Bruno de Vuyst (Janson Baugniet), The Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system.
"Dispute settlement in domain names, both for generic top level domain names (gTLDs) (but also for country code top level domain names (ccTLDs)) must be swift and definitive, i.e. with executory force. While there is access to national courts, arbitration or other forms of dispute settlement are needed in view of the time taken in national courts. Suspension of domain names is an integral part of the dispute settlement process, and occurs prior or parallel to transfer of the domain name as a result of a dispute settlement.
The proposal for the establishment of a mandatory Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system was made in consideration of the introduction of yet new gTLDs as an addition to the Uniform Dispute Resolution System (UDRP), primarily through the work of an Implementation Recommendations Team (IRT) and through further consultations stimulated by the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the ICANN supporting organization concerned with domain name system policy. The article reviews the May 2010 as well as the November 2010 draft, the past and presently sustained criticism on the URS system proposal as against the goal of swift, enforceable dispute settlement for gTLDs, and the approved URS text.
[...] In essence, the URS functions as an adjunct of the UDRP and is mandatory for all new gTLDs. Underlying both is a reasonable assumption that the owner of a trade or service mark in the real world that one relies on to provide authentic goods or services is also the owner of a web site found under a corresponding domain name.
[...] The purpose of the URS is to provide a cost effective and timely mechanism for mark owners to protect their trademarks – and allegedly to promote consumer protection on the Internet. The URS is not meant to address questionable cases of alleged infringement, for example the use of terms in their generic sense, or for anti-competitive purposes, or for denial of free speech, but rather, and only, for those cases in which there is, at least according to those launching complaints, no genuine contestable issue as to infringement and abuse."
Lees hier meer.
