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

[Jonathan Frost]

I agree that it's not an issue that will arise with frequency, however
these types of issues do arise, they do create costs for the
Registries/Registrars.  In fact, like George pointed out, it arises when a
TM Holder prevails in URS, then decides that it actually wants possession
of the domain, and subsequently files a UDRP.

My main point was that, in addition to the day to day time commitments,
there are unpredictable legal costs associated with the administration of
URS/UDRP (in part because rule sets laws or contracts cannot cover all
scenarios without being inefficiently burdensome).

That's why it makes sense for there to be a cost-recovery mechanism, so
that the Registries/Registrars can be compensated costs related to
administration overhead in the same way that NAF/WIPO are compensated.

Jonathan

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180905/16059205/attachment.html>