Conflicts between ADR proceedings and injunctions |
Background
This survey is relevant to only those APTLD Members that offer Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Please ignore if you do not offer ADR.
JPRS (.jp registry) has an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proceeding for registrations in the .JP zone. Under the Policy and rules, when JPRS receives a court’s final verdict ordering a transfer or cancellation of a domain name, JPRS should comply with such an order even during a pending JP DR-Proceeding. However, there are problems when JPRS receives an injunction order from the court or an order regarding .JP domain names which are not currently stipulated in a JP-DRP. Two such cases are shown below.
Court-ordered injunctions: When court prohibits the registry from transferring or making other changes to domain names' status, these domain names may be sold to a third party (possibly someone who has nothing to do with a given JP DR-Proceeding regarding the domain names). This may contradict an outcome of the JP DR-Proceeding (transfer or cancellation) if the transfer keeps going regardless of the court orders and before the final judgement.
Specific government agency orders: In addition, under the Japan's law, some government agencies are entitled to make an “injunction order” (you might call as “seizure” “attachment” “garnishment” or otherwise) on the right to using domain names which prohibits the registry from transferring and making other changes to domain names. For example, under the Japanese National Tax Collection Act, the Tax Agency is entitled to make an “injunction order” over taxpayer’s property in case of his failure to pay taxes. In such cases, domain names may be sold to a third party as well.
Purpose of this Survey: JPRS would like to draw on APTLD Members' good practices to explore possible/potential conflicts between the “Registry’s own Proceeding” and “court-ordered injunctions or government agency’s orders” and to develop solution(s) to the challenge.
JPRS (.jp registry) has an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proceeding for registrations in the .JP zone. Under the Policy and rules, when JPRS receives a court’s final verdict ordering a transfer or cancellation of a domain name, JPRS should comply with such an order even during a pending JP DR-Proceeding. However, there are problems when JPRS receives an injunction order from the court or an order regarding .JP domain names which are not currently stipulated in a JP-DRP. Two such cases are shown below.
Court-ordered injunctions: When court prohibits the registry from transferring or making other changes to domain names' status, these domain names may be sold to a third party (possibly someone who has nothing to do with a given JP DR-Proceeding regarding the domain names). This may contradict an outcome of the JP DR-Proceeding (transfer or cancellation) if the transfer keeps going regardless of the court orders and before the final judgement.
Specific government agency orders: In addition, under the Japan's law, some government agencies are entitled to make an “injunction order” (you might call as “seizure” “attachment” “garnishment” or otherwise) on the right to using domain names which prohibits the registry from transferring and making other changes to domain names. For example, under the Japanese National Tax Collection Act, the Tax Agency is entitled to make an “injunction order” over taxpayer’s property in case of his failure to pay taxes. In such cases, domain names may be sold to a third party as well.
Purpose of this Survey: JPRS would like to draw on APTLD Members' good practices to explore possible/potential conflicts between the “Registry’s own Proceeding” and “court-ordered injunctions or government agency’s orders” and to develop solution(s) to the challenge.
Close date: 8 May 2020