Re: [gnso-rap-dt] Reverse Domain Name Hijacking as a Registration Abuse

[George Kirikos <icann+rap@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi James,

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:48 AM, James M. Bladel<jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Interesting idea.  Can you provide a working definition of this, and
> particularly how it differs from other types of abuse?  Especially what
> distinguishes it from competing claims of rights and/or disputes?

I would start with the definition within the UDRP itself (section 1):

"Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the Policy in bad faith to
attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name."

There's an expanded discussion at section 15.(e)

" If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the
complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the
domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the
complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the
administrative proceeding."

Parties who are harmed include not only the registrant, but also
registrars who are overburdened by false claims of TM abuse (thus
adding to their administrative expenses, although sometimes they
attempt to offset this with extra fees to registrants).

I don't see "competing claims or rights" as an abuse listed in the 5
page document, so I'm not sure what you meant, as this topic isn't
really covered with any of the items currently listed:

https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/reg-abuse-wg/attachments/registration_abuse_policies_working_group:20090827124146-0-1700/original/RAPWG%20Abuse%20Categories%20and%20Types%20-%2027%20August%202009.pdf

One of the important differentiators from "normal disputes", where
people can respectfully disagree and decide to use an arbitration
process, is the element that the cause of action was brought in bad
faith.

This would be similar to Rule 11 Sanctions in the USA:

http://www.aepronet.org/pn/vol6-no2.html
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s110.htm

or vexatious litigation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation

It might also encompass SLAPP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

> Also, would it be be more germane in other PDPs (e.g., IRTP-B)?

Reviewing the charter of IRTP-B at:

https://st.icann.org/irtp-partb/index.cgi?irtp_part_b

that charter seems to be focused elsewhere, i.e. on stolen domains,
undoing bad transfers, actual thefts/hijackings. Reverse domain name
hijacking is somewhat different, in that it represents abuse of the
entire legal system and dispute processes, as opposed to abuse of more
pure technical standards (like registrar-lock status or EPP codes)
IRTP-B is focused on transfers between different registrars, while
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking takes places within a single registrar
(there's a transfer of ownership, but not necessarily any change in
registrar, at least not immediately).

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/