RE: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Documents for today's meeting
- To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Documents for today's meeting
- From: Victoria McEvedy <victoria@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 13:38:48 +0100
Further to our call last week, some of the documents I was referring to are
below. I also have some questions.
1. The feedback from UDRP providers at
the comments on locking at: NAF pp.54-55, 75; ADNDRC p.61; CAC p.68.
1. 2, There was constituency out reach on locking and statements are at
gnso.icann.org/drafts/final-report-irt-policy-09apr08.pdf . See pages14, 20-22.
2. 3. More recently and more importantly I note there was also
constituency outreach during the IRTP Part B PDP
gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf . The issues
that IRTP Part B Policy Development Process addresses include:
d. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of
Registrar Lock status (e.g., when it may/may not, should/should not be applied);
e. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was
already in "lock status" provided that the Registrar provides a readily
accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the
And the following questions were asked of Constituencies:
a) Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use
of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be
b) Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name
was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily
accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the
See pages 8,26-27 and as to the outreach pages 30 and 31:
"The public comment period ran from 14 September 2009 to 5 October 2009. Seven
(7) community submissions from six different parties were made to the public
comment forum. ....A summary of all comments can be found here:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-b/msg00007.html. The public comments on this
forum are archived at http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-b/.
6.2 Constituency / Stakeholder Group Statements
The Constituency Statement Template was sent to all the constituencies and
stakeholder groups. Feedback was received from the Registrar Stakeholder Group,
the Registry Stakeholder Group, Business and Commercial Users' Constituency and
the Intellectual Property Interests Constituency....
6.3 Constituency / Stakeholder Group Views
The full text of the constituency statements that have been submitted can be
found on the IRTP Part B WG Workspace. These should be read in their entirety.
The following section attempts to summarize key constituency views on the
issues raised in the context of IRTP Part B PDP. In order to facilitate the
review of the comments received, the WG developed this analysis grid in which
the WG's response and views to each of the comments can be found."
4. Indeed it seems the discussion of the desirability of a standardized policy
on locking continued with
1. Recommendation #8 concerning the standardization and clarification of
Whois status messages regarding Registrar Lock status and recommendation; and
2. Recommendation #9 part 2 concerning a new provision to lock and unlock
These became the subject of Staff proposals:
1. ICANN Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #8
2. ICANN Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #9 part 2 [PDF, 490
KB] and published these for public comment
I must say I am confused by the language in the Final Report on IRTP Part B
Policy Development (as above
gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf ) at page 20
"Recommendations for Issue D
Recommendation #7: The WG recommends that if a review of the UDRP is conducted
in the near future, the issue of requiring the locking of a domain name subject
to UDRP proceedings is taken into consideration" (emphasis added).
Given that it was resolved not to look at the UDRP -I assume that our mandate
can only go to the Recommendation 8& 9 issues?
That is we should not be looking at anything to do with locking and the UDRP at
Michele-I see that you were the Chair of that WG and that that the Final Report
was authored by Marika -perhaps you can explain the UDRP exclusion and where we
are? If this is the case -then I expect we are really looking at the Staff
Proposals and we should review the existing outreach rather than redo?
I would note that tracking down these documents took me a morning that could
have been more profitably spent on other tasks. Further, I doubt the above is
I would also note that I expressly asked in the Charter Drafting Team for this
WG (and on our last call) for a reading list of relevant material. The
documents above appear to me to be highly pertinent to scope for the drafting
of the Charter.
McEvedys Solicitors and Attorneys Ltd.
T: +44 (0) 207 243 6122
F: +44 (0) 207 022 1721
M: +44 (0) 7990 625 169
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-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: 03 May 2012 21:59
Subject: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Action items from today's meeting
Please find below the action items from today's UDRP Domain Name Lock WG
meeting. Attached you'll find the mind map in which I've attempted to capture
some of the notes of today's meeting. If there is anything missing, please let
With best regards,
* WG Leadership: Michele Neylon was nominated to serve as the Working
Group Chair. Alan Greenberg was nominated to serve as the Working Group
Vice-Chair. If there are any other candidates, or support for / objections to
these candidates, please share those with the mailing list prior to the next
meeting. If there are no other candidates or objections, the GNSO Council will
be requested to confirm these appointments.
* Best Practices Paper: Sharing of latest published draft of draft
advisory concerning registrar best practices to protect registrants upon
initiation of a UDRP complaint - Please find attached the paper that was the
basis for the discussion at the Sydney meeting (see
http://syd.icann.org/node/4051). As mentioned on the call, the paper is broader
than just locking. The sections that address locking (directly or indirectly)
appear to be the following:
* Upon notification of a domain name dispute filed through an ICANN
Approved Dispute-Resolution Service Provider ("Provider"), the registrar should
immediately place the domain name on registrar lock to prevent cancellation,
transfer or changes to the domain name and notify all parties. In arbitration
cases, the registrar should subsequently receive a verification request from
* A UDRP proceeding commences when the Provider has notified the
Complainant, the Respondent and the concerned Registrar(s), of the commencement
of the response period. During this time, the registrar should not take any
action involving transfer or cancellation of the domain name until receiving
direction from the dispute resolution provider of a decision or other
resolution of the complaint, which could be a withdrawal among other things.
* If the Provider notifies the registrar of such a suspension and/or
transfer, then the registrar may transfer the domain name to the Complainant on
the respondent's behalf but must prevent any further transfer of the domain
name pending the termination or withdrawal of the proceeding.During this
period, it is not advisable to allow the registrant access to a mechanism that
would allow transfer or cancellation of the domain name. In addition, the
registrar should only accept notification of suspension directly from the
* If the registrar receives notice of a termination or withdrawal from
the Provider, the registrar should immediately restore control of the domain
name to the agreed upon registrant as stated by the Provider and notify the
Complainant, Respondent and Provider. The registrar should only accept
terminations/withdrawals directly from the Provider.
* Also, upon receiving a communication from a Provider about a UDRP
complaint, registrars should carefully review all registrant requests to
transfer domain names subject to the complaint to a different registrant, as
such transfers may be restricted by paragraph 8 of the UDRP
* Outreach: Develop questions to obtain input from registrars /
registries - Matt Schneller has volunteered to develop a first list of questions
* Outreach: Review proposed public comment forum draft (All)
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 7110 (20120504) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.