by the appelant. ICCAN fees should be paying for the cost of UDRP cases, with each side paying their own legal fees. Only in cases of bad faith should the loosing party be forced to Uh, how about using the World Court? ICANN can pay them for their time, and they won't be any more corrupt than the current pack of scandal plauged 'people'. no comment Different provider, no fewer than five panelists, cost to be borne by appellant. Complainant should pay for all costs. If they wanted to ward off this action, they should have obtained the URL in the first place. URLs are not expensive, compared tolitigation. Appeals should go to a separate UDRP; cost should be less than the prior complaint. single institution- financed by appellant 3 person panel mandatory, appellant bears all costs. N/A The appeal should be allowed as a separate case with a separate panel separate provider and financed by the appealling party. Costs would be born by the party appe 3 panalists and the complainant should be responsible for 100% of the cost if the respondant is found innocent, 75% otherwise three panellists, rules should be uniform but different providers ok, appealing party should bear costs I don't think that appeals should be handled outside of the courts. appellant should pay Three panelists seems right with a centralized institution and costs borne by the losing party. Loser pays the costs. Perhaps three, losing party (appellant) pays. THE PARTY WHO APPEAL SHOULD FINANCE THE COSTS. THE APPEAL SHOULD BE SEEN BY THE SAME PROVIDER, BUT WITH DIFFERENT PANELISTS There should be at least 3 panelists but beyond that not sure a panel of at least 3 with majority of the three agreeing. A different provider should be required. Cost should go to challenger with some exceptions. costs determined by situation... 1 panelist on appeal; funded by appellant. 3 or more panelists with one from each provider, loser pays there could be an appeal process, and if so, the costs of the appeal arbitrater or panel should be paid for solely by the appellant. If the original arbitrator is blatantly wrong, that provider (not the parties) should bear the cost of the a 3 panelists, or a direct apeal to court. As noted above, I think that any appeal should be a form of binding arbitration, and it must require each party to consent to binding arbitration in lieu of filing a court action. I think at least three panelists should be chosen, and each panelist must have participated in some number of UDRP proceedings prior to qualifying for an appeals panel. The costs should be split by the parties, unless the parties agree beforehand in writing to a different allocation (e.g., loser pays). Cost to be borne by the loser, three panel appeal. Appeal only on evidence before the original proceeding. see above Centralized institution--party appealing should bear cost Costs should be shared by both parties if respondent appeals, by complainant if he appeals. They must be reasonable. Three panelists. APPELLANT PAYS THE FEE FOR A 3 PANELIST FORUM SPECIALLY SET UP TO HANDLE APPEALS FOR ALL PROVIDERS Publically available peer review. Comment system and public voting, along with rating system for panelists. a d Certainly different provider or central authority. Certainly 3 or 5 panellists. Unsure about costs issues. to be determined later on the basis of equality three panelists; no single, centralized institution, but the various institutions should make some attempt to harmonize their rulings Three panelists, Different provider, no need to centralize, but all appeals decisions centrally stored on the web. Cost to be borne by appellant.. test Require different provider, single pa 31. Do not know aucun ????????? Que se respetara el objetivo inicial de UDRP Initial panel determinations should be given deference with the appellate panel only reversing on clear grounds of error. CAN'T SAY none/minimal, as all facts derive from the pleadings and accompanying documentary exhibits None high, mostly stick to issues of law, not fact. None. Considerable none no comment Zero. none Appeals should have the same evidence and the findings of the prior determination, then make their own assessment based on that evidence. don't know modest High defence - reverse oonly per abuse of discretion standard. None. None... Totally separate... on the merits of the case. If there are issues with the findings from the initial panel (i.e. UDRP has not been implemented properly), none - but theappellate panel shouldn't make the same mistakes should consider but be given freedom to decide issue again as all on documents review should be limited to whether decision is well founded on evidence and law. same as a US appeals court High level of deference. Trial denovo. Could review de novo, since there aren't actual fact findings. NONE None A high level unless clearly erroneous. So long as there is some evidence to support the determination, uphold. some clear error I think any appeal should be "de novo," which pretty much means *no* deference. The initial decision is set aside. Abuse of discretion for findings of fact, de novo for conclusions of law. see above limited--udrp decisions are based only on papers, so appellate panel would have everything they need in front of them to decide case Established facts are not to be researched again. No further deference. IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED DE NOVO, BUT PRIOR SIMILAR DECISIONS SHOULD HAVE WEIGHT IN THE APPEAL Little. Appellate panel should be able to fire bad panelists. None. They should re-examine from first principles. none none none none reversal should be limited to cases of clear error in applying policy and rules to facts If parties agree, finding of facts could be respected, if not those too can be appealed. Correct application of UDRP rules should be always open to appeal. 32. All final decisions should be subject to appeal oui ????????? sí Right to appeal is not automatic and a time frame should be established as an appeals window with any party not filing an appeal within the permitted time period automatically losing their right to appeal. GROSS INJUSTICE / EVIDENCE NOT CONSIDERED FRAUD only if an egregious reading of the facts or failure to adhere to prior precedential opinions There should be no restrictions, but a sunset provision after 1-2 years to see what impact the process has made. yes yes yes. Yes The right should be guaranteed. The appeal should not be automatic. Yes. Yes. Yes, automatic. yes yes Yes, for a limited time only. N/A No. Only in a case of untrue facts being used in the initial case. No. The respondant has to be willing to appeal yes no yes Automatic with costs borne by the losing party. No, any fair restrictions would be welcome. Yes. Yes, subject to answer to 30. YES Yes Yes, unless the case also violates some law or another case is so similar that it would be a waste of time to appeal. And assuming that the reasons for deciding the other case are still valid or current policy. Yes but again minimal limitations Auto. probably as long as the appellant bears the costs yes. I think an appeal should not be automatic, as I prefer the current "automatic appeal", which is to file a lawsuit. Appeals within the UDRP system should apply the strength of the Providers in supplying arbitration services, and should be limited to cases where both parties agree in writing to binding arbitration. It would still be less expensive than filing a lawsuit (in most cases), but would bring finality to the parties. Not automatic. see above No--only when it is necessary to resolve inconsistent decisions Yes. YES A public voting system set up to vote up/down potential appeals. Automatic for private individuals. Corporates should be required to demonstrate new evidence (subsequent attempt to sell etc) or mishandling of initial determination. comittee approval no no no yes Yes. 33. Time is always a problem, but it does not help just to get addtional time NA I am listed as a panelist roster,but no experience in serving as a panelist. I think the time is tight,but is likely to be sufficient. Make time to review N/A "NO" not applicable insufficient time. neutral should have opportunity to think it through. Yes, but only because I can afford to take the time. N/A n/a N/A Yes, particularly if one begins as soon as the material is recieved electronically N/A N/A N/a n/a N.A Not applicable well maybe not as the providers are often late n/a N/A N.A. n/a N/A N/A N/A n/a N/A -- Yes. There is sufficient time. NA N/A Never been N/a N/A N/A yes N/A n/a not applicable 34. Yes, it is very important, and no it is not adequate at present NA Maybe yes. ??????????? N/A "NO" not applicable yes, no Yes/No N/A n/a N/A No N/A N/A N/a n/a N/A Not applicable yes, no should be centralized and searchability accessibility maximised N/A Yes. N/A N.A. n/a N/A N/A Yes N/A n/a N/A -- Yes, acess to previous panel decisions is important and the current form of access is inadequate. NA N/A YES N/A N/A yes, and yes N/A n/a not applicable 35. Yes. No, as long as the rules on impartiality are applied strictly oui car il y a un conflit d'intérêt Yes, conflict of interest No,as a rule panelists should be allowed to present a case unless it violate his professional ethics. ?????????? no use ethical rules Yes, to avoid any appearance of impropriety which would, in turn, accord respect