[gnso-rpm-wg] URS / UDRP proposals -- data on registrar/registry compliance costs

[George Kirikos]

If this is an uncontemplated interaction between the URS and UDRP,
which puts the two policies into conflict, then it's my hope that
Jonathan will submit a proposal by tomorrow's deadline so that the
working group can address it [perhaps in Phase 2? Although, it could
be narrowed to be solved entirely in this Phase 1, if no changes are
required to the UDRP]. It appears the situation involves a TM holder
winning a URS, and then following that up with a UDRP. The outcome of
the UDRP doesn't necessarily override any locks in the URS??

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/



On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 2:19 PM, Doug Isenberg <Doug at giga.law> wrote:
> Thanks, Jonathan, this seems like a very discrete issue that is unlikely to
> arise with any frequency.  (Actually, now that I reread your email, I’m not
> even sure what a “lifetime lock” is in the context of a URS proceeding – can
> you explain?)  I’d love to know of any real-life disputes that fit the
> situation you’ve described.
>
>
>
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Jonathan Frost <jonathan at get.club>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 1:59 PM
> To: Doug at giga.law
> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] URS / UDRP proposals -- data on
> registrar/registry compliance costs
>
>
>
> For instance, there is ambiguity about what action a registry should take
> when a domain which is already the subject of a URS judgement & lifetime
> lock receives a UDPR judgement that requires unlock & transfer.  The URS
> rules don't account for this situation, and by their letter, require that
> the domain not be unlocked.  However, the registries are also required to
> comply with consensus policies (such as UDRP).
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 1:47 PM Doug Isenberg <Doug at giga.law> wrote:
>
> What are some of the “ambiguities in complying with the rules”?
>
>
>
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
> From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Jonathan
> Frost
> Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 1:15 PM
> To: icann at leap.com
> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] URS / UDRP proposals -- data on
> registrar/registry compliance costs
>
>
>
> I agree that Registries and Registrars need to be able to recover the cost
> of administering the URS/UDRPs, as part of the filing fee.
>
>
>
> The costs that the Registries/Registrars bear actually goes beyond what Reg
> has said.  There are situations where we have to go to outside counsel or
> even ICANN to resolve ambiguities in complying with the rules.
> Additionally, the 24 hour action requirement on locking a domain that has
> received a URS complaint actually increases the resources that have to be
> dedicated, beyond the actual number of minutes per complaint, because
> compliance personal has to allocate/reserve a certain time per day to
> perform the tasks, even if no complaint is received that day.
>
>
>
> Just like the arbitration administrators charge a cost recovery fee for
> administration as part of the filing fee, it's just common since that the
> Registries/Registrars would too.
>
>
>
> Jonathan Frost
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg