DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [del-com] Second draft of deletes implementation report

> (2) provding a safety net for the complaintant to take the name out of
> circulation if the registrant chooses not to renew the name
> Perhaps we can include some additional wording to make explicit that a
> registrar can choose to renew the name for the complainant after the
> expiration of the registration agreement and before the name goes into
> the redemption grace period (ie similar to the original wording but
> without too much detail on refunds etc).

Which brings us to the crux of the problem considered by the TF.  Namely,
that it is not the case that the complainant is entitled to registration of
the domain name merely because the registrant decided not to renew it.  By
doing it as proposed, the UDRP merely becomes an "enhanced" WLS mechanism.
There may be a WLS subscription on the domain name, and if you provide an
automatic transfer to a UDRP complainant in the event that the name expires
during a UDRP, then it becomes rational to file a meritless UDRP on an
expiring name if one has already been beaten to the WLS slot.   In other
words, the number of instances where a name expires during a UDRP is almost
certain to increase if it is viewed as a mechanim for disenfranchising the
WLS holder - who may in fact be the holder of a superior trademark right.

On the refund issue and perceptions of what is "costly".  Consider that I
handle a lot of UDRP cases, and that my fees tend to be at the low end of the
scale.  The rate I charge my clients is $250 per hour.   Other attorneys in
this area charge considerably more.  I guess that is why I would consider a
rare circumstance over a refund on the order of $200 to be not worth the

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