ICA has been informed by ICANN Staff that the Working Group (WG) on the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings appears to have settled on a recommendation that domain name registrants who are Respondents in a UDRP proceeding be granted an automatic right to request and be granted a four day extension of the deadline for filing their response. This would be the first increase in UDRP response time since the Policy was established.
The compromise settled upon by the WG was described as follows:
Participating UDRP Respondents be granted an express option to request a four day extension should they so choose, with any such received four day extension request to be automatically granted, and the corresponding deadline extended by the UDRP Provider, at no cost to the Respondent. The availability of such automatic four day extension option on request should also be flagged by the UDRP Provider for the Respondent’s information on commencement of the proceedings.
ICA was told that the WG was of the view that this would accommodate for the loss of informal response time, while at the same time recognizing that only in 25% of cases a response is actually received.
The WG had previously announced that it would recommend that the UDRP Complainant no longer be required to inform the respondent of the filing of the Complainant to prevent rare instances of “cyberflight’ where the domain is transferred to a new registrar to avoid being locked; the Respondent would receive notification later from the dispute arbitration provider. ICA had protested that this would substantially reduce the time available to registrants to prepare a response, which was particularly unfair since the Complainant had unlimited time to prepare its filing and controlled its timing and the choice of UDRP provider.
Our views were first raised in a public discussion of the WG’s Initial report during the ICANN Beijing meeting in April, and were subsequently explained in a comment letter filed on April 26th (see https://www.internetcommerce.org/UDRP_Lock). That letter stated:
[W]e strongly object to the proposed deletion of the current UDRP requirement that the complainant shall provide the respondent domain registrant with a copy of the complaint at the same time it is submitted to the UDRP provider, on the ostensible grounds that such deletion is required in order to prevent “cyberflight”. As a practical matter this will substantially reduce the time, by up to one-third, that registrants/respondents have to prepare an effective defense against complainant allegations – as well as deprive less sophisticated registrants of critical time necessary to gain an understanding of the UDRP process and their rights within it, and to locate and secure competent counsel capable of assisting in a defense. The Report lacks any validated documentation that cyberflight is sufficiently widespread to justify this fundamental degradation of registrant rights.
Since filing that comment ICA had continued to exchange views with members and staff of the WG, leading to its compromise decision to permit an automatic four day extension. While that may not fully restore the lost time in all cases, it could well prove crucial to some registrants with domains targeted in a UDRP.
The WG is continuing to consider procedures to be followed when a UDRP case is settled by the parties, and ICA has provided input on that matter as well.