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

[Jonathan Frost]

Your point about the 10 year max is well taken, Maxim.  I would venture a
guess that most domains that are the subject of abuse are not registered
for long periods though.

I would be concerned about the operational overhead of removing locks from
the domains on a specific date.  While you're right that a lock (or any
requirement whatever) can be overridden by the order of a court of
competent jurisdiction, I think that building in specific dates in the
distant future where a lock should be removed could increase operational
overhead.

Jonathan

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 12:45 PM Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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> 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> 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/20180906/eb4356d5/attachment-0001.html>