[NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [liaison6c] Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings - Initial Report

[Robin Gross]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: March 17, 2013 3:58:04 PM PDT
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [liaison6c] Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP  
> Proceedings - Initial Report
>
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-15mar13- 
> en.htm
> Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings – Initial Report
>
> Comment / Reply Periods (*)
> Comment Open Date:
> 15 March 2013
> Comment Close Date:
> 26 April 2013 - 23:59 UTC
> Reply Open Date:
> 27 April 2013
> Reply Close Date:
> 17 May 2013 - 23:59 UTC
> Important Information Links
> Public Comment Announcement
> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)
> View Comments Submitted
> Brief Overview
> Originating Organization:
> GNSO
> Categories/Tags:
> Policy Processes
> Purpose (Brief):
> The Generic Names Supporting Organization Working Group tasked with  
> addressing the issue of locking of a domain name subject to Uniform  
> Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Proceedings has  
> published its Initial Report for public comment.
> Current Status:
> The Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group has published  
> its Initial Report and is soliciting community input on the  
> preliminary recommendations contained in the report.
> Next Steps:
> Following review of the public comments received, the Working Group  
> will continue its deliberations and finalize its report for  
> submission to the GNSO Council.
> Staff Contact:
> Marika Konings
> Email Staff Contact
> Detailed Information
> Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose:
> In its Initial Report [PDF, 883 KB], the PDP Working Group presents  
> eleven preliminary recommendations, which are expected to usefully  
> clarify and standardize how a domain name is locked and unlocked  
> during the course of a UDRP Proceeding for all parties involved.  
> Amongst others, these recommendations include:
>
> A definition of 'locking' in the context of a UDRP Proceeding - the  
> term "lock" means preventing any changes of registrar and  
> registrant [without impairing the resolution of the domain name]1  
> (Preliminary recommendation #1)
> Proposed modification of the UDRP rules to no longer require that  
> the complainant sends a copy of the complaint to the respondent to  
> avoid cyberflight2 (Preliminary recommendation #2)
> Requirement for the registrar to 'lock' the domain name  
> registration within 2 business days following a request for  
> verification from the UDRP Provider (Preliminary recommendation #3)
> Clarifying how to deal with changes to contact information and/or  
> lifting of proxy / privacy services (Preliminary recommendation #7  
> and #8)
> Clarifying the process for the unlocking of a domain name  
> registration following the conclusion of a UDRP proceeding  
> (Preliminary recommendation #9)
> In addition to these recommendations, the WG has put forward two  
> possible options in its report to clarify the process in case a  
> settlement is reached and is requesting community input on these  
> two options or possible alternatives.
>
> It is important to emphasize that most of these preliminary  
> recommendations codify existing practices in line with the UDRP and  
> are not expected to require any changes to the existing policy.  
> However, should these recommendations be adopted in their current  
> form, minor changes may need to be made to the UDRP rules and/or  
> UDRP Provider supplemental rules.
>
> Those interested in providing input are strongly encouraged to  
> especially review section 5 and 6 of the Initial Report in order to  
> obtain a further understanding concerning the WG's thinking and  
> rationale with regards to these recommendations as well as further  
> details with respect to the preliminary recommendations. In  
> addition to input on the preliminary recommendations, the WG is  
> also interested to receive further feedback on the expected impact  
> should these recommendations be adopted.
>
> The WG would like to encourage all interested parties to submit  
> their comments and suggestions so these can be considered as the WG  
> continues its deliberations in view of finalizing its report and  
> recommendations in the next phase of the policy development process.
>
> 1 The WG is considering adding the bracketed language and would  
> welcome community input on the proposed addition.
>
> 2 Cyberflight in this context means changing the registrant  
> information with the intent to escape from the dispute.
>
> Section II: Background:
> The "locking" of a domain name registration associated with UDRP  
> proceedings is not something that is literally required by the UDRP  
> as written, but is a practice that has developed around it. As a  
> result, there is no uniform approach, which has resulted in  
> confusion and misunderstandings. To address this issue, the GNSO  
> Council decided to initiate a Policy Development Process on 15  
> December 2011. As part of its deliberations, the WG was required to  
> consider the following questions:
>
> 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.
>
> Section III: Document and Resource Links:
> Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings – Initial  
> Report -http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/locking/domain-name- 
> initial-15mar13-en.pdf [PDF, 883 KB]
> Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - http:// 
> www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy
> Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - http:// 
> www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/rules
> Working Group Workspace - https://community.icann.org/x/xq3bAQ
> Section IV: Additional Information:
> N/A
> (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not  
> guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis,  
> reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period  
> lapses.
>
>
>
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130318/a000acab/attachment.html>