The Czech Arbitration Court is suggesting what in essence is a UDRP amendment

Following the really bad precedent set by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on the proposal for a fast-track UDRP process, the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) has proposed changes that in essence amend the substantive and procedural rules of the UDRP. The Non-Commercial Users Constituency has submitted the following comments:

December 11, 2009

Dear ICANN Staff,

The undersigned members of the NCSG STI Drafting Team submit that the request from the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) cannot be granted at this time for the strongest of procedural and substantive reasons.

1. The ICANN public notice for comments has misled the ICANN community and the public. This is not a mere change to supplemental rules for a mere alternative page limit. This is the adoption of an “Expedited Decision” analogous to the URS system, recently created by the STI. In October, the ICANN Board sent the URS back to the GNSO because **expedited decision making processes involve substantive rights and must be subject to the procedures and policy-making processes of the GNSO and its Council.*** The same concepts, and requirements, apply here.

2. There is nothing supplemental or merely procedural about these proposals. These proposals involve substantive change which will limit the rights of domain name registrants. As the just-completed STI URS recommendations show, expedited decision-making processes bring to bear serious and important issues of fairness and due process. The URS drafting team found that defining the elements of the UDRP claim precisely – and with the clear inclusion of safe harbors (the URS’ modelled on the Nominet example) constitute critically important factors in a rapid decision-making process.

Further, as the STI agreed, rapid reviews, especially in the case of defaults, should include additional procedures to protect and benefit the domain name registrants who may not even know the UDRP or URS proceedings are taking place. Such protections were placed into the STI’s just-completed URS -- but could not have been seen by the CAC which requested its recommendations (modeled on the IRT Report alone) prior to the results of the Board-requested STI work).

3. The UDRP is meant to be a uniform system and CAC’s amendment will operate against that uniformity. CAC is suggesting changes to create new substantive language that is not in conformity with the original scope of the UDRP. The uniformity of the UDRP is based on all UDRP providers conducting the same type of substantive review. The CAC new process breaks this uniformity seeking to create a whole new mechanism.

Thus, the CAC proposal raises serious competition concerns. It is unfair that one UDRP service provider should move forward with an advantageous new process that may lure complainants away from other forums. The UDRP was meant to be a uniform system, and accordingly, rapid decision rules, as they apply to existing gTLDs, must take place through the GNSO and apply equally to all providers.

4. The CAC proposal certainly will impact non-commercial and free speech domain names. As the CAC proposal does not include safe harbors for domain name registrants, its proposals do not include the balance of fair use and due process which constitute the basis of the newly-formulated and newly-recommended URS.

5. Further, the new CAC proposal is premised on inaccurate assumptions about default and domain names – to the substantive detriment of good faith domain name registrants. The CAC proposal presumes bad faith at default – despite the very short timeframe for notice and response that have characterized the UDRP since its outset (a timeframe far faster than court, and even than most administrative proceedings). The CAC proposals undercut the basic fairness of the UDRP, and the fairness and balance of the newly-introduced URS.

Overall, CAC is an accredited ICANN UDRP provider and should comply within a specific mandate. Despite CAC’s effort to present these changes as part of its supplemental rules, in reality they are substantive and will affect the future of the UDRP.

Such a submission, particularly by a UDRP provider so new to the UDRP process (in operation for only a year) and taking place while the URS was under serious consideration and substantive re-evaluation, will be viewed by all as unauthorized, unfair and seriously flawed.

Going Forward:
At a minimum, ICANN must reissue the comment period with a public notice that puts the public on notice that real rights – registrant rights – are being impacted under the UDRP pursuant to the change of policy being proposed by CAC.

The far better answer is for ICANN to strongly urge CAC to return to ICANN after a full review of the new URS. As the URS Drafting Committee, the STI, found and the UDRP Final Drafting Team before it, Registrants are entitled to the protections, fairness and due process. The STI 's URS came through a GNSO policy-making process. In addition, the URS proposal offers a heavily researched, carefully written and painstakingly edited rapid decision process from an expert and diverse group of trademark attorneys and technical experts representing Trademark Owners, Registrants, Registrars, Registries and individuals. It is a balance that adds to and rounds out the IRT recommendations, on which the CAC proposal was narrowly based.

The URS text, and its process of creation, should help inform and guide the CAC rapid decision process.

Overall, the procedural and substantive proposals suggested by the CAC must be legitimate revisions to the UDRP. These changes, and all major changes in the UDRP procedures, must be a part of ICANN’s bottom-up policy process undertaken through ICANN’s Policy Development Process (PDP).

Whatever happens next, this proceeding, as designated, must not continue. Suspending this proceeding for further work will benefit the entire ICANN community -- trademark owners, registrants, individual, registrars and registries, and CAC.

It also will serve the integrity of the ICANN process, and the UDRP, with a full and fair process.


Very sincerely yours,




Kathryn Kleiman, Esq.
NCUC Co-Founder, US Trademark Attorney, UDRP Drafter & URS Drafter

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

URS Drafter and author of the book “The Current State of Domain Name Regulation” (University of Strathclyde)

Robin D. Gross, Esq.

