We support a PDP to reexamine the UDRP

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Comments on Current State of the UDRP Report

Submitted By: George Kirikos
Company: Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.
Company URL: http://www.leap.com/ 
Date: July 15, 2011

There have been many problems with the UDRP which have eroded the rights of 
legitimate domain name registrants to due process. It is time that there be a 
PDP to improve the rules, for the benefit of all legitimate parties. Here are 
just a handful of examples -- you can do a Google search for "kirikos UDRP" to 
find 7000+ matches (yes, we've been highly critical of UDRP over the years):

1. NAF caught revising past decisions:

http://www.circleid.com/posts/naf_caught_revising_past_udrp_decisions/
http://domainnamewire.com/2010/04/23/seriously-wooot-the-hell/

2. NAF caught systematically copying/pasting nonsense into decisions:

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100423_naf_copying_pasting_nonsense_into_udrp_decisions/


3. study by Zak Muscovitch on panel selection:

http://www.dnattorney.com/study.shtml


4. UDRP providers unilaterally changing their rules:

http://domainnamewire.com/2010/03/15/new-udrp-goes-into-effect-today-still-no-response-from-icann/



5. You'll note NAF was sued by the Minnesota Attorney General, in relation to 
credit card arbitrations, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Arbitration_Forum#Minnesota_Attorney_General_lawsuit
http://www.startribune.com/business/50729852.html?page=2&c=y

So, you can understand why they don't want to give up the UDRP "gravy train." 
Notice the second link:

"At Tuesday's news conference, Richard Neely, a retired chief justice of the 
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, said he handled a handful of National 
Arbitration Forum claims for $150 each after he retired but stopped receiving 
cases after he declined to award fees to creditors that he did not believe were 
permitted under law."

which demonstrates the bias, if the statement was true. Given the Zak 
Muscovitch study, clearly it's something that needs to be explored more, to 
ensure domain name registrants are getting fair panels. 


6. Read the UNFILTERED chat during the webinar, which raised many issues:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-udrp-dt/msg00096.html


It is not for staff to decide whether to initiate a PDP, it should be up to the 
GNSO Council. We strongly encourage the GNSO Council to begin the process of 
ensuring that the UDRP is balanced for all stakeholders. Indeed, we are against 
cybersquatting, and believe that UDRP reform could also benefit legitimate 
trademark holders (i.e. the ones who aren't into reverse domain name 
hijacking), by making the process more predictable. There are folks who have 
profited from the lack of balance in the current rules, and have no interest in 
reform. Their input should be put into the proper perspective.


Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.leap.com/