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:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC
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:*Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
*Sent:* 10 May 2012 15:55
*To:* Victoria McEvedy; Marika Konings; 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:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC
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:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC
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*-*30may*11-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*-*30may*11-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:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC
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:
o 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".
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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