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

[George Kirikos]

Hi folks,

On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 8:21 PM, Mitch Stoltz <mitch at eff.org> wrote:
> Monetary "penalties" on registrants, and any recovery of costs beyond the
> arbitration itself, are beyond the scope of URS, UDRP, or indeed any ICANN
> policy. Those are matters for national courts. Aside from being a vast
> expansion of these dispute resolution policies, what Georges proposes is
> unworkable in practice. How would "penalties" and second- and third-order
> costs be collected from registrants? Would registrars have to sue their
> customers to collect these funds on behalf of trademark holders? Or would
> every registrant have to submit to potentially unbounded contractual
> liability to unknown third parties as a condition of registration?
>
> Establishing a workable fee structure for URS (and UDRP) arbitrations is one
> thing. Expanding these policies to become systems for punishment of bad
> actors and broadly defined cost recovery is quite another—that's the domain
> of courts and trademark law, not ICANN policies.

Just to go back to Mitch's earlier post, there'd be some absurdity to
ICANN prioritizing penalties for 2nd-level domain registrants, when
top-level domains can be owned by companies who have plead guilty to
criminal conduct:

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150520_should_barclays_lose_the_barclays_top_level_domain/
https://gtldresult.icann.org/applicationstatus/applicationdetails/1057

Let's properly rank things in order of importance, according to the
severity of the crime involved. We'll spend millions of dollars in
volunteer time pursuing petty crime prevention, yet do nothing when a
guilty company such as Barclays owns an entire TLD?

Where's Barclay's "penalty" from ICANN, or the reform to prevent bad
actors like that financial institution from owning an entire TLD?

Sincerely,

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