New UDRP study shows signs of unreliable procedures.

I just happened to come across an article that shows what appears to be another hit in the process that ICANN has placed much of its future on - that is the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution System (UDRP) of course. It all started when attorney Zak Muscovitch released a study concerning the way one of ICANN's accredited UDRP providers - the National Arbitration Forum - is distributing its case load to its various employees. His results show that some of the panelists receive a substantial amount of cases with the majority of these cases being decided in favor of the complaining party (trademark owner). This prompted DomainNameWire to conduct its own study of WIPO panelists and its conclusions were that many of the top 10 panelists have recorded the lowest complainant win.

What does this all mean? Well it means that we are exactly in the same place we were when professor Geist released his study almost 10 years ago. He introduced us to the possibility of forum shopping the same way he introduced us to the fact that we really have no knowledge as to how the centers appoint their UDRP panelists. And, when asked, we always seem to receive abstract and non-satisfying answers. What a great inconsistency for a system that is supposed to be uniform.

So, these results are not really something new and they should not come as a surprise to anyone. Even though it is really the responsibility of each one of the centers to appoint its panels equitably and to the best interests of both parties, the fact that ICANN has left the UDRP on its own and without proper review or control has resulted in a system that demonstrates signs of disintegration (look WIPO's attempt to sidetrack ICANN's Uniform Rapid Suspension System though the initiation of a 'fast-track' process). Needless to say that, at this point, it really makes no difference which center is more bias - the fact remains that the UDRP is disproportionally biased in favor of trademark interests whether this is done through forum shopping or through the intentional appointment of certain panelists.

However, the effect of this study is much more profound. ICANN is currently in the process of using the UDRP as the prototype to suggest the creation of two separate policies - the Uniform Rapid Suspension System URS) and the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP). Both processes are conceived, structured and drafted with the whole skeleton of the UDRP in mind - everything, its rules, its procedures, its substance, everything - and have both been justified on the success of the UDRP. Now, what does that tell us about the fairness and justice of these systems?

It actually tells us a lot. It tells us that both systems are about to fail, are about to become biased and are about to create a highly competitive market for the ICANN-accredited centers that will seek to please their trademark customers. Now, if that is done through forum shopping or intentional panel appointments, again it does not really make that much difference. Complainants will still win and both systems will stagnate just like the UDRP.

The UDRP needs an immediate review, especially if it is to be used as the basis for other systems. The fact that the UDRP is so bankable explains why so far none of its stakeholders has initiated any process to review its body both substantially and procedurally; UDRP decisions bring a lot of money and reputation to both the centers and many of their panelists. This is the price of not having in place proper checks and balances that will ensure the proper application of justice.

Let's boycott the IRT report

So what is the case with trademark protection on the Internet? Is it some big conspiracy or are we really facing an overt expansion of trademark law? Let's see where we were and where we are now.

Ten years ago a big problem was presented by the massive use of the Internet. Along with P2P technology threatening copyrighted creations, domain names and their use by cybersquatters threatened trademarks. Cybersquatting occurred almost at the same time the Clinton Administration decided to privatize the Internet and create ICANN. The White Paper instructed ICANN to create the UDRP as a means to resolve these abusive domain name registrations that really harmed trademark rights. The UDRP was supposed to be the result of a legitimization process that equally took into account the rights of registrants, whilst acknowledging the unique nature of domain names.

In reality, the UDRP was a political game. Trademark owners gave a united front and exercised their political influence to create a system they would be able to control as much as possible. Non-commercial interests were squeezed in a subparagraph and were not given due attention. No one paused to think that, unless the system was scrutinized and properly administered, it would easily span out of control. That is where we are now. The UDRP is a biased system, controlled entirely by trademark owners.

