RE: [gnso-sti] Transfer of domain name to claimant after successful URS
- To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO STI" <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] Transfer of domain name to claimant after successful URS
- From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:20:42 -0500
Sorry I missed the call yesterday, but everyone deserves a vacation once
in a while. Please remember, that while I do not have an issue with a
transfer, I have a huge issue with the proposed waiting period.
Remember, under the UDRP, all implementation of decisions is done at the
registrar level. What is being proposed now with the URS is
implementation at the registry level which is a whole new ball game. To
the extent that the STI expects the Registry to implement the 90-180 day
waiting period before the transfer, this is something I strongly oppose.
This would require all new coding of each new registry for a process
that will rarely (in the scheme of things) be used.
In addition, under the UDRP, the registrar has a short 10 days to hold a
name while pending appeal. The number of cases that fall into an
expiration/auto renew period is very small. Extending that
waiting/appeal period to 90-180 days drastically increases the number of
names that will fall into that expiration period. That is a huge
My strong suggestion....make it like the UDRP. Transfer option offered
right away with a 10 day appeal period and have it implemented the same
way the UDRP is implemented. The registries will not support a new
system just for URS.
Sorry to be so direct, but I want to make sure my disagreement is clear.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you
have received this e-mail message in error and any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately and delete the original message.
From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 9:57 AM
To: GNSO STI
Subject: [gnso-sti] Transfer of domain name to claimant after successful
The following comments are my own and have not yet been discussed
with Olivier or At-Large.
At the end of the call yesterday, it seemed that the issue is
transfer of the domain name after a successful URS has become a
critical go/no-go issue.
I was not a strong supporter of this to start, and in fact accepted
the argument that just because one slime-ball misused a TM which also
has alternate meanings, does not mean the next registrant will, and
we should not take names out of the name pool forever due to one
Based on what I have heard to date, I have changed my mind.
The argument that the next registrant may use the generic word or TM
in a more benign way is true, but the chances are that eventually
that name will go back into the pool again (via a delete or an
auction) and the NEXT user may not be as conscientious.
I support the ability of a successful URS claimant to adopt the name
(at their choice) but only after some reasonable amount of time has
passed. Perhaps 90-180 days.
We have already generally acknowledged that there is a need for a
claimant to be able to extend a registration if necessary so that it
does not expire during the URS process (although it is not clear how
easy this will be to implement).
I would suggest that a successful claimant can take over the name at
the end of the registration period (it is locked until then), but in
no case less than 90 days.
Since a locked-after-successful-URS domain will be explicitly flagged
as such (since it will point to the URS provider's special alert
page), it should be possible to implement this.