[gnso-lockdomainname-dt] Call for volunteers for the Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group for the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

http://gnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-16mar12-en.htm
Please distribute to your members the call for volunteers  for the Policy 
Development Process (PDP) Working Group  for the  Locking of a Domain Name 
Subject to UDRP Proceedings.

In Brief

The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to 
serve on a Working Group that will address the locking of a domain name subject 
to Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) proceedings. After investigating 
and considering specific issues (detailed below), the Working Group is expected 
to make recommendations to the GNSO Council to address the issues identified 
with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings.

What This Group Will Do

The PDP Working Group should, as a first step, request public input on this 
issue in order to have a clear understanding of the exact nature and scope of 
issues encountered with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP 
Proceedings. Based on this information, and its own views, and any additional 
information gathering the Working Group deems necessary, the PDP Working Group 
is expected to make recommendations to the GNSO Council to address the issues 
identified with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings.

As part of the WG deliberations, it is suggested that the WG considers, amongst 
other, the following:

 *   1. 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.
 *   2. 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.
 *   3. Whether the time frame by which a registrar must lock a domain after a 
UDRP has been filed should be standardized.
 *   4a. Whether what constitutes a "locked" domain name should be defined.
 *   4b. Whether, once a domain name is 'locked' pursuant to a UDRP proceeding, 
the registrant information for that domain name may be changed or modified.
 *   5. Whether additional safeguards should be created for the protection of 
registrants in cases where the domain name is locked subject to a UDRP 
proceeding.

For further details, see the WG 
Charter<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/locking-domain-name-udrp-proceedings-charter-05mar12-en.pdf>.

How This Group Will Work

ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. The meetings of this WG 
will be recorded, and the recordings will be available to the public. The 
mailing list for the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings WG 
will be archived publicly. Working Group members are expected to submit 
Statements of Interest (SOI). The group will collaborate using a public 
workspace. The Working Group is expected to follow the GNSO Working Group 
Guidelines<http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf>.

How to Join

The Council invites interested parties to provide names of expected 
participants who can then be added to the WG mailing list. The GNSO Council may 
also invite stakeholders and experts to join. Community members who wish to be 
invited to join the group should contact the GNSO 
secretariat<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxx> 
(gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxx>). This WG is 
already forming; please apply promptly.

Background

At its 15 December meeting, the GNSO Council initiated a 
PDP<http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201112> on the requirement to lock a 
domain name subject to UDRP proceedings.

A discussion on the requirements of locking a domain name subject to UDRP 
proceedings was initially conducted as part of the Inter-Registrar Transfer 
Part B PDP. As a result of that process, it was noted that "that locking a 
domain name registration subject to a UDRP dispute should be a best practice" 
however, the WG "noted that any changes to making this a requirement should be 
considered in the context of any potential UDRP review." Subsequently, several 
community members called out this issue in their comments on the state of the 
UDRP Issue 
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issue-report-03oct11-en.pdf>
 published in October 2011, and as a result, the GNSO Council initiated a PDP 
on this specific issue only. A sample of the community comments is below:

 *   "No requirement to lock names in period between filing complaint and 
commencement of proceedings."
 *   "Need clarification of domain locking."
 *   "Unclear what is meant by "Status Quo."
 *   "No explanation of 'Legal Lock' mechanisms and when they go into effect or 
when they should be removed."
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Glen
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://gnso.icann.org