🇫🇷 From Domain Name Conflict to Agreement: What Afnic’s Mediation Figures Reveal

by Cooling-Off’s Publishing Board

Domain name disputes are often associated with formal proceedings resulting in a binary decision: the domain name is either transferred, canceled, or retained by its current holder. The 2024–2025 figures published by Afnic, the registry responsible for the French country-code domain, offer a different perspective. They show that mediation can provide a rapid and flexible route to resolving disputes involving domain names registered under .fr and the other French extensions managed by Afnic, including .re, .pm, .yt, .tf, and .wf.

Launched on July 3, 2023, Afnic’s mediation service is free of charge, voluntary, and conducted by six professional mediators. It may be used before the commencement of an alternative dispute resolution procedure or court proceedings. Its purpose is not to determine which party is legally right, but to help the parties explore a mutually acceptable solution.

The latest figures indicate growing interest in this approach, while also highlighting some of its structural limitations.

A 36.6 Percent Increase in Mediation Requests

Afnic received 168 mediation requests in 2025, compared with 123 in 2024. This represents an increase of 36.6 percent in a single year.

The growth is significant for a service introduced only in 2023. It suggests that rights holders, registrants, businesses, and their advisors are becoming more aware that not every domain name dispute requires an immediate administrative complaint or judicial action.

The number of mediations actually opened increased more moderately, from 41 in 2024 to 46 in 2025. The number of agreements nevertheless rose from 24 to 29. As a result, 63 percent of the mediations commenced in 2025 ended in an agreement between the parties.

This is a positive settlement rate, particularly in an area where disputes frequently involve allegations of bad-faith registration, trademark infringement, misuse of personal or corporate names, or breakdowns in the relationship between a domain name holder and a technical service provider.

The figures must, however, be interpreted correctly. The 63 percent rate relates to mediations that were actually opened, not to all 168 requests received. The published data do not explain why many requests did not proceed to mediation. Possible reasons may include a refusal to participate, an inability to contact the other party, ineligibility, procedural obstacles, or settlement outside the formal mediation process. Without further information, the success rate cannot be extended to the total number of requests submitted.

Four Recurring Sources of Domain Name Conflict

The Afnic data identify four principal reasons for requesting mediation.

The first concerns a domain name lost because it was not renewed and was subsequently registered by a third party. These cases show how an administrative oversight can rapidly become a legal and commercial problem, particularly when the domain name is connected with an established trademark, business, association, or professional activity.

The second category involves domain names registered by an unreliable web service provider that no longer responds to its client. In such cases, the dispute may not originate from traditional cybersquatting, but from an unclear or poorly documented relationship among the business using the domain name, the technical provider, and the person formally identified as the registrant.

The third category includes abusive registrations by third parties or competitors. These cases may involve intellectual property rights, personal names, names of public authorities or territorial entities, and geographical indications. They are closer to conventional domain name disputes, but mediation may still allow the parties to avoid the cost and adversarial nature of formal proceedings.

The fourth category relates to the strategic recovery of a .fr domain name for an organization’s online presence. These disputes may arise even where the legal position is not entirely clear or where the parties have legitimate but competing interests. Mediation is particularly valuable in these circumstances because it permits solutions that a panel or court might not be authorized to impose.

Transfer Is the Predominant Outcome

The agreements reached in mediation produced clear and measurable results. In 85 percent of cases, the domain name was transferred. A further 7 percent resulted in deletion, while 8 percent led to other negotiated solutions.

The predominance of transfers is unsurprising. A rights holder will often initiate mediation precisely because it wishes to regain control of a domain name that corresponds to its trademark, business name, personal name, or institutional identity.

At the same time, the existence of an “other solutions” category is important. It reflects one of mediation’s principal advantages: the outcome is not restricted to transfer, cancellation, or rejection of a complaint. The parties may agree on a transitional period, technical assistance, coexistence arrangements, the redirection of traffic, undertakings concerning future registrations, or other terms tailored to their commercial and operational needs.

The data do not disclose the precise content of these alternative arrangements, most likely because of the confidential nature of mediation. Greater anonymized information about such solutions could nevertheless help businesses and legal professionals understand the full potential of the process.

Most Agreements Involve No Payment

A particularly relevant figure is that 75 percent of the agreements were concluded without any financial consideration.

This finding helps address a concern sometimes associated with negotiated domain name transfers: that mediation could become a means for an abusive registrant to obtain payment for surrendering a domain name. The Afnic experience indicates that, in most settled cases, the result was achieved without money changing hands.

Where the parties did negotiate a payment, the amounts remained relatively limited. In 2025, the reported consideration ranged from €250 to €1,600, compared with a range of €100 to €1,000 in 2024.

The increase in the minimum and maximum amounts should not automatically be regarded as negative. A payment may reflect documented registration costs, technical work, a legitimate interest in the domain name, or the broader terms of a commercial settlement. However, aggregate figures do not reveal the legal or factual basis for each payment. They therefore cannot establish whether the consideration was compensatory, commercially justified, or simply the price of obtaining a prompt transfer.

This aspect deserves continued monitoring. Mediation should facilitate legitimate settlements without unintentionally encouraging speculative or abusive domain name registrations.

Speed Is One of the Strongest Results

The time data are among the most persuasive elements of the report.

In 2025, rights holders took an average of three business days after being contacted by the mediator to agree to participate. This was an improvement over the 4.5-business-day average recorded in 2024.

Once the first interview had taken place, the parties reached an agreement within an average of only four business days.

For domain name disputes, speed is not merely a matter of convenience. A disputed domain may divert customers, interfere with email communications, damage a brand, facilitate fraud, or prevent the launch of a digital service. A process capable of producing an agreed solution within days can therefore preserve both economic value and online trust.

These rapid outcomes should still be viewed in context. Cases in which both parties accept mediation are likely to be more susceptible to settlement than cases involving an anonymous, unresponsive, or determinedly abusive registrant. The impressive timeframe may consequently reflect, at least in part, the characteristics of the cases that enter the process.

A Diverse Group of Users

The service is not used exclusively by large companies. According to the profile of applicants, 58 percent were legal entities other than public institutions or local authorities, while 25 percent were individuals. Local authorities represented 7 percent, associations 5 percent, public institutions 4 percent, and sole proprietorships 1 percent.

This variety confirms that domain name disputes affect a broad range of actors. Individuals, small businesses, associations, public bodies, and larger organizations may all depend on a domain name as an essential element of their identity and digital presence.

A free mediation service can be particularly important for parties that might otherwise consider formal domain name proceedings or litigation disproportionate to the economic value of the dispute.

The Strengths and Limits of a Voluntary Process

The Afnic experience demonstrates several advantages of domain name mediation: accessibility, speed, professional assistance, procedural flexibility, and the possibility of preserving or restoring a working relationship. The high proportion of transfers and the low incidence of financial consideration also show that mediation can produce practical results without necessarily turning the domain name into a bargaining asset.

Mediation is nevertheless not suitable for every dispute. Because participation is voluntary, the process cannot compel an uncooperative registrant to engage or transfer the domain name. It does not replace a binding decision where urgent measures are needed, where there is evidence of fraud or systematic cybersquatting, or where an authoritative determination of rights is required.

There is also a need for additional data. Future reports could usefully indicate why requests do not proceed, the number of mediations terminated without agreement, compliance with settlement terms, the nature of negotiated solutions other than transfer or deletion, and whether the same parties become involved in subsequent disputes. Such information would permit a more complete assessment of the service’s effectiveness.

Conclusions: A Valuable Addition to the Domain Name Dispute Resolution System

Afnic’s 2024–2025 figures provide encouraging evidence that mediation can play a meaningful role in domain name dispute resolution. Demand increased substantially, almost two-thirds of opened mediations resulted in agreement, and settlements were generally reached within a matter of days. Most agreements led to the transfer of the domain name, while three out of four involved no financial consideration.

The figures do not establish that mediation should replace administrative or judicial procedures. Rather, they show that it can operate effectively alongside them. Formal proceedings remain necessary when one party refuses to participate, when interim protection is required, or when the dispute calls for a binding determination.

The broader lesson is that domain name disputes are not always best treated as purely technical conflicts over registration rights. They may arise from failed renewals, unclear contractual relationships, misunderstandings, competing legitimate interests, or breakdowns in communication. In those cases, mediation can transform a rigid dispute over control of a digital asset into a structured negotiation capable of producing a faster and more proportionate solution.

For registries, ADR providers, attorneys, and businesses, the French experience offers a useful model and a compelling reason to consider mediation before conflict becomes formal litigation.

Source: Afnic, Mediation Service Report 2024–2025.