Policy Reform for ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)

Executive Summary

This document expresses concern about enduring structural imbalances in the operation of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). While the UDRP was initially adopted to address bad-faith domain registrations, its present implementation disproportionately favors trademark complainants, lacks public law safeguards, and marginalizes non-commercial and Global South registrants.

---

1. Structural Bias in UDRP Administration

Data from UDRP providers shows that complainants prevail in over 85% of cases¹. Many panelists are repeatedly appointed by providers who financially depend on filing volumes, primarily initiated by trademark complainants². This raises clear concerns regarding neutrality and fairness.

Furthermore, the UDRP lacks an internal appeals mechanism. Respondents have no meaningful opportunity to challenge flawed or biased decisions, even when such decisions result in irreversible domain loss.

---

2. UDRP as an Unaccountable Quasi-Judicial System

The UDRP has evolved into a global quasi-judicial regime that affects speech, property-like rights, and access to digital identifiers. Yet, unlike national courts or administrative tribunals, it lacks core procedural guarantees: due process, transparent panelist selection, rules of evidence, and independent oversight³.

This privatized dispute system, administered by providers such as WIPO and Forum, currently functions without sufficient accountability or separation of adjudicatory and commercial interests⁴.

---

3. Impact on Non-Commercial and Global South Registrants

The existing UDRP process inadequately protects expressive and non-commercial uses of domain names—such as criticism, parody, or public-interest communications⁵. These domains are frequently targeted by trademark complaints that conflate opposition or commentary with cybersquatting.

Registrants from the Global South face additional barriers, including lack of legal resources, language access issues, and unfamiliarity with ICANN processes⁶. This exacerbates inequity in UDRP outcomes and leads to an overrepresentation of default decisions against disadvantaged users.

---

4. Recommendations for Reform

To ensure procedural legitimacy and fairness in the UDRP system, I respectfully urge ICANN to adopt the following:

• Implement a limited right to appeal UDRP decisions via a neutral independent review process.
• Enforce transparency mandates for providers, including disclosure of panelist case histories, party win rates, and repeat complainant data.
• Establish a “public interest” track for domains used in non-commercial, expressive, or critical contexts, with tailored dispute standards.
• Support Global South registrants with multilingual guidance, legal aid networks, and stakeholder engagement channels.
• Disentangle policy and adjudication roles by prohibiting providers from simultaneously influencing interpretation and administering disputes.

---

Conclusion

The UDRP has become a critical instrument in internet governance. To maintain trust and legitimacy, it must ensure balance between trademark enforcement and the rights of registrants. ICANN should reform the policy to protect public interest use, procedural fairness, and global equity in the domain name system.

---

Endnotes