Internal Inconsistencies in ICANN documents (was Re: Time to respond to URS complaints reduced to 14 days (from 20). We oppose this change.)
- To: 5gtld-guide@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Internal Inconsistencies in ICANN documents (was Re: Time to respond to URS complaints reduced to 14 days (from 20). We oppose this change.)
- From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 13:40:54 -0800 (PST)
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
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
ICANN described this latest draft guidebook as "final." In our opinion, it's
about as "final" as "Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter":
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.
Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.
----- Original Message ----
From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@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
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
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
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
and also the clock doesn't begin until actual notice has happened (i.e. when
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
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.
Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.