RE: [gnso-lockdomainname-dt] For review & doodle poll

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for this language Laurie – I personally favour the split verbiage as it 
is more clear. If there are no objections, I suggest we go for the split 
verbiage option under a and b.

If we agree on the language, do the members of this group feel that we need to 
have a call? Marika, in case of no disagreement over Laurie’s language and 
mine, can we have the charter please with all suggestions for the WG? Is there 
anything further we need to consider?

Cheers and a good weekend.

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 Laurie Anderson
Sent: Τετάρτη, 22 Φεβρουαρίου 2012 9:35 μμ
To: Marika Konings; gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-lockdomainname-dt] For review & doodle poll

Dear All,

I have submitted proposed verbiage for #2 as we discussed in the meeting.

Current verbiage:

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

Proposed verbiage:

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, 
and the steps of the process that a registrar can reasonably expect to take 
place during a UDRP dispute would be desirable.

Alternatively, splitting this up to read:

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.

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.



Laurie Anderson
Disputes Manager
Domain Services
GoDaddy.com<http://GoDaddy.com>, LLC
480-366-3009


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-lockdomainname-dt] For review & doodle poll
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wed, February 22, 2012 4:32 am
To: "gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx>"
<gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Dear All,

Following yesterday's Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings 
meeting, please find attached the updated draft charter which includes the 
modified language and questions that were agreed for inclusion in the charter 
template by those attending the meeting. In addition to any comments / edits to 
the modified charter, DT members are encouraged to express their views on 
whether the following questions should be included in the Charter:
·Whether the creation, 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 [Several members on the call expressed their 
preference for this question not to be included as it would likely get 
addressed should the WG decide to recommend a standardized process for filing a 
complaint]
·Whether the time frame by which a domain should be unlocked after termination 
of a UDRP, after the 10 day wait period, should be standardized [Several 
members of the call expressed their preference for this question not to be 
included as the UDRP already prescribes a 10 day wait period following which 
the domain should be unlocked]
·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 [Several 
members on the call expressed their preference for this question not to be 
included as it was not considered in scope of the WG. A possible alternative 
wording is to be suggested by Konstantinos]
Please share your comments and/or proposed edits with the mailing list. The 
objective is to try and finalize the charter during next week's meeting. In 
order to find the most appropriate time, please complete the following doodle 
poll: http://www.doodle.com/7b5wf44a65y2mqk2.

Thanks,

Marika