<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[gnso-lockdomainname-dt] RE: Charter Drafting Team: Latest Revisions
- To: "'Julie Hedlund'" <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-lockdomainname-dt] RE: Charter Drafting Team: Latest Revisions
- From: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:09:40 +0000
Thanks Julie for sharing the latest the latest version of the charter: my
first question is when these changes took place - I see a lot of substantive
issues that I don't recall us discussing in our meeting. In any case, I think
some of the additions are not part of this group's mandate as they relate to
substance rather than the actual drafting of the charter. More specifically:
The recommendations identified as issues to be addressed are as follows:
1. The creation, maintenance and publication by ICANN of public e-mail
contact information for all registrars for use with UDRP-related domain lock
queries.
This is a substantive issue that relates to the aftermath of the domain name
locking and the channels of communication between Registrars and ICANN. it is
not for this group to determine this, especially we are still unaware of the
exact process leading to this.
2. The creation of an outline of a proposed procedure which a complainant
must follow in order for a registrar to process a domain lock request.
Again, here I feel as if we are jumping many steps. We are already directing
the creation of a complaint? It is not for this group to design the process.
3. The standardization of a time frame by which a registrant must lock a
domain after a UDRP has been filed.
This sounds as if this group has decided that standardization is necessary. We
are not here to do that since we are not aware of all the substantive issues.
4. The defining of what constitutes a "locked" domain name.
I think this is very relevant for the PDP group to determine.
5. Regarding the role of a privacy service provider within the
domain-locking process, which party will be locked-in as registrant. The
privacy service provider or the actual registrant masked by the proxy service?
this is substantive and I don't think we should be focusing on this issue. and
I agree with Victoria that it raises significant privacy issues that are also
currently discussed as part of the WHOIS.
6. The standardization of a time frame by which a domain should be unlocked
after termination of a UDRP.
The same as 3.
Generally, I am a bit sceptical about these 6 points. I think that they are
misleading and perhaps if we added 'whether' in the beginning it would make
them look less substantive. In any case I am against incorporating number 1 and
5 within the charter. These two points are clearly outside the scope of this
group.
Thanks
Konstantinos
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
Senior Lecturer,
Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
Graham Hills building,
50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org<http://www.komaitis.org>
From: owner-gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Πέμπτη, 16 Φεβρουαρίου 2012 11:32 μμ
To: gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-lockdomainname-dt] Charter Drafting Team: Latest Revisions
Dear Drafting Team members,
Attached is a revised version of the Draft Charter with changes incorporated
from Randy Ferguson, Lisa Garono, and Matt Schneller. Please add any changes
you may have in redline to this document, or send them to me to incorporate.
Also, as a reminder our next call is scheduled on Tuesday 21 February 2012 at
1930 UTC, 11:30 PST, 14:30 EST, 19:30 London, 20:30 CET, 03:30 Hong Kong. A
reminder with the teleconference details will be sent prior to the call. The
meeting details and documents for review, including the latest draft charter
revision, are on the wiki at:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsolockdomainnamedt/Next+Meeting.
Our goal is to submit the Draft Charter to the GNSO Council to consider at its
meeting on Wednesday, 14 March in Costa Rica. The deadline to submit items
for Council consideration at that meeting and any associated motions is 06
March 2012. However, if we can send something earlier it will give the Council
more time to consider the document, which could be helpful.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedland
Policy Director
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|