ICANN: “URS $300-$500 Price Target For URS May Not Be Met”

In a morning session at the ICANN Conference, in what was called an update to the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system “implementation work indicates that the $300-$500 cost target any not be met.”

To remind you the URS is suppose to be a quicker faster and cheaper version of the UDRP of “clear cut cases of abuse” a repaid take down of sites.

“How can we refashion the URS to get closer to our cost goals and still keep the protection rights for registrants?

It has become clear that none of the normal providers like WIPO have no interest in handling these cases for the $300-$500, so ICANN appears to want to re-open the discussion of the URS program and all registrants are going to have to keep their eye on this discussion.

Already ICANN is chatting about doing away with or greatly limiting appeal rights when a registrant has their domain name taken away.

“Its clear that the way the program is currently configured we are not going to hit our cost targets”

There is a promised session later this week on this topic and we will let you know how it plays out.

You should know that Phil Corwin is at ICANN on behalf of the Internet Commerce Association (ICA) and will be watching developments on the URS closely.

Also keep in mind that some trademark groups and other rights holders, have already pushed for the URS to be incorporated into other registry contracts as they come up for renewal in the future for existing registries including .com.

Comments

  1. Nat Cohen says

    The million dollar domain Vanity.com was just lost in a travesty of a decision under the supposedly robust UDRP that offers greater protection to domain name owners than the URS.

    ICANN should be correcting its 10 years of neglect of the UDRP, and working to reform the UDRP to remove the many pro-complainant biases built into the system that contribute to legitimized grand theft such as in the Vanity.com decision.

    Instead ICANN is pushing for adoption of a flimsier procedure, the URS, that makes cancellation of domain owners rights even easier than under the UDRP.

    The URS is supposed to be for only “clear cut cases of abuse”. The UDRP was also supposed to be limited to clear cases of cybersquatting. However, the UDRP has experienced mission creep over the past decade as creative panelists have managed to order transfers even in cases where any trademark rights came after the registration of the domain (the infamous Octogen.com decision). Rather than being limited to clear cut cases of cybersquatting, the UDRP in may instances has become a vehicle to transfer valuable domains to undeserving trademark holders.

    As mentioned in the post, trademark lobbyists were already pushing to include the URS in the .com renewal contract, before the URS procedures were even finalized and before there was any history of how the URS would work.

    The argument that the registration rights of over 100 million incumbent dot-com domains needs to be weakened by adopting after the fact a URS procedure in order to provide a “level playing field” with new sponsored gTLDs that has a URS from the start is false argument and needs to be forcefully rejected.

    One way to limit the potential for mischief with the URS is to allow the Respondent to convert a URS to a full-blown UDRP with the additional procedural protections (however flawed) it provides.

    Companies are targeting generic domains valued in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in UDRP, and will target them in URS procedures as well. ICANN should allow domain owners the right to mount a forceful defense of their registration rights if challenged under a URS by going to a UDRP process, rather than force them to submit to a mass produced assembly line “justice” under a URS.

  2. Jp says

    It’s pretty clear that ICANN really doesn’t care about registrant rights. They just don’t care. That’s all there is too it. “There are already talks of removing or limiting the appeal process to URS”. THEY DON’T CARE.

    Unfortunately by the time they start caring it will likely be too late for them. Whenever that is.

  3. says

    “It’s pretty clear that ICANN really doesn’t care about registrant rights.”

    The Postel, Cerf, Crocker Internet was NOT built bottom-up starting with Registrants (or customers)

    Postel, Cerf and Crocker all went to the same high-school in Van Nuys California

    THEIR Internet was built TOP DOWN – It is their way or the highway

    If you don’t like THEIR WAY – Start your own .NET – On 12-12-12 a new .NET will emerge.

  4. says

    @
    “It’s pretty clear that ICANN really doesn’t care about registrant rights.”

    We all know the need for more meaningful protections for Virtual Business Foundation owners than the current UDRP Scam ! This should not be as hard as everyone thinks ??

    ICANN needs trust in their system more than whats currently available. The whole Industry can escape having its foundational Trust, in the secondary markets Integrity, in shambles. A solid Secondary Market is in their Best Interests, you would think??? Or do they have alterior motives?

    OUR INDUSTRY LEADERS NEED TO FLESH THEM OUT ! ON THIS ISSUE = B I G T I M E

    Gratefully, Jeff Schneider (Contact Group) (Metal Tiger)

  5. BrianWick says

    “URS is suppose to be a quicker faster and cheaper version of the UDRP of “clear cut cases of abuse” a repaid take down of sites.”

    But wasn’t that is what UDRP was originally created for ? – until the case load dropped off and more and more panelists had their hand in the till so more and more gray area (or charcoal) opinions, like Vanity.com, were made to fuel the pipeline ?

    Solving this ICANN problem will be more difficult than the socialist euro zone crisis ?

Comment Policy:

TheDomains.com welcomes reader comments. Please follow these simple rules:

  • Stay on topic
  • Refrain from personal attacks
  • Avoid profanity
  • Links should be related to the topic of the post
  • No spamming. Listing domains, products, or services will get the comment deleted

We reserve the right to remove comments if we deem it necessary.

Join the Discussion