Support for eUDRP Proceedings (comments by Douglas M. Isenberg)

["Doug Isenberg" <disenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I, Douglas M. Isenberg, write in support of the proposal
submitted by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
on December 20, 2008, regarding the creation of a “paperless”
system for proceedings pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)
(http://www.icann.org/en/wipo/wipo-proposal-eudrp-rules-30dec08-e
n.pdf).  I support the “WIPO provisional draft amendment rules
for eUDRP” submitted to ICANN at least for the reasons set forth
in WIPO’s proposal, as well as in the comments on this proposal
submitted to ICANN by the Intellectual Property Constituency on
August 5, 2009 (http://forum.icann.org/lists/eudrp/msg00011.html)
and by the INTA Internet Committee on August 12, 2009
(http://forum.icann.org/lists/eudrp/msg00015.html).
As a WIPO domain name panelist and as an attorney in private
practice who frequently represents clients in UDRP proceedings
(http://www.GigaLawFirm.com), I believe a paperless system is
entirely appropriate and consistent not only with today’s
technology but also with one of the UDRP’s benefits, namely, that
it provide a low-cost means of resolving domain name disputes.
A paperless process would benefit both complainants and
respondents as well as the UDRP service providers.  As a panelist
and party representative, I have seen UDRP proceedings that
frequently involve hundreds of pieces of paper submitted in
numerous copies to parties and providers all over the world –
something that an electronic process could easily avoid, reducing
expenses related to printing, copying, binding and postage.  The
postage costs alone can be significant given that parties are
typically required to submit multiple copies of documents to
service providers (see WIPO Supplemental Rules, paragraph 3(c);
and NAF Supplemental Rules, paragraphs 4(b) and 5(c)) and further
given that the parties and service providers are often – if not
usually – located in different countries.  Of course, the ability
to submit such documents electronically also would reduce the
time involved in transmission, thereby further increasing one of
the benefits of the UDRP.
Notably, the WIPO proposal would require service providers to
continue providing written notice of complaints to respondents
via postal mail and facsimile.  See “WIPO provisional draft
amendment rules for eUDRP,” paragraphs 2(a)(i) and 4(a).  This
requirement should alleviate any concerns that may exist about
the adequacy of electronic communications, as “the Provider’s
responsibility to employ reasonably available means calculated to
achieve actual notice” would be maintained.  Id., paragraph 2(a).
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas M. Isenberg
Attorney at Law
THE GIGALAW FIRM, DOUGLAS M. ISENBERG, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
5555 Glenridge Connector
Suite 200
Atlanta, Georgia 30342 USA
1-404-348-0368 (telephone); 1-678-681-9681 (facsimile)
disenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (e-mail); www.GigaLawFirm.com (website)
Note preferred mailing address:
P.O. Box 421924
Atlanta, Georgia 30342 USA