Questions about UDRP and "registrar freeze" status on a domain name

[Focus]

Ok, a good buddy of mine found out that he was being UDRP'd on a domain name and it was in a current "registrar freeze" status, although it continues to resolve, etc. and he cannot do anything with the domain name, not even change DNS. Is there anything he needs to do or should he just wait until the name is taken away eventually and not respond? Do companies normally seek damages or further action in a UDRP case through that arb forum or whatever it is? Just wondering because I am not educated enough on this subject to give him any definitive answers so I figured I would ask everyone here...thanks

Chris

 

[domaingenius]

Just wait and they will take it away from him. It can take months and sometimes I have had them forget and domain expires.

DG

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Normally a UDRP is to just get the domain. The panel has no authority to grant any other monetary or compensatory damages. If he does not respond, he will lose the domain for sure.

 

[Focus]

thanks guys..I told him not to worry about it and the "UDRP" was a good thing but he was freaking out thinking the registrar will reveal his info behind the privacy or whatever..supposingly it's a very low traffic typo he forgot about lol

 

[Mediamarket]

I believe it will reveal his identity - or at least what he has listed as ownership information in his registrar account.

UDRP will only award the domain to the complainant however.

It is still possible (but unlikely) to win if you don't respond but sounds like a typo and he should feel lucky it is a just a UDRP.

 

[Focus]

my sentiments exactly...I cannot tell you how glad I am that I have been getting rid of questionable names and focusing on generics with all this madness going on lately, take heed!

 

[denny007]

If he does not respond, he will lose the domain for sure.

Not true, I see lot of UDRP denied even without response

 

[Focus]

Denny, how many UDRP's have you had?

 

[denny007]

Denny, how many UDRP's have you had?

Stopped counting at some point. Same as with girls.

 

[katherine]

The registrar will lift the whois privacy.

 

[Focus]

So how is that possible without a court order? The udrp is to obtain the domain not reveal the info behind the whois protection imo...are you sure?

http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm

 

[SonnyBurnett]

It's possible Focus...they don't respect privacy.
It's a shame.

 

[katherine]

Just read the existing rulings
If the whois privacy service is run by the registrar itself they will lift the veil for sure. Actually this will be an initial demand from WIPO to verify identities of the parties involved.

 

[Focus]

It's a UDRP, my friend just forwarded the email to me...and from what I have read it's usually "so and so" vs. whois privacy


the email is adressed "to whom it may concern" or something like that

 

[Dave Zan]

Depending on the registrar's contract with the registrant on using their WHOIS
privacy service, at minimum they'll reveal the actual info upon UDRP notice. A
few will take off the WHOIS privacy, others still retain yet.

 

[jberryhill]

It's a UDRP, my friend just forwarded the email to me...and from what I have read it's usually "so and so" vs. whois privacy

That's as-filed. A legit proxy service will normally confirm the actual identity of the registrant in response to the UDRP confirm message from the dispute resolution provider, in accordance with RAA 3.7.7.3:

http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#3

3.7.7.3 Any Registered Name Holder that intends to license use of a domain name to a third party is nonetheless the Registered Name Holder of record and is responsible for providing its own full contact information and for providing and updating accurate technical and administrative contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Registered Name. A Registered Name Holder licensing use of a Registered Name according to this provision shall accept liability for harm caused by wrongful use of the Registered Name, unless it promptly discloses the identity of the licensee to a party providing the Registered Name Holder reasonable evidence of actionable harm.

Most registrars interpret "reasonable evidence of actionable harm" to include a UDRP.

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0975.html

The procedure in proceedings involving a proxy WHOis service was described in Ohio Savings Bank v. 1&1 Internet, Inc. and David Rosenbaum, WIPO Case No. D2006-0881 as follows:

“When such circumstances arise, the Panel understands that the Center’s current practice is typically to require the complainant to amend the complaint – either to name both the privacy service registrant and the party using the privacy service or to simply name the party using the privacy service. This practice is sensible and has the benefit of trying to get notice of the proceeding to the party that is most affected the proceeding. However, it may simply be that one of the disadvantages of using a privacy service – to be weighed against the advantages of using such a service – are delays or lack of notice of proceedings that rely on the information contained in the registration record to provide notice. By this the Panel does not intend to suggest that such a delay or lack of notice is insignificant, but that they may simple be one of the consequences of the choice to use such a service, particularly where proceedings under the Policy look to and rely on information in the registration record maintained by the registrar.”

The practice of having two Respondents to a proceeding under the Policy where one is the entity against which any order has to be made and the other is the party vitally interested in the outcome and whose conduct is in issue is well-recognised in litigation and in rules of civil procedure – certainly in common law jurisdictions, as it helps to inform interested parties. This may not always be practicable, however, and in any event is not a requirement under the Policy or Rules, which are predicated on the responsibility of the registered holder of the domain name.

Moniker made a preemptory demand to the Center that its name be discharged from the proceedings. The Panel referred this request to the parties for comment. It also requested Moniker to advise whether the name of the registrant had been changed and its justification for so doing. The Complainant insisted that Moniker should remain and the Respondent submitted that it should not but it was indifferent. The Panel has considered these comments.

Moniker replied to this invitation somewhat acerbically. It challenged the right of the Center to make the enquiry. It relied on Clause 3.7.7.3 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, cited earlier, as a justification for showing Mr. Ricks as registrant on receipt of the Complaint.

It is not part of the Panel’s functions to adjudicate on a registrar’s obligations except to the extent those obligations impinge on a UDRP complaint. The Panel, as indicated earlier, does not read that clause in that way, but this proceeding provides no forum for the proper disposition of that point of interpretation. All the Panel can do is make its own interpretation of the clause which does not, on its terms, permit a change in the publicly notified registrant while a complaint about the disputed Domain Name remains unresolved.

The Panel considers that this Complaint should proceed with both named parties for the reasons discussed above. It should be stressed that Moniker remains a pro forma respondent: that the conduct to be discussed in this decision is that of Mr. Ricks and not that of Moniker and that Moniker has acted promptly in supplying Mr. Ricks’ details.

 

[Focus]

Interesting..so what you are saying is that privacy is'nt worth 2 shakes of a lambs tail when a name get's UDRP'd?

 

[dvdrip]

Focus tell your friend to contact the complainant using a free email account from a internet cafe and tell them they can have the domain. They can then suspend the UDRP, transfer the domain and finally terminate the UDRP.

 

[katherine]

It could be too late already...
No legit privacy service is going to provide cover when things go wrong.

 

[Focus]

Anyone else have any input?