Internal Inconsistencies in ICANN documents (was Re: Time to respond to URS complaints reduced to 14 days (from 20). We oppose this change.)

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

And, as I continued to read the documents, I discovered that section 9.6 on the 
URS (page 9, about 90% of the way down the full document) still talks about a 
"twenty (20) day Response period". This demonstrates the sloppiness and lack of 
care with which these documents have been prepared, that they are internally 
inconsistent with the 14 day period that was presumably a last minute change by 
ICANN staff.

Of course, the staff who prepared these sloppy documents will likely be getting 
bonuses and will not receive any penalty for their lack of care and mistakes. 
While this might be a typo, it's also a sign of the deeper *policy* mistakes 
that ICANN makes in this document, and also throughout its history.

Legitimate registrants will suffer due to ICANN's last minute "gift" to 
intellectual property lawyers who can count on a lot of default proceedings 
because the other side simply didn't have any time to respond to a complaint. 
Our proposal for making the time to respond a function of the age of the domain 
name would create a more level playing field between complainants and 
respondents.

ICANN described this latest draft guidebook as "final." In our opinion, it's 
about as "final" as "Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_the_13th_(franchise)#Box_office

In other words, expect a few more sequels like "A New Beginning", "Jason Lives" 
and "The New Blood". We urge the DOC/NTIA/DOJ and GAC to end the horror show 
once and for all, and bring true public accountability to DNS policymaking.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
President
Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.
http://www.leap.com/



----- Original Message ----
From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
To: 5gtld-guide@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sat, November 13, 2010 4:23:40 PM
Subject: Time to respond to URS complaints reduced to 14 days (from 20). We 
oppose this change.

Once again, ICANN inexplicably acts against the interests of domain name 
registrants and reduced the time to respond to URS complaints from 20 days to 
14 

days (see pages 5 and 7 of the URS draft). We oppose this change, as it denies 
applicants sufficient time to obtain a lawyer, and also is inconsistent with 
ensuring that registrants receive even actual notice of a complaint (e.g. if a 
registrant is on holidays).

We proposed that the time to respond be a function of the age of the domain 
name. This would ensure that complainants bring their complaints as early as 
possible. For example, the registrant might get 5 more days to respond for 
every 

year that the domain name has been registered (so a 10 year old domain name 
would get 50 more days). This ensures balance. There is a lack of fairness when 
complainants have unlimited time to prepare complaints, whereas respondents 
have 

under 2 weeks to find a lawyer and prepare a defense, if they even receive any 
actual notice of a complaint. In the typical civil rules of procedure, the time 
to respond in international legal proceedings is typically greater than 40 
days, 

and also the clock doesn't begin until actual notice has happened (i.e. when 
the 

complaint has been served upon the other side).

In short, 14 days is simply unacceptable. As a compromise, we propose:

14 days + (5 days) x (AGE OF DOMAIN in years)

Thus, for a 5 year old domain name, the time to respond would be 14 + 25 = 39 
days. This would ensure that complaints are brought in a *timely* manner (i.e. 
within the first year). If a domain name has been registered for 5 or 10 years, 
there is no "urgency" that a domain name needs to be suspended rapidly. If a 
domain name has only been registered for 1 month, then the registrant would 
need 

to respond within 14 days.

Of course, we proposed numerous times that all domain names be subject to WHOIS 
Verification (i.e. mailed PIN codes to physical addresses of registrants) to 
curb abuse. ICANN ignored this good proposal, which I'm sure would have the 
strong backing of the Intellectual Property constituencies, as well as have the 
support of most legitimate domain name registrants.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
President
Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.
http://www.leap.com/