ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-lockdomainname-dt] RE: Charter Drafting Team: Latest Revisions

  • To: "Schneller, Matt" <Matt.Schneller@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-lockdomainname-dt] RE: Charter Drafting Team: Latest Revisions
  • From: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:33:15 +0000

Thanks Matt. I think that first of all we need to clarify that these are just 
indicative recommendations that the WG may or may not address. My main worry 
with the way these recommendations are drafted and presented is that they sort 
of direct the WG to consider just these. I think that the word 'whether' can be 
added before all of them – this way leave it to the discretion of the WG to 
consider them or not.

Matt's wording of item 5 is much better; a couple of observations. There is not 
an issue as to whether the registrant information for a domain name can be 
changed; I am pretty sure it can. The question is whether it should. And in 
various jurisdictions, this is not straightforward. For instance in Europe, 
this is not as easy or it doesn't come with possible legal implications. Given 
Matt's explanation, however, on this issue I would propose the wording of item 
5 to be:

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

Personally, I still think item 1 should be omitted. I think it is not for us to 
even suggest the mandate of the WG to be to propose such a list – we are 
opening a Pandora's Box here and we are directing the WG to recommend something 
that can create various potential problems.

And, I would like to add an item 7:

Whether the standard of the 'locking' of a domain name subject to UDRP should 
be raised and not be based on a simple request by the complainant.

Speak to you all soon.


From: "Schneller, Matt" 
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:15:36 +0000
To: "gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
Subject: [gnso-lockdomainname-dt] RE: Charter Drafting Team: Latest Revisions

Hi all,

A number of Konstantinos’ comments note that items are “substantive” and for 
the WG to consider.  I totally agree - but all that these provisions do is note 
them as relevant issues for the WG to consider; none of them requires any 
outcome.  All six are already prefaced with a sentence noting that they are 
“recommendations” for the WG to consider.  Konstantinos, (a) does this address 
your concern and (b) if not, would you circulate a specific alternative lead-in 
sentence that you prefer?

On (5), this is really just a specific definitional issue that carries over 
from (4), to which no one has objected.  When a domain is “locked,” can 
registrant information be changed?  The most common way this issue arises is 
when the domain is in the name of a privacy service, but applies more generally 
to any domain that is locked pursuant to a UDRP.  Would re-phrasing as follows 
be preferable?

(5) Once a domain name is “locked” pursuant to a UDRP proceeding, can the 
registrant information for that domain name be changed or modified?

Also, I am not sure thisissue necessarily even raises a privacy concern or a 
more general WHOIS concern.  Let’s hypothetically assume that the final 
recommendation is that the registrant’s name cannot be changed once the domain 
name is locked.  This policy requires or bars substitution of an “actual” 
registrant for a privacy service; it merely requires that substitution, should 
it occur, to occur before the domain is locked.  It takes no position on 
privacy services generally nor would it require substitution; it would merely 
state that if substitution (or any other change) is to occur, it must occur 
within a set timeframe (i.e. prior to the institution of the lock).

Talk to everyone in a few hours!  Best,

Matt Schneller | Attorney | Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6200, Seattle, WA 98104-7043
T: 206.204.6241 | F: 800.404.3970 | C: 206.679.1895
matt.schneller@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:matt.schneller@xxxxxxxxx> | 

 [mailto:owner-gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 5:10 AM
To: Victoria McEvedy; Konstantinos Komaitis; Julie Hedlund; 
Subject: [gnso-lockdomainname-dt] RE: Charter Drafting Team: Latest Revisions


Thank you for informing us, and noted.

Kind regards,


Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat

 la part de Victoria McEvedy
Envoyé : mardi 21 février 2012 14:07
À : Konstantinos Komaitis; Julie Hedlund; 
Objet : [gnso-lockdomainname-dt] RE: Charter Drafting Team: Latest Revisions

I agree with Konstantinos.

Julie – would you be kind enough to make my apologies to the DT? I will not be 
able to make the meeting tonight. Thanks Julie.


Victoria McEvedy

McEvedys Solicitors and Attorneys Ltd.
T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122
F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721
M:   +44 (0) 7990 625 169


Authorised and Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, SRA No. 
564276. VAT No. 122 3590 43.

Company No. 7786363, Registered Office: 81 Oxford Street, London W1D 2EU.

This email and its attachments are confidential and intended for the exclusive 
use of the addressee(s).  This email and its attachments may also be legally 
privileged. If you have received this in error, please let us know by reply 
immediately and destroy the email and its attachments without reading, copying 
or forwarding the contents.
This email does not create a solicitor-client relationship and no retainer is 
created by this email communication.

 [mailto:owner-gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Konstantinos 
Sent: 20 February 2012 17:10
To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 
Subject: [gnso-lockdomainname-dt] RE: Charter Drafting Team: Latest Revisions

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 

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 



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
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org<http://www.komaitis.org>

 [mailto:owner-gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Πέμπτη, 16 Φεβρουαρίου 2012 11:32 μμ
To: gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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: 

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 Hedland
Policy Director

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 6899 (20120220) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 6902 (20120221) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.


JPEG image

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy