UDRP on the docket for ICANN meeting next week.
ICANN’s Board of Directors will again consider its contractual relationships with Uniform domain-name Dispute Resolution Policy providers at its August 5 meeting, as well as consent to post an application from an entity wishing to become a UDRP provider.
The topic of contractual relationships with UDRP providers was on the April agenda but was tabled because the board ran out of time. It wasn’t on the agenda in Brussels (which was an open meeting during an ICANN meeting). But it’s there again for August 5, albeit the last item on the agenda. Which means it could be tabled again.
Separately, it appears a new entity has applied to ICANN to become a UDRP provider. Item 2g on the agenda states “Receipt and Posting for Public Comment of the Application to be a New UDRP Provider.” Of course I’m basing this on only that one line of information on the agenda — perhaps there’s an effort under way for a new application process.
Jim Fleming says
ICANN Trivia:
Who were the main 5 people who created the UDRP ?
Extra Credit…
Where are they now ?
The Original Domainer says
I should become a UDRP provider. I can hand over names faster that the current two.
Jim Davies says
It seems this is the applicant who want to become a new UDRP provider.
http://www.itmac.org/index.php
The site has a number of links to law firms and related businesses that seem to be owned to an Indian lawyer called Pavan Duggal.
http://www.pavanduggalassociates.com/index.php
I find it slightly odd that the proposed UDRP provider puts (on its home page) links to a law firm and other businesses that seem to be owned by the head (owner?) of the proposed provider.
John Berryhill says
You gotta love a UDRP provider that puts Google Ads on its website, though.
Wow.
George Kirikos says
Nice find. I wouldn’t support them being a provider, given that all their arbitrators appear to be from a single country, unless he plans to limit all cases to those where *both* parties are from India.
Also, he or his firm has represented complainants, see WIPO cases D2005-1170, D2005-1179 (denied), D2005-1180, D2003-0926 and D2004-0119.
I’m not alone in the view that arbitrators should only be
arbitrators, not advocates in domain cases. Of the relatively few cases where he has been a panelist, it appears 100% of the decisions were in favour of the complainants (search “Duggal” at WIPO in full text search; no matches at NAF).
John Berryhill says
Supplemental Rule 4(b) sounds scary:
“Where due inadvertently more than one complaint has been filed, the panel may club the same, in its discretion.”
These guys don’t fool around!
George Kirikos says
lol
Also, it appears those rules were drafted in 2008, and UDRP rules have since been amended in order to mandate electronic filing. Section 3 of their rules appear inconsistent with e-filing. Gotta love 3.3, though — using a Yahoo email address!!
John Berryhill says
“ITMAC , being an Indian organization with Indian arbitrators, speaking different languages, would be well resolution mechanism”
They even speak English “different”. I am signing up, so they have additional well UDRP ace panelist.
John Berryhill says
The fees are reasonable.
Looking at the fee schedule, filing a:
“Challenge of withdrawal of Complaint due to administrative”
only costs 64000
Andrew Allemann says
Maybe they can put Google Ads in the decisions, too? And share ad revenue with the winner of the case.
Philip Corwin says
Putting aside the heretofore unavailable opportunity to file a UrDuRP that would accompany ITMAC’s addition the list of approved arbitration providers —
Standard contracts with UDRP arbitration forums is a very serious issue that ICANN should move forward on. The lack of contracts means that there are no standards they must adhere to, and no enforcement options available to ICANN except the “capital punishment” of deaccreditation. As a result we now see them starting a race to leapfrog each other with new forms of UDRP illicitly implemented via Supplemental Rules and other means, all of which encourages complainant forum shopping at the expense of registrants. We can only hope that the ICANN Board actually begins to move forward on this, and does not defer it yet again.