Konstantinos Komaitis
  • The Conversation

Let's Have a Conversation...​

Never too late: ICANN covets stricter controls over the Supplemental Rules of the UDRP Providers

9/5/2010

2 Comments

 
In its August Board Meeting, ICANN indicated its willingness to proceed to a more streamlined process regarding the supplemental rules that are in place by the various UDRP dispute resolution providers. This is great news and, if ICANN approaches this issue with the willingness to monitor the way UDRP providers offer their services, we might actually be in the process of fixing one of the main flaws of the UDRP.

Within the UDRP framework, “Supplemental Rules” refer to the ability of dispute resolution providers to structure certain aspects of the UDRP’s procedural process independently of ICANN and one another and to design procedures that allow a more competitive dispute resolution regime. Historically, ICANN has only insisted that the centres follow the same rules for the resolution of domain name disputes – the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy and especially its paragraph 4 – as well as some default guidelines that deal with the general structure of the system, e.g. composition of panels, deadlines, language of the proceedings, etc. At the outset, this provided UDRP centres with a certain degree of freedom and flexibility and was intended to provide incentives for both parties, flourishing competition, whilst allowing UDRP providers to distinguish themselves from one another.

However, a lack of proper monitoring on behalf of ICANN combined with the business and financial aspirations of these centres has resulted in centres putting in place and enforcing supplemental rules that have contributed greatly to forum shopping, aiming to please only one of the parties to the detriment of procedural justice.

In my book, “The Current State of Domain Name Regulation: domain names as second-class citizens in a mark-dominated world”, I have argued that the way Supplemental Rules have been integrated within the UDRP system have resulted in a great amount of inconsistency, especially when the UDRP model is meant to be uniform. This is highly problematic as UDRP centres use their supplemental rules to provide false incentives and take advantage of the limited rights the UDRP affords the Respondent. For example, various centers have realized the tight deadlines respondents have to answer to the complaint and have addressed it in a way that places them in an even more obvious disadvantage. The NAF Supplemental Rules, for instance, allow respondents to submit their response after the required twenty days deadline, only if the latter request so in writing and pay a $100 fee, within, however, the twenty day deadline. (Extension for Filing a Response: (a) Paragraph 5(d) of the Rules provides that the Respondent may request additional time to submit a Response, or may be given additional time if the parties stipulate to an extension and NAF approves. Any request by the Respondent for an extension or any joint request by the parties for an extension shall: […](v) be accompanied by an extension fee of $100.)

On another level, this inconsistency in the Supplemental Rules of UDRP providers has an impact on how centers interpret issues concerning the impartiality and independence of their panelists. Each of the centers is allowed to produce its own rules and set its own individual parameters of panelist independence. For instance, WIPO has not produced any substantive rules for party challenges; NAF accepts challenges only after the panelist has been appointed and only within a small time frame; The Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre allows challenges any time during the procedure but before the rendering of the decision, whilst the newly appointed Czech Arbitration Court does not provide to the parties any guidelines concerning the challenge of panels.

These are just two manifestations of the detrimental effect Supplemental Rules have upon the UDRP. We need to accept that affording the UDRP providers such amount of freedom has produced problematic results and has contributed to the general procedural unfairness the UDRP is currently facing. So, it is indeed a welcoming step to see that the ICANN Board is willing to discuss the role of Supplemental Rules in the UDRP and to see the ICANN staff wanting to impose tighter controls over these rules and their presence in the UDRP.

I can only hope that this is the first step towards slowing down the freedom of the UDRP providers, addressing the issues of inconsistency, eliminating forum shopping and opening the road for a substantive review of the UDRP.

2 Comments
Jim Fleming link
9/4/2010 11:59:51 pm


ICANN is like a deer caught in the head-lights of a car.

.CO is helping people route (swerve) around "The Situation"

Reply
Jim Fleming link
9/5/2010 01:24:32 am


Your book and blog do not seem to answer one simple question:

"How does ICANN avoid the U.S. FTC Franchise Laws" ?

Various filings have to be made to "sell" Franchises. ICANN claims in their RegistryFly depositions that they do not sell anything.

The FTC Franchise Test:

1. Allow the Franchisees (Registry, Registrar) to use your company name and/or logo.

2. Charge fees to the Franchisees.

3. Control the Franchisees.

http://www.franchise411.com/fpi/duckstory.html

"This is the franchise duck test: If you act like a duck, look like a duck and talk like a duck-then, YOU ARE A DUCK!!! Even if the duck advisor (i.e. your attorney) says you are a COW. You can't do business legally as a COW, if you are really a DUCK."

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Konstantinos Komaitis, the individual!

    Views are my own and my own only!

    Archives

    March 2018
    January 2018
    November 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    October 2016
    January 2016
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    July 2013
    June 2013
    March 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010

    Categories

    All
    Accountability
    Acpa
    Appeal
    .bank
    Book On The Current State Of Domain Name Regulation
    Cartagena
    Cctlds
    Civil Society
    Coica
    Collaboration
    Conference
    Copyright
    Copyright Infringement
    Counterfeit Goods
    Criminal Activity
    Czech Arbitration Court
    Dag4
    Dakar
    Default
    Democracy
    Dns
    Domain Name
    Domain Names
    Domain Names.
    Encryption
    E-PARASITE ACT
    Fair Use
    Free Speech
    Froomkin
    G20
    Gac
    Giganet
    Gnso
    Governmental Advisory Committee
    Gtlds
    Hargreaves Report
    Icann
    Icann Board
    In Rem
    In Rem Jurisdiction
    Intellectual Property
    Intergovernmental Organizations
    International Olympic Committee
    Internet
    Internet Governance
    Ioc
    Irt
    Jurisdiction
    Justice
    Licensing
    Lobbying
    Loser Pays Model
    Morality And Public Order
    Mueller
    Multistakeholder
    Multistakeholder Participation
    Multistakholderism
    Naf
    Nairobi Treaty
    Ncsg
    Ncuc
    #netflix
    New Gtld Applicant Guidebook
    New Gtlds
    New Kids On The Block
    Ngos
    Ninth Circuit
    Nominative Use
    Nominet
    Non-profits
    Not-for-profit
    Npoc
    Olympiad
    Olympic
    Online Infringement
    Online Infringement And Counterfeits Act
    Open Internet
    Paris Convention
    Pddrp
    Permissionless Innovation
    Phising
    Pipa
    Poll
    Ppdrp
    Preliminary Gnso Issue Report On The Current State Of The Udrp
    Procedural Justice
    Protect Act
    Protect Ip Act
    Public Policy
    Red Cross
    Registrant
    Registrars
    Review
    Rule Of Law
    S.3804
    Scorecard
    Senate Bill S.3804
    Senate Hearing
    Senator Leahy
    Sopa
    Sti
    Stop Online Piracy Act
    #streaming
    Supplemental Rules
    Tmc
    Trademark
    Trademark Bullying
    Trademark Clearinghouse
    Trademark Lobbying
    Trademark Owners
    Trademarks
    Transparency
    Udrp
    Urs
    Us Congress
    Us Department Of Commerce
    Uspto
    Wipo

    RSS Feed

    USEFUL LINKS
    Internet Governance Project
    Chilling Effects Clearinghouse
    The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
    The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)
    ICANN Blog
    CircleId

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • The Conversation