Re: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Documents for today's meeting
Yes, the minutes of that specific meeting can be found here http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-15dec11-en.htm. With best regards, Marika From: Victoria McEvedy <victoria@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, "Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" <Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: RE: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Documents for today's meeting Are there Council Minutes? Victoria McEvedy McEvedys Solicitors and Attorneys Ltd. [cid:image001.jpg@01CD2EB6.14567B70] T: +44 (0) 207 243 6122 F: +44 (0) 207 022 1721 M: +44 (0) 7990 625 169 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: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: 10 May 2012 14:04 To: Victoria McEvedy; Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Documents for today's meeting I'm not really sure how it is contrary. The resolution that was referenced concerns the initiation of a PDP of the review of the UDRP. The Council decided that one part of that review should take place now (locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings) while all the rest should commence at a later date together with a review of the other rights protection mechanisms. Happy to try and explain this in further detail on the call today if it is still not clear. Best regards, Marika From:Victoria McEvedy <victoria@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, "Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" <Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: RE: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Documents for today's meeting Thanks Marika. I don’t believe I’ve seen that GNSO resolution before. Given it is directly contrary to the recommendation of the final report –is there further GNSO material on the origin and progress of that recommendation? In fact –all document references relevant to that recommendation would be helpful. Thank you. Regards, Victoria McEvedy McEvedys Solicitors and Attorneys Ltd. [cid:image001.jpg@01CD2EB6.14567B70] 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: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: 10 May 2012 13:51 To: Victoria McEvedy; Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Documents for today's meeting Dear Victoria, Please note that in reference to IRTP Part B Recommendations #8 and #9 that these, including the referenced staff proposals, have both been adopted by the ICANN Board and are in the process of implementation (see http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1.5 and http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-16mar12-en.htm#1.2). Although the Council decided to commence an overall review on the UDRP and other rights protection mechanisms at a later date, it did decide to start a PDP on the specific issue of locking a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings as this issue was raised both in the context of the IRTP Part B as well as the Issue Report on the UDRP (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201112). With best regards, Marika From: Victoria McEvedy <victoria@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, "Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" <Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: RE: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Documents for today's meeting Further to our call last week, some of the documents I was referring to are below. I also have some questions. Documents 1. The feedback from UDRP providers at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issue-report-03oct11-en.pdf .See 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 lock status. 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 applied); 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 lock status. 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 http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-recommendation-8-icann-staff-16feb12-en.pdf . See: 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 domain names). These became the subject of Staff proposals: 1. ICANN Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 http://gnso.icann/org/issues/irtp-b-8-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf ; 2. ICANN Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #9 part 2 [PDF, 490 KB] and published these for public comment http://gnso.icann/org/issues/irtp-b-9-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf Questions 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 all? 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? Grumbles 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 comprehensive. 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. Best, Victoria McEvedy McEvedys Solicitors and Attorneys Ltd. [cid:image001.jpg@01CD2EB6.14567B70] 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-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx> [mailto:owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: 03 May 2012 21:59 To: Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Action items from today's meeting Dear All, 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 me know. With best regards, Marika Action Items * 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 the Provider". * 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 Provider. * 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. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7125 (20120510) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7125 (20120510) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7125 (20120510) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7125 (20120510) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7125 (20120510) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com Attachment:
image001.jpg
|
