Comments on: ICANN Chair: May be “Ready to Move” on Uniform Rapid Suspension

By: Andrew Allemann

Andrew Allemann — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:06:18 +0000

@ John – it would be nice if all of the ideas around how to evolve UDRP would be put on the table and hashed out together, rather than having several disparate systems.

By: Andrew Allemann

Andrew Allemann — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:05:31 +0000

@ Jeffrey – I think most people who register the domains when they become available will have no idea it was suspended earlier. They will mostly be registered “by automated means”.

By: John Berryhil

John Berryhil — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:30:01 +0000

“Brian” is J. Brian Beckham, who is a straight shooter.

http://jbrianbeckham.blogspot.com/

By: Jeffrey Eckhaus

Jeffrey Eckhaus — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:18:34 +0000

I was a member of the group that debated the URS at ICANN (the STI) and was always against a transfer of ownership. I have always said we need to stick to the idea of a suspension, that is the S in URS.
As for the issue of other people registering the name after the URS is up, I do not agree that is a concern. Why would somebody register a domain knowing that it was suspended earlier and if used for infringing purposes would be suspended again right away. I am not saying it will never happen, but I do not think it will be as big an issue as people think.

By: Andrew Allemann

Andrew Allemann — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:06:10 +0000

@ Icann viewer – another good question that I’ve never seen ICANN answer, other than to say they don’t have a contract with them.

By: Icann viewer

Icann viewer — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:57:17 +0000

Are they going to give them a contract?

I wonder since there is no contract between the arbitration companies and Icann, can they authorize it?

I wonder if the arbitration process can be challenged since there is no contract?