.In Cybersquatting, Litigation Rulings Are Untraceable – Domain Name Wire
NIXI removes published INDRP rulings, generating more questions about how the policy is implemented.
The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is not perfect. It works well most of the time, but there are outliers, many of which I highlight on this site.
The good thing is that there is a lot of transparency; all UDRP cases are published online. The sun is the best disinfectant.
The same cannot be said for cybersquatting cases involving India’s .in domain name. Like many ccTLDs, .in has its own version of UDRP. The Indian version is called .IN Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP).
Like the UDRP, the INDRP requires the complainant to prove three things. It’s the same as UDRP except it replaces OR with AND in the third element:
the Registrant’s domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith or for unlawful/unlawful purposes.
This is more friendly to complainants than the UDRP.
Even with that difference, you might be shocked by some of the INDRP’s rulings. The panelists ordered the transfer of web.in, honey.in and hotels.in.
However, shedding light on the decisions of the INDRP is becoming increasingly difficult. NIXI, which runs the .in, stopped publishing rulings in October 2020. This was around the time someone was criticizing a shocking INDRP case in which a domain was ordered to transfer based on a subdomain.
Worse still, NIXI removed all previous rulings when refreshing its website this year.
I contacted NIXI last Tuesday to ask why they took the cases down and got no response.
I have heard many people over the years talk about their frustrations with the INDRP. NIXI’s decision to stop publishing decisions and remove previously published cases is a step in the wrong direction.
The removal of the published decisions follows another controversial decision: NIXI recently limited the number of domain names people can register to just two. If they want more, they must seek permission from the CEO of NIXI.