Have you ever heard of a TDRP?
Until yesterday I didn’t when I ran into the NameCheap.com case which decision is still pending which apparently denied NameCheap.com’s claim to 7 domain names that a US federal judge ordered transferred to them in January.
So unlike a UDRP which involves an alleged rights holder as the Complainant and a domain holder as the respondent a TDRP is an dispute between registrars arising from inter-registrar transfer of domain names.
The TDRP was approved by ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) on July 12, 2004.
After I learned that the NameCheap.com case was a TDRP rather than a UDRP I searched the National Arbitration Forum’s (NAF) cases and found this Name Cheap case to be the only TDRP in their database. I do not see WIPO having any information on a TDRP on their site.
Here is some more info on the TDRP on the NAF’s site:
The Request for Enforcement
a. The Request for Enforcement must include all elements listed in Paragraph 3.1 of the Policy and may not exceed ten (10) pages.
b. In accordance with Paragraph 3.1.2(ix) of the Policy, the Filing Registrar must send or transmit its Request for Enforcement to the Respondent under cover of the Request for Enforcement Transmittal Cover Sheet posted on the Forum’s website.
c. The Request for Enforcement must be sent to the Forum by e-mail (tdrp@adrforum.com) in accordance with Paragraph 3.1.2 of the Policy.
d. The Request for Enforcement must designate whether the Filing Registrar elects to have the dispute decided by a single-member or a three-member Panel and, in the event the Filing Registrar elects a three-member Panel, provide the names and contact details of three candidates to serve as one of the Panelists (these candidates may be drawn from any ICANN-approved Provider’s list of panelists).
5. The Response
a. The Response must include all elements listed in Paragraph 3.2 of the Policy and may not exceed ten (10) pages.
b. The Response must be sent to the Forum by e-mail (tdrp@adrforum.com).
c. If the Filing Registrar has elected a single-member Panel in the Request for Enforcement (see Paragraph 4(d)), the Response must state whether the Respondent elects instead to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel. If either the Filing Registrar or the Respondent elects a three-member Panel, the Response must provide the names and contact details of three candidates to serve as one of the Panelists (these candidates may be drawn from any ICANN-approved Provider’s list of panelists).
13. Panel Decisions
Panel decisions will meet the requirements set forth, in the case of an initial request for enforcement, in Paragraph 4.2.2 of the Policy or, in the case of an appeal of a first-level dispute decision or a Registry Operator finding of “No Decision,” in Paragraph 4.3.8 of the Policy, and will be of a length that the Panel deems appropriate.
15. Communication of Decision to Parties; Publication of Decision
The Forum will publish the decision by submitting the Panel’s decision to the parties, the Registry Operator, and ICANN as required by the Policy.
16. Fees (U.S. Dollars)
|
Number of Disputed Domain Names |
Single-Member Panel |
Three-Member Panel |
|
1 |
$1,150 | $2,500 |
|
2 |
$1,300 | $2,600 |
|
3 — 5 |
$1,400 | $2,800 |
|
6 — 10 |
$1,750 | $3,500 |
|
11 — 15 |
$2,000 | $4,000 |
|
16 or more |
To be determined in consultation with the Forum. |
To be determined in consultation with the Forum. |
c. Non-Refundable Fees:Fees to be paid to the Forum as provided in these Supplemental Rules must be paid in U.S. dollars and are non-refundable, except as required by Paragraph 4.4 of the Policy.
Actually, we’ve had about six disputes. Our old system doesn’t post information on decisions that aren’t public. The other provider is ADNDRC. –Kristine, Legal Counsel with NAF
Kristine
Thanks for the info do you know when this decision will be posted?
It won’t be. TDRP decisions are disputes between Registrars. The Policy is silent as to making them public, so we don’t post them. Interestingly there is an ICANN WG on the TDRP going on right now…one question involves publicizing TDRP decisions. –Kristine
Actually TDRP has been discussed a few times through the years, namely in NamePros and WebHostingTalk. One common suggestion is to make that also available to registrants, especially in cases of alleged domain hijacking.
Unfair to “burden” a victim with that, of course. Yet, it can be an option instead of going to court or waiting for your registrar to work it out, although some registrars try to anyway.
Did you know that the TDRP is the subject of the latest (and hopefully last) round of IRTP policy making at ICANN? And that we’re contemplating the very issue of whether it (or something like it) should be made available to Registrants? Well it’s true. James Bladel and I are co-chairing that PDP — we’re shooting for an Initial Report by the next ICANN meeting. I’ll see if I can paste a link to the working-group’s wiki page into this post — that’ll give you more scoop.
https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-d
Mikey
Thanks for the info.
Off hand I would say unless there was valid and substantial reason to keep the decision private they should be public.
The NAF representative seemed to indicate in an above comment since the rules did not provide whether the decisions should be made public or private they made them private.
ICANN has been moving in a direction of more information and more transparency so this seems counter intuitive to the overall direction of ICANN and business in general where something is not made private by agreement or law it should be public
Hi Michael,
I have to admit to cluelessness about the privacy decision — I’ll bring it up on our next WG call and see if there’s any guidance on that. There certainly doesn’t appear to be anything in the policy that instructs providers to keep the decisions private. [here’s a link to the current version of the policy – https://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/tdrp%5D
There are two threads to keep an eye on — the IRTP-D working group, and a new PDP that’s just in the charter-drafting stage addressing GNSO metrics and reporting. That second one came out of a “uniformity of reporting” recommendation from the Registration Abuse Policies working group a few years ago. Both of these will probably take a look at the TDRP reporting requirements, from slightly different perspectives.