This post examines the evolution and operation of ICANN’s pre-delegation objection mechanisms, tracing their origins in the 2012 gTLD round and their refinement for the new round that started in April 2026. It analyses procedural foundations, jurisdictional consent, and the practical application of the four objection grounds, highlighting key case law that is relevant for the new round as well.

This Part II continues the analysis of a few more key procedural issues and practical questions which are of value to the UDRP practice, namely: (i) relation of the UDRP to court proceedings and appeals; (ii) reverse domain name hijacking, and (iii) forum shopping.

‍While much of the discussion surrounding the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP” or “Policy”) focuses on the three substantive elements that complainants need to prove under para. 4(a) UDRP, the procedural framework of the UDRP is equally central to its effectiveness. The UDRP was deliberately designed as a fast, cost-efficient, and largely document-based administrative procedure to address clear cases of cybersquatting, and its procedural features reflect this objective.

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP” or “Policy”) has generated more than two decades of case law. While the text of the Policy itself has remained largely unchanged since 1999, the interpretation of its provisions has evolved significantly through panel decisions. While the UDRP does not operate on a strict doctrine of precedent-based approach, in practice, it is a quasi-jurisprudence-driven system, where panels rely on earlier decisions for several matters in order to ensure consistency and predictability in the outcome.