Chair of NCUC, IP Justice Executive Director, and URS D

WIPO initiates individual fast-track UDRP process.

In the midst of ICANN's decision to ask the GNSO to create proposals on trademark protection mechanisms, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) announced that it will launch a fast-track UDRP process (http://www.managingip.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=2328845&LS=EMS332232).

At the Seoul meeting last week, the GNSO authorized the creation of a Special Trademark Interest (STI) team to come up with answers on the ICANN's staff recommendations on the Trademark Clearinghouse and the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS).

Today WIPO announced its intention to create a fast-track system, similar to the one the STI is working for the URS. “We are not proposing to change the UDRP policy or rules at all. Instead, using the existing framework, WIPO expects to offer a new and more efficient fast-track option based on adjustment to WIPO case practice under the UDRP", Erik Wilbers stated.

The WIPO move is flawed and creates various problems. Here is an account:

1. It is illegitimate: WIPO is acting on its own. It is not acting in its capacity as an inter-governmental organization nor as an ICANN-accredited center. It creates and suggests policy contrary to its role as a service provider. (Would we accept the same by the other ICANN-accredited centers?)

2. Non-transparent: What is the process WIPO followed to create this fast-track system? Which cases will the system cover? What are the parameters of the new system and how will it fit within the UDRP? These are legitimate questions that WIPO has not disclosed.

3. WIPO is justifying the system on loose and arbitrary conclusions: WIPO's process and the conclusions and justifications that lead the organization to create this policy are not evident. Center Director, Erik Wilbers stated: "The domain name system has evolved. We have seen automated registrations, parking and pay-per-click and privacy issues. In addition, we have seen vast increases in domain name registrations. The language rules have also been abused in some cases.”

4. It is non-accountable: WIPO has not consulted all the interested parties. While ICANN should be applauded for following its buttom-up process by creating the STI, WIPO is not seeking the views of the Internet and trademark community.

5. It sets a dangerous precedent: WIPO wants through this fast-track process to deal with the 75% of cases that are not defended. This creates a dangerous precedent and considers all defaults bad faith, continuing the dialectic of the UDRP.

6. It will have a negative impact on registrants: Despite what WIPO states, the new process will negatively impact the already fragile rights of respondents. What about 'trademark lawyer abuse' issues and due process?

7. It will encourage bias: WIPO is known for its bias and the wide discretion of its panels. This process will magnify these problems as trademark owners will use and abuse the system to their advantage.

8. It will suppress free speech: The new process will encourage the creation of a solely commercial DNS. Free speech will be in danger.

9. The system will be gamed: Trademark owners will use the fast-track process and if they lose they will proceed to the standard UDRP.

10. It is anti-competitive: The WIPO process will place the other centers out of the competition. Trademark owners will prefer the new, fast WIPO process - we should anticipate a significant decline in their case law.

ICANN should send an immediate, urgent cease and desist letter to WIPO to withdraw from this process, and wait for the GNSO to submit its recommendations to the ICANN board. If WIPO does not comply, ICANN should proceed to revoke WIPO's UDRP accreditation.

ICANN is sending trademark issues back to the GNSO

Here are some initial thoughts on ICANN's response to the IRT proposal, published a little earlier this month. Please bear in mind that ICANN is requesting GNSO¹s consensus view on the Trademark Clearinghouse and the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS). These are the views of myself and Kathy Kleiman and a reflection of our sense of events. NCUC will be meeting at length in Seoul to discuss the issues and develop our position for moving forward. To see the new documents, drafted by ICANN staff, please go to [http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-proposed-procedure-u...] for Uniform Rapid Suspension Service and [http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-proposed-procedure-t...] for Clearinghouse.

First, some great news. The Globally Protected Marks List (GMPL) is completely gone (or so it appears at this stage). The NonCommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) was against the GPML from the beginning and in White Paper, Kathy Kleiman and myself submitted to ICANN (https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/new-gtld-overarching-issues/at...), we further elaborated on the dangers of proceeding with the GPML.


The IP Clearinghouse is now re-named Trademark Clearinghouse. I consider this to be a great development. The term 'IP' encompasses other rights (patents, copyright, etc) and this is not the role of the Clearinghouse ¬ nor should it be. The Clearinghouse is just a repository and ICANN was correct in recommending a new, more restrictive name, following our White Paper (https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/new-gtld-overarching-issues/at...).


The ICANN proposal did not follow NCUC¹s recommendation for regional clearinghouses. This was an important issue for nations and for IDNs. One entity cannot know the trademark laws and practices of all countries; but regional registries will understand the laws and nuances of trademark practice in the countries of their region. We expect to see some attention on this issue from GAC members at this meeting.



One clear problem of the Trademark Clearinghouse is its creation of a new, a very new, right to a global common law mark. A common law mark, which is trademark protection although there is no registration, is a very unusual right. It exists largely in common law countries, such as the UK and US. Very few countries allow trademark rights absent trademark registration (e.g., though a national Trademark Office) and even those countries with common law protection have national trademark registration (which all serious trademark registrants will use). The new proposal is problematic in that it allows any name written or expressed on a handkerchief, on a label, on letterhead to be listed and thus to gain global protection – absent any proof of national protection. That's a real problem.

