Re: (INTA-list) UDRP not applicable to eu.com domain name

["Diane Cabell" <dcabell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > ...http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0895.html
> > The domain name at issue is aventis.eu.com.  It's a ".com" so the UDRP 
>> should apply, no?  Of course, the "registered" domain name is "eu.com" and >> the third level name, "aventis", is irrelevant under the UDRP, but that's not 
>> what the Panel said here (at least I don't think so).  How can Central Nic "opt >> out" of the UDRP?

> How interesting.  The decision is apparently based on the Panelist's reading of > the CentralNic domain registration agreement as it appears at 
> <http://www.centralnic.com/terms.php>.  That agreement does not appear to 
> require the domain holder to abide by the UDRP.  That agreement also fails to > meet the requirements imposed by Sec. 3.7.7 of ICANN's Registrar Agreement
> <http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#3>,  which
> is presumably binding on CentralNic however, it may be that a different version > is generated when a person actually processes the domain registration.  If the > latter, and this Panelist has accessed an outdated and inapplicable copy, then > one wonders about the advisability of Panelists doing their own research.

Even more interesting.

CentralNic isn't listed as an authorized ICANN registrar on the ICANN's website.  CentralNic is simply the holder of the second-level domain "eu.com" and is selling third-level registrations privately.  See CentralNic's Domain FAQs at <http://www.centralnic.com/page.php?cid=41> which states:

Q - "Are you recognised by ICANN as an official registry? 
A - ICANN only deals with registries working directly under gTLD and ccTLD's - ie registrations at the second level. CentralNic is working towards setting up a Private Registries Working Group that will attain full ICANN recognition."

As the holder of the eu.com domain, CentralNic is bound by the UDRP, but apparently isn't passing that obligation on to its customers.  In the action below, it responded as if it were the registrar of record, rather than the domain holder.  Shouldn't this action have been brought against CentralNic itself, not the third-level domain holder?

Is anyone aware of any procedures for resolution of third-level domain registration complaints?  Should the 2LD holder be threatened with lose of the valuable 2LD because of an abusive 3LD registration?

Diane Cabell
Associate Director
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School