Featured Domains

TrueName by donuts. Make a name for yourself

Lawyer Suggests Alternative to Rapid Domain Suspension Scheme

Paul Keating suggests fixing UDRP, not introducing an alternative domain dispute mechanism.

There were a number of thoughtful comments submitted to ICANN regarding the Implementation Recommendation Team’s (IRT) final report. But attorney Paul Keating went a step further, suggesting a way to modify UDRP domain arbitration rather than introduce a dual solution.

Keating submitted a 20 page response to IRT’s proposal. The first several pages point out the numerous factual errors in the report and goes on to describe serious errors in the individual IRT proposals. But then he dives into his first draft solution, writing:

My parents always taught me never to criticize unless I was willing to suggest a proposed solution that I thought was better. Parents always come back to haunt you and thus I have spent considerable time considering the following proposal.

Keating’s proposal uses the existing UDRP structure with modification to include domain suspension.

1. Complaint filed (normal UDRP complaint)

2. Notice to Respondent (same as UDRP) but with all exhibits sent electronically to respondent via WHOIS address.

3. Election of Defense. Within 14 days post notice, Respondent has 3 choices:

a. elect to defend and pay a nominal fee ($50-$100).
b. elect to surrender the name.
c. do nothing and proceed to either default on the UDRP or defend it.

4. If a defense election is filed (with fee), the domain stays up and running and the UDRP proceeds as normal.

5. If a surrender is filed, then the domain is transferred to the Complainant and the Complainant recovers all filing fees less the arbitration provider’s processing fees.

6. If defense election is not filed (or fee not paid) and there is no surrender election, web page is suspended.

7. In a surrender or failure to elect situation, complainant can decide to accept transfer or suspending domain.

8. Failure to file a defense election is not a default – it merely means the web page no longer resolves until the decision is rendered by the panel.

9. Failure to file a surrender notice cannot be evidence of bad faith.

10. If respondent files a formal response, credit is given for the Defense Election fee.

This addresses the speedy resolution issue for those respondents not wanting to defend or pay the fee. While the fee is nominal, Keating points out that under the IRT as proposed it would be 0 (for up to 25 domains). Further, whereas under Keating’s proposal a “default” – failure to opt in – results in the name coming offline, under the IRT there is no suspension until the decision is made. Keating suggests that it is unlikely that true trademark domains will be defended as the revenue (less registration fees) is not worth the filing fee to prevent suspension of the domain.

I’m sure there are some gaps in Keating’s proposal that would need to be considered. But the overriding idea — fixing UDRP rather than creating a two level system — is the correct approach to solving trademark concerns.

See Keating’s full comments here (pdf).

DomainAgents. What should you sell your domain for? Read our Domain Market Report Now. Sponsored.

Get Our Newsletter

Stay up-to-date with the latest analysis and news about the domain name industry by joining our mailing list.


No spam, unsubscribe anytime.

Reader Interactions

Comments

    Leave a Comment

  1. Johnny says

    I think that notification needs to be by snail mail as well. Electronic submission is not enough.

    Heck…..it could even just be a single envelope….just something more than one form of communication.

  2. Seb says

    Andrew, that was great writing about Paul Keating’s proposal.
    I definitely think fixing the UDRP this way is the way to go.

  3. M. Menius says

    Keating’s proposal, as is, is already superior to and more balanced than the URS. Not to sound so critical, but this further illustrates how strange that ICANN can’t simpy craft a revision to something that has worked effectively in many instances. Instead, they reinvent the wheel with something like URS that on face is a step backward.

    If ICANN push URS through, in lieu of better already available alternatives, you will once again have clear evidence of catering to deep pocket interests at the expense of thousands of domain name registrants. Yes, protect trademark holders. But don’t launch a mechanism that will instantly harm registrants.

    What is required here to reach the appropriate outcome is internal integrity, good judgement, and a genuine interest in making the best decision that weighs all vested interests. Can ICANN meet these requirements?

Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News
%d bloggers like this: