Re: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] RE: For your review by 25 July 2012
Agreed, it is rare. From what I see on our side, we have had only a small number of such cases I can remember. Best, Volker Since I'm the one that brought it up, I will say we've seen the "fake filing" probably 5 times in the 7 years I've been with NAF. And it's usually the registrar who says "hey, I got this complaint and I locked and I never heard from you, what's up?" It's extremely rare, at least to my knowledge.I agree, that where a complainant has filed the complaint and then simultaneously served the registrar and registrant, an observant Registrar would notice that and could act immediately. I agree that would (does) help the cyberflight issue and that we do not want to discourage that.Kristine *From:*Schneller, Matt [mailto:Matt.Schneller@xxxxxxxxx] *Sent:* Tuesday, July 24, 2012 11:17 AM *To:* 'Marika Konings'; Volker Greimann; Dorrain, Kristine *Cc:* 'Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx' *Subject:* RE: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] RE: For your review by 25 July 2012 Hi all,Does anyone have any data for how often they have seen complaints sent to registrars but where UDRPs are not filed? I just haven't run into it, so some numerical context might be useful. I am not entirely sure what the real benefit would be to the party who does that. The registrar survey indicated that registrar locks usually prevent an immediate transfer to another registrar for the short term (not usually a crucial thing that has to be done right away -- nothing bad happens to it if it remains at its current registrar, and most domains aren't pinged around between registrars on a regular basis) or briefly prevents changes to registrant data (ditto -- ownership information for most domains is quite static); changes to DNS server information and etc. are usually still permitted. Within a couple of business days, if there is no notice from the Provider, the lock is presumably removed. It just seems like a lot of hassle to do, and yield minimal (if ill-gotten) benefits to the submitter of the fake complaint.As to the wording here, in the final version of the registrar survey, 46% of registrars indicated that they locked on receipt of the complaint from complainant and 49% indicated that they lock on notice from the provider. I'm not sure that a statement that the "vast majority" of registrars lock only upon receipt of notice from the Provider quite fits the registrar survey data. In addition, as a policy matter, a complaint-driven lock has some concrete benefits.WIPO (WIPO Supp. R. 4(c)) and NAF rules (NAF Supp. R. 4(d)(1)) require copying the registrar on the complaint at the time of filing. At least in UDRPs that I have seen, the complainant just e-mails the complaint to the Provider, one of the filing triggers, and cc's the registrar and registrant. This ticks off all the service requirements, and provides the registrar notice that the complaint has been officially filed with the Provider and served on the registrant.This simultaneous service creates some real issues. As survey results indicated, there is almost always a period of time between a few hours to a couple of actual (non-business) days between filing (and thus service on / notification to the registrant and registrar) and the notice from the Provider, and a similar time gap between notice from the Provider and implementation of the lock by the registrar (with a very very slow outliers). This time period gives a registrant intent on creating problems the time (s)he needs to switch registrant information details and/or registrars to push the parties' mutual jurisdiction into a remote or inconvenient location. If the registrant information and/or registrar changes after filing but prior to issuing the notice -- a pretty frequent occurrence -- the Providers will typically require the complaint to be updated. This takes time and costs money, obviously, but that's almost secondary to the registrant / registrar "flight." Without a lock that is applied really quickly after /filing/, there is no way for a complainant to prevent flight from occurring. Since 46% of responding registrars are providing a more-immediate lock, and that lock helps prevent problematic registrar/registrant flight, I don't know that we want to implicitly /discourage/ registrars from taking this step (or others from supporting it in comments), since it has some really concrete benefits in a lot of cases.Maybe an option that could be considered in parallel with the locking timing is just a slightly different reading of the Policy by the Providers. If the complaint captioning and mutual jurisdiction agreed to by the complainant at the time of filing (evidenced by current WHOIS records) controlled and did not need to be revised or the mutual jurisdiction accession changed based on post-complaint-filing changes to registrant information or registrar transfers, the timing of the registrar lock would be proportionately slightly less important.Matt 206-279-1895*From:*owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx> [mailto:owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] <mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx]> *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings*Sent:* Tuesday, July 24, 2012 8:19 AM *To:* Volker Greimann; Dorrain, Kristine *Cc:* 'Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx' *Subject:* Re: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] RE: For your review by 25 July 2012Based on your comments, would it be helpful to add the following after the charter question in the different outreach documents: [/Not//e from the WG: only the UDRP Provider can notify a Registrar that a complaint has been officially filed and in the vast majority of cases, Registrars will only implement a lock based on the request by the UDRP Provider/]With best regards, Marika*From: *Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>*Date: *Tuesday 24 July 2012 16:42*To: *"Dorrain, Kristine" <kdorrain@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:kdorrain@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> *Cc: *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] RE: For your review by 25 July 2012Speaking for a registrar, I agree with Kristine. We need evidence that the UDRP complaint has been filed, which is not evidenced by the submission of the complaint to us by the complainant, but only upon the initiation of procedures by the UDRP provider. We have also seen cases where we received a complaint, but not the opening questionaire, so locking the domain name would have been the wrong way to go.OTOH, we do realize that this causes a smallish loophole, as a registrar so inclined might warn the registrant of the complaint before being required to lock it and enable him to enact all kinds of shenanigans. Not sure how common this is though, we never forward the complaint to the registrant. For about 50% of all complaints we receive, we do not receive the complaint before we receive the provider questionnaire, maybe because of this risk... -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.key-systems.net/facebook www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.key-systems.net/facebook www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
|