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

Wed Sep 5 21:55:12 UTC 2018

Georges I tend to agree....

If this is going to be considered further then I think we need to look at

1) if some registrars are suffering a disproportionate amount of costs in
proportion to the total number of domains they have under management? and

2) if there any is correlation between the age of the domain and the number
of complaints?

On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 8:31 PM Nahitchevansky, Georges <
ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:

> Will this not raise the cost of URS and UDRP proceedings.  If so, who pays
> that?  The problem is that what is being proposed is just another cost
> shifting.  The basic cost issue arises from the fact that there exists a
> sub-group of bad actor domain name registrants who register infringing
> domain names at a fairly low cost and use such in often nefarious ways
> (including in deceiving and defrauding consumers), which then forces brand
> owners to expend large amounts of money to enforce and protect their rights
> (staff time, investigator and attorney’s fees, filing fees, responding at
> times to government agencies, post URS and UDRP fees to secure a suspension
> or a transfer of a domain name etc.).  All of this is further complicated
> by the GDRP, which just adds more costs.  So the question in regards to
> registrar and registry costs ignores the question about the brand owner
> costs?  Typically the view espoused is that enforcement is part of the
> brand owners cost of doing business, so the question is why isn’t this cost
> to registrar and registries not the cost of doing business. Registrars and
> registries, after all, basically promote the registration (sale) of domain
> names for profit (registration of domain names is the service/ product
> being sold, just like a brand owner sells a product or service).  Registrar
> and registries are not akin to a provider such as WIPO or NAF.  If we start
> going down the path of costs, what about the added costs that result when
> registrars, for example, promote the sales of infringing domain names or
> unnecessarily complicate transfers of domains names after a successful
> UDRP, or otherwise act in other ways that are prejudicial to the brand
> owner constituency.  Perhaps what should be looked at in a more focused way
> is the sub-group of domain name registrants that engage in actual and clear
> cybersquatting and then figuring out some meaningful penalty that can
> compensate everyone who bears a cost (i.e., brand owners, providers,
> registrars and registrants).  It just seems that cost shifting arguments
> miss the point that someone can waltz in, register an infringing domain
> name for often less than $20 USD and create significantly higher costs for
> a number of parties that in the aggregate are quite significant.  My point
> here is that yes there are costs, but they should not fall
> disproportionately on one constituency.  So if we start going down this
> path, then we should look at everyone’s costs and discuss what is fair and
> appropriate, as well as what penalties should be placed on bad actors.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Jonathan
> Frost
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 5, 2018 2:39 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
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Confidentiality Notice:
> This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the
> meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
> 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by
> the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may
> contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney
> work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
> copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or
> attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us
> immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original
> transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal
> tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is
> not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of
> (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
> marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
> addressed herein.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180905/4ef8b59b/attachment.html>