George Court actions are typically available post UDRP in a number of jurisdictions. These include, by way of a few examples I know of and have experience with, the US, China, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan. There are many other countries that also allow for court actions. Best. Georges Original Message ‎ EwFrom: George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2017 10:43 AM‎ To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Availability of Court for Domain Name owners challenging a URS decision -- false assumption? Just to followup on this, Article 43(3) of those same Chinese governance rules seem to imply that the panel decisions are not final. According to the Google translation: "43(3) According to the ruling of the people's court, the verdict of the domain name dispute resolution agency should be canceled;" Perhaps the translation isn't correct, but that would seem to say that the people's court can overrule the dispute resolution agency. So, the courts appear to have the final say. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:30 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:

Hello,

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:13 AM, socata <socata@ruc.edu.cn> wrote:

...

I would like to provide some my information for this issue in China jurisdiction.

According to China Domain Name Governance Rule, the decision made by Domain Name Dispute Resolution Panel decision is final decision in China. You may see article 42 in China Domain Name Governance Rule for detail information.

Link for China Domain Name Governance Rule: http://www.miit.gov.cn/n1146295/n1146557/n1146624/c5778555/content.html

Thanks for your message. Is that for the .cn ccTLD? Or does that apply rule to gTLDs like .com? (the Google Translation is a bit confusing to me)

I know that the Canary.com UDRP decision against a Chinese registrant from 4 years ago wasn't final, as the domain name is still owned by that registrant (I believe they appealed in court):

https://www.thedomains.com/2013/10/24/disturbing-12-year-old-canary-com-lost... http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1515762.htm

I believe the same thing happened for Razer.com in early 2016:

https://www.namepros.com/blog/razer-upgrades-from-razerzone-com-to-razer-com...

albeit in Hong Kong. Of concern, the original UDRP decision does not appear on the ADNDRC website.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

A long long time ago, Korea had a similarly worded law (that was changed a while back). Essentially, the rule was that if a complainant won a UDRP (or court) case in Korea, the only remedy was cancellation. Even if the UDRP panel ordered “transfer.” The law was written with KIDRC in mind (.kr) but the wording essentially forbade Korean registrars from transferring the domain name. The ADNDRC was instrumental in explaining the issue to lawmakers, starting with the judiciary, and getting the law changed so that the law no longer clashes with the UDRP. I don’t recall the exact wording of the law, but it was similar to the wording below. There may be translation issues, and I’m sure the entire text isn’t provided, but the text below does not say the UDRP decision is final and no one can bring a de novo claim. The text, as I read it, EITHER says that a registrar shall uphold a decision by either a UDRP panel or a court to cancel a domain name OR that the only remedy is cancellation. I am probably getting in the weeds here, but the point is, we still don’t have any statutes before us that clearly say a UDRP administrative decision is final and cannot be challenged de novo in a court of competent jurisdiction. Kristine From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of socata Sent: Friday, November 24, 2017 12:43 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Availability of Court for Domain Name owners challenging a URS decision -- false assumption? Dear George, First of all, this rule is come into force in Nov 1, 2017, and the prior China Domain Name Governance Rule has been terminated according to the article 58 in the new rule. According to the prior China Domain Name Governance Rule, which come into force in 2004, its article 38 do say that if decision made by court is different with the domain name resolution organization, the court's decision should be applied. However, this part is deleted in the New rule. You may refer link hereinafter for the old rule: http://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2005/content_64290.htm China Domain Name Governance Rule is applied for all TLDs, if you read the full text, you will find the rules provide some significant restrictions for the registries and registrars. The Google translation for article 43(3) is definitely incorrect. The correct translation should be: if there is a decision made by domain name resolution organization or court, registrar should cancel the domain name registration. This article also support the understanding that the decision made by domain name resolution organization have equal effect with the court in China. However, for the case of canary, I do admit that the domain name is still owned by Lin Zanfu, and I am really curious about the situation. According to my search, I don't find any appealed suit about domain name dispute in China about this case. I will keep an eye on this case. If you guys have any useful information for this two case, please feel free to tell me, I am sincerely interested to figure out what happens. -- Zhou Heng Ph.d Candidate Renmin University of China At 2017-11-23 23:30:11, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote:

Hello,

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:13 AM, socata <socata@ruc.edu.cn<mailto:socata@ruc.edu.cn>> wrote:

...

I would like to provide some my information for this issue in China

...

jurisdiction.

...

...

According to China Domain Name Governance Rule, the decision made by Domain

...

Name Dispute Resolution Panel decision is final decision in China.

...

You may see article 42 in China Domain Name Governance Rule for detail

...

information.

...

...

Link for China Domain Name Governance Rule:

...

http://www.miit.gov.cn/n1146295/n1146557/n1146624/c5778555/content.html

Thanks for your message. Is that for the .cn ccTLD? Or does that apply

rule to gTLDs like .com? (the Google Translation is a bit confusing to

me)

I know that the Canary.com UDRP decision against a Chinese registrant

from 4 years ago wasn't final, as the domain name is still owned by

that registrant (I believe they appealed in court):

https://www.thedomains.com/2013/10/24/disturbing-12-year-old-canary-com-lost...

http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1515762.htm

I believe the same thing happened for Razer.com in early 2016:

https://www.namepros.com/blog/razer-upgrades-from-razerzone-com-to-razer-com...

albeit in Hong Kong. Of concern, the original UDRP decision does not

appear on the ADNDRC website.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos

416-588-0269

http://www.leap.com/

_______________________________________________

gnso-rpm-wg mailing list

gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

Ok Sent from my iPad

On 28 Nov 2017, at 15:22, socata <socata@ruc.edu.cn> wrote:

Dear Kristine,

Thanks for your information in Korea.

