Presented at: Rethinking Domain Name Dispute Resolution in the Era of New gTLDs, ADNDRC conference, Kuala Lumpur Regional Center for Arbitration (KLRCA) — Kuala Lumpur, 18 January 2014. Abstract: Fifteen years after the UDRP was adopted, there has been an unprecedented increase of domain names resources. ICANN is in the process of liberalizing the creation of new top level domains. Furthermore, new technologies now allow the registration of internationalized domain names (IDNs). Resources will soon be almost endless and extremely varied (new TLDs + IDNs + IPV6). At the same time, one can question the effectiveness of the UDRP in achieving its goal: fighting cybersquatting. Indeed, in 70% of WIPO cases, disputed domain names are transferred to the claimant. An analysis of the UDRP case law and similar rules shows that the whole system has already evolved, thanks to the UDRP panelists (consolidation, re-filing, etc.) and the ccTLDs registries (mediation, appeal, reimbursement of legal fees, arbitration, etc.). However, good ideas are scattered like pieces of a puzzle. The whole system could be improved by i) giving Lady Justice the sword she is missing in domain names dispute resolution proceedings and ii) gathering all the good ideas together. License CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2014

1. ì
Emmanuel GILLET, Ph D 2014 ADNDRC Conference
Teaching Fellow, The Hong
Kong Polytechnic University
Rethinking Domain Name
Dispute ResoluJon in the Era
of New gTLDs
Kuala Lumpur, 18th January
2014
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2014 Emmanuel GILLET

2. ì Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
Background. − On the 18 January 2014, the Malaysian branch of the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Center (ADNDRC) hold a conference entitled “Rethinking Domain Name Disputes Resolution in the Era of
newgTLDs”.
Summary. − Fifteen years after the UDRP was adopted, there has been an unprecedented increase of domain
names resources. ICANN is in the process of liberalizing the creation of new top level domains. Furthermore, new
technologies now allow the registration of internationalized domain names (IDNs). Resources will soon be almost
endless and extremely varied (new TLDs + IDNs + IPV6). At the same time, one can question the effectiveness of
the UDRP in achieving its goal: fighting cybersquatting. Indeed, in 70% of WIPO cases, disputed domain names
are transferred to the claimant. An analysis of the UDRP case law and similar rules shows that the whole system
has already evolved, thanks to the UDRP panelists (consolidation, re-filing, etc.) and the ccTLDs registries
(mediation, appeal, reimbursement of legal fees, arbitration, etc.). However, good ideas are scattered like pieces
of a puzzle. The whole system could be improved by i) giving Lady Justice the sword she is missing in domain
names dispute resolution proceedings and ii) gathering all the good ideas together. Some of the arguments
shared in this presentation are available in the following article: Emmanuel GILLET, “Procédures extrajudiciaires de
règlement des litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine : quelles perspectives pour l’arbitrage ?”, Versailles
International Business Law Review, 2013, No. 4, pp. 145-168.
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2014 Emmanuel GILLET

3. ì
New “g”TLDS + IDNs + IPV6
=
Endless possibiliJes for cybersquaWers
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2014 Emmanuel GILLET

4. ì
1. The Failure of DN Dispute ResoluJon Mechanisms
2. Significant Procedural EvoluJons
3. Going Further
4. Gathering Good Ideas in One Place
5. Towards ArbitraJon?
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2014 Emmanuel GILLET

5. ì
1. The Failure of DN Dispute ResoluJon Mechanisms
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
FighJng Cybersqua_ng!
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2014 Emmanuel GILLET

6. ì
1. The Failure of DN Dispute ResoluJon Mechanisms
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
Statement of Account…
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

7. ì
1. The Failure of DN Dispute ResoluJon Mechanisms
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
≈ 40.000 UDRP decisions
+ ccTLDs related decisions } 14 years
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

8. ì
1. The Failure of DN Dispute ResoluJon Mechanisms
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
70% WIPO Decisions à Transfer granted
Source: wipo.int
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

9. ì
1. The Failure of DN Dispute ResoluJon Mechanisms
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
Success or Failure?
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

10. ì
Success or Failure.?
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

11. ì
Success or Rethink.?
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

12. ì
2. Significant Procedural EvoluJons
2.1. Improvements Made by Panelists
2.2. Improvements Made by Registries
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

13. ì
2. Significant Procedural EvoluJons
2.1. Improvements Made by Panelists
2.1.1. Re-Filing (Same domain name + Same parJes)
CondiJons: “A refiled case may only be accepted in limited circumstances. These
circumstances include when the complainant establishes in the complaint that
relevant new acJons have occurred since the original decision, or that a breach
of natural jusJce or of due process has occurred, or that there was other serious
misconduct in the original case (such as perjured evidence). A refiled complaint
would usually also be accepted if it includes newly presented evidence that was
reasonably unavailable to the complainant during the original case” (WIPO
Overview 2.0, para. 4.4., consensus).
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

