RE: [gnso-sti] Question about URS / Trying to cover loopholes
- To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@xxxxxxx>, "gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] Question about URS / Trying to cover loopholes
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:48:55 -0500
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.
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.
[mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 5:35 PM
Subject: [gnso-sti] Question about URS / Trying to cover loopholes
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
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.)
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD