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

Maxim Alzoba m.alzoba at gmail.com
Thu Sep 6 16:45:03 UTC 2018


Hello Jonathan, 

I am resending it (was not processed by gnso-rpm-wg@ list).

I think lifetime lock (if at all) should be limited to the lifetime of the TM registration, 
to avoid dumping of some strings for no reason (when there is no TM holder to protect, 
what is the reason for locking?)

Also, all registrations terms are limited to the time of Registry contract with ICANN (10 years), so at the best it can be 10 years, and not a single day more.

So either we do not use this idea, or we will have to create mechanism of removing such lifetime-10years-lock, preferably using the current system
(for example, TM database to which URS complainant of that time referred to , does not have the entry no more, 
so the party seeking for the registration can start a process, might be even with the same price of filing via the same URS provider, or it's successor).

p.s: any kind of such lock can be overridden by a simple village court in the same jurisdiction as the particular registry is based.

Sincerely Yours,

Maxim Alzoba
Special projects manager,
International Relations Department,
FAITID

m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp)
skype oldfrogger

Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)



> On 5 Sep 2018, at 20:59, Jonathan Frost <jonathan at get.club <mailto:jonathan at get.club>> wrote:
> 
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:icann at leap.com>
> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>_______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto: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/20180906/1ae7a09e/attachment.html>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list