RE: [gnso-sti] Transfer of domain name to claimant after successful URS
At-Large generally supported allowing a transfer after a successful URS, presuming sufficient time is provided for a late URS registrant reply (perhaps 90 days after default). If allowed, it should preferably be structured to be done without major registry re-engineering. We would support allowing a URS claimant to pay for an extension of the registration if too close to expiration, and then to be allowed to transfer at expiration time. Since the domain name will already be flagged (since it must be pointing to a URS provider URS page), it should be possible to take this special action if the URS claimant has indicated the desire to transfer when filing the URS claim.
We understand that this may take some generic names out of circulation, but the same can and will happen based on TM holders own actions in defensive registration and this is likely to have a smaller net effect.
Alan At 30/11/2009 09:34 PM, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:
Mike:It would be great if you could provide some evidence to back up some of your statements.For example, you say that the URS would ?take almost as much time as a UDRP decision.? I believe that we are contemplating a process of approximately 25 days from complaint to decision. What is the average length of a UDRP from complaint to decision in a contested case? Does WIPO publish that kind of data? Perhaps Mark, as a UDRP panelist, would know generally how long it takes.You also say that a URS would ?cost almost as much? as a UDRP case. The IRT recommendation was in the $100-200 range and the ICANN staff recommendation was $300 ? isn?t that significantly lower than the current UDRP fees?The goal of the URS was to give an aggrieved TM holder the choice between a cheaper and faster process that would result in a takedown vs. a longer more expensive process that would result in a transfer. I agree with you that if we continue to morph the URS into the UDRP, it?s not worth having both. The better approach, however, is to keep the recommended distinctions and provide TM holders with a choice.Thanks. Jon ----------From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike RodenbaughSent: Monday, November 30, 2009 8:46 PM To: 'GNSO STI'Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] Transfer of domain name to claimant after successful URSJeff,The URS was a compromise devised by a small subset of the community, in response to the larger issue of deterring cybersquatting in new TLDs. The URS, if it does not have a transfer option, will not have any deterrent effect. It will take almost as much time as a UDRP decision, and cost almost as much, while still forcing a UDRP or court action in order to effectively solve the problem. Why would anyone use it?The UDRP has proved ineffective as a deterrent, since the advent of PPC advertising (and then domain tasting), due to the cost and time required for a decision, compared to the cost and time required to register clearly infringing domain names. This is obvious, and is the reason why we are all trying to find a better solution that will deter obviously bad behavior. To develop a cheaper and quicker process for obvious cases, while still protecting due process interests of registrants, was the reason for the URS (and the IRT).While the ?no transfer? version of the URS might have made more sense if the entire ?tapestry? of RPMs were adopted, it makes no sense when the only new solutions will be a Clearinghouse and the URS. In any event, the IRT was incredibly rushed, and likely did not think through all of the issues as thoroughly as they would have done had they had more time and broader input. This is why we are now convened as the STI, to come up with something better.Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact>(415) 738-8087 mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff EckhausSent: Monday, November 30, 2009 5:24 PM To: 'Neuman, Jeff'; Alan Greenberg; GNSO STISubject: RE: [gnso-sti] Transfer of domain name to claimant after successful URSI know we have debating this issue and the more that I think about this the more I think we are moving away from the original concept of the URS with the allowance of a transfer. The main idea is a Uniform Rapid Suspension, not a transfer. If there is a need to transfer the domain there is the UDRP, an established process that has years of experience and data behind it to show what are the levels needed to transfer domains. As a Registrar, I am very concerned about the complaints, issues and other proceedings against registrants who have had their domains transferred away from them without what they believe is due process.Here is the language from the ICANN document in case many have forgotten what the goal of the URS isThe URS would exist as a complement to the UDRP , which also addresses matters of trademark infringement in domain names. However, the URS is designed to provide a faster means to stop the operation of an abusive site, while the UDRP provides for transfer of a contested domain name to the rights holder. Rights holders seeking to pursue cases of infringementcould use either or both procedures.I know we have all been working many hours on this and moving ahead but sometimes we need to look back at the original idea to move forwardJeff -----Original Message-----From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, JeffSent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 7:21 AM To: Alan Greenberg; GNSO STISubject: RE: [gnso-sti] Transfer of domain name to claimant after successful URSSorry 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 implementation problem. 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. -----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 URS 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 problem. 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. Alan