comments on eUDRP WIPO proposal

[Nick.Wenban-Smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Nominet migrated its dispute resolution service ("DRS"), the equivalent of 
the UDRP for .uk domain names, to a paperless process in July 2008, 
following a similar process of consultation and updating of rules.   DRS 
complaints are now almost entirely submitted electronically using our 
online services.  While we have the option to notify registrants whose 
domains are subject to a complaint using only electronic means, in 
practice we always also notify the registrant by a recorded delivery 
letter, to ensure that we have made all reasonable efforts to notify them 
about the complaint.  However, after that the entire DRS process is 
conducted entirely by electronic means.

We consider that the paperless DRS is of considerable benefit both to 
Nominet and to parties to the DRS.  Significantly less paper is used by 
all parties, and it also avoids the need to transport packages of 
documents, which are often large, around the world.  Our filing 
requirements and administrative overhead have also significantly reduced. 
Response times are also reduced, because there is no need to wait for 
delivery.  In the early stages of the paperless system, some parties to 
DRS complaints sent hard copy documents to us, requiring us to contact 
them to ask them to resubmit the documents in electronic form, but parties 
have now become used to the paperless method and this is now very unusual. 
Market research conducted before and after the changes indicates a 
positive impact on the parties.

Based on our experience, we would recommend that the UDRP convert to a 
paperless process. 

On a practical note:

- the system should provide that WHOIS details are automatically populated 
once the complained of domain is stated: that has prevented needless 
invalid complaints where the domain name and registrant did not match 
under our paper process
- parties need to be given ample opportunity to save their complaint/ 
response in order to research the requirements of the ADR process and 
obtain supporting evidence: poor quality and/or unsupported submissions 
waste everyone's time and defeat the object of an efficient ADR process
- systems need to be accessible, intuitive and user-friendly, and should 
allow each party to view where in the process their complaint is, together 
with the next step and timing
- panel decision-makers should be involved in testing, as this aspect 
should also be brought entirely online and made user-friendly and 
intuitive

Regards

Nick Wenban-Smith
Senior Legal Counsel
Nominet UK