The URS is a different story. It has gone worse.


As always, we have the same question: why create a new system and not stick to the UDRP and amend it accordingly? The UDRP was designed for quick, cheap takedown of domain names. The URS is too quick, too cheap and new proposal fails even to limit cases to the “egregious cases” of domain name use that the IRT had highlighted.

NCUC and the White Paper submitted to ICANN mentioned that the creation of the URS could address Œserial cybersquatting¹, a proposal that was not taken into consideration (https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/new-gtld-overarching-issues/at...). So, the system will be open to gaming and abuse. The idea is for the URS to 'lock' the domain name rather than transfer or cancel it, as it happens with the UDRP. But, here is a possible outcome of this: trademark owners will use the cheap and fast URS to 'lock' the domain name and then proceed to the UDRP (submitting the URS decision as evidence for bad faith) and get transfer of the domain name.

The URS continues to use and justify itself in the dialectic of the UDRP. The new proposal says that the URS standard is similar to the UDRP, but the burden of proof is higher – but it is much, much lower.

Moreover, there is no mention on the legitimate rights or interests of domain name holders and the deadlines are too short ¬ 14 days as opposed to the UDRP¹s 20 days ¬ although there is a possibility for a seven-day extension. Trademark owners will game the system, file on Christmas Eve, and a domain name will be lost before the registrant even knows it is of concern. This should be a huge problem for all registrants: noncommercial, commercial and individual. It's simply not fair; it's not due process.

Further, the respondent is required to submit a statement on truth and accuracy of the submissions, while the trademark owners appears not to be under the same obligation. Why?

Also, beware, one error on your response, and you lose. The new URS proposal also the definition of Œdefault¹ to include non-compliance with any the filling requirements-- even minor, even by a registrant representing himself or herself. This is unfair, considering that mistakes are human and do not necessarily indicate an attempt to abuse the system. Creating such a rule, under the default definition, which is already subjected to UDRP misinterpretations, creates a very bad precedent.

Basically, the URS, as revised, preempts, replaces and displaces the UDRP without any of its balance or fairness. It does not focus on egregious cases, but all garden variety disputes – and gives the trademark owners a nearly automatic win.

This can't be the way we want to open new gTLDs. And mass freezing of domain names under the URS can't be the way we can expect registrants to flock to the new gTLDs registry applicants want to offer.

STatement on the ICANN NCUC's Charter Proposal

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Individual Statement on ICANN NCUC’s Charter Proposal

Dear ICANN,

It is with great disappointment to see the ICANN Board suggesting a structure for the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC), which is a result of top-down rather than bottom-up coordination. I am also dismayed by the fact that NCUC was the only constituency having been asked to amend its charter so as all other constituencies within ICANN did not feel threatened by the support NCUC has been receiving over the years. Why else would you ask NCUC to amend a charter that has been signed and supported by approximately 80 organizations and individual users across the five regions of the world?

The new model you have suggested is highly problematic and you know it. It is as if ICANN wishes to create within NCUC – the only non-commercial constituency within ICANN able to preserve human rights and non-commercial interests – an internal conflict, which will, subsequently, disunite its members. The strength of the NCUC is that, despite the fact that sometimes we may share different priorities and approaches, in essence, we – as one, conjoined unit, advocate and support the same philosophy: the protection of non-commercial interests on the Internet. We are the civil society in ICANN and our job is to promote the needs of individual users, as expressed by themselves and their representatives. What we all share in common in NCUC is that we want to balance the influence of commercial interests within ICANN and engage in an active dialogue with the other constituencies. We want to find the best possible solutions for the Chinese blogger who fights for his voice to be heard, the child who is daily exposed to various illegal Internet activities, the parents who are concerned about their children – we are here to talk about all those people who should be our first priority – the simple Internet user. The charter we originally proposed would ensure that all voices within the NCUC would be heard; our charter promoted transparency and dialogue; it sought to bring together than distance our philosophies – isn’t that what democracy is all about?

You have to understand that our vision for NCUC is not driven by commercial interests and monies. We have tried to come up with the most democratic solution that will represent and respect the views of all parties concerned. And, I believe we have achieved it. Look at the support that our charter has received – you cannot possibly overlook that. We are reasonable and our proposals are equally reasonable. The fact that they do not conform to other interest groups within ICANN is unfortunate but, at the same time, it is not a legitimate justification for rejecting and re-writing our proposed charter.

I strongly urge you to re-consider the benefits of NCUC’s proposal. Rejecting our proposal will result in transmogrifying a constituency, currently operating under democratic and just procedures, into a body, where lobbying will proliferate. The way you have envisioned NCUC, we will have to spend all our efforts in political manoeuvring rather than in tackling contentious and fundamental issues that are of great concern to all of us. We can really help you, if you let NCUC and its members continue to do their jobs with the same passion and principles.

Thank you.

Sincerely Yours,

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

University of Strathclyde (Law School),

Member of NCUC.