For ease of reference, URS decisions can be searched on the NAF website, see: http://www.adrforum.com/SearchDecisions

You can search for the keyword 'phishing' and set the domain status to 'suspended' (for example, see the 2nd domain that is displayed after you run this query in the search box)

This domain was registered on: 10/25/16, suspended on 11/25/2016, on 10/25/17 (the expiration date) the Whois was updated, the current expiration is 10/25/18. The current Whois information for this domain matches the Whois listed in the URS complaint. 

Domains that are suspended through the URS resolve to a webpage that says: "The Domain Name you’ve entered is not available. It has been taken down as a result of dispute resolution proceedings pursuant to the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) or .us Rapid Suspension System (usRS) Procedure and Rules."

This domain does not resolve to the URS suspended landing page described above. Rather, my web browser (Chrome) recognizes the IP address as being associated with a potential malware/phishing site and displays a "Dangerous" warning. So in my view, its pretty clear this domain name was renewed.

Best regards,
Claudio


On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:40 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
Rebecca,

Thanks. I think the article states that some domains were inadvertently renewed by the registrar. It doesn't say the registrant is not able to renew them.

In my post, I cited to domains listed on the NAF website that were suspended for alleged phishing, and those domains appear to be renewed because the Whois shows: 1) the same registrant; 2) an update made on the expiration date, extending the registration for one year.

All good fodder for our group to consider for possible solutions.

Best,
Claudio



On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:15 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> wrote:
Interesting post. It seems that the domains only showed up as renewed because of administrative issues, however, based on the end of the article, and were not actually under the control of the original respondent. So the phishing concern seems addressed. 

Rebecca Tushnet
Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School

Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. 

On Dec 5, 2017, at 3:26 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:

Jon,

I agree with you about having this question/issue considered by our WG and potentially addressed with policy recommendations.

I've heard concerns from trademark owners who've had difficulties securing the abusively registered domain that was suspended in the URS procedure after it came up for renewal. For example, there are several URS cases (on the NAF website) that involve alleged phishing activity, where the domain was suspended, and now it appears renewed by the same registrant. 

This practice is described in greater detail within this blog article: https://domainnamewire.com/2016/11/18/strange-thing-happening-domain-names-suspended-urs/, which states: “The most common thing that happened to these first 50 domains is that they were renewed. Twice. And they still show the original owner who lost the URS in Whois.”

Best regards,
Claudio


On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:

Hi Jon,

 

Thanks for the reminder and apologies for missing that question.  We’ll add it to the table.

 

Best,

Julie

 

From: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email>
Date: Friday, December 1, 2017 at 3:04 PM
To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>
Cc: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call

 

Thanks Julie.  I may have missed it, but I had asked on a prior call that we add a question regarding whether a losing respondent may renew the domain name at issue at all, for one more year (like the complainant), during the pendency of an appeal, or forever. 

 

Thanks!

 

Jon

 

 

On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:

 

Hi Susan,

 

Thanks so much for catching that!  I tried saving it again as a PDF, but it still comes out truncated; I’m not sure why.  In any case, I’ve uploaded it as a Word document and it looks fine that way.

 

I’ve also attached the file.

 

Kind regards,

Julie

 

From: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>
Date: Friday, December 1, 2017 at 1:35 PM
To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] RE: Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call

 

Hi Julie, thanks for these notes from the call.  Regarding the revised table – there is a link here (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729948) to a version of the table of 30 November, however only part of the table is displaying (I tried downloading too and it made no difference).  Would you mind re-uploading please – assuming this is the revised table?  

 

Thanks

Susan

 

Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd

E: susan.payne@valideus.com 
D: +44 20 7421 8255
T: +44 20 7421 8299
M: +44 7971 661175

 

 

From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: 30 November 2017 16:51
To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call

 

Dear all,

 

The action items noted by staff from the Working Group call held on 30 November are as follows:

 

Suggested Approach from the WG members on the call: To identify topics addressed by the Charter questions and capture high-level questions/data points for each topic. Suggested questions are:

1) Has it been used? 

2) What was the original purpose and is it being fulfilled? 

3) Bearing in mind the original purpose, have there been any unintended consequences?  

4) What changes could better align the mechanism with the original purpose/facilitate it to carry out its purpose?

5) How many managed to prevail?

Action Items: 

  1. Develop a strawman of high-level questions and Charter question topics. (forthcoming)
  2. WG to provide comments/thoughts about the proposed approach.
  3. If the approach is agreed to, WG to analyze the topics addressed by the Charter questions against the high-level questions.

 

Question 1: Should the ability for defaulting respondents in URS cases to file a reply for an extended period (e.g. up to one year) after the default notice, or even after a default determination is issued (in which case the complaint could be reviewed anew) be changed? 

Action Item: Staff to look up where the 1-year period for Question 1 originated. 

 

Question 2: Should the Response Fee applicable to complainants listing 15 or more disputed domain names by the same registrant be eliminated?

Action Item: Staff to look up the origin of the response fee for 15 (and more) domains, and why 15 was chosen as a number.

 

Revised Table: 

Action Item: Staff will post to the wiki space a revised version of the table with excerpts from the notes.  Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording.  The recording, transcript, Adobe Connect chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki.

 

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

<URS Sub Team Questions Table - 30 November 2017.docx>_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

 


_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg