Duplicitous ICANN Working Group Jeopardizes Domain Owners’ Rights (10.Viewing)

A duplicitous ICANN Working Group has issued a report that is open for public comments that would have severe negative consequences for domain name owners. In particular, it would tilt the playing field in a domain name dispute (i.e. a UDRP or the URS) involving IGOs (intergovernmental organizations like the United Nations) in such a manner that it would be nearly impossible for domain owners to have their dispute decided on the merits by the courts. This would encourage consequence-free reverse domain name hijacking. Rather than accept the findings and recommendations of the prior working group, which reached a consensus, this new working group instead had tunnel vision and focused instead on ramming through an alternative recommendation (involving arbitration) for which there was an express consensus against in the prior working group!

The current deadline for comments (unless extended) is October 24, 2021.

Read more about this dangerous report and what you can do to stop its recommendations in my blog post at:

https://freespeech.com/2021/10/12/duplicitous-icann-working-group-jeopardizes-domain-owners-rights/

Thank goodness for CDRP

The folks at WIPO have been trying very hard to get ccTLDs like .ca to instead use the UDRP. So, don't assume the CDRP will last forever....

MapleDots said:

Thank goodness for CDRP

Click to expand...

GeorgeK said:

The folks at WIPO have been trying very hard to get ccTLDs like .ca to instead use the UDRP. So, don't assume the CDRP will last forever....

Click to expand...

Yikes


[notify]richard.schreier[/notify] or [notify]FM[/notify] what are the chances of that happening?



I am moving this to the CIRA section because this relates to .ca as well.

You can see various announcements at:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/new/

for example, with .ac, .io, and .sh, they replaced the "AND" with the "OR" in the 3-prong UDRP test, further diminishing domain name owner's rights:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/new/acioshudrpvariant.html

If you invested in a .com, and a new trademark owner came along (after you registered the .com), you'd have a safe harbour, because they could never prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith. You're safe because you don't have to worry about the "used in bad faith" part of the test.

Had you invested in the corresponding .io, with the same registration date as the .com, and that same TM owner went after your domain, you would be at much greater risk. You could no longer simply argue "I registered the domain name before their TM. End of story.". Instead, they'll attack your "use" of the domain name. And asking "too high a price" for that domain name might be considered "bad faith" by many panelists. Not using the domain name at all ("passive holding") might be considered "bad faith", if you can't rely on the safe harbour of the domain predating the TM.

The more they can get the "AND" test changed to "OR", the more disputes they can deliver for the benefit of complainants, providers and panelists' benefit.

MapleDots said:

Yikes


[notify]richard.schreier[/notify] or [notify]FM[/notify] what are the chances of that happening?

I am moving this to the CIRA section because this relates to .ca as well.

Click to expand...

I don't see anything like this happening any time soon and wouldn't really see a reason for CIRA to adopt the UDRP. So far I'm not aware of this being discussed by the CIRA board either and it's not really up to WIPO. I'm, however not actively following all of the discussions of the ccNSO at ICANN, where this would be most likely discussed, so it wouldn't hurt to ask CIRA or see what [notify]richard.schreier[/notify] can share.