Comments on: ICA Requests Action on Czech Arbitration Court Policy Changes

By: Marc J. Randazza

Marc J. Randazza — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:33:03 +0000

Phil,

I just think that hyperbole like “outrage” doesn’t belong in this analysis. I respect the work you do, and respect your reputation. You’re making yourself look foolish in this situation though.

I don’t agree that “failing to contest one UDRP can cede an advantage to complainants in future proceedings.” If a respondent is clearly going to lose, it is better to contact the complainant and offer the certainty of victory in exchange for withdrawing the complaint.

By: Philip Corwin

Philip Corwin — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:24:19 +0000

The process of letting a major UDRP change take effect via an abuse of limited Supplemental Rules on a unilateral, non-uniform basis by a single provider is an outrage. This is not market competition where one provider has elected to reduce its UDRP fees across the board — CAC has elected to set a lower fee for a less than full UDRP where no response is received.

I posed a question about this during the ICANN Board’s Public Forum last Thursday and staff again endorsed the CAC fiction that the original proposal has been withdrawn — when even CAC concedes that they are proceeding with its “core”.

But you are absolutely right that if every registrant files a response then CAC’s bid to buy market share will be derailed. Registrants should do that anyway, in any UDRP, as failing to contest one UDRP can cede an advantage to complainants in future proceedings.

By: Marc J. Randazza

Marc J. Randazza — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:53:50 +0000

Phil,

Come on. An “outrage”? Un twist your panties a little bit. If there is a response from the domain holder, the streamlined procedure drops away.

The crybabies on the domainer side of this issue really do nothing to shore up the credibility of this business.

By: Domain Name Wire » News » New UDRP Goes into Effect Today – Still No Response from ICANN - The Domain Industry's News Source

Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:51:19 +0000

[...] personally reached out to ICANN, as has Internet Commerce Association, to see what ICANN plans to do about this [...]

By: Icann viewer

Icann viewer — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:47:43 +0000

Isn’t it interesting how often the word outrage (or something similar) is in the same sentence as Icann?

By: Philip Corwin

Philip Corwin — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:12:08 +0000

ICANN says that CAC has withdrawn its proposal — but CAC quite candidly states that it proceeding with “the core” of its proposal, which is a 60% cut in filing fees for all cases in which there is no response from the registrant (about 70% of all UDRPs) and the panelist decides, in his/her sole discretion,that no detailed decision is needed.That is, you get a UDRP decision without the reasoned analysis that the UDRP is supposed to require.

Now if a lot of complainants start filing with CAC in the hope of saving on the filing fee, how often do you think CAC panelists will decide that they actually have to think about their decision and require a higher fee for doing so — and expect to be called back to adjudicate future disputes?

Blow away the smoke and mirrors and it’s still the same core problem that all the commentators unanimously objected to. It’s an outrage if ICANN lets this move forward to implementation.

By: Andrew Allemann

Andrew Allemann — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:33:56 +0000

@ Jim Davies – good find. It is strange that it wasn’t posted on ICANN’s home page, or at least I didn’t see it. This is particularly interesting:

The CAC announced that in light of the comments received, it was withdrawing its proposal to amend
its supplemental rules, and instead would implement a fee change only. No expedited process is being implemented.

Hmm, seems like more than just a fee change to me.