The premise is that registrars are faced with losses from customer abandonment or other ‘shrinkage’ that leaves them holding a registration through to its annual term, because domain names are billed in a minimum of one year increments.

Within a 365 day calendar, this would conceivably allow, for the price of 1 .net domain, 12 different domains to be reviewed for the inherent traffic that a domain gets.

The challenge for UDRP Complainants is that an infringing domain name can appear or disappear in 30 day windows, so watch for some interesting comments in the registry services commentary, which have already begun.

It has often been asserted by trademark holders that the new round of gTLDs will have a major and catastrophic financial impact on brands.

But beyond these alarmist statements, is there any empirical evidence to either back this up, or to prove it false?

After examining all UDRP cases done by WIPO and the NAF, sorted by TLD, the evidence shows that new gTLDs play a very minor role in UDRPs, and that to the extent that a TLD matters, .com more prone to infringement than other, newer gTLDs. Infringements, as measured by UDRPs filed (regardless of outcome), show that infringement broadly correlate to the number of domains registered in a TLD zone, and not to the newness or recency of a TLD.

The study also predicts that if 300 new TLDs were created (an estimate made by several observers, including ICANN), there would be 316 new additional UDRPs filed. When combined with the new Uniform Rapid Suspension provisions that will be required for new gTLDs, these cases would result in a total additional cost to trademark holders of $869,000, or less than $.10 per trademark registered worldwide.

The data shows that, for enforcement via UDRP and URS, assertions that brand holders would be faced with enormous costs have been substantially overestimated.

Read the study.

From the icann.org website:

On 30 October 2009, the ICANN Board approved a modification to the Implementation Rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”). The modified Rules now require UDRP claimants and respondents to provide documents to UDRP Providers in electronic form. The modified Rules also change UDRP Provider obligations in forwarding hard copy notice to respondents in UDRP proceedings: the original Rules required Providers to forward a hard copy of the UDRP complaint; under the new Rules, Providers do not have to forward a hard copy of the entire complaint. Providers are now only required to forward a hard copy notice that a UDRP complaint has been filed.

The modified Rules will become mandatory for all UDRP proceedings filed on or after 1 March 2010.

The requirements to file will change, and some providers may already allow this now.

Until 1 March 2010, UDRP Providers may elect to follow the hard copy notice (without complaint) requirement as set forth in the modified Rules. For all UDRP proceedings filed on or after 1 March 2010, all UDRP Providers must follow the updated requirements. At that time, even if a UDRP Provider’s supplemental rules contain provisions conflicting with the modified Rules, the modified Rules will guide the proceedings.

Providers may allow, but must not require, UDRP complainants and respondents to submit complaints and responses in electronic form prior to 1 March 2010. For all UDRP proceedings filed on or before 28 February 2010, complainants and respondents may elect to submit their documents in hard copy form, as set forth in the original Rules.

When Latin America comes up on the rotating schedule again in 2008, Mexico would make a great location for an ICANN meeting.

The 2007 schedule includes meetings in Europe, North America and Asia. My wish list: Barcelona in March, New York in June, and Korea in October.

According to the introductory note from GAC Chair Mohamed Sharil Tarmizi, “I encourage the Internet community and the general public, world-wide to make use of their GAC representatives and to work with us, as part of the ICANN process, to facilitate the development of a comprehensive international public-private partnership in this important area of management of the global Internet infrastructure.”

The Wellington meeting is fast approaching. It would be beneficial for all interested parties if GAC representatives and members of the Internet community were making greater use of the GAC Public Forum.

The Court says in a footnote that “because Verisign, the registry of the domain names [and is the .com and .net registry], is located in this judicial district, it is irrelevant that Verisign declined to submit a registrar certificate or other documentation with the Court to establish the Court’s authority over the domain names. See CNN, 177 F. Supp. 2d at 514 n.17. The registrar certificate merely serves to establish the domain name’s situs, an unnecessary step where, as here, the domain name registry is within the Court’s jurisdiction. (Emphasis added) See 15 USC §1125(d)(2)(C)(i)-(ii).”

This is a very useful decision for anyone with non-US registrar issues involving .com and .net domain names.

If you traveled to Vancouver for the ICANN Annual Meeting, you might have also seen representatives from Overstock.com giving away “O” hats. Overstock had previously written to ICANN in support of the release of O.com. ICANN has also received a letter on the release of K.com.

If single letter domain names are to be released, I’d like to see more information on how these names are going to be made available (via auction, first come, first served release, select reservation or other methods). Companies are already claiming trademark rights in domain names that have yet to be made available.