Hi Russ - We do not generally comment on specific cases (especially active ones) in public forums. I will make sure that we review this case, and respond appropriately ASAP. I appreciate your concern, and can only assure you that we will treat this with appropriate attention.
Regards, sA Scott Allan Director, OpenSRS [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 7 May 2002, admin wrote: > The Tucows OpenSRS compliance office seems to be working for WIPO now. > They are completely ignoring the registration agreement and are doing > whatever WIPO tells them to do without any notice to the registrant. > > Another party initiated a UDRP dispute with WIPO against me. The > complainants prepared their complaint a couple of weeks ago and WIPO > initiated a dispute at the end of April. During the period between when > the complainants prepared their complaint and when the complaint was > actually initiated I happen to have moved to another state and set up a > new company. > > After the complaint is started I get the notice below. WIPO apparently > ordered Tucows to change the whois records back to historical date. The > date, back to mid-April, just happens to be the date the complainant > downloaded the whois and is not related to when the complaint was filed. > I got the message below from WIPO that has some serious implications: > > -WIPO ordered the domain records changed to a historical value well > before the proceeding was initiated (not "during an administrative > proceeding" as they have tried to claim in the message below. They have > changed the ownership of a domain as well as the telephone number (which > no longer works). There are supposed to be only ways to transfer a > domain ownership like this - (a) an order from a UDRP panel and (b) a > court order. WIPO has no authority to order changes in this manner. > > -Tucows went ahead and changed the records without notifying me at all. > I sent in several e-mail messages and they refused to respond. When I > called and spoke to the compliance officer Paul Karkas he said he is > just doing what WIPO told him to do. When I explained that WIPO had no > authority to order such changes, no standing to enforce an agreement > between and Tucows and I, and the Tucows did not follow their compliance > procedures to provide me with notification I got no response other than > "we will look into it." He refused to return the domain records back to > the proper state. There is no explanation at all why the telephone > number was changed as the phone number is covered in any UDRP rule, just > the ownership identity must be frozen after the proceeding begins. > > -Currently the domain has a whois record that lists a company that does > not exist and a phone number that is invalid. When I explained that the > whois record now violated the agreement I have with Tucows I was told > that they did not delete domains with bad phone numbers. Of course this > is not in the agreement and not spelled out anywhere in writing. Tucows > deletes domains on a regular basis that contain bad registrant data. > Karkas now claims they only delete domains with bad e-mail addresses and > postal addresses but not phone numbers. I expect he made up this rule > off the top of his head as I have never seen it in writing. > > -In the message below WIPO is trying to enforce the registration > agreement. However, I have no agreement with WIPO and I expect WIPO has > no agreement with Tucows. I have filed several complaints against WIPO > and WIPO has told me in the past that I don't have "standing" to > complain about decisions as I am not a party. I have also filed > complaints against the various registries and I am always told I cannot > file such complaints because the agreement is between the registrar and > I. If I had any complaints I should take them to the registrar . the > company who has the written agreement with me. > > -I have also been told that if I have a problem with the UDRP rules the > way they stand then I need to follow the ICANN process and bring my > issues to the relevant committees. > > It seems none of these rules ally to Francis Gurry and WIPO. They don't > need "standing," they enforce agreements when they aren't even a party > to the agreements, and they change the UDRP rules any way they want. > Meanwhile the hapless Tucows compliance offer just goes along with > whatever WIPO says. > > Tucows, WIPO, and ICANN are so sure of themselves that nobody will > respond in writing. I have also now found out that this has happened > several times before. WIPO is completely out of control and nobody is > willing to say anything. > > Tucows needs to overhaul their management and compliance office or it > will soon be another VeriSign. > > Russ Smith > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Domain.Disputes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 10:34 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: WIPO Case No.D2002-0377/Registrant Details > > This is to advise the parties that the concerned Registrar in this case, > Tucows, Inc., has reinstated the Respondent details to those specified > in the Complaint. > > This is on the basis that, under subparagraph 8(a) of the UDRP, a domain > name may not be transferred during an administrative proceeding. Also > under that paragraph, the Registrar reserves the right to cancell any > transfer of a domain name registration that is done in violation of that > subparagraph. > > Sincerely > > James Barker > Case Manager > WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center > > > >
