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

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for this Ken - I see what you mean but I think that you have 
misunderstood what I was trying to say and this is my mistake. Since this group 
cannot make any determination as to when the domain name would be locked (at 
the time the Registrar receives the request from the complainant or from the 
Centre or from whatever else), what my wording seeks to do is that decisions 
concerning the locking of the domain name are not taken arbitrarily and 
inconsistently with the proceedings conducted under the UDRP and that 
registrants are also protected through this process. These safeguards, if the 
WG determines that they are necessary and indicates which they are, will 
operate irrespective of the UDRP - they will make sure that when locking the 
request comes, it is done in a way that also protects registrants. I know this 
is a very confusing issue, but this DT and the WG will not be working on making 
any amendments to the UDRP.

So, I would like to propose the following language: "Whether additional 
safeguards should be created for the protection of registrants in cases where 
the domain name is locked subject to a UDRP proceeding."

Thanks and speak to you soon.

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: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Κυριακή, 26 Φεβρουαρίου 2012 10:38 μμ
To: Konstantinos Komaitis
Subject: Re: [gnso-lockdomainname-dt] RE: For review & doodle poll

I'm having problems with your proposal here  Konstantinos...

First of all, what or whom decides who is a  "legitimate registrant".  The 
presumption is
that any person or entity who registers a domain name is a "legitimate 
registrant"
unless proven otherwise by some sort of a proceeding.

Injecting another process into a UDRP challenge only delays
the finding. I see no practical process for determining
legitimacy at the beginning of a UDRP proceeding when, in effect, this is what 
the udrp is for.

My personal feeling is that, similar to laws in many countries, the presumption 
of legitimacy exists.
The locking of the domain until determination is part of a process that is 
designed to protect
the integrity of the registration process . The registration agreement
assented to at the time of registration by the registrant acknowledges the 
existence of the UDRP process
and binds the registrant to same.

To the best of my knowledge most of the cc TLD's have some sort of a process in 
place designed to accomplish the same effect
as it pertains to registrations made in bad faith.

I would not be in favor of the proposed wording..

Ken Stubbs






On 2/24/2012 10:44 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:
Dear all,

Here is the new language proposed to replace the one I suggested during our 
last call; this language is merely asking the WG to consider whether it is 
necessary for additional safeguards to be built into the process of the locking 
of the domain name subject to the UDRP.

The original language was: 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

The new language is: "Whether additional safeguards should be created for the 
protection of legitimate registrants in cases where the domain name is locked 
subject to a UDRP proceeding."

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 Marika Konings
Sent: Τετάρτη, 22 Φεβρουαρίου 2012 11:33 πμ
To: gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-lockdomainname-dt] For review & doodle poll

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