Fwd: [liaison6c] Call for volunteers for the Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group for the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings

[Robin Gross]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: March 16, 2012 1:50:23 PM CST
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [liaison6c] Call for volunteers  for the Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group  for the  Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings
> 

> Dear All,
> 
>  
> 
> http://gnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-16mar12-en.htm
> 
> Please distribute to your members the call for volunteers  for the Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group  for the  Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings.
> 
> In Brief
> 
> The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to serve on a Working Group that will address the locking of a domain name subject to Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) proceedings. After investigating and considering specific issues (detailed below), the Working Group is expected to make recommendations to the GNSO Council to address the issues identified with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings.
> 
> What This Group Will Do
> 
> The PDP Working Group should, as a first step, request public input on this issue in order to have a clear understanding of the exact nature and scope of issues encountered with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings. Based on this information, and its own views, and any additional information gathering the Working Group deems necessary, the PDP Working Group is expected to make recommendations to the GNSO Council to address the issues identified with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings.
> 
> As part of the WG deliberations, it is suggested that the WG considers, amongst other, the following:
> 
> 1. Whether the creation of an outline of a proposed procedure, which a complainant must follow in order for a registrar to place a domain name on registrar lock, would be desirable.
> 2. Whether the creation of an outline of the steps of the process that a registrar can reasonably expect to take place during a UDRP dispute would be desirable.
> 3. Whether the time frame by which a registrar must lock a domain after a UDRP has been filed should be standardized.
> 4a. Whether what constitutes a "locked" domain name should be defined.
> 4b. Whether, once a domain name is 'locked' pursuant to a UDRP proceeding, the registrant information for that domain name may be changed or modified.
> 5. Whether additional safeguards should be created for the protection of registrants in cases where the domain name is locked subject to a UDRP proceeding.
> For further details, see the WG Charter.
> 
> How This Group Will Work
> 
> ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. The meetings of this WG will be recorded, and the recordings will be available to the public. The mailing list for the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings WG will be archived publicly. Working Group members are expected to submit Statements of Interest (SOI). The group will collaborate using a public workspace. The Working Group is expected to follow the GNSO Working Group Guidelines.
> 
> How to Join
> 
> The Council invites interested parties to provide names of expected participants who can then be added to the WG mailing list. The GNSO Council may also invite stakeholders and experts to join. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the GNSO secretariat (gnso.secretariat at icann.org). This WG is already forming; please apply promptly.
> 
> Background
> 
> At its 15 December meeting, the GNSO Council initiated a PDP on the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings.
> 
> A discussion on the requirements of locking a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings was initially conducted as part of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Part B PDP. As a result of that process, it was noted that "that locking a domain name registration subject to a UDRP dispute should be a best practice" however, the WG "noted that any changes to making this a requirement should be considered in the context of any potential UDRP review." Subsequently, several community members called out this issue in their comments on the state of the UDRP Issue Report published in October 2011, and as a result, the GNSO Council initiated a PDP on this specific issue only. A sample of the community comments is below:
> 
> "No requirement to lock names in period between filing complaint and commencement of proceedings."
> "Need clarification of domain locking."
> "Unclear what is meant by "Status Quo."
> "No explanation of 'Legal Lock' mechanisms and when they go into effect or when they should be removed."
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
> 
> Glen
> 
> Glen de Saint Géry
> 
> GNSO Secretariat
> 
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> 
> http://gnso.icann.org
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Glen de Saint Géry
> 
> GNSO Secretariat
> 
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> 
> http://gnso.icann.org
> 
>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120318/02a82ed2/attachment.html>