[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] An idea?
What exactly is the status of "Working Group B's final report"? Is
this a report that the members of Working Group B will have a vote on?
Or will it be the report of the Chair of Working Group B?
On Sun, 14 May 2000, Michael D. Palage wrote:
> In the process of preparing Working Group B's Final Report to the Names
> Counsel this weekend, I was reading over all of the comments that were
> submitted during the comment period. And the following idea came to me
> during a brain storming session with another attorney. I think it offers an
> interesting idea that was never considered. I would like to hear any
> "constructive" feedback that people have on this idea.
> Temporarily Modified UDRP During the Rollout of a New Top-Level Domain Name
> Any new top-level domain would be added to the root with no preferential
> pre-registration rights. However, in those top-level domains where
> additional trademark protection would be deemed necessary to thwart abusive
> bad faith registration, a modified UDRP would apply for a limited time
> period, say 30 to 60 days. During this start up phrase (30 to 60 days), any
> third party (Complainant) challenging a domain name registration in this new
> top level domain would contact a dispute provider and deposit the required
> fee (approximately $750 under the current provider rules). The dispute
> provider would then contact the domain name registrant and inquire if they
> wish to respond to the third party challenge. (Note: A significant number of
> UDRP are default proceeding where the domain name registrant never replied).
> If the domain name registrant wishes to respond to the challenge they would
> be required to deposit the same required fee as deposited by the
> Complainant. If the domain name registrant (Respondent) declined to respond
> to the Complainant, the domain name would be transferred to the Complainant
> along with a refund of the initial fee. Unlike the current UDRP proceeding,
> there would be no need for a written opinion in a default proceeding.
> If the Respondent posts the required fee, the dispute provider will conduct
> a proceeding using the existing UDRP rules. If the Respondent wins, the
> dispute provider will collect its fees from the Complainant and refund the
> deposit of the Respondent. However, if the Complainant prevails in a finding
> of bad faith, the dispute provider will collect its fees from the Respondent
> and refund the deposit of the Complainant.
> For those proceeding in which there is a default proceeding, the dispute
> provider will be compensated for their administrative oversight by a fund
> maintained by the registry. In order to share this burden equally among the
> entire Internet community, there will be a registry fee surcharge (less than
> a dollar) that will be accessed to all domain name registration in that new
> top-level domain. After the start-up phase (30 to 60 days) there will be no
> addition surcharge on domain name registrations and the UDRP rules will
> return to normal, i.e. a Complainant must pay the full fee in order to
> initiate a challenge.
> The benefits of this proposal are that there are no preferential
> pre-registration rights given to anyone. Additionally, the economics of
> abusive domain name registrations would be temporarily altered during this
> land-rush phase to create a disincentive for these types of bad faith
> registrations. Under the current system, a $20 dollar domain name
> registration imposes upon the Complainant an obligation to initiate a $750
> dollar proceeding. However, under the current proposal, people engaged in
> abusive domain name registrations would be reluctant to expand any
> investment in bad faith registrations if they would be required to invest
> several hundred dollars in a potential losing cause. Finally, this system
> allows individual and small business the opportunity to register a domain
> name of their choice and only have to expend a nominal fee to defend their
> registrant if it is challenged, with the guarantee that if they prevail they
> will be refunded their deposit.
> Just a last minute idea, any thoughts?
> Michael Palage
> P.S. Happy Mother's Day to any mothers on the list
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
P.O. Box 19367 | http://www.cptech.org
Washington, DC 20036 | email@example.com
Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176