No! to the Uniform Rapid Suspension System
As a small business owner, I'm writing this to express my outrage over the new IRT report suggesting the new Uniform Rapid Suspension System. This should go no further. There is both no need for this process and too much room for abuse. There is nothing solved that the current UDRP and the ACPA and the DMCA already handle . Please stop this dead in it's tracks. The purpose of this policy is to "solve the most clear-cut cases of trademark abuses" yet the policy does not describe or define "clear cut cases". Rather it leaves this open-ended. Things left open-ended tend to damage another party. A clear definition is mandatory in this new policy. I would venture to guess that it has been left out because it would be unacceptable to most constituents once defined.
Additionally, the report claims that the policy "is intended to address the hole not filled by current available remedies", namely speed and cost. The speed of shutting down websites that are infringing seems to be a primary concern for the IP constituents. However, for the sake of "efficiencey" this system would "shoot first and asks questions later". While I can sympathize with abuses in domain registration, the processes of the URS gives a claimant a power to shut down a website without any sort of "due process". The idea that someone could file a complaint and shut down my business, over a reported claim, is ludicrous and gives no weight to a domain registrant's concerns of protecting themselves and their business/site.
Regarding the report's claims that the UDRP is a costly process: This issue seems to become very muddied in the report. As you notice much of the processes described in the URS is also likely a costly endeavor both in time and resources. As you may notice much of the cost of monitoring and tracking of these issues shifts needlessly to another party, mainly ICANN, registries and registrars. The burden of IP/trademark enforcement should rest solely on the intellectual property rights owner. A trademark does not give one the right to pass the bill for it's defense to another. The UDRP process provides a means to accomplish disputes over domains as does the ACPA laws.
Additionally, there is no doubt that the esteemed members of the IRT team as well as ICANN and the board are aware that any new policy that is implemented for these new gTLDs, such as the URS, will also eventually be requested if not implemented in to the other gTLD policies. The IP constituency involved in this process obviously are obvious beneficiaries of this policy being accepted and moved in to place in other gTLDs while domain registrants are not. I beg ICANN to move forward without approving this policy in to the new gTLD contracts.
Sincerely Adam Strong