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

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Marika – you just beat me to the punch :)

Speak to you all soon.

KK

From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:24:03 +0000
To: "Schneller, Matt" 
<Matt.Schneller@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Matt.Schneller@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-lockdomainname-dt] RE: Charter Drafting Team: Latest 
Revisions

If I may make a suggestion? I think part of the confusion arises over the use 
of the term 'recommendations' which are usually the prerogative of the WG to 
develop (within the boundaries set by the Charter). If these are issues 'for 
the WG to consider' as Matt notes below, the DT may want to consider framing 
these in the form of questions, which is typical in many WG charters. For 
example, this could look as follows:

As part of the WG deliberations, the WG should consider, amongst others:

 1.  Whether thecreation, maintenance and publication by ICANN of public e-mail 
contact information for all registrars for use with UDRP-related domain lock 
queries should be explored
 2.  Whether 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 would be desirable
 3.  Whether the time frame by which a registrant 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 the privacy service provider or the actual registrant masked by 
the proxy service is the party that is locked-in as registrant
 6.  Whether the time frame by which a domain should be unlocked after 
termination of a UDRP should be standardized

With best regards,

Marika

From: "Schneller, Matt" 
<Matt.Schneller@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Matt.Schneller@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:15:36 -0800
To: "gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<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> | 
www.bgllp.com/schneller<http://www.bgllp.com/schneller>

From: 
owner-gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-lockdomainname-dt@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; 
gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-lockdomainname-dt] RE: Charter Drafting Team: Latest Revisions

Victoria,

Thank you for informing us, and noted.

Kind regards,

Glen

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://gnso.icann.org

De 
:owner-gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx>[mailto:owner-gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx]>De
 la part de Victoria McEvedy
Envoyé : mardi 21 février 2012 14:07
À : Konstantinos Komaitis; Julie Hedlund; 
gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
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.

Best,


Victoria McEvedy

McEvedys Solicitors and Attorneys Ltd.
[cid:image001.jpg@01CCF05D.79927D50]
T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122
F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721
M:   +44 (0) 7990 625 169

www.mcevedys.com<http://www.mcevedys.com>

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.

From:owner-gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
 [mailto:owner-gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Konstantinos 
Komaitis
Sent: 20 February 2012 17:10
To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 
gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
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 
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>
 [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: 
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



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

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


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

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com