RE: [gnso-sti] Question about URS / Trying to cover loopholes

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think that the IRT said that a reply within 30 
days of default cost no more than an on-time 
reply (neither was free). Our straws the base 
reply is free. I don't think that we discussed 
how long it stays free (presumably still 30 days).
Since we are talking about penalties for 
"abusive" use of the URS by TM holders, how about 
the same for registrants. If someone files a 
"late" response more than N times in a given 
period and loses, then successive late replies 
require an additional non-trivial fee.
Alan


At 29/11/2009 08:43 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> I think this is a good point, but I thought at 
> least the IRT recommended charging a fee to a 
> respondent who defaulted but later files an answer.  Would this help or hurt?
> 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.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 5:35 PM
> To: gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-sti] Question about URS / Trying to cover loopholes
>
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Just something I noticed, and which I'd like your feedback in:
>
> In the URS strawman proposal I think there might be a conflict in
> answers/procedures between "Effect of Filing Answer after Default"
> and "Appeal of Decision".
>
> If an answer is filed after default, it mentions a de novo review & a domain
> name resolving immediately to the original site. IMHO this system could be
> played by a malicious respondent. They could wait for the 20 days and not
> reply, and wait until the summary judgment (probably going against them)
> and *then* file an answer, thus having the domain back up for a few more
> days (20 + 4 days decision time + whatever is required for a new examination
> + decision).
>
> If a domain name brings in cash, a malicious respondent might therefore pull
> the process on for nearly a month, notwithstanding any appeal - and by the
> way, I don't see any notice about what happens to the domain resolution
> whilst an appeal is lodged. Does the domain resolve again?
>
> (and another note concerning this explanation in section "Effect of Filing
> Answer after default": domain names can either resolve or not - so
> mentioning "resolving to original web site" does not work.
> The way the DNS works, registrars/registries have control over
> the whole domain name, but not sub-domains, so any action would
> affect Web, Email, FTP, in fact any service under that domain.)
>
> Warmest regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html