The URS Gets Real: ICANN Picks NAF

In an important announcement for trademark rights and the new gTLDs, ICANN announced that it has appointed the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) as the first service provider for the forthcoming Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS). NAF already provides services for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and has handled other domain dispute programs, so it should be well-equipped to deal with a flood of new complaints that surely will arise as the new gTLDs go live.

The URS, a potentially quicker and less-expensive alternative to the UDRP (but with limited remedies), has been criticized by trademark owners and domainers alike for a variety of reasons. But the biggest obstacle seemingly has been identifying a service provider that could meet ICANN's targeted filing fee of $300 to $500 per complaint, a challenge that ICANN acknowledged when the new gTLD applications were revealed in June 2012 and again later in the year.

Apparently, NAF intends to meet the targeted filing fee: ICANN said that NAF has "demonstrat[ed] how it would meet all requirements presented in the RFI" -- a document that set forth the $300 to $500 filing fee. However, the Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and NAF says only that NAF will "provide URS services on a reasonable and cost effective basis," without setting a specific dollar figure.

Although the ultimate filing fee set by NAF will partly determine the popularity of the URS, at least it's finally clear that, like it or not, trademark owners soon will have a new domain name dispute policy at their disposal.

Disclosure: I am a panelist for the NAF.

What is the Independent Objector Doing?

By Doug Isenberg Created to act in "the best interests of the public who use the global Internet," ICANN's Independent Objector has remained very quiet since the announcement of the appointment of French professor Alain Pellet more than nine months ago.

Indeed, aside from launching a website with general information about his role and posting some "comments on controversial applications" in December, it's unclear exactly what Professor Pellet has done. This, despite an apparent obligation (according to ICANN's job description) that the Independent Objector satisfy some "reporting requirements to ICANN, as well as the public."

(Apparently, these requirements are set forth in ICANN's contract with the Independent Objector, but I have been unable to locate the contract, and ICANN has not responded to my request for a copy of it.)

So, as of this writing, all we really know is that the Independent Objector will not file objections against 11 of the more than 1,400 applied-for gTLD strings.

Apparently, Professor Pellet has been in contact with some of the other applicants, and we may hear from him shortly about those. But, he has made it clear that he will not disclose which, if any, applications will be the subject of objections filed by his office.

As a result, the public whose interests the Independent Objector were designed to serve is left in a quandary, not being able to benefit from his "limited public interest" or "community" objections until it is too late.

Because the deadline for filing objections (apparently March 13) applies to the Independent Objector as well as to anyone else who satisfies ICANN's standing requirements, would-be objectors can't wait to see what the Independent Objector will do or they will miss the opportunity to object.

Similarly, the Independent Objector, who can file objections only against "applications to which no objection has been filed," must act (if at all) in a vacuum, since objections will not be publicly posted until after the filing deadline.

Consequently, the role of the Independent Objector appears to have been diminished.

Professor Pellet could resurrect the importance of his office by immediately announcing which applications will attract his objections. And, ICANN could create some legitimacy by publicly posting its contract with the Independent Objector and allowing objections to be filed after the public has had an opportunity to see what action, if any, the Independent Objector actually takes.

Dear ICANN: What is the Real Deadline for Filing New gTLD Objections?

By Doug Isenberg I've addressed this topic before, but the issue remains unclear while the urgency is growing and the clock is ticking: What is the real deadline for filing an objection to a new gTLD application?

Looking only at ICANN's microsite, the answer would seem obvious: March 13, 2013, as shown in the screenshot below:

But looking deeper, the answer gets more complicated. Because the Applicant Guidebook says that the objection period "will last for approximately 7 months," the deadline originally appeared to be January 13, 2013 (seven months after "reveal day" on June 13, 2012), though it is clear that ICANN has since extended this date by two months.

Still, the Guidebook also says that there will be "a two-week window of time between the posting of the Initial Evaluation results and the close of the objection filing period" -- an apparent indication that the true deadline is a relative, not fixed, date (because it is far from certain when the initial evaluation results will actually be posted, though it will clearly be after March 13).

This uncertainty has led to some interesting posturing. For example:

• In a letter (4-page PDF) on September 5, 2012, ICANN's Business Constituency wrote that a fixed deadline would require objectors "to file objections without knowing whether an application has even passed Initial Evaluation. This has cost and resource implications to those who may need to raise objections."

• The New gTLD Applicant Group wrote (3-page PDF) on December 21, 2012: "The community has had plenty of time to consider and prepare for objections. The March 13, 2013, deadline must be final, as any further delay would cause material harm to applicants."

• In a recent webinar, an ICANN slide (65-page PDF) stated that that the "Objection period [had been] extended to 13 March 2013" -- without any reference to the two-week window.

Although ICANN briefly addressed the issue of the "two-week window" at least once before, the answer from Kurt Pritz at a webinar on August 9, 2012, was incomplete and now seems dated. (Not to mention that it disregards the Applicant Guidebook's plain language.)

So, ICANN should immediately clear up the lingering confusion, especially as would-be objectors get close to filing complaints that could entail tens of thousands of dollars in filing fees, administrative fees and legal fees.

Hopefully, ICANN won't wait until the last possible date (as it did in extending the deadline for filing comments last year -- a move I called "woefully late") to definitively state, in writing, whether it will respect the two-week window.