[ga] WIPO proposal for Paperless UDRP

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi folks,

I'd like to bring to your attention a letter sent to ICANN by WIPO
proposing Paperless UDRP:

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/wilbers-to-jeffrey-08oct08.pdf

Basically, the proposal involves submissions being made in electronic
form, and that instead of delivery of the actual complaint, that NOTICE
of the complaint be delivered instead. This would save considerable
amounts of paper, reduce courier charges (as the notice weighs far less
than the full complaint), and thus would be good for the environment.

Generally, I'm in favour of the motivation behind the proposal, as it
would reduce a great amount of waste, and increase efficiency. It might
need to be tweaked a little, though, in order to improve safeguards for
registrants.

My concern is that whatever form of notice takes place, the goal should
be that registrants have ACTUAL notice of the complaint, and sufficient
time to prepare a defence. It's very easy to miss an email, given 90%+
of all emails are spam.There are already international
treaties like the Hague Service Convention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Service_Convention

on this topic, so one need not reinvent the wheel completely. One
possible way to assist in ensuring actual notice is to optionally
permit registrants to store at their registrar (and optionally display
in WHOIS) the name and contact information of their legal counsel, who
would then also receive copies of the UDRP notice. The more people "in
the loop" so to speak, the greater the odds of actual notice. This is
also a way for legitimate and responsible organizations owning domain
names to signal and whitelist themselves, separating themselves from
fly-by-night operations who would never list a legal counsel and who
would typically never respond to a UDRP.

In Ontario, Canada, the Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 18.01):

http://www.canlii.org/on/laws/regu/1990r.194/20080821/whole.html

give a defendant up to 60 days to respond to a complaint, compared with
the 20 days in UDRP. I believe this to be typical. If the UDRP allowed
the time to reply to vary depending on the age of the domain name (i.e.
difference between the current date and the creation date),
that might be a suitable compromise. A registrant of a domain that is
10 years old would be able to take a 3 week vacation without worrying
that someone might have filed a UDRP during that time. Whereas a
freshly cybersquatted domain name that is less than 1 year old would be
subject to a shorter time to respond. This also provides incentive for
complainants to file UDRPs in a timely manner, rather than waiting
years to do so. If a domain name is 5 or 10 years old, there is not the
same sense of urgency as a freshly registered domain name.

As we move towards an electronic system, though should also be given to
ensuring that submissions are in easy-to-use formats, e.g. PDF (not MS
Word). Even better would be to have a markup-language like XML (perhaps
call it UDRPML?) similar to the electronic submissions in the EDGAR
system

http://sec.gov/edgar/aboutedgar.htm

where documents are filed in XBRL, FPML for derivatives transactions

http://www.fpml.org/

and so on. If UDRP decisions were similarly available in UDRPML, this
would permit academics to perform studies like those of Professor Geist

http://www.udrpinfo.com/

more easily and at lower cost. Other legal scholars and service
providers would also appreciate a standardized format to make analysis
and redistribution/reformatting simpler.

Sincerely,

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