Comments on: New UDRP Provider Applies to ICANN, UDRP Status Back on Agenda

By: Philip Corwin

Philip Corwin — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:38:26 +0000

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.

By: Andrew Allemann

Andrew Allemann — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:07:44 +0000

Maybe they can put Google Ads in the decisions, too? And share ad revenue with the winner of the case.

By: John Berryhill

John Berryhill — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:09:55 +0000

The fees are reasonable.

Looking at the fee schedule, filing a:

“Challenge of withdrawal of Complaint due to administrative”

only costs 64000

By: John Berryhill

John Berryhill — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:56:22 +0000

“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.

By: George Kirikos

George Kirikos — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:47:06 +0000

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!!

By: John Berryhill

John Berryhill — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:29:35 +0000

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!

By: George Kirikos

George Kirikos — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:23:50 +0000

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).