to the proceedings. No, they better gain experience from their cases Sólo en aquellos casos que las denominaciones o los titulares fueran incompatibles pero considerando las oficinas o bufetes dónde e Yes, this provides for a solid group of individuals who have no stake in the winners and therefore the Provider does not feel that he has to rule a certain way in orer to get a favorable treatment when he is representing parties before the UDRP and another Provider. Yes "YES - INTERESTED IN CLIENT WORK" yes: if too many successful appeals result from the panelist's ruling (could be based on a combination of a raw number of cases successfully appealed and percentage of cases heard) yes, otherwise the reutation of the providers could be jeopardized No Si. Es un principio de ética profesional yes No, no more than arbitrators in other areas are disqualified from practice in other forums. Yes, it will affect their impartiality yes, if biased or imcompatiblity with personal interests Yes. No Yes, based on conflicts of interest. No. Yes. It's an ethical issue. Prior disclosure of all potential conflicts of interest to prospective parties, if they still want panelist then ok. yes, when they are not impartial to the case. No, noone should be disqualified. But if there is a potential conflict of interest, informaiton about this should be available to all parties. yes, if they have any personal connection to the case Yes. Conflict, bias. Yes, for bias or any appearance of conflict yes Yes. COnflist of interest. COmprimises their appearance of neutrality. yes if they have a professional or personal relationship with the party No - conflict of interests yes no, provided not representing parties whose UDRP proceedings have been heard No comment. No. Either party may have any panelist represent them. Possibly from representation before panelists with whom they have jointly served If they have dealt with cases about the domain before or their law firm has only if direct conflict of interest yes. judges should not be advocates. Yes. It is too easy for such panelists to influence the other panelists they appear before. Yes, if they have an association with any of the parties. absolutely Yes. System appears more fair. yes. if there is a conflict of interest. No but any proceeding in which they represent a party should be before panelists that they have never worked on a panel with. No. No yes, when there is a conflict in the traditional sense No, so long as representation is in a different Provider Only in circumstances where there has been proven wrong-doing of some kind. No, but panelists shuould not decide disputes in which the panelist represents a party yES. See my reasons above. only if they have decided cases involving the particular client or adverse party Yes, potential conflicts. yes. Yes. They should be disqualified based on a conflict of interest under the american judicial standard. No Disqualified if representing any party in a prior preceeding where the panelist presided. NO No Under certain circumstanes. One would be where there gives the appearance of impropriety. NO yes Yes. Yes either be an advocate or a panelist yes, all circumstances Should not be disqualified if there is no conflict of interest between the disputants. appearance of impropriety. I don't think panelists should be disqualified from representing parties before the UDRP, so long as they have not been co-panelists within the past 12 months with any panelists chosen to hear the case they are presenting. In such cases, if a person chosen as a panelist to hear a case has served with counsel within the past 12 months, then the proposed panelist should be automatically disqualified. Yes, on same grounds as in court. yes. normal rules No No, unless there is a conflict of interest, e.g. because a panelist has already served on a case involving a party he wants to represent. YES Yes. Absolutely. With their own provider, not with others. yes unfair no - these are not professional judges but lawyers who are helping the system work, often to their economic disadvantage Yes. Even the semblance of conflict of interest must be avoided. Yes. Conflict of interest. they should not be categorically barred from doing so, as this would no yes, it is unseemly for the same lawyer to be judge 36. No provided Chinese walls exist. No, as long as the rules on impartiality are applied strictly oui car il y a un conflit d'intérêt Depends on its conflicts. No,needless to say,panelists cannot handle the case represented by a lawyer in the same law firm. No yes use ethical rules Yes, the appearance of conflict of interest cannot be avoided in such a scenario. No Yes, because the law firm as a financial stake in the proceeding and the panelists' neutrality is in question. This must be done at tall time and under all circumstances. No "YES" no; just need the panelist/firm to perform good in-house conflict checking comparing the parties of disputes and the firm's clients No, that would not be realistic with regard to the big law firms Yes Si. NUevamente, es un principio de ética profesional yes No, for same reason as #35 No yes, of course No. If this was the rule, no one from large firms would agree to be a panelist. No Yes, this may create an appearance of or actual conflict of interest or bias and discredits the decision in the eyes of the public and the parties. yes No. No Yes. They have no ethical way of serving ICANN and a party to a dispute. Yes. There must be not a whiff of bias. yes Same as 36, full prior disclosure, let parties exclude if they think a problem. yes, lawyers suck. Law firms should be allowed, but the quantity of evidence for any complaint must be limited. (E.g., it's not fair for a firm to produce hundreds of pages of briefs) definitely! No. Should just not have conflict with, bias toward parties. Same case, yes. Others no. no Yes. No. This would discourage law firms from letting their colleagues serve as panelists. no, so long as the panelist's law firm isn't representing a party in a proceeding in the panelist is involved. No - this is their job yes see above answer to 35 No comment Yes. It would be impossible to determine conflicts of interest. no Only where the panelists law firms are representing either the complainant or the respondant no, you would have few panellists left!! yes. avoid even appearance of impropriety No, but it should be clear that the panelist has a Chinese Wall around him or her before the firm participates. Yes - potential prejudice. yes Yes. System appears more fair. yes. if there is a conflict of interest. No. No. No yes No No. Law firms are huge bodies and often represent hundreds of potentially conflicting interests. Panelists are bound by their duty to be fair and impartial. No, but a member of the firm should not be a panelist in a dispute in which his/her firm represents a party NO Yes. See my reasons above. no - the normal conflict procedures should sort this out Perhaps. no. No. No No No opinion. NO No If there is some reason to believe that there is impropriety NO no No. Depends. Certainly not in a case where an advocate or in related matter. possibly No, if no conflict of interest. attorney ethics rules and ules of judicial administration should apply No. In the event that a law firm brings a UDRP action, and an attorney in that law firm is initially proposed as a panelist, then the proposed panelist should be disqualified and a different panelist chosen. Yes, in all cases, to prevent appearance of favoritism. no. it is too hard to serve otherwise No--if so, pool of panelists will dwindle As 35. YES Yes. Absolutely. No. Unfair restraint of trade. no just separation absolutely not - this is preposterous, since it would simply assure that firms with the least expertise handle these complaints, or cause qualified lawyers to refuse to be paneleists Yes. ditto as above Yes. Conflict of interest. no. WOuld discourage firms with expertise from allowing qualified individuals to become panelists yes. it is unseemly for the same firm to be judge and advocate, even in different cases. 37. Yes. no. Yes, no need to elaborate f oui Unknown Generally speaking,yes. No I cannot make any comments yes Yes "NO" no answer no opinion Yes No. Se estarían metiendo en problemas marcarios diferentes al fin de UDRP que son los nombres de dominio yes It is dealt with as best as it can given the forum and the problem Yes nor Yes. Yes No. The current bias toward registered trademark holders facilitates this process, and the system provides no meaningful consequence for this type of action. One solution, outside of creating a meaningful penalty, would be to remove the financial barriers of filing a declaratory judgement type of action by a potential respondent. no Never dealt with that issue. Yes No. There needs to be severe penalties (civil AND criminal) for reverse hijackers. No. There should be penalties for filing a complaint in bad faith. The current procedure encourages complaints that have no merit. No. The UDRP and its panelists have shown that they are slaves of corporate interests, failing utterly to pass the sniff test when these types of cases arise. Cf. the many "sucks" criticism domains that have been ordered transferred to the criticized. Was not in past. Were their monetary sanctions--strong cases loser pays prevailing party rasonable costs, that might help. Yes. I don't think anything has been dealt with adequately by the UDRP. NO Have not dealth with this issue. No no This is a myth/silly label. Either plaintiff can prove required burdon or not. Yes. I'm not sure what it is. reverse domain name hijacking should not apply to famous worldwide trademark no opinion No. It should not be an issue in this summary procedure, because there is no way to adequately explore the issue. No. I believe that any finding of "reverse domain name hijacking" should carry a fine or some payment to the respondent for the cost pain and trouble. Don't have a position at this time Nope. The current system has failed to protect the individual from the corporate law firms yes don't know Don't know. somewhat As of now it appears to be adequately dealt with. No, no real standards for determining what constitites reverse doman name hijacking Not really. The "no legitimate interest" requirement will be challenging to meet in these circumstances. No opinion yes Yes - not a big concern Yes. No opinion Yes No. ? As far as I know. yes Yes. Yes Not sure Yes. YES Not sure Not sure YES - becoming more rare No -- there are no repercussions. Yes yes, several cases have upheld the concept unfamiliar no Yes, I think it is currently dealt with adequately. No, because the current UDRP provides no recourse to victim of attempted reverse domain name hijacking. yes yes No. There are too few verdicts of reverse hijacking. There is no penalty. UDRP is now a cheap shot for some companies after a domain name. NO, FEW PANELS EVEN CONSIDER IT. No. There is no penalty specified. It's a slap on the hand with a wet bus ticket. No no exactly WHY NOT !!! no biased panelists no opinion No. This i No. Penalties are not severe. Panelists not random. no, grossly inadequately. It is a mere "slap on the wrist." ets No - in fact the UDRP was designed to allow this kind of theft. I should be able to register a domain without having to agree to be bound by the UDRP No because of the obvious results 38. ???????????? N/A "CAN'T SAY' no answer No. establish clear legal rules adapted to practice As a start, attorneys fees and costs should be refunded by the RDNH party. Mandatory Fines in a fixedamount or amount determined by the panel. respondent demands bond, complainant loses bond if RDNH N/A Civil penalties should be between 3 and 20 million USD. Anyone involved in this crime should be given 5-25 years in prison with no parole. Massive fines against reverse hijackers. the UDRP should be quite clear that a domain name which is parodying, satirical, critical, etc. cannot by definition be registered in "bad faith" -- no matter the language in which it appears. Perhaps national law legal case, unfair competition, attempted theft, etc. UDRP should not deal with liabilities and remedies, they should be limited to making decisions about domain names. There's no distinction between RDNH and other forms of disputes. Do nothing - a facially inadequete complaint need not be responded to. It should not be in issue. Any party found to be RDNH should pay a fee to the respondent equal to twice his actual cost to defend his domain. No comment n/a N.A. Establish clear standards so that complainants know in advance Amend the Rules accordingly. No opinion N/A No opinion This is a difficult question and I don't have the time for this right now. n/a Yes. unknown Fee shifting. Set a fine, part of which goes towards legal expenses of respondent. IF A PANEL FINDS FOR A RESPONDENT ON THE BASIS OF REVERSE DOMAIN HIJACKING, THE COMPLAINANT SHOULD BE ASSESSED ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS OF RESPONDENT Complainant banned from using the UDRP process for 12 months. As tarring and feathering the CEO and the corporate attorney is unlikely to be legally justifiable, award of a multiple of costs incurred to respondent would be a good idea. all costs plus punative damages n/a Random panelists. Treble damages for respondent expense, including good faith expense. Each complainant should be required to post bond of $10,000. If there is a finding of RDNH, then the panel should award some or all of the bond to the domain name owner. test provide that a party going to court who prevails in court is entitled to attorney fees time 3 39. Yes, depending on a panelist's home jurisdiction, decisions are based on partly conflicting legal principles. non Unknown There are some inconsistent cases,but this problem is not serious and will be resolved gradually. Yes UDRP case decisions should be adequately analysed. not any different from court decisions Yes, among panelists and providers. The UDRP should be amended to give precedential value to prior resolutions. Not really GIVE MORE TRAINING & CIRCULATE ALL DECISION TO PANELISTS yes; example is the effect of a respondent's failure to file a response on the complainant's burden of proof; need to have all UDRP decisions well indexed and readily available online to all providers/panelists and the world; appeals process will also he no No yes, i don't know There SEEMS to be a problem, arising out of nonuniform views or personal prejudices among decision makers. Don't know of any problems with consistency yes, coordination could and should be improved Yes. Yes. Central publishing of opinions, required panelist training on an ongoing basis, and stricter oversight of eligible providers. yes, appeal No. Yes. I do not propose any amendments. Yes. Both. Well, you could stop all the unethical behavior, the appearance that ICANN can be bribed into giving any kind of decision the complaintant wants, etc. Yes. The ability for complainant to choose providers encourages providers to have a bias towards comlainant. The provider should be random and it should be possible to appeal the decision. Yes. I don't know how to fix this. yes Yes. Make it easy for parties to see all past decisions & potential conflicts & background of prospective panelist, & a few premptory exclusions. Yes, impartial panelists, plus previous cases as prior art. Not sure if there is consistency or not. Yes Yes. Particularly across Providers. E.g. NAF decisions vs. WIPO decisions. Require NAF panelists to follow format of WIPO decisions so that reasons for decisi absolutely a problem No. No. not sure Yes - there are decisions that just ignore case precedents. Many decisions have dissenting panel no opinion yes, making prior decisions have precedential value Peer review and quality control. Have a peer review of each decision before it was final and require each panelist to review one case for each case taken. Probably - Don't have a suggestion for correction at this time No. The UDRP doesn't need to be changed, however an oversight committee should be able to direct where a case decision has obviously failed to follow UDRP rules - complaints in the press are usually a good indication where this has happened yes, consultation should identify difficult areas e.g. confusing similarity in FUCKNETSCAPE type of cases and decide on a policy, personally I think marks plus added matter should be regarded as confusingly similar not yet Yes. Precedential value of decisions would help. Don't know. yes There appears to be a modest inconsistency problem. Provide for appeals and make all decisions readily and publicly available. Yes, provide for better searching of panelist decisions and rely of past precedent No. There is some inconsistency but not a major problem (same is true of courts); no need to make structural changes yes. make the "fair use" and "legitimate purpose" provisions clearer No No. No Not really Yes. Panelists need to be trained and the rules need to be explained in detail. no No. yes. has to do with quality of panelists. ALL should be experienced TM practitioners or judges. Yes. Yes Yes. Appelate review would help have heard that there is inconsistency. Not sure how to ensure since facts may be different. consistency is needed across the board as we continue to develop There is little consistency. need an appellate level I do not perceive a problem. no I don't think we should be requiring consistency except as to the application of specific rules, since different disputes will be decided under the laws of different countries. Yes, they vary widely. yes. people do not care about the law in contested proceedings Yes--need appeals mechanism Yes. Some providers have a much higher 'success' rate. An appeal body could lead to consistency, especially if providers are somehow 'punished' for too many decisions that are reversed in appeal. FIRST, USE PANELISTS WHO PROMISE UNDER OATH TO BE IMPARTIAL AND CONSISTENT. 2ND, DON'T AUTOMATICALLY ASSIGN CASES TO PANELISTS WHO HAVE A HEAVY RECORD OF RULING IN FAVOR OF THE COMPLAINANT. 3RD, REVIEW THE RECORDS OF PANELISTS ANNUALLY TO DETERMINE IF THERE ARE A SUB Yes. Too much evidence to presnt here. This is why complaint response needs to be public - you would need to ask this queston you'd be able to see it. Obviously not. Increasing the number of real internet and business people as opposed to trademark lawyers would be the best start. Requiring 3 panellists would also help (max of one TM lawyer.) random selection - appeals process it's not a belief, it's a fact there is such a problem. The solution lies in an appellate review process, as discussed above. No. Providers have been demonstrably biased. Randomize providers and panelists. Yes, a big problem. The only recourse is to get rid of ignorant panelists, especially at NAF. test Yes. Rich interests usually win out over the ones less pull (ie: the ones that arent members of WIPO) Any credible use should block a complainant 40. non des similitudes intellectuelles devraient pouvoir établir que des signes sont similaires Probably yes. Yes. No only physical appearence is adequate. no Yes. Yes yes NOT NECESSARILY IN VIEW CHANGING TECHNOLOGY yes, so long as the mark in some form (be it correct, mis-spelled, included with other terms) appears in the domain name no, that should be judged according to general principles Yes No. Derería aplicarse a los parecid yes No, the entire commercial impression should be considered as that underlies the issue of consumer confusion No opinion no, broaden the spectrum Yes, Otherwise it becomes too much of a trademark infringement analysis & the proceedings would take longer. Yes sight and sound no Yes. I do not understand the question. We are talking about words, not pictures. Yes. yes, in the past, this has been used as a flimsy argument to grab domains. Vivendi is not remotely close to Vivendisucks. Likely confusion is likely confusion, appearance, meaning, etc. I'm fond of USA trademark, fairly well developed law, in this regard. Yes Any source of evidence should be permitted. trademarks should have no bearing on the process yes No (must apply to mispellings/typo squatters). No. no no no Sight, sound and meaning. yes. No - sound, meaning etc shoudl be considered Only to the physical appearance - actually if it's a trademark issue, the complainant should have defended their rights in the appropriate court... no phonetic and conceptual similarity also important no No. No. Yes. Yes. No. Should include phonetic equivalents, as well. Don't understand the question yes (and the sound) No No. No No. Yes. no Sound, appearance or meaning could all be considered in appropriate circumstances, but heavily weighted by intent, e.g. misspelling but phonetic similarity shouldn't let a cybersquatter off. Huh? Yes. No No No. NO No Not sure. Difficult to say. They may be some circumstances when this should be done and others when it should not be done. more than physical appearance please... No -- Sound alike also no No. no. it should apply to sound as well. No, it should also apply to the *sound* of a mark, which is more important than its "look", and it should apply to translations of the mark into other languages. Yes. no, all proof should be allowed no Certainly not things like it sounds the same. Yes. No. no no no no yes - otherwise rules would be too vague Yes. Anything else in an expansion of the rights conferred in a mark. no as opposed to what? This question makes no sense. test Trademarks have nothing to do with the process of domain name registrations. Should not apply at all 41. No. Il n'est pas nécessaire d'établir une liste des facteurs, les membres de la commission sont des juristes spécialisés en marques No Rely on trademark law no N/A "YES. EXPERT EVIDENCE" not applicable no A nonlimiting list would be helpful, to guide the proper legal analysis yes no, common sense consideration of the sight and sound of the mark should rule. If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck it probably is confusingly similar to a duck. no, its fine N/A No. Common sense should prevail. yes. and remember that domains are free speech, and not the property of corporations. Yes, standard (nonexclusive) Poloroaid or DuPont factors. With public, easy report & index/search of results. Yes, factors should be included. Do this inductively (from cases decided) not a priori. No. Should be common sense test (consumer perspective). No. appearance, sound and meaning no, use existing tm law yes, use tests similar in trademark examination, sight sound and meaning Leave it to existing TM law. Yes, see q 40 It would be useful. If the respondant is not following the fair use parameters allowed under US law, then that counts against them yes, especially on FUCK NETSCAPE type cases, I thikn marks plus added matter should be regarded as confusingly similar no. standard is and should be likelihood of confusion, deception or mistake Sound alikes and misspellings should be included. Yes - factors such as those used in connection with proving trademark infringement. N.A. Yes. Either the Polaroid or DuPont factors. See 40 Yes - list should be similar to trademark analysis (sight, sound, commercial impression, etc) It should include ANY confusingly similar domain name to a trademark or service mark, not just physical appearance. The UDRP should include a non-exclusive list. It would be helpful N/A sound and appearance - common spelling/mis-spelling Yes. Intent, similarity of names, number of similar names. Actually, most of the factors on intent in the US Cybersquatting act are relevant. -- Yes. Yes No opinion. YES No, flexibiiltiy is needed Where rules can be established they should be for predictibility purposes and where difficult, a level of scrutiny should be determined and applied. Dupont factors yes, to create a common standard; the factors are best suggested by others Use "Polaroid" factors that are applicable to characters that can be used in domain names. see above Yes, a list of factors on a *non-exclusive* basis will be helpful, including sound of the mark, look of the mark, misspellings of the mark, complements (changing letter "o" to number "0"), etc. no, the law is sufficient no--this works fine as is That would be helpful, especially for things like how far typosquatting goes, compounds. Yes. S seems to be required there should be little tolerance for deviation from the list yes. 42. No. One of the two elements is sufficient to constitute bad faith. non un enregistrement de mauvaise foi implique un usage de mauvaise foi No Stop cybersquatting Registration should be made in good faith registration "or" use should be adequate. no only one or the other would be sufficient No. Either circumstance shows that the domain name is not being sought for legitimate purposes. No Either "NO. ONE IS SUFF no; registration in bad faith is often a fallacy; registration in bad faith is often presumed based on bad faith use; what should be done when there is registration and no use? is this bad faith? some say yes, others say no. need to deal with this issu no, usually domain grabbers do not use the domain Yes ues Either should suffice, as it is hard to imagine bad faith registration followed by good faith use but not vice versa No opinion only use in bad faith can be handled in pragmatic way no. Either should be enough. No, either one shjould be enough. Bad faith registration should be the standard to prevent cybersquatting. Adding a use requirement could delay actions because the complainant would have to wait until the bad faith use occurred. registration in bad faith is enough Yes. No. Use either should do, with the caveat that a name registered in bad faith cannot be used in good faith by the original registrant. Yes. Why else call it bad faith? Yes. Too many parody and criticism sites have been purported to be in bad faith. no....the only determination of 'bad faith' is the attempt to sell a domain to other parties...if a person doesn't wish to make commercial use of a name, that is not the same as bad faith, the internet is not entirely commercial, and it's your duty to protect the noncommercial parts as well Any bad faith anywhere taints, but is a nondetermative factor. Yes. Any source of evidence should be permitted. yes no, too restrictive No. Mere registration and holding with more should be enough. No,. a Use requirement would encourage warehousing of domain names. Defeats the purpose of a UDRP. no - people should not be allowed to register the trademarks of others as domain names w/o authorization - which is bad faith - and then avoid being brought into a proceeding because they are not using the stolen trademark/domain name. just "sitting" on them. yes no, because there can be a bad faith registration that prevents the rightful owner from using the name, even if no bad faith use is made No; not both yes. Bad faith requires both the use and registration. Don't have a position at this time Both have to apply. It could be that person a registered the domain in bad faith by the current owner, person b is running a complaint site. Person b must not suffer because of person a's actions no use of a no. either should suffice No. Many domains are registered in bad faith, but there is little that can be done if they are not "used". It would be helpful to take action against parties that register in bad faith alone, since "use" is stretched anyway, to include the attempted sale of a domain name. Use should not mean activation of a website. No - bad faith registration is sufficient to damage the complainant and should be sufficient basis for relief. no No, one or the other should be sufficient. Should not protect a respondent's doing either one. no. too many warehouses of domains out there. No, registration without any use could still constitute bad faith No. Registration may not have been in bad faith, but once learning of the advantages of stealing one's trademark, the registration may be used in bad faith. This situation should be addressed by the UDRP No -- registration in bad faith should be sufficient