URS Recommendation #1

Context: 

This recommendation specifically concerns the following URS Rules[1] and URS Procedure[2]: 

• URS Rule 3(b)(iii) Provide the name of the Respondent and all other relevant contact information from the Whois record as well as all information known to Complainant regarding how to contact Respondent or any representative of Respondent, including contact information based on pre-complaint dealings, in sufficient detail to allow the Provider to notify the Respondent of the complaint as described in Rule 2(a); 
• URS Procedure para 3.3: Given the rapid nature of this Procedure, and the intended low level of required fees, there will be no opportunity to correct inadequacies in the filing requirements.

Since the implementation of European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), personally identifiable information, including the contact details of the registrants is masked in the public WHOIS/RDDS data. URS Providers receive the contact information and other relevant WHOIS/RDDS data of the registrants from Registries or Registrars. 

In addition, MFSD (a URS Provider) suggested amending the URS Procedure para 3.3 in order to enable the Complainant to modify the Complaint within 2-3 days from the disclosure of the full registration data by the URS Provider. FORUM (another URS Provider) also supported the suggestion of manually amending the Complaint after submission. 

MFSD commented that without access to the registration data before submission of the Complaint due to GDPR, and without the possibility to amend the Complaint after submission, it may be difficult for the Complaint to satisfy the second and third URS elements[3]. The utilization of URS may decrease because the Complainant may file a UDRP Complaint instead, which can be amended after submission. 

Therefore, the Working Group recommends amending the URS Rule 3(b)(iii) and URS Procedure para 3.3 as a result of GDPR implementation. 

This recommendation is also consistent with the EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Phase 1 Recommendations #21, #23, and #27[4]. 

[1] URS Rules can be downloaded here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/rules-28jun13-en.pdf

[2] URS Procedure can be downloaded here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf

[3] The URS requires a trademark owner, or the “Complainant,” to show all three of the following elements: (i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark that meets certain criteria; (ii) the registrant of the domain name, or the “respondent,” has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name; and (iii) the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

[4] EPDP Recommendation #21: Requests the GNSO Council to instruct RPMs PDP Working Group to consider whether to update existing requirements to clarify that a complainant must only be required to insert the publicly-available RDDS data for the domain name(s) at issue in its initial complaint, and whether the complainant may be given opportunity to file an amended complaint upon receiving updated RDDS data.

EPDP Recommendation #23: Defines requirements for URS/UDRP to ensure the procedures continue to function given other EPDP recommendations.

EPDP Recommendation #27: Recommends that updates be made to existing policies to ensure consistency with the EPDP recommendations.