1. Provide UDRP services in more languages
2. Option for electronic-only procedures which allow for electronic signatures
3. Create a sort of “class action” complaint whereby a single person can file a complaint on behalf of multiple rights holders against a domain owner that infringes with multiple domains. This would allow trademark holders to go after massive cybersquatters with one action. This could be dangerous if not monitored.
4. Offer an online platform for lawyers, registrars, and service providers to manage UDRPs.
5. On-line discussion for private communication amongst panelists.
6. Banning reverse domain name hijackers from filing complaints after three losses. This is a step in the right direction to shut out people who file bogus UDRPs on generic domain names. After an organization is found to file three bogus UDRPs they would no longer be allowed to bring UDRPs through CAC. Of course, they could just file with another provider or try filing under a different name.
7. Allow for limited appeals. UDRP providers say that current ICANN rules prevent appeals. CAC would like to review this interpretation of the rules to offer limited appeals that would provide greater consistency.
Numbers 3, 6, and 7 are the most interesting. Regardless of the outcome, it’s nice to see a breathe of fresh air for UDRPs.
