[gnso-lockpdp-wg] Scope

[Luc SEUFER <lseufer@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

As briefly alluded to during our last phone conference,  I am of the opinion 
that our Working Group is  regrettably self-limiting the scope of its mission 
for no valid reason but, its too precise name.

Indeed, by reviewing the so-called background of this PDP, it seems clear to me 
that the GNSO intention wasn't to confine it and thus this Working Group 
mission to the sheer locking but rather to the whole lock procedure/status quo 
maintaining.
 (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201112)

In fact, reading the Issue Report published in October 2011 on the state of the 
UDRP (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issue-report-03oct11-en.pdf) 
and which motivated the aforementioned resolution, it appears that the   
community members did not dissociated the application of the "lock" from its 
removal but considered it as a whole.

Furthemore, the Charter of this Working Group itself is broader than what we 
seem to currently limit our mission to.
(https://community.icann.org/display/udrpproceedings/3.+WG+Charter)

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

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.

Lastly, and as brilliantly explained by our favorite Esquire John Berryhill in 
his email from May 10, neither the UDRP Policy, nor the Rules foreseen that a 
lock shall be applied during the UDRP proceedings. The lock being therefore a 
best practice that our industry is following. As such, including the unlocking 
process to our mission wouldn't encroach upon the UDRP reform that has been 
postponed.


In light of the above, I would propose that we also include this additional 
safeguards that is the introduction of a clear and unambiguous unlocking 
process to our mission scope. And ideally add questions to this end  to the 
UDRP providers and Registrars surveys.
Should we ask UDRP providers and Registrars what is the major obstacle 
preventing the implementation of UDRP decisions, I am certain that the 
inability to lift the lock measures for lack of information from the 
complainant and wining party will be in the top 5.

Without putting the cart before the horse, I would already suggest that if this 
obstacle is confirmed, we attempt to define the conditions under which wining 
complainants may request the lift of the lock measures.  The provision of 
details for all applicable whois contacts (Registrant, Administrative, Billing 
and Technical Contact) should be a given in my opinion.

Feedback is more than welcome.

Best Wishes,

Luc
______________________
Luc Seufer

Chief Legal Officer
DCL Group
2, rue Léon Laval
L-3372 Leudelange



Tel.:  +352  27 220 166
Mobile : +352 691 600 417
Fax.:   +352 20 300 166
Mailto:lseufer@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lseufer@xxxxxxxxxxx>

www.datacenter.eu<http://www.datacenter.eu/>   | 
www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com/>   | 
www.voipgate.com<http://www.voipgate.com/> | 
www.luxcloud.com<http://www.luxcloud.com/>


________________________________

--------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the 
use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have 
received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and 
delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its 
contents to anyone.

Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

--------------------------------------------------------