b/c it deprives trademark owner of ability to use trademark on the Internet just use since that is what really matters (use can be in the form of offering to sell) No - one of these factors should suffice No. Only one or the other. In cases where the Respondent has a legitimate inter No Proof of bad faith may required more evidence than the Yes Yes. The whole UDRP was set up for "cyber squatting". Panelists should not be asked to do what a federal court can do much better. Panelists tend to go far beyond the scope of the literal words of the section. no - good faith registration could be superseded by bad faith use, which should be reachable by UDRP No. Registration in bad faith for blocking purposes may be as bad as registration plus use. no. Registration in bad faith is sufficient. No. Because the Anicybersquating Act does not require use in bad faith and registration in bad faith is sufficent. No No--registration without use should be sufficient DEPENDS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE No--one or the other should suffice Yes, because bad faith registration is easy to show even when it may have been a mistake. It seems difficult to unregister a name. bad faith alone is cause No -- Either no, registrations should be good enough No. Too hard to prove registrant's bad faith with no discovery. no. either is enough for penalization. No, I think it should be changed to (1) registration in bad faith, *or* (2) use in bad faith, *or* (3) non-use in bad faith (warehousing). No. Registration only. no, either should be enough to bar use. hoarding marks acquired in bad faith should be remediable. no Yes. How can there be harm done to complainant if not both are the case? Yes. UDRP should reflect International TM law - not supercede it. No. Either should be a factor on own. Registration (with intent to sell, but without any use) is itself potentially damaging to business. either / or no domain hoarding domain warehousing no: it is too easy to set up a business for the sole purpose of using a domain name acquired in bad faith Yes. On a small scale, domain name owners should be allowed to market and/or sell their names. To nullify either the registration or use in terms of bad faith would disallow this action. no. One is sufficient to harm complainant Yes, the present wording is appropriate. test If I get a domain first, I have the right to keep it and sell it for as much as I can get. Thats called free enterprise. yes and no credible proper use 43. Never non il est plus facile d'attendre que la marque soit enregistrée Unknown If the complainant is substantially using the trademark without any trademark infringement. Certaity of registration fact of trademark registration is enough if there is use or proof on intended use T Only a registration. not sufficient proof; just a factual factor to be considered; if complainant has a pending mark but respondent can so prior use of a similar mark, pending applicaiotn for a mark surely should not be suffient proof of anything (particularly if the applicat it should suffice unless the defendant shows that it will be likely to be rejected I have decided a case based on solid evidence of a common law trademark. Contrariwise, an ITU application should have no weight Pending application is not definitive proof hold harmless if trademark doesn't ripe into registration If it is use-based. None. A complainant should be able to establish rights based on their use of a mark. Application is a formality and is not probative of any rights in a mark. when there is use as well. Yes...with new products, it is often found that domain names get registered at the same time as the trademark applications. Those are often the domain names that get taken right away. All circumstances If a complaintant files a trademark app 5 years after the domain name owner registers the name, why should that trademark count? Should I be able to file a trademark now on "ICANN" and take your domain away from you? None. Pending trademarks are worth nothing. Let a complainant register the domain at the time the trademark registration is applied for. If beaten to the punch, that's too bad. never Pending trademark application grants no rights until registration issues, contingent vesting. Thus not sufficient proof. pending trademarks not valid. Any source of evidence should be permitted. trademarks should have no bearing on the process if use application OK- notpending application None. Only if the mark has been used. none difficult question, but I think it should be sufficient, since there are countries in which trademark rights accrue upon use, not registrations. It shouldn't be. None. A pending trademark may not be accepted and that would allow a bad faith application for trademarks to make unfair UDRP cases. Possibly a use-based application in those countries having a common law rghts-based system of registration and the requirement that the applicant execute an oath as to the veracity of the statements in the application NO!!! The UDRP complaint should be on hold until the court has decided for the respondant or the complainant extensive use of mark prior to application for registration. Would be sufficient under section 43a If the application is pending before the registration of the disputed domain name. It should be. The pending app constitutes notice of intent to use and should preclude a third party from adopting the mark. If the mark has been used enough to constitute trademark use. no- it's evidence, it's not proof. Use should be a requirement. None. Under all circumstances. A prior pending application is enough to bar a subsequent user from registration before the PTO, it should be enough to bar subsequent domain name registrant from adopting the mark in bad faith. Should be sufficient in the narrow situation where facts suggest that respondent knew about application and registered name in bad faith when coupled with actual use should be used to demonstrative constructive notice to cybersquatter (pending applications are public record) No opinion Perhaps a rebuttable presumption would be appropriate - anything more would be in conflict with U.S. trademark lawse inconsistant None. this is not a dispositive factor but should be taken into account in the overall context - common law use is also relevant Perhaps where there is actual knowledge by the respondent and bad intent, and the trademark owner has used the mark, priority based on the application could be recognized. never. doesn't prove actual use. Never. ALWAYS, UNLESS THE APPLICATION IS A GENERIC OR DESCRIPTIVE TERM A pending application should be sufficient if it is based on use rather than intent to use Where it is not generic and other common reasons for not applying a trademark should be satisfied. someone cared enough to at least file the application vs. those who did not... When it is use-based rather than intent to use. Most circumstances unless descriptive without secondary meaning. filed prior tor within a few days of the domain being registered Any circumstances. Having a TM application is merely a minimum threshhold. Need to deal with computer hackers into domain registers. if there are common law rights to the mark, b/c registration is slow. None. A pending trademark application provides no greater rights than any common law rights that the trademark owner may have. None. Pending application is no evidence of trademark rights. it should not, but common law use use. Where it is based on actual use and has not been rejected by the relevant national office Never. This puts any domain name holder at risk who does not have a TM himself. None. It should be registered and granted TM's only. No. An existing trademark is required. If the TM is granted, that should allow automatic appeal if the case was rejected under 4(a)(i), as opposed to respondent having legitimate use. only one factor never its only one factor to be considered use should be at least as important as registration, since in some jurisdictions it is all too easy to acquire registrations of marks that are never used in commerce None. The mark needs to be registered before rights are conferred. never. test None. Trademark disputes have no place being resolved in the DNS. Thats what the courts are for. 44. Yes. quelque peu chers Unknown The current fee amount is likely to be reasonable,but it should vary depending upon the complexity of each case,for example whether disputed by the respondent. ?????????????? yes probably too low They are okay yes yes yes Yes They should be higher. Fees seem high, but are probably necessary to ensure qualified Panelists yes yes Yes. Yes No. How can a small company deal with all these costs and stay in business? How can an individual do the same? I know, you hope to run off all the people and make sure the internet is only owned and operated by Fortune 100 companies... no...they should be significantly less. No, way too much for the average person. No, this is the BIGGEST PROBLEM with the current processes. Not-for-profit organizations and others with limited funds must be allowed a reduced rate (under $500). Evidence for this is easy to provide for actual corporations or other not-for-profits. yes yes Yes. Yes yes no opinion yes Yes. No. I think the fees sould be much higher and provide a review by peers. Seem to be Seem ok don't know Yes. yes. no Yes. No- they