Re: Paperless UDRP proposal

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

In addition to on our prior comment

http://forum.icann.org/lists/eudrp/msg00001.html

NAF's comment included an interesting tidbit:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/eudrp/msg00000.html

"The UDRP requires a "formalities" or "deficiency" check before a Complaint can 
be accepted by the Provider and served on the Respondent (UDRP Rule 4). In over 
90% of cases (anectodally), the Complaint has at least one "deficiency" that 
needs to be corrected." (from bottom of page 1 of the PDF)

90% is a shocking statistic, given that complainants have unlimited time to 
prepare their complaints. This highlights the lack of fairness and lack of due 
process in the short time period for domain name registrants to respond to UDRP 
complaints (and potentially to URS complaints).

We would of course be willing to participate in UDRP reform, but that process 
should be handled within the GNSO. We would oppose NAF "heading up" a 
committee, given the resounding failure and lack of balance of the IRT due to 
its domination by pro-complainant forces. Any GNSO workgroup should be chaired 
by a true neutral (not stakeholders like existing UDRP providers which benefit 
financially from a growing number of complaints). We would suggest that a 
neutral be chosen from the non-commercial constituency or from the ALAC, and 
that the process follow proper GNSO procedures.

Sincerely,

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