And, it is not enough. It was never really enough for the trademark community. The IRT report is a perfect example. They want more-it is not enough. The report covers three major issues - the IP Clearinghouse, the Globally Protected Marks List, and the Uniform Rapid Suspension System - all of which seek to expand their rights and interests. It is really an issue of arrogance as trademark owners try to make all registrants look bad. Not all of them are bad and not all of them are cybersquatters. There are so many legitimate domain names that are so vital for the evolution of the Internet. They exist because registrants fight for them; we have to show them our solidarity and reject this report.

The full IRT report can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/irt-final-report-trademark-protection-29may09-en.pdf

Find also the NCUC comments on the report at: http://icann-ncuc.ning.com/

ICANN: Declaration of Independence

BBC News reports that ICANN has made a plea to the US Department of Commerce to become fully independent. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7205609.stm). These news come after many years of controversy surrounding the corporation and its affiliation and influence by the US Government.
In 2006, ICANN entered a Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with the US Government agreeing to collaborate in the "developement of the mechanisms, methods, and procedures necessary to effect the transition of Internet domain name and addressing system (DNS) to the private sector". (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/agreements/jpa/icannjpa_09292006.htm) This Agreement is due to terminate at the end of September 2009.
According to the President of ICANN, Paul Twomey the agreed objectives between ICANN and the US DoC were "essentially complete". And he added: "Has the process of the MoU and JPA towards building a stable, strong organisation which can do this transition, has that been successful? The board is effectively saying yes".
But, what does this mean? In reality ICANN's independence is something that many have been wishing for. However, will it work? Now, this is a whole different story.
With the Internet Governance debate ongoing, ICANN still tries to place itself and define the scope of its authority on the Internet Governance arena. What this independece implies and, better yet, who will actually be responsible for monitoring ICANN's actions?
According to Mr. Twomey governments would still be able to inform the corporation about developments concerning public policy issues, but they would not be able to influence or dictate ICANN's developement.
If that is the case, this approach will raise a number of new questions. ICANN is already under attack over its 'masonic' structure, secretive meetings, non-inclusive role and generally the way it has been hanlding issues pertaining to the addressing system, like for instance its Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, the addition of new gTLDs in the addressing system and WHOIS concerns. With no one to keep ICANN under scrutiny and with issues of Internet Governance and the role of the private sector still being far from resolved, the corporation can acquire more power and control than it currently holds.
Even though it is still very early to make assumptions, one can not help but wonder whether we will find ourselves thinking that the old status of ICANN would actually be better than the proposed new one.

Because some things never change...

It has been a very long time since we have heard any news on ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). It has actually been even longer, since the first study on domain name disputes - Fair.com? (http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/geistudrp.pdf) - by Michael Geist was publised and showed a rather concerning pattern of trademark owners winning in most of the cases. The results of Geist's study were quite revealing: the success rate for complainants of all the cases brought before WIPO panels was, at the time, 82.2%. This relevation brought to light the inadequecies of the system and raised concerns over various issues such as forum shopping.
However, almost seven years after the study, a new report comes to light and shows ICANN's incapacity, inability or indiference to address issues that have constituted procedural flaws within the UDRP ever since its inception.
In a very recent article, the Wall Street Journal has reported that in 2007 domain name disputes have reached an all-time high (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/01/11/domain-name-disputes-at-an-all-time-high/). According to data from the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), in 2007 domain name disputes have reached a 2,156 fraction, making it its most successful year yet. Of all these cases, 85% of trademark owners have prevailed.
Even though we can not safely argue that this high percentage is unsubstantiated, still this number is rather alarming.
With the number of dispute resolution providers dropping (since the creation of the UDRP ICANN has lost two of its service providers and has only added one), WIPO is still receiving the majority of the disputes and for obvious reasons. So what is the conclusion? Just because the criticism against the UDRP has gone quite, it doesn't mean that the system is functioning properly. The UDRP obviously still suffers from procedural and substantive issues; and, since businesses and entrepreneurs are depending on domain names to build their businesses online, it is about time we start addressing and answering some very crucial questions - what is - in reality - the legal nature of domain names?