seem high, by about 50%. Yes. Yes. It is affordable and reasonable. They are reasonable yes Yes yes Yes Yes. yes Yes. yes. No. The panelist are underpaid Yes Yes No opinion YES yes Some are high. Some are appropriate. None are too low. would certainly appreciate a discount as a student! yes yes yes no. too high. I think that they are about right. If the fees are too high, then parties won't pay them. If the fees are too low, the panelists will not be paid enough to justify their spending an appropriate amount of time on each proceeding. Yes. They could be up to double present fees if quality was improved. yes yes They same reasonable. No opinion yes No. Fees should be regulated to ensure fairness and lack of bias from providers. yes test should be free for respondents 45. un peu moins chers Unknown The same answer as stated in above 44. ???????????? raise them to reflect the amount of work involved not applicable See 44 losing party pay fees!!!!!! No. There should be a sliding scale. lowered, or made free Much lower. See #44. Also, consider a sliding scale for the largest corporations -- repeatedly harrassing should cost more money. N/A They should be twice the amounts. n/a lowered N.A. 50% discount. N/A Probably raised to attract the best people. n/a They should be increased Should be a maximum price as long as not an antitrust issue as above lower See above. n/a Regulate fees. test free for respondents 46. Yes. Unknown The same answer as stated in above 44. ???????????? yes too low They are okay no answer I guess yes Yes See 44 yes N/A Yes No. See #44. Get a sliding scale. yes made the pay like jury duty. Streamlined processes will result in less work, which should be a goal. Fees seem high to me, but not astronomically high. yes yes Yes yes no opinion yes Yes. Yes Don't know Seem ok probably consitent with other neutrals in ADR Yes. Yes. it's a prestigious position- seem They are not paid enough to devote the required time. n/a/ They are reasonable yes yes I don't know what they are paid. See above. yes Yes. don't know. They should be increased Yes Yes YES Not sure Not sure what they are. But it is possible that they should be paid something. as above no idea yes no. lower They seem to be adequate for now. Comensurate with any increase. they are low but OK. Yes. No opinion pro rated they are too low to permit the kind of attention that some of the cases require No. Regulate and equate fees to create a fair forum. test It should be free services 47. Yes, full refund. oui un remboursement complet Yes, significant if bad faith. Yes,the full amount should be refunded to the respondent. ?????????????? hald of the fee no No, the respondent will win his case, which is what he wants No, this is the cost of doing business unless the dispute was brought to harass the respondent. yes. Full yes; complainant should be required to reimburse the respondent yes, full No No Yes, full refund yes, loser should pay the bill Yes, partial. Yes full. yes, full No. No. yes, full. Why would I pay people who aren't working? Full refund. Yes. Full refund. Full refund. yes, if the complaintant drops the complaint, it should bear the entire cost Yes, if complaint drops complaint, respondent should get, as much as feasible, reimbursement of its reasonable costs and fees. partial. No, no refunds after a short period (say, 72 hours...). yes, full yes, full Yes - full. No no no, pro rate refund to take into account if the panel has actually started working on the matter, tie the refund to the point at which the case is dropped No. Yes. Full refund. The complainant should pay all fees. No Yes! Full refund - the respondent shouldn't suffer if the complainant doesn't want to continue the case - this is what normally happens in UK cases full No. yes Yes, full refund. Yes, full. No. Partial refund seems fair yes Yes Partial refund; the provider should be able to cover its costs Yes, Full No. no Depends on circumstances. full. Partial refund No PARTIAL Yes, full Yes, partial if negotiated settlement, full if not. yes Yes, full. yes, full yes, partial. no Full refund. Yes, partial dependent on stage of proceeding. no, the fees are not that high Always! Full refund. pro rate yes, partial no Yes. A full refund, since the complainant is responsible for the proceeding. yes. full The respondent who paid money and does not get a decision should get back every penny that he or she paid. yes 48. No. oui un remboursement complet Same as 47 Yes,but partially refunded to the complainant. ??????????????????? no no No, complainant must still prove their case even if the respondent defaults. No. no; but rules should state that the effect of default should be that all of complainant's allegations are deemed admitted/true no No No No full refund Yes, partial. Yes full. partial Yes, partial since that would then free up the panelists to hear other proceedings. No Same as #47 No refund is necessary. Yes. Full refund. No refund. none Yes, any party backing out should be subject to simple fee petition and reimbursing reasonable costs of other side. partial. No, no refunds unless the default is immediate. no yes, partial No, none. No yes - at least 50 percent yes, partial see above Yes. No. Yes - full Nope. The complainant used UDRP to save legal costs and knew that at the start, so no substantial - since panel not utilized. No. yes, partial No. Yes, if the panelists have not done any work on the matter. No. No yes Yes Partial refund; the provider should be able to cover its costs No. No. no Partial. full. Partial Yes -- partial PARTIAL Yes, full Same for Number 47. yes No. She got what she asked for. yes, full yes, partial. no Full refund on the additional fee, so that the fee would be what the complainant pays for a sole panelist. Yes, partial dependent on stage of proceeding. no. see above yes--partial It seems fair that complainant receives a refund of the difference between costs for one and three person panel when respondent decides not to answer after all. No. If complainant wants and pays for a three member panel, a default should be heard by same. No opinion partial no No. A complainant requested the proceeding, so is liable for the fee, regardless of outcome. no No need for a refund. no 49. No. oui yes, it helps with negotiations. No,the UDRP should be simple and other ADR should be managed by each institution including providers ,separately from the UDRP. ?????????????? no no NO No, mediation should be optional, not mandatory. No no; but UDRP coul dbe amended to require that attempts by complainant to contact repsondent and the result of such contact be plead in a complaint no, useless and time consuming Yes No No yes, cooling off no No yes, OHIM (CTM trademark, se http://www.oami.eu.int) No. No No, injunt yourself Yes. No. There's plenty of time to bargain before filing. Complainant should file when it is the last avenue. No. Make the standard times sufficient for negotiations, if a party wants. Keep it simple. no. No, that's none of your business. Just handle the complaints. Yes, there should be a reasonable period of time (2 weeks or so) after the respondent is notified of the complaint before the proceedure starts. During this time the parties can try to reach other arrangenments No - that is already being done via cease and desist letters. No. It is a waste of time when you are dealing with a cybersquatter. Odds are that the parties have already tried to settle the dispute. No no no, will slow the UDRP down No. Yes. This would be very helpful and resolve 90% of the disputes. Also the use of a domain can be shared! Probably not, but if anyhting a very short one, e.g., 10 days Yes. And the discussions should be public no. it is assumed that reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute were made before filing and paying the fee. No. This would destroy the quick nature of the proceedings. Typically, amicable solutions have been attempted before one files an ICANN Complaint. no No. Most of the time discussions already will have occured. No. No. This will defeat the quick turnaround, which is one of the best features of the UDRP. Absolutely NOT -- would be a waste of time; most complainants try to settle before filing arbitration complaint no No No No. Yes. With experience mediator to assist. no No. no. this is about black and white situations. No. That would delay the decision No -- usually done anyway No NO No Negotiation period should be allowed but not overly long. Just provide a period of time and an online forum, but allow email or phone conversations in private. The time period can be ended earlier than the preset time period, but provide a day to change mind by the one who ended the period. mediation preferred and also cheaper no no no, not mandatory no No. No. no No That would be a good idea. It should not function though to make it easier for complainant to win a case. Refusing mediation is never a sign of bad fatith on part of respondent! I have no ideas about the form. It seems somehow not a good idea to let providers do this, as they have a 'gain' with not succeeding in the mediation. Seperate providers? Fee paid by complainant? Not mandatory. Only at the request of either party. Yes. 3 months, with requirement to link to complainant site prominently on disputed site (and link to case info?) yes no If the UDRP is proving to be not cost effective