[bc-gnso] UDRP-Locking WG - Update and Public Comment period

[Gabriela Szlak <gabrielaszlak@xxxxxxxxx>]

*Dear BC Members,

As part of the UDRP-locking WG that was recently formed last March, we
would like to give you an update on the work of the WG so far.

Some background on this WG:*
*
- The group was chartered as a PDP WG on March 5, 2012 to develop an
Initial Report and a Final Report addressing the issue of locking of a
domain name subject to UDRP proceedings to be delivered to the GNSO Council.
- The membership list can be found here:
https://community.icann.org/display/udrpproceedings/4.+Members
- And the attendance here:
https://community.icann.org/display/udrpproceedings/Locking+of+a+Domain+Name...+-+Attendance

The first comment period for this group is closing today. There are only 4
comments to date, but in July the WG did a survey worth reviewing.  A
summary of the survey can be found here:

https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31174551/Survey+Findings+-+Updated+19+July+2012.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1343133894000

We believe that this matter is relevant to the BC. The group is at a very
early stage and is seeking for feedback from experts for these basic
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. [Note from the WG: only the UDRP
Provider can notify a Registrar that a complaint has been officially filed
and in the vast majority of cases, Registrars will only implement a lock
based on the request by the UDRP Provider]

·    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.

·    4. Whether what constitutes a "locked" domain name should be defined.

·    5. Whether, once a domain name is 'locked' pursuant to a UDRP
proceeding, the registrant information for that domain name may be changed
or modified.

·    6. Whether additional safeguards should be created for the protection
of registrants in cases where the domain name is locked subject to a UDRP
proceeding.

Further to question 5, we believe that one of the most interesting
discussions to date for the work of the BC are those related to the
question of Whois privacy/proxy services. Can the registrar “unmask” when
locking?

The WG survey referenced above showed, among others, a difference in the
way that registrars deal with locking and unlocking and in the way they
deal with privacy and proxy services when locking domains subject to UDRP
proceedings. In these sense, it was argued that unmasking might involve
risks of misuse of UDRP procedures. We know several members of the BC are
experts in whois and other related matters and we encourage those members
to give us their feedback regarding these issues.

As noted before, the comments are closing today. We will submit comments
from our organization, eInstituto. We apologize as we haven't been able to
focus on the need for BC comments, mainly because this is our first working
group experience and we are still new to the procedure. Other
constituencies, such as the IPC had individual members post comments, and
we have sent comments ourselves.

We look forward to having a discussion with the BC on our next call about
the importance of advancing a wider BC position for future interactions,
and for the benefit of WG further activity.

*
*Celia Lerman & Gabriela Szlak
www.einstituto.org*