The 10 day limit is set by ICANN. It is short but it can be done as we did
in this case.
Tucows does not want to clarify their position in this case because if they
say Canada is the only jurisdiction, most smart rsp's will leave and if they
say either jurisdiction of Canada or where the domain is registered in whois
is OK, then most smart rsp's will leave also since they did not follow the
UDRP in this case.
Either way they will lose alot of business, starting with my 2000 domains.
Tucows and Opensrs and their general council do not seem to want to clarify
anything in public.
Look at the way Ross got out of the fact that he stated that my reading of
the UDRP was "indeed correct" when I said either jurisdiction is proper.
OpenSRS is making a whopping 66% profit on thir $6.00 cost of domain
registrations and they don't even follow the rules.
I don't expect to see any decisive answers from them to your questions.
"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?"
Lets wait for the "clear" answer...
Jack
______________________________________________________________________
Get Your Own Private, Free Email Account at http://www.dotcomemail.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Swerve
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 11:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Chuck Hatcher; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: UDRP Clarification [WAS: RE: Re: Domain Disputes...]
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
>
>
