[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Food For Thought -- Option #7 (?) -- model UDRP/URS after British Columbia's Civil Resolution Tribunal

[George Kirikos]

Hi folks,

Probably too late to come up with new options in this PDP at this late
stage, but here's some food for thought for how the IGO "quirk of
process" issue as well as the Yoyo.email "cause of action" issue in
the UK can be completely solved, with various changes to the UDRP/URS
process.

In particular, I very recently stumbled upon the "Civil Resolution
Tribunal", which is Canada's first online tribunal that handles
various small claims and strata (condominium) disputes in British
Columbia:

https://civilresolutionbc.ca/

In particular, there's one important part of their rules which (if
emulated) would completely solve the issues we're having, see:

https://civilresolutionbc.ca/how-the-crt-works/how-the-process-ends/#what-if-i-dont-agree-with-the-decision

"If you disagree with the CRT’s final decision on a small claims
matter, including a default decision, you can pay a fee and file a
Notice of Objection with the CRT. The Notice of Objection must be
filed within 28 days after a party receives a CRT decision. The CRT
cannot issue an order in a small claims dispute until the deadline for
filing a Notice of Objection expires. If a Notice of Objection is
filed, the CRT decision is not enforceable. If any party wants to
continue any of the claims that were included in the dispute, that
party must file a Notice of CRT Claim in the BC Provincial Court."

So, basically, if one pays the appropriate fees and files a "Notice of
Objection", the decision is not enforceable, and further court action
(in an established offline court) would be required.

In a UDRP/URS context, this means that there'd be no reversal of the
roles of plaintiff/defendant in the court, compared with the
complainant/respondent in the UDRP/URS procedure. Thus, the UK cause
of action issue (from Yoyo.email) doesn't arise, as the TM holder
would be the complainat in the court case (if the UDRP/URS decision
became not enforceable). Similarly, there'd be no need for any "mutual
jurisdiction" clause to be made by a complainant (which may or may not
be giving up immunity for the IGO). In any event, if there was a
"Notice of Objection", the IGO would then be the complainant in any
court case, if they wanted to pursue the matter further.

To prevent "gaming" of the notice of objections, various court costs
can be assessed in the courts later on, if the party who filed the
notice of objection did no better in the court. From that same page:

"If the person who filed the Notice of Objection does not have a
better outcome in the BC Provincial Court than in the CRT’s decision,
the BC Provincial Court may order that party to pay a penalty to the
other party"

There are great advantages to such a system, that protect due process
for all sides, and so it's something we can consider learning from in
the RPM PDP later on (unless folks want to consider this an Option #7,
although there'd be more work to be done). It can obviously go along
with Option #4.

Option #1 essentially accomplishes the exact same thing, preserving
the natural complainant/defendant rules, without the role reversal.
The above simply adds the issue of penalties/costs, to prevent any
gaming.

Sincerely,

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