Domain Manage

Proposed ICANN UDRP Changes!

Discussion in 'Domain Name Disputes' started by sneezycheese, Jul 9, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sneezycheese

    sneezycheese Active Member

    Dec 2005
    Likes Received:
    You ain't gona like this one guys:

    >> ICANN is currently considering a substantial change to the domain
    >> dispute process to enable trademark holders to rapidly shut down
    >> domain names that are textually identical or confusingly similar with
    >> registered trademarks. The proposal (which can be read at
    >> ICANN | Public Comment - June 2009
    >> -report) was drafted by trademark attorneys for their clients.
    >> Importantly, the sessions were held in secret and they excluded
    >> others who were proposed as members or who requested to join.
    >> The New Uniform Rapid Suspension Scheme represents perhaps the single
    >> greatest risk to domain holders in the history of ICANN. Though
    >> created for New Gtlds, its authors have openly stated their goal to
    >> have it applied to ALL domain extensions. Here is a very general
    >> summary. The complete report can be found at: at
    >> ICANN | Public Comment - June 2009.
    >> Public Comments are open until July 6, 2009.
    >> 1. Single ADR provider to provide services "at cost" (ensures a
    >> trademark community ADR sponsor).
    >> 2. 1 page complaint with check-box "elements" and no signature or
    >> authenticity statement by the person filing (see form).
    >> 3. Complaint may pertain to 0-200+ different domain names and
    >> trademarks. There is no limitation and no requirement that a
    >> complaint deal with only 1 trademark. Thus, the complaint can
    >> theoretically address 200 domains and 200 separate trademarks.
    >> 4. Fixed filing fee for Complainant ranging from $200 (0-25 domains),
    >> $250 (26-100 domains) and $300 (for 101-200 domains). Over 200
    >> domains fee "TBD".
    >> 5. Notification by email and regular mail only (No provision for fax
    >> notification).
    >> 6. 14 day response period, starting from date email notice is
    >> provided and posted letter is sent (not received).
    >> 7. Response single page check box response (see form) 8. Examination
    >> by single panelist appointed by the ADR provider.
    >> 9. THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO LEGAL STANDARDS. Thus, the examiner is
    >> free to apply whatever law they desire (or no law if they think their
    >> own ideas are better).
    >> 10. Evidence standard is "clear and convincing" that no genuine
    >> contestable issue remains.
    >> 11. Elements are said to be identical to a UDRP. HOWEVER, legitimate
    >> interest is not defined (at all) and the bad faith standards are
    >> "non-exclusive". For example, there is no language similar to the
    >> legitimate interest defenses in the UDRP. Further, there is no
    >> defense based upon the Respondent holding a trademark, business license, etc.
    >> 12. The factually intensive nature of legitimate interest/good faith
    >> means that respondents must file extensive responses akin to those in
    >> a typical UDRP while the complainant is required merely to check the box.
    >> 13. If a complaint wins, the Name Servers are disabled and the domain
    >> expires at the end of its current registration (thus creating a new
    >> problem for the person picking it up on the drop).
    >> 14. If a Complainant loses it may appeal, file a de novo (a "do
    >> over") UDRP, or proceed to litigation.
    >> 15. If a Respondent loses, it may appeal (to a singular ombudsman and
    >> pay a fee) or file litigation BUT litigation may ONLY be filed in the
    >> jurisdiction of the registrar or registrant. AND, if the respondent
    >> files subsequent litigation, it must pay a fee to the ADR provider as
    >> a condition for keeping the site live.
    >> 16. Abusive Complaints. While paying lip-service to abuses, the
    >> proposal defines an "abusive complaint" as one without merit. This
    >> is an even higher standard than is set out in the UDRP and there are
    >> very few reverse Highjacking rulings. If a complainant has 3 abusive
    >> complaints the only penalty is that it may not file a complaint for 1
    >> year (presumably it could then have a sister company or licensee do so).
    >> The IRT (the committee having written this proposal) has openly
    >> stated that while the proposal is for NEW Gtlds, they will push to
    >> have the system applied to ALL domain extensions. The system would
    >> be incorporated within the registration agreement.
    >> This is a serious erosion of rights to the clear benefit of trademark
    >> holders who seek to further increase the power of their marks. While
    >> claiming not to expand legal existing standards of trademark rights,
    >> the system seeks to preclude the registration or use of any domain
    >> name if it is textually identical or confusingly similar to a registered mark.
    >> The lack of any legal standard to be applied acts to create a
    >> "law-unto-itself" in conflict with the national laws and
    >> international treaties pertaining to trademarks.
    >> The fact that a respondent must file a full "UDRP-type" response
    >> places the entirety of the burden upon the respondent and allows the
    >> Complainant to obtain a free-look at all defenses and then proceed to
    >> a UDRP.
    >> A public forum will be held by ICANN in London on July 15, 2009. The
    >> event will be held at Royal Institute of British Architects Address:
    >> 66 Portland Place | London | W1B 1AD | UK, starting at 9am. There
    >> are invited speakers but again, the IRT has filled all scheduled
    >> speaking positions with invited trademark guests. That leaves only
    >> open microphone comments for the domain industry.
    >> Please make plans to attend this event. pre-registration is required
    >> which can be done at gTLD Program Global Consultation and Outreach Events.
    >> Even if you are not able to speak, your presence (with placards) will
    >> send a strong message to ICANN rejecting this attempted land-grab by
    >> trademark holders. Please also submit your public comment at
    >> ICANN | Public Comment - June 2009.
    >> Public Comments are open until July 6, 2009. Please try to post a
    >> meaningful comment :.

    ...On that shocker - anybody going to register and attend on the 15th?


  2. Domain Forum

    Acorn Domains Elite Member

    Likes Received:
  3. rob

    rob Founding Member

    Jan 2005
    Likes Received:
  4. blacknight Ireland

    blacknight Active Member

    Apr 2007
    Likes Received:
    The URS only applies to new gTLDs
    While it is arguable that any process that applies to new TLDs should also apply to the existing ones, its not a given
  5. Pred United Kingdom

    Pred Well-Known Member

    Jul 2006
    Likes Received:
    thanks for heads up. cant believe this sh*t
    well, i can, its icann :confused:

    theres nothing on this at link given that i can see. do you have another link to the the info you gave?
  6. GreyWing

    GreyWing Retired Member

    Aug 2006
    Likes Received:
    At the AGM Lesley did say something about their being a scond internet being planned that bypasses ICANN
  7. namealot United Kingdom

    namealot Well-Known Member

    May 2008
    Likes Received:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page