14. ì
2. Significant Procedural EvoluJons
2.1. Improvements Made by Panelists
2.1.2. ConsolidaJon
CondiJons: (i) the complainants either have a specific common grievance against
the respondent, or the respondent has engaged in common conduct that has
affected the complainants' individual rights in a similar fashion; (ii) it would be
equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidaJon; or in the case of
complaints brought (whether or not filed by mulJple complainants) against
more than one respondent, where (i) the domain names or the websites to
which they resolve are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidaJon
would be fair and equitable to all parJes (WIPO Overview 2.0, para. 4.1).
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

15. ì
2. Significant Procedural EvoluJons
2.2. Improvements Made by Registries
2.2.1. MediaJon
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

16. ì
2. Significant Procedural EvoluJons
2.2. Improvements Made by Registries
2.2.1. MediaJon
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
.UK
Source: Nominet.org.uk
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

17. ì
2. Significant Procedural EvoluJons
2.2. Improvements Made by Registries
2.2.2. Appeal
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
.UK
Source: Nominet.org.uk
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

18. ì
2. Significant Procedural EvoluJons
2.2. Improvements Made by Registries
UDRP à ccTLDs DRP
ccTLDs DRP à UDRP
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

19. ì
2. Significant Procedural EvoluJons
2.2. Improvements Made by Registries
2.2.3. Fees
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

20. ì
2. Significant Procedural EvoluJons
2.2. Improvements Made by Registries
2.2.3. Fees
UDRP and JusJce
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

21. ì
2. Significant Procedural EvoluJons
2.2. Improvements Made by Registries
2.2.3. Fees
UDRP and JusJce
§ Blindfold
§ Scale
§ Sword
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

22. ì
2. Significant Procedural EvoluJons
2.2. Improvements Made by Registries
2.2.3. Fees
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
No sword à No Legal risk
No Legal Risk à No dissuasion
No Dissuasion / Threat à No JusJce
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

23. ì
2. Significant Procedural EvoluJons
2.2. Improvements Made by Registries
2.2.3. Fees
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
1st concepJon 2nd ConcepJon
Each party pays its own fees The losing party pays the fees
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

24. ì
2. Significant Procedural EvoluJons
2.2. Improvements Made by Registries
2.2.3. Fees
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
T. EISENBERG and G. P. MILLER, “The English Versus the American
Rule on AWorneys Fees: An Empirical Study of Public Company
Contracts”, 98 Cornell L. R. 327
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

25. ì
2. Significant Procedural EvoluJons
2.2. Improvements Made by Registries
2.2.3. Fees
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
Source: wipo.int
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

26. ì
2. Significant Procedural EvoluJons
2.2. Improvements Made by Registries
2.2.3. Fees
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
Source: wipo.int
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

27. ì
2. Significant Procedural EvoluJons
2.2. Improvements Made by Registries
2.2.3. Fees
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
WIPO Expedited ArbitraJon Rules
[.AC, .IO, .SH]
ArJcle 59 “Award of Costs of ArbitraJon”
(c) The Tribunal shall, subject to any agreement of the parJes, apporJon the costs
of arbitraJon and the administraJon fees of the Center between the parJes in the
light of all the circumstances and the outcome of the arbitraJon.
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

28. ì
3. Going Further: ConsolidaJon in Cases of MulJple TLDs
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
gTLDs ccTLDs New TLDs
SheraWon.info CheraWon.be Sheraton.berlin
Sherraton.com SheraWton.za Sheraton.bzh
Etc. Etc. Etc.
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

29. ì
3. Going Further: ConsolidaJon in Cases of MulJple TLDs
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
gTLDs ccTLDs New TLDs
SheraWon.info CheraWon.be Sheraton.berlin
Sherraton.com SheraWton.za Sheraton.bzh
5 different procedures + potenJally 5 dispute resoluJon providers
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

30. ì
4. Gathering Good Ideas in One Place
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

31. ì
Current SituaJon
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

32. ì
Goal
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

33. ì
5. Towards ArbitraJon?
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
UDRP and Co. ≠ ArbitraJon
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

34. ì
5. Towards ArbitraJon?
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
Advantages Risks Controlling the Risks
New York ConvenJon
(149 signatories(1))
Expensive
Enforcement to recover the
costs
(even damages)
Delay Fast-Track ArbitraJon
(controlling Jme and costs)
Possibility to appeal
(3 arbitrators)
No need to go to courts
(1) 18 January 2014
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET

35. ì
Thank you
Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs
è Notable Procedural Issues in UDRP
email mail@egillet.com
blog hWp://egillet.com
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2013 Emmanuel GILLET