Re: [gnso-lockdomainname-dt] For final review - Updated Charter and Motion

[Paul Diaz <pdiaz@xxxxxxx>]

I agree and support this revised version.

Best, P

PAUL DIAZ
Director of Policy
.ORG, The Public Interest Registry
Main: +1 703 889-5778  | Direct: +1 703 889-5756  | Mobile: +1 703 973-1667 | 
Skype: pdiazaim | Fax: +1 703 889-5779 |

Find us on Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pir.org>  |  .ORG 
Blog<http://blog.pir.org/> | Flickr<http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> | 
YouTube<http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/ORGBuzz> |

On Feb 27, 2012, at 11:20 AM, Victoria McEvedy wrote:

I certainly prefer the suggested softer language.

Thanks and best,


Victoria McEvedy

McEvedys Solicitors and Attorneys Ltd.
<image001.jpg>
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: 27 February 2012 15:28
To: 'Marika Konings'; 
gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-lockdomainname-dt] RE: For final review - Updated Charter and 
Motion

Thanks Marika – I have just sent an email that reflects Ken’s concern about my 
language. If we can move from my wording the word ‘legitimate’ will this 
address your concerns Ken? All, please bear in mind that these are only 
suggestions that the WG may or may not take on board. We are providing some 
wording and some recommendations which in any case are not exhaustive.

Also does anyone object that we replace the sentence: “As part of the WG 
deliberations, the WG should consider, amongst others:” with “As part of the WG 
deliberations, it is suggested that the WG considers, amongst other, the 
following:” – I think that the verb ‘should’ is quite decisive in that the WG 
should definitely follow these deliberations, which was not really our 
intention when we were drafting these.


I would hope that we can finalize this via email and possible skip the call 
tomorrow night. Of course, if there are significant concerns then we will 
proceed with the schedule call tomorrow at 19:30 UTC.

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: Δευτέρα, 27 Φεβρουαρίου 2012 8:55 πμ
To: gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-lockdomainname-dt] For final review - Updated Charter and Motion

Dear All,

As requested by Konstantinos, please find attached an updated version of the 
charter which includes the revised language proposed by Laurie (#1 and #2) and 
the revised language proposed by Konstantinos (#5). Please share your feedback, 
whether in the form of support or in the form of comments, questions and/or 
edits with the mailing list so that we can determine whether there is a need 
for a call tomorrow (see also items below from last week's call). If there are 
no objections and no further comments / edits, the charter will be submitted to 
the GNSO Council for its consideration.

As a reminder, I have also attached the proposed motion which is to be 
submitted to the GNSO Council together with the proposed charter. Comments on 
this document are also appreciated.

With best regards,

Marika

From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 03:32:46 -0800
To: "gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<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


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 6919 (20120227) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 6919 (20120227) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com