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

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, I've usually heard the term "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" in relation
to UDRP cases.  To me it sounds like a domain dispute issue.  

As you mention, "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" means using the UDRP in bad
faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain
name."
My impression is that it?s often about acquiring domain names by accusing
the owner of violating a trademark, and demanding that the domain be
transferred. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_domain_hijacking].  

"Domain theft" might be something else entirely -- literally stealing a
domain name via an unauthorized transfer or an unauthorized contact update.
There are existing mechanisms to deal with those, including: the existing
registrar transfer dispute process, registrar working it out via its terms
of service, UDRP, and courts. (And IRTP-B is evidently looking at some of
these theft issues.)

So, George, are you interested in both "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" and
"Domain theft"?  

All best,
--Greg


-----Original Message-----
From: George Kirikos [mailto:icann+rap@xxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 12:21 PM
To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-rap-dt] Reverse Domain Name Hijacking as a Registration
Abuse


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_a
buse_policies_working_group:20090827124146-0-1700/original/RAPWG%20Abuse%20C
ategories%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/