RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Approaches discussed on Tuesday's call
- To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "IRTP B Mailing List" <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Approaches discussed on Tuesday's call
- From: "Erdman, Kevin R." <Kevin.Erdman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:24:28 -0500
>From a procedural aspect, the TDRP may only be invoked by a Registrar, while
the UDRP may only be invoked by a party possessing trademark rights (usually
the Registrant or its authorized agent).
If we are looking for a way to allow a Registrant to get an "urgent return"
then it would appear appropriate to Allow a Registrant to use the "urgent
return" modification of the TDRP (one reason that a Registrant currently may
opt for going direct to ICANN is because of the delay in getting the
Registrar to act under the TDRP). Query whether allowing Registrant
participation in the TDRP is a "tune up" or a new/separate process...
Kevin R Erdman T: 317.237.1029 | F: 317.237.8521 | C: 317.289.3934
Intellectual Property, Internet, and Information Attorney, Registered Patent
BAKER & DANIELS LLP WWW.BAKERDANIELS.COM 300 N. MERIDIAN STREET, SUITE 2700 |
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 8:51 AM
To: IRTP B Mailing List
Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Approaches discussed on Tuesday's call
great work! gives us plenty to eschew on.
i agree with your notion that we should tune up the TDRP rather than starting
up a new/separate process.
On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:48 AM, James M. Bladel wrote:
> There were some interesting ideas and proposals raised on today's call,
> so rather than risk losing them to Transcript Purgatory, I thought I'd
> make an attempt at summarizing them here. Please let me know if I've
> missed something from our discussions, or mis-characterized any points.
> 1. The TRDP is a relatively little used method for disputing / undoing
> inter-registrar Transfers.
> a. For Registrants, especially those who are victims of
> "hijacking," the process is too slow, and potentially expensive.
> b. For Registrants and Internet Users, the Harm of a name resolving
> to a disputed site (or not resolving at all) persists while the TDRP
> proceeding is ongoing.
> c. For Registrars, the TDRP is seen as too slow, resource
> expensive, and could yield unpredictable outcomes.
> d. Larger Registrars have developed informal procedures to work
> together to rapidly reverse transfers that were erroneous or fraudulent.
> But still wish to preserve a formal policy to escalate matters to the
> Registry in the event that registrars cannot agree on the remedy.
> e. Some registered name holders have eschewed the TDRP and
> Registrar contact entirely, and prefer to work directly with ICANN to
> resolve disputed transfers.
> f. Verisign has adopted it's own procedure under its Supplemental
> Rules to (augment? replace?) the TRDP. Other registries may have
> equivalent procedures, or may seek to develop them.
> 2. The charter of this group asks "Whether a process for the urgent
> return/resolution of a domain name should be developed."
> a. The consensus of Tuesday's participants is that this is the
> case, and that the WG is chartered to develop policy recommendations for
> this procedure. (Council confirmation pending).
> b. The group acknowledge a Staff Note that the TDRP is a topic in
> future IRTP working groups, specifically IRTP-D. If appropriate, the
> group would like to fold these in to the work of IRTP-B (Council
> confirmation pending).
> 3. The group discussed two approaches to outlining recommendations for
> a new procedure:
> a. Modify or adjust the TDRP to make it more useful and relevant in
> scenarios where "urgent" return is required, such as incidents of
> b. Create a new policy, separate from TDRP, to be employed
> exclusively in the event of hijacking, while leaving the existing TDRP
> 1. I support the first assertion (1), for all the exemplaries listed in
> (1a) through (1c), and evidenced by the various alternative, ad hoc, and
> work-around methods listed in (1d) through (1f).
> 2. Following from this, I support the proposal that this IRTP Working
> Group should set out to recommend a new policy procedure that deals with
> the shortcomings of TDRP (2a), and that we should add any additional
> TDRP topics found in IRTP-D and beyond. This support presumes approval
> of the Council.
> 3. Finally, I believe the TDRP provides a foundation of the new policy
> / procedure, and could be more effective in this area (along with its
> current purpose) with modifications (3a) to expedite the proceedings and
> reduce or eliminate the harm (as per Tim's suggestion that pre-transfer
> Namerserver / DNS records be restored).
> Conversely, I am concerned that developing a separate procedure (3b),
> separate from TDRP will create confusion and establish new boundary
> conditions: First, determining which situations warrant the "new
> process" versus the existing TDRP (When is urgency never required? Is a
> hijack by a former Registrant or AC still a hijack?)
> Also, consider that once we have extracted from TDRP those elements that
> are useful versus hijacking, then what remains in TDRP starts to overlap
> with other dispute mechanisms (UDRP). Which could generate even more
> confusion about the differences between "Transfer Disputes" and more
> generalized "Domain Name Disputes."
- - - - - - - - -
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
To ensure compliance with applicable Internal Revenue Service Regulations,
we inform you that any tax advice contained in this electronic message was
not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code.
This message and all its attachments are PRIVATE and may contain
information that is CONFIDENTIAL and PRIVILEGED.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply
e-mail and delete the message immediately.