RE: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Documents for today's meeting

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Victoria,

It is the intent of the Council to review any recommendations on Recommendation 
7 as soon as it gets recommendations from this group as part of the PDP 
process.  I do not agree that the plain meaning of the language means what you 
say it means.  I am also not sure why you are making this argument.

It is also still the intent of the Council (unless or until something else gets 
stated by the Council) that a new issue report "on the current state of all 
rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, 
including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to the GNSO 
Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation of the 
first new gTLD."

On the issue of the desirability of different lock provisions in the UDRP and 
URS, that has not been discussed by the Council.  However, due to the differing 
nature of the UDRP and URS, and the different parties that actually do the 
locking (Registrar in UDRP, Registry in URS), the provisions must by different.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs


From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 11:18 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Marika Konings; gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Documents for today's meeting


Thanks Jeff-very helpful.

I note you say it was decided to delay considering the other issues until 18 
months after the delegation of the first new gTLD. This is also what I had 
understood.

Do you now say that it was decided not to wait the 18 months and there will be 
no further report?

Otherwise it seems pretty clear from the plain language that our work won't be 
considered until that report to come.

Do you mind if I ask -whether there has been any discussion or consideration of 
the desirability of having different lock provisions for the URS and the UDRP?

Thanks again and best,

Victoria McEvedy

McEvedys Solicitors and Attorneys Ltd.
[cid:image001.jpg@01CD2E9F.A4B84570]
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: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 10 May 2012 15:55
To: Victoria McEvedy; Marika Konings; 
gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Documents for today's meeting

Victoria,

I agree with you that the wording may be a little confusing and could have been 
better.  The intent of the language I proposed was that the GNSO Council agreed 
in June 2011 to take up the issue of Recommendation 7 of the IRTP report when 
we discussed the Final Issue Report on the UDRP.  We discussed the Final Issue 
Report on the UDRP in December 2011 at which time we decided to move forward 
with the PDP on recommendation #7 and delay considering the other issues which 
were raised in the Final Issue Report on the PDP until 18 months after the 
delegation of the first new gTLD.

To your last question, no, I do not believe that the lock issue will be more 
informed by experience with the URS.  I believe what is known now is sufficient 
for policy making with respect to the UDRP.   If you believe additional clarity 
is needed from the Council, then perhaps you can raise this with the GNSO 
Council Liaison to the group (who I believe is Joy) and they can raise this 
with the Council.

Thanks.


Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs

From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:42 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Marika Konings; 
gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Documents for today's meeting

Thanks Jeff-perhaps you can clarify the timing issue.

On 15 December it was RESOLVED, that the GNSO approves the initiation of a PDP 
and the establishment of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part 
B Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to 
UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 
received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final 
Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP (which is to be delivered to the 
GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation of 
the first new gTLD).

This was " . . to allow the policy process to be informed by data regarding the 
effectiveness of the URS, which was modeled on the UDRP, to address the problem 
of cybersquatting."

So (forgive me if I should know this) but has a new gTLD has been delegated and 
(which and) when?

Is our work not to be informed by the URS experience on locking?

Best,



Victoria McEvedy

McEvedys Solicitors and Attorneys Ltd.
[cid:image001.jpg@01CD2E9F.A4B84570]
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: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 10 May 2012 15:36
To: Marika Konings; Victoria McEvedy; 
gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Documents for today's meeting

Victoria,

As a Vice Chair of the Council, although I am not a direct member of this 
Working Group, I am an observer.  I will note that Marika is correct that the 
Council decided to review this one aspect separate and apart from everything 
else with respect to the UDRP.  I was the originator of that motion and perhaps 
we could have used better words and documented this a little better.  I hope 
this helps.

Best regards,

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs

From: owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 9:04 AM
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@01CD2E9F.A4B84570]
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@01CD2E9F.A4B84570]
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 7126 (20120510) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 7126 (20120510) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 7126 (20120510) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 7126 (20120510) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com