Webwork - 4:47 pm on Apr 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

Call this WIPO's "How to Lose a Good Domain, Lawfully and Forever, in Only 10 Days" proposal.

I'm sure most people who read this headline think "this doesn't apply to me, this will never happen to me". Maybe so, but just in case it ever does I want you to know this is your chance to speak to ICANN about you views on due process, fair procedings, etc. You could go on vacation for 10 days and return to find that your website is no longer your website. Legally. Permanently.

Copy of WIPO letter and proposal [icann.org].

Proposal Section 1. WIPO suggests that an "abuse prevention measures", to deter SOBs from making mass filing attacks, would be to "use captchas to prevent exploitation of the expedited procedure".

Section 5. Notice of the "expedited hearing" solely by email.

Does this mean I can file for the domain Money.com and, if the guy in charge of the domain is on vacation, I can get the domain?

I understand that the entire domain registration system is built around email, but this process isn't "domain registration". This is "taking of property".

Is Email inherently reliable? Don't think so. Is it efficient, when it comes to domain name registration and transfers? Sure, with its build in safeguards - like secure logins, EPP or "transfer codes", "executive transfer controls", etc.

Sorry, but "judicially sanctioned forfeiture of property by 10-15 day email alone" doesn't cut it for due process in my book.

First off, IF service by email alone is so inherently reliable (fair) then why don't courts around the world accept service by email? Why? Because most judicial bodies would laugh at the idea. Most judges would shudder to think that their property could be taken via "email alone" + "default".

Also, where's the proposal for a party to seek to vacate a default judgment? Where's the proposal for a party to say "Hey! I was on vacation!" or "Hey, what email?". Not seeing it. All the focus appears to be on expediting the taking of property, not protecting the rights and interests of bona fide property holders.

Section 6. Time limit of 10-15 CALENDAR DAYS to file a response.

Let's see. Sat, Sun, M, T, W, Th, F, Sat, Sun, Mon, DEAD DOMAIN. Lesson? Don't go on vacation someplace where internet access is problematic. Don't get sick or be hospitalized either. 10 "calendar" days? NUTS. Nuts to 15 also.

So, say you're away for a few days. You first see the email on day 5, which is a Friday evening. Can you reach a lawyer Sat. or Sun.? Maybe not. So, it's now Monday, day 8. And you have 2 days to discover what lawyers handle such matters, forward him/her sufficient info, pay a retainer, . . .

Section 7.1. Prima Facie determination by a neutral "on the merits".

I love this one. It's a hearing before the hearing by a so-called "neutral". I love neutral people, the totally unbiased. The problem is finding one of us.

I somewhat appreciate the idea behind this, i.e., to expedite the total BS cases. But I do have a problem with the so-called "fair judge" saying what's fair and then the fair judge's colleagues having to say "not fair". I understand that happens all the time with appeals, but this is a bit more of a bureaucratic process and system.

Section 7.2 Following "default" (not filing a response) name is taken.

There have been many past cases where a proceeding was determined to be sufficiently lacking in "winning merit" that a person/entity who chose not to file a response still prevailed. Will this change?

Summary: I understand there are numerous BS registrations, one's that "on their face" (DisneyWurld.com, etc.) might qualify for an expedited process, but I do not agree that a "one size fits all" approach is a good idea - at all.

[edited by: Webwork at 5:34 pm (utc) on April 5, 2009]