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

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you, George.  The materials you've provided represent excellent
collection of resources.  (As always!) :)

My only remaining question is one of scope:  Under what circumstances
would Reverse Hijacking (which is an abuse of process governing existing
names) be considered a "registration" abuse, versus a
"post-registration" or "use" abuse?

Thanks--

J.



-------- Original Message --------
 Subject: Re: [gnso-rap-dt] Reverse Domain Name Hijacking as a
 Registration Abuse
 From: George Kirikos <icann+rap@xxxxxxxx>
 Date: Tue, September 01, 2009 11:20 am
 To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
 
 
 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/