This whole isssue is quite an important one.
Could opensrs's general council outline what opensrs position is on
apropriate jurisdiction so all us rsp's can develop our own strategies in
the event that our client's domains or our domains are challenged?
As well can someone point to a precise url on opensrs where this is found?
For the record, 10 days is too short a period of time.
30+ seems more reasonable workable to me.
swerve
> From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:28:44 -0500
> To: "Chuck Hatcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: UDRP Clarification [WAS: RE: Re: Domain Disputes...]
>
>>
>> If I register a domain name, and someone files a complaint under the terms
>> of the UDRP, and the administrative panel rules in favor of the
>> complainant
>> and orders transfer of the name, ICANN rules state that I have ten days to
>> notify them that I have filed suit in a court of appropriate jurisdiction
>> before the decision is implemented. As I read it, my address, as
>> listed in
>> the whois record, is one appropriate jurisdiction in which I can file such
>> an action. If I provide evidence to ICANN that I have done so, within the
>> ten day period, then ICANN should take no action (and not order the
>> transfer) pending the outcome of the lawsuit. Presumably in such
>> a case the
>> registrar would not even be involved until the lawsuit has run its course.
>> Am I correct so far?
>
> That coincides with my impression as well.
>
>>
>> Is the problem with the "foamy.com" case that ICANN apparently did not
>> receive the evidence of the filing within the ten day period, and
>> did order
>> the transfer of the domain name? Is the registrant seeking to prevent you
>> (the registrar) from following ICANN's order to transfer?
>
>
> I'm not sure what the precise merits are of this particular case are. Our
> General Counsel as well as our Customer Affairs group worked through this
> particular one in conjunction with ICANN after the last go-round. This
> particular action is very much above board and in accordance with ICANN's
> interpretation and implementation of the rules in question.
>
>>
>> If this is not the case, in other words if the problem really is that the
>> jurisdiction of the registrant is not an allowable jurisdiction
>> for such an
>> action, then tell me why it is not. Any light you can shed on the
>> situation will (hopefully!) help us all rest a little easier.
>>
>
>
> I don't think that this was the case in this incident.
>
> -rwr
>
>
