Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Lost Password
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)

    Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Stanford Cyberlaw Clinic To Defend Domain Name Owners
    posted by michael on Friday October 25 2002, @10:38AM

    jgranick writes "Stanford University Law School's Cyberlaw Clinic is expanding its docket to include defending domain name holders in UDRP actions. Certified Stanford Law School students will represent owners whose domain names have been challenged by filing responses before the Administrative Panel appointed to hear the dispute between the parties."

    The Clinic is part of the Stanford Center for Internet and Society (CIS), a public interest technology law and policy program at Stanford Law School. Students enrolled in the clinic assist attorneys in advising clients, and litigating cases. The clinic docket currently includes cases regarding fan fiction, anonymous speech, the right to publish information about computer vulnerabilities, open access to broadband Internet services, Internet radio, and digital libraries. CIS Director and attorney Jennifer S. Granick teaches the clinic.

    Domain name owners who have been notified that an action against them has been initiated are encouraged to call (650) 723-8773 or email stanfordcyberlawclinic@yahoo.com with contact information and the date they were served with the challenger's complaint to learn whether Clinic student attorneys are available to represent them. Applicants should be advised that they have 20 days from the date of commencement of the UDRP action to respond and that the Clinic will not file responses for Applicants unless an Attorney Client Contract is signed. The Clinic plans to take 5-8 domain name cases a semester.

      ICANNWatch Login  


    [ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

      Related Links  
  • stanfordcyberlawclinic@yahoo.c om
  • Stanford University Law School's Cyberlaw Clinic
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Stanford Cyberlaw Clinic To Defend Domain Name Owners | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 14 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: Stanford Cyberlaw Clinic To Defend Domain Name
    by jgranick on Monday October 28 2002, @08:52AM (#9859)
    User #3529 Info
    To be clear, the commencement date may not be the same as, and may be several days before the date of service. Applicants should please include the commencement date and the date of service in their emails and voicemail messages. Thank you.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: UDRP does not require notice
    by jberryhill on Monday October 28 2002, @11:08AM (#9860)
    User #3013 Info
    The UDRP requires the Complainant to serve the Respondent when the complaint is filed.

    Rule 3(b)(xii):
    [The Complaint must]
    (xii) State that a copy of the complaint, together with the cover sheet as prescribed by the Provider's Supplemental Rules, has been sent or transmitted to the Respondent (domain-name holder), in accordance with Paragraph 2(b);

    Now, paragraph 2(b) describes the various ways in which the Respondent is to be contacted, including by email. One would assume that if the Complaint is to "State" that it has been sent to the Respondent, then it would have to be sent to the Respondent when filed. But, if you want to be hyper-technical, no, it only has to say that it was.

    Any person in the real world would assume that the Rule should be interpreted as requiring the Complainant to send a copy of the Complaint to the Respondent. You are, I suppose, free to differ.

    However, the point is that when the Complainant complies (which they do pretty rarely these days, by the way), and the Respondent receives a copy of such Complaint, then both the date that the Complaint was sent, and the date that the Complaint was received are IRRELEVANT to the response deadline, which is the first thing you need to know when doing UDRP client intake. In fact, I never rely on any representation made by the client about dates, but contact the dispute resolution provider directly and get an authoritative response deadline from the dispute resolution provider. Because their "commencement date" is the date that counts. But even counting 20 days from the "commencement date" is not good enough.


    Because even the dispute resolution providers count days and count the deadline for "submission" of a response differently. Many people do not realize that when you are running an international system with deadlines, that at any given moment, it is hardly ever the SAME day everywhere on the planet. When you say "Wednesday", do you mean Wednesday in Geneva, Minneapolis, Australia, or Hong Kong? If you mean "Wednesday" anywhere on the planet, then you are talking about a period of time which is potentially up to 48 hours long (from midnight in Hong Kong to midnight in Sydney).

    On top of that, the NAF reads the Rules in a peculiar way which requires them to actually have received the entire response and exhibits by midnight in Minneapolis on the response date (unless the response date falls on a Saturday or Sunday - also not written in the rules). So, people who are east of Minneapolis have something of an advantage over people who are west of Minneapolis, in terms of getting it done and sent by fax. Of course, if you were thinking of sending it by courier, you will note that (unless they've changed it recently), the NAF only gives out a P.O. Box, and they do not publish a street address for courier delivery (they will provide it to you if you ask nicely).

    In summary, the Rules themselves are deceptively simple, and there are quite a few "gotchas" in there if you haven't had the opportunity to apply those Rules in various situations.

    And if you really want to get into the boring details of international deadline compliance from a fixed point on the globe, then you had better have a calendar with a good variety of holidays handy when you want to try to comply with the Rule 4(k) ten-day deadline, and you find that Victoria Day is approaching in the registrar's jurisdiction.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Stanford Cyberlaw Clinic To Defend Domain Name
    by jberryhill on Monday October 28 2002, @11:17AM (#9861)
    User #3013 Info
    "In cases of a direct match between a registered TM and a domain the application could be rejected, unless the domain registration was sought by the true TM owner. "

    ...which was obviously written by someone who believes that there is such a thing as a "true" TM owner for a given TM.

    Who is the "true" TM owner for "champion"? The people who make spark plugs? The people who make t-shirts? The people who make home equity loans? Or the guy who just won his local bridge tournament?

    Why should a maker of furniture polish have exclusive rights to the word "pledge"? Why would you forbid a fraternity or sorority from using the word "pledge"?

    Why do you think that someone who wants to sell, say, seashells, should not be able to use the word "Shell", but you believe that the only legitimate use of the word "shell" is to refer to a Dutch oil company?

    Despite the advertising bans on cigarettes, you would prefer that people not use the word "camel" to refer to a four-legged desert mammal, and you would prevent its use for anything other than cigarettes. Why?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • Search ICANNWatch.org:

    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com