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

[Paul Keating]

Jonathan,

Regarding your comment:

> I think your idea that the Registrars/Registries should absorb the costs because they accepted the abusive registration would have more merit if the registries/registrars were not agnostic about the content of the registration
Sent from my iPad

I did not say that it is their responsibility because they accepted the registration of the domain.  What i said was that they knew about the URS/UDRP process and the possibility such a proceeding could be brought against any domain.  They could have charged a fee.  They didn't.  So i don't feel that we need to come in and change what the registrars and their marketplace has already established.

Paul

> On 7 Sep 2018, at 21:45, BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int> wrote:
> 
> Jonathan, can you expand on the idea that if registrars or registries (who by the way with the URS or UDRP are sheilded from the hassle of managing complaints directly) were compensated for locking a domain name, case processing would be more efficient. Thx.
> 
> 
> Brian
> 
>> On 7 September 2018 at 19:45:29 CEST, Jonathan Frost <jonathan at get.club> wrote:
>> I agree with you that the majority of cases are 1 year registration periods, but not all.  But this a red herring from my original point that the parties that administer the curative RPMs should be treated (and compensated) equally.  The fact is, if the system were to build in cost recovery for the registrars and registries, it would result in more efficient processing, and more efficient administration of URS/UDRP.
>> 
>> I think your idea that the Registrars/Registries should absorb the costs because they accepted the abusive registration would have more merit if the registries/registrars were not agnostic about the content of the registration.  There isn't a filtering mechanism to determine the content of a registration, and I think putting the registrars/registries in that position would raise free speech issues.
>> 
>> Jonathan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 1:20 PM Paul Keating <paul at law.es> wrote:
>> Jonathan,
>> 
>> Thanks for the clarification.
>> 
>> when a party prevails in a URS case, the domain is locked for the life of the domain registration: "Immediately upon receipt of the Determination, the Registry Operator shall suspend the domain name, which shall remain suspended for the balance of the registration period and would not resolve to the original web site. "
>> 
>> This raises the issue of the disparity when a domain is only registered for a 1-yr period or longer.  I would presume most domains subject to a URS are short-term (1-yr registration).
>> 
>> In any case the registrar has received the registration fee it bargained for.  It was aware of the URS/UDRP enforcement mechanisms at the time of registration.  It could have imposed a fee or charged a higher price.  If it chose not to do so then such is life.  Either way i see no reason to now transfer the costs to someone else.  
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On 7 Sep 2018, at 17:30, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> when a party prevails in a URS case, the domain is locked for the life of the domain registration: "Immediately upon receipt of the Determination, the Registry Operator shall suspend the domain name, which shall remain suspended for the balance of the registration period and would not resolve to the original web site. "
> 
>  
> 
> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180907/f749634b/attachment.html>