or efficient, then yes, a mediation service should be mandatory, and contracted by ICANN. no yes sixty days 50. No. non Unknown No,for the same reason as mentioned in above 49. Yes yes no No. No no answer no No No Don't know of any yes, ccTLD to be included no No yes bad faith use on the website, including meta tags What is meant by abusive? No No No No No No. ICANN is already trying to grab too much power, and doesn't have enough gov't oversite or fair elections. No. No. No. no Not til current irregularities, nonuniformity, which law, public accountability/notice, etc are much better. no. Anything related to domain names is your domain. Everything else is not. No no No, process not adequete to adequete to handle anything more. Absolutely not. not sure no no No. No. No No. Situations where domain owner properly belongs to the complainant on other compelling grounds No. no No. No. No. Perhaps a few narrow issues, such as framing another's Web site no No No opinion No. no No. no. No. No No YES, ANY TRADEMARK OR COPYRIGHT CASE ? Not sure yes no perhaps charters no. no Not at this time. First, let's get the basics right. No. no no No. No. God no. It's bad policy right now, why make it worse? No no - there are already other avenues for resolution of other types of disputes No. There should not be a UDRP to begin with, but in the current implentation, it should have its use, function, and power curtailed as much as possible, since it has the backing of no law. no. no, no, no 51. No. oui Unknown No. ????????? yes no too complicated No No no answer no opinion Yes No opinion No opinion yes no yes N/A No No No No No Yes. No. Charter violations should be handled by the TLD. No. You can't handle domain name disputes fairly; an expansion into incompetent dealings with other conflicts would be inappropriate. non Yes, to ensure fairness. While UDRP organizations might deal with these issues, it's outside the scope of the UDRP itself. No no No. No don't know enought about charters to answer no opinion no No. No. Don't know Not yet. Internet user's faith in the UDRP has to be restored before this no. this is not litigation. no No. Different problem. No. n/a/ No opinion no No opinion No. worth a look - uncertain Don't know. no. I don't know what a chater is. Yes Yes YES ? Yes, purpose of having a charter. yes- this will grow folks no yes, something is needed unfamiliar. no No; it encourages the filing of baseless complaints against the holder of the charter. No. Better left to cours. no No There should be a separate dispute resolution for this, as it also involves the registry. No. No, that is up to the TLD manager. no - would present too many sets of rules to follow No. This is not the function of a UDRP. no. The TLD should devise its own mechanisms for enforcing its charter. test agreeing to the UDRP should be abolished as a pre-requisite for getting a domain. Thats why the inclusive namespace roots will prevail over ICANN agreeing to the UDRP should be abolished as a pre-requisite for getting a domain. Thats why the inclusive namespace roots will prevail over ICANN no, reduce do not expand 52. Yes. no. cccTLDs have local law and don't need UDRP. oui dans un souci de simplicité Unknown No,the local characteristics in each jurisdiction should be respected. ???????????? should be uniform in principle, however, it does not matter in detail aspects. yes consistency Yes Yes, because this ensures a common foundation for all parties, including Providers, so that there are no surprises and a level playing field is establiahed. Yes onloy if the ccTLD is being used for commercial purposes and only if the ccTLD allows for registration by entities not doing business in or otherwise associated with the particular country (e.g., .tv and .cc) yes, see 53 No No opinion No opinion yes, for legal security and consistency yes Yes yes not ccTLDs, but yes to gTLDs Yes...because they are becoming interchangeable and a lot of countries do not have their own dispute policy. Yes No No No No I think the UDRP should be abolished until a fair and representative body can be elected, and then a new policy can be established. Yes. Yes, but I've not heard much debate, perhaps ccTLD has some structural difference. Yes, fairness. The TLDs should decide who decides their disputes. If they choose the UDRP, then they submit to UNIFORM UDRP procedures. No yes Yes. Yes yes - to give complainants no opinnion yes, but may be difficult to achieve No comment. No. The ccTLD should be allowed to formulate any dispute system for each country. Yes - It would dramtically simplify enforcement Absolutely now. Individual countries should be allowed to 'do their own thing' as they do at the moment - the legal system in a particular country may enforce different systems for protecting names etc, the UDRP shouldn't infect (or affect!) these soverign rights no opinion Yes. yes Yes. Makes for better and fairer system. Yes. Yes. Yes -- UDRP was meant to be streamlined, simplified process, and uniformity would greatly help those goals and create consistent expectations for all domain name registrants yes Yes No opinion Yes No. YES!!!!! ccTLD procedure is chaotic, inconsistent and frequently unfair Probably. yes. Yes. Yes Yes Yes YES Yes May not be practical, but should be where practical. yes yes. Consistency of rules is less costly for all. to the greatest extent possible Yes, stare decisis no. in each country a mark may have a different context from that used in a gtld. Yes, I think the UDRP should be a single, uniform procedure that charter holders are free to adopt or avoid. Given the limitations of the UDRP, I see nothing wrong with charter holders choosing other dispute resolution mechanisms in addition to or instead of the UDRP (e.g., the proposed .us dispute resolution policy). Yes. yes YES No. The ccTLDs are better served with their own, and not uniform, procedures. They can more easily use national laws. No. TLD's SHOULD have the right to police their TLD in whatever way they choose. No. To many different legal systems and issues. Leave it to the TLD managers. no opinion No. The ccTLDs have marginal representation in ICANN, and as such, can have no effect on the check and balance of a UDRP, and should therefore not be subject to its mandate. no. It should never have been uniform in the first place. test It should be abolished, so my short answe is: NO no ccTLDs are sovereign 53. Yes. oui dans un souci de simplicité ???????????? yes, only if the language problem could be adequately resolved. yes consistency Yes Yes, this ensures that the same Provider hears all complaints related to the same parties at one time. Yes yes, when there is a commonality between the respondent and the content of any infringing web sites yes, for reasons of easy obtaining decisions yes yes, for uniformity Yes. It would be easier. Yes for efficiency No. Very few domain name disputes cross national boundaries. If ccTLD are included with gTLD in UDRP, then yes. Yes, but only if the main domain name is the same. Makes work easier. If the UDRP is commissioned by both TLDs, yes. yes Yes. Yes no, in a cc tld, there may be geographical considerations N/A Yes - judicial economy Yes. Usually the same arguments will apply, and this will save time and legal costs if all are combined in one action. N.A. Yes. Yes. Yes, because same policies should apply across the board to all TLDs yes Yes N/ Yes n/a yes, if second level domain names are identical. Yes, if they have the same root characters and involve the came complainant's trademark Yes Yes Yes YES Yes Same answer is 52. yes Yes, for savings of resources. no, perhaps different judges Yes, it's a small world and we should deal with all the domains in one complaint. No. The rules of each gTLD and ccTLD may be substanitally different. They should only be combined where the charter holders agree that they may be combined because the registration rules are substantially the same (e.g., .com, .net, .org), or where the differences are minor (e.g., .info). Yes. yes, for efficiency yes n/a 54. No. Unknown Yes,maybe in some cases the mediation will be one of useful methods for resolving the domain dispute. Shoot Them nothing should be described no No no no No Court proceedings are a good adjunct to UDRP I advocate a return to the use of something like bang paths. This should create a competition among diverse models for name assignment/dispute resolution and will remove the contention over globally exclusive names. I already expect primitive versions of this approach to appear in the medium-range future; if OpenNIC's users come to want easy access to the legacy DNS colliding .biz TLD without losing the domains under OpenNIC's own .biz TLD, they might get access to it behind a .icann TLD or something -- in the bang path analogy, "...!opennic!icann!biz!...". No Yes, the Danish ccTLD at www.difo.dk No. No I hear that threats and violence work pretty well. Hasbro stole lots of domain names by threatening the rightful owners. Probably still does, thanks to the UDRP. First come, first serve. No matter what. Old fashioned trademark infringement and unfair competition may not be cybersquatt, but handle some issues. No. No, but you need to be faster and more transparent, with a sliding pay scale to make it cheaper for those organizations without money. Yes, the free market... and the princinple