During this weekend, I have made a search for the China court decisions made after UDRP, and I do find some case happened before, like Royal Canin LLC v. Liu Weize.

However, the main reason why we (At least me, I am not sure that George share the same idea with me when he provides the experience in UK courts) bought up this issue is about article k (availability of court proceeding) of UDRP, which allow both the registrant and complaint to submitting the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction for independent resolution. So, it's reasonable for registrar to uphold the decision made by UDRP panel if there is a court involved in relevant case. In the end, we want to point out that it's the UDRP's words determine that the UDRP decision is not final, even some countries have provided the Domain Name Dispute Resolution decision equal effect with the court's decision.

In addition, many countries, like China, have participated in the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New Your Convention). According to my understanding, there is not much hinder for China court to admit a Foreign Arbitration like UDRP. At least, the Registrant and Registrar do have a paper agreement for UDRP. In conclusion, there are still some space to improve the protection conditions for right holder in article (k) of UDRP, and similar articles in URS (for example, article 17 of URS rule).

I hope my suggestion may not interrupt the schedule of the WG. However, I am really enjoyed the discussion with you guys. If you have any concerns or different opinion, please feel free to contact me.

-- Zhou Heng Ph.d Candidate Renmin University of China

在 2017-11-28 10:25:21，"Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink@amazon.com> 写道： A long long time ago, Korea had a similarly worded law (that was changed a while back). Essentially, the rule was that if a complainant won a UDRP (or court) case in Korea, the only remedy was cancellation. Even if the UDRP panel ordered “transfer.” The law was written with KIDRC in mind (.kr) but the wording essentially forbade Korean registrars from transferring the domain name. The ADNDRC was instrumental in explaining the issue to lawmakers, starting with the judiciary, and getting the law changed so that the law no longer clashes with the UDRP. I don’t recall the exact wording of the law, but it was similar to the wording below. There may be translation issues, and I’m sure the entire text isn’t provided, but the text below does not say the UDRP decision is final and no one can bring a de novo claim. The text, as I read it, EITHER says that a registrar shall uphold a decision by either a UDRP panel or a court to cancel a domain name OR that the only remedy is cancellation.

I am probably getting in the weeds here, but the point is, we still don’t have any statutes before us that clearly say a UDRP administrative decision is final and cannot be challenged de novo in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Kristine

From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of socata Sent: Friday, November 24, 2017 12:43 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Availability of Court for Domain Name owners challenging a URS decision -- false assumption?

Dear George,

First of all, this rule is come into force in Nov 1, 2017, and the prior China Domain Name Governance Rule has been terminated according to the article 58 in the new rule.

According to the prior China Domain Name Governance Rule, which come into force in 2004, its article 38 do say that if decision made by court is different with the domain name resolution organization, the court's decision should be applied. However, this part is deleted in the New rule.

You may refer link hereinafter for the old rule: http://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2005/content_64290.htm

China Domain Name Governance Rule is applied for all TLDs, if you read the full text, you will find the rules provide some significant restrictions for the registries and registrars. The Google translation for article 43(3) is definitely incorrect. The correct translation should be: if there is a decision made by domain name resolution organization or court, registrar should cancel the domain name registration. This article also support the understanding that the decision made by domain name resolution organization have equal effect with the court in China.

However, for the case of canary, I do admit that the domain name is still owned by Lin Zanfu, and I am really curious about the situation. According to my search, I don't find any appealed suit about domain name dispute in China about this case. I will keep an eye on this case.

If you guys have any useful information for this two case, please feel free to tell me, I am sincerely interested to figure out what happens.

--

Zhou Heng

Ph.d Candidate

Renmin University of China

At 2017-11-23 23:30:11, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:

...

Hello,

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:13 AM, socata <socata@ruc.edu.cn> wrote:

...

I would like to provide some my information for this issue in China jurisdiction.

According to China Domain Name Governance Rule, the decision made by Domain Name Dispute Resolution Panel decision is final decision in China. You may see article 42 in China Domain Name Governance Rule for detail information.

Link for China Domain Name Governance Rule: http://www.miit.gov.cn/n1146295/n1146557/n1146624/c5778555/content.html

Thanks for your message. Is that for the .cn ccTLD? Or does that apply rule to gTLDs like .com? (the Google Translation is a bit confusing to me)

I know that the Canary.com UDRP decision against a Chinese registrant from 4 years ago wasn't final, as the domain name is still owned by that registrant (I believe they appealed in court):

https://www.thedomains.com/2013/10/24/disturbing-12-year-old-canary-com-lost... http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1515762.htm

I believe the same thing happened for Razer.com in early 2016:

https://www.namepros.com/blog/razer-upgrades-from-razerzone-com-to-razer-com...

albeit in Hong Kong. Of concern, the original UDRP decision does not appear on the ADNDRC website.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ 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