URS Individual Proposal #36 Eliminate the existing post-default de novo review period and instead replace the current URS appeal filing period to 60 days, with the possibility of obtaining an additional 30 days to file a URS appeal as a matter of right, upon request within the initial 60 day filing period. |
Context:
Rationale provided by the Proponent: Under the URS Procedure[1], a registrant defaults if it fails to reply to a Complaint within fourteen (14) days (Paragraph 6.1). All default cases proceed to examination on the merits of the claim (Paragraph 6.3) (“Examination #1”). If the defaulting registrant loses Examination #1, it can file for “de novo review” within six (6) months of default. It can ask for another six-month extension (Paragraph 6.4), thus up to twelve (12) months after default. The filing of a response by defaulting registrant after default is not an appeal - the case is considered as if responded to in a timely manner (Paragraph 6.5) (“Examination #2”). Under URS Procedure Paragraph 12, either party can file for de novo appeal (Paragraph 12.1) within fourteen (14) days after a default or final determination (Paragraph 12.4). For defaulting registrant this de novo procedure is Examination #3. So, a defaulting registrant gets up to three (3) examinations which can take up to a year and several months or more.
A registrant who actually responds to a Complaint within fourteen (14) days, on the other hand, gets up to two (2) examinations – the original examination (under Paragraph 9), and the de novo appeal under URS Procedure Paragraph 12.1. This can all happen within two (2) to three (3) months. This difference seems contrary to the ‘rapid’ nature of URS and could encourage defaults.
As domain name registrants often address URS cases on a pro se basis and sometimes view service of URS Complaints as spam, they may not become fully aware of the dispute until after their domain and website are disabled.
This proposal counsels in favor of some grace period for submitting a reply but the current one year period is excessive. If a losing Respondent doesn’t notice that its domain has been suspended within thirty (30) days one may safely assume that the domain is of little importance to the Respondent and they have consciously foregone the opportunity to formally respond in the URS proceeding. Alternatively, given the availability of the “appeal” process under the URS, which is also a de novo review, the post-default de novo review process could be eliminated altogether.
Working Group Deliberation: There was some support in the Working Group for publishing this proposal in the Initial Report to seek public comment[2].
[1] URS Procedure can be downloaded here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf
[2] The Working Group confirmed that URS Individual Proposal #36 incorporated and superseded URS Individual Proposals #9 and #10, of which their rationale applied to URS Individual Proposal #36. The Working Group decided not to publish URS Individual Proposals #9 and #10 in this Initial Report for public comment, but the link to all submitted URS Individual Proposals can be found in the “Annex C - Working Group Documents” section.