of "first come, first served" No. No no no No. no Yes. They're expensive and go on for a lot longer(!) no No. no Arbitration but UDRP is close to that. No. No opinion no No No N/A no Private arbitration/mediation/settlement. NO. No NO No No pummel them w/ PR no no Binding arbitration as it may be less money, and the parties may select one or more arbitrators who are experienced in the technology and the underlying law. Moreover, as implemented by many providers, arbitration is very customizable. Note: For the record, I serve as an arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"). No. no No ANything other than the current UDRP Kangaroo Court would be nice. Nominet system for .co.uk no - I am not a big advocate of arbitration, since it tends to be almost as long and expensive as litigation, but without the safeguards (e.g., appellate review) No. test I am offended by the term "cybersquatting". If I get a domain first, it should be mine. Period. No there should be none other than court 55. No non No, I have not used any dispute resolution mechanism No. NO no no The Belgian ".be" UDRP which is very similar to ICANN's but now includes trade names, geographic names, names of physical persons No no no No No No direct negotiation no (see 54) N/A No Yes, direct contact with other party, and obvious threat of court/UDRP is informal disucssions not resolve matter. No.. My organization is Project Gutenberg. We have two complaints we would like to pursue, but cannot afford it (the ~$3000 is 12% of our annual expenditure). We are instead working on the trademark angle with our pro bono lawyers. This is a failure of the UDRP, and is a very common story. No. No no no no Just negotiation and settlement contracts. no The Nominet one in the UK works fine no No. no No. No. No yes Chile, Brazil (extremely SLOW) No No See above. no Private settlement between competent attorneys. NO. Went to US district court. Very expensive and the judge had never been on the net. Not good. ACPA NO No No no no no As noted above, I serve as an arbitrator with AAA, and I like the many different processes that AAA offers. While the process is generally more expensive than UDRP, it is generally less expensive than going to court, and AAA currently offers documents-only arbitration which allows the process to be conducted entirely online in a secure manner. No. no No No. Used a much more informal process with great success. no - just UDRP and U.S. courts no 56. The evidential requirements to establish bad faith should be relaxed.The requirements to prove factual matters should be clarified in the UDRP / Supplemental Rules. Panelists need to get a clue. e.g. the bodacioustatas.com case should have been thrown out. There is obviously no trademark violation. Unknown In spite of various languages existing in the world,all the authorized providers are rendering their UDRP services in English. In the light of fairness, institutions which can manage the case in language other than English should be appointed as an authorized provider. ???????????? langueage problem. Especially the dot com domain case between Japanese applicant versus Japanese registrant could be treated in Japanese language and by Japanese panelists. Because traslating proofs into English is time consuming and crazy in such cases. I feel UDRP advocates are stupid - or corrupt and excel at spin. It could be greatly improved by removal and bringing in restricted TLDs. no answer no opinion I think that the notion of a privileged global exclusive namespace is doomed to be a shibboleth and that the UDRP is a patch on a broken architecture. Do what you can to limit the damage due to the present system, but don't let that distract you from pursuing prospects for a better way. Make the losing party pay, that keeps grabbers away It is my experience that some registrants had the best of intentions, i.e. a new business venture, a forum for discussion etc..., when registering their domain name, but after a period of time have not been successful in using the domain name. It has become accepted that these names have value as intellectual property beyond the cost of registration. Based on this value, a registrant will be reluctant to simply abandon his/her registration. To encourage these registrants to release their domain names to those that can use them, the UDRP or ICANN should define safe harbor for subsequent transfer of these names. N/A none In their total inability to carry out their duties in a legal and democratic manner. I think the UDRP excels at trampling peoples rights, allowing rich people and corporations to hurt those who have little money, and making a lot of lawyers rich while lining the pockets of ICANN people. The UDRP is an execellant example of why the Marines should storm ICANN and Verisign and take back control of the Internet, killing anyone who gets in their way during the liberation. The UDRP shows a huge bias towards commercial entities. The panelists that repeatedly make decicions that are wrong (that get appealed and overturned) should be sanctioned. Frankly, the UDRP should be scrapped for a first come policy. It's the only way to ensure fairness given the unending pitting of multibillion-dollar companies against private citizens. URDP must realize that 'right' to an URL is only applicable to the EXACT or obviously exact URL, nothing more. Mispellings, appendings, etc. There is no right to that. quit giving every decision to corporations/trademark holders...only in a few cases that I've read about have these decisions been appropriate. Flawed survey, eg #13 choices give numbers, no labels, what's 6, etc. #13 is nost #12, imp not agaree. Not accessible to the average person. consistency clarify supplemental filing rules (i.e., replys to responses) - must ask permission and discretionary to accept no opinion At the very least a party dissatisfied with a decision shoul be able to file reasons for dissatisfaction with the provider for quality control review. Even if there is an additional fee required. The UDRP should require the complainant to contact the respondant and give a notice of trademark infringment. The UDRP should only deal with trademark infringment issues. UDRP is not implemented properly by a number of the panelists. Thus needs to be remedied Big problem. In many instances, it appears that a UDRP ruling of bad faith registration and use would not be upheld under the trademark laws of the particular country which has jurisdiction of the appeal. Generally, it is a very good process -- I favor applying UDRP to all TLDs The UDRP excels in offering a relatively inexpensive and efficient way to prevent cybersquatting and trademark infringement See above. It's an excellent way to bring about a quick resolution, particularly for testablished owners of distinctive marks. It excels in speed and elegance for properly chosen cases. Onlin-eonly aspect is outstanding. It should be explained who can dispute. If someone who does not have a trademark wants to challenge because someone claims to have to have one and the challenger wins, will he/she get the domain name? this is a start n/a You should promote the inclusion of UDRP decisions in Westlaw and Lexis. The current UDRP is a good, first cut at a (mostly) non-binding process to cancel or transfer domain names registered or used in violation of a third party's rights. It needs to be improved as noted above, the core approach is good. N/A It is quite fast, but this is too much at the cost of respondents. Respondents should get more time to prepare a reply. Really. Fix your damned web-form UDRP is good in theory and as written, but has proven appalling in practice, largely due to the antics of individual panellists and providers. start to make balance and fairness a top priority establishment of a searchable database of decisions The UDRP has succeeded in reducing costs for mark holders, but, it has no backing of law or checks or balances on its power or bind, and is not ensured to be fair and equitable. It should not exist. UDRP providers should be forced to be unbiased. At present they are very biased. The time period for appeal should be tripled. Its termination would be my first suggestion. Long live the Inclusive Namespace. Define yourself or be defined (by ICANN/WIPEASS) by getting rid of it altogether a start n/a You should promote the inclusion of UDRP decisions in Westlaw and Lexis. The current UDRP is a good, first cut at a (mostly) non-binding process to cancel or transfer domain names registered or used in violation of a third party's rights. It needs to be improved as noted above, the core approach is good. N/A It is quite fast, but this is too much at the cost of respondents. Respondents should get more time to prepare a reply. Really. Fix your damned web-form UDRP is good in theory and as written, but has proven appalling in practice, largely due to the antics of individual panellists and providers. start to make balance and fairness a top priority establishment of a searchable database of decisions The UDRP has succeeded in reducing costs for mark holders, but, it has no backing of law or checks or balances on its power or bind, and is not ensured to be fair and equitable. It should not exist. UDRP providers should be forced to be unbiased. At present they are very biased. The time period for appeal should be tripled.