URS Recommendation #8 The Working Group recommends that the Implementation Review Team considers reviewing the implementation issues with respect to the Registry Requirement 10 in the “URS High Level Technical Requirements for Registries and Registrars” and amend the Registry Requirement 10, if needed. The Providers Sub Team discovered issues with respect to implementing the outcomes of a URS proceeding (e.g. relief awarded following a URS decision, or where the parties settle[1] the case prior to Determination, or where a Complainant requests to extend a suspension). Note: This recommendation is related URS Question #4. | URS Question #4 Should the Registry Requirement 10 be amended to include the possibility for another Registrar, which is different from the sponsoring Registrar but accredited by the same Registry, to be elected by the URS Complainant to renew the URS Suspended domain name, and to collect the Registrar renewal fee? |
Context:
This recommendation specifically concerns the following URS Technical Requirement[2]:
- Registry Requirement 10: In cases where a URS Complainant (as defined in the URS Rules) has prevailed, Registry Operator MUST offer the option for the URS Complainant to extend a URS Suspended domain name's registration for an additional year (if allowed by the maximum registration policies of the TLD), provided, however, that the URS Suspended domain name MUST remain registered to the registrant who was the registrant at the time of URS Suspension. Registry Operator MAY collect the Registrar renewal fee if the URS Complainant elects to renew the URS Suspended domain name with the sponsoring Registrar.
One-third of URS Practitioners who responded to the Working Group survey indicated problems with implementing the relief awarded following a URS decision. URS Providers also reported that some Registries and Registrars had difficulty implementing the extension request of the URS Suspension, as they might not understand their roles in the process. Therefore, the Working Group recommends the future IRT to review the implementation issues regarding Registry Requirement 10, and consider whether enhanced education is needed to help Registries and Registrars understand how to implement relief and gain better awareness of URS process.
In addition, some FORUM Examiners supported the possibility of altering registration information during the additional year of suspension that is available to a successful Complainant. One Working Group member raised the question whether the prevailing Complainant could elect to transfer the suspended domain name to a different Registrar, which is accredited by the same Registry, for one additional year. This workaround may counter some operational challenges -- for example, the original sponsoring Registrar may not accept payment in the currency of the country where the prevailing Complainant resides. However, some other Working Group members questioned the feasibility of implementation. As the suspended domain name must remain registered to the Respondent, the Respondent may not agree with the transfer due to geo-political reasons or governmental regulations, for example. Thus, the Working Group seeks public comment on whether Registry Requirement 10 should be amended to include such possibility of transferring the suspended domain name to a Registrar of the prevailing Complainant’s choice (see URS Question #4).
[1] URS Rules 16(a) stipulates that if, before the Examiner’s Determination, the Parties agree on a settlement, the Examiner shall terminate the URS proceeding.
[2] URS Technical Requirements for Registries and Registrars can be downloaded here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/tech-requirements-17oct13-en.pdf