<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] RE: For your review by 25 July 2012
- To: "Dorrain, Kristine" <kdorrain@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] RE: For your review by 25 July 2012
- From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:34:07 +0200
Just a small addendum:
As registrars, we are bound to the UDRP. Our right to lock a domain name
flows from that policy. The policy itself quite clearly states that
transfers are prohibited during "a pending administrative procedure". A
proceeding - as I understand it - can only be pending when it has been
submitted to the provider. Ergo, we would not be authorized to prevent a
transfer before we receive information that a procedure is actually
pending.
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 2012
Based 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 2012
Speaking 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...
Best,
Volker
Marika, this looks good. My only question involves the first
charter question and how we want to present that. The question
addresses steps **complainants** must do to obtain a lock,
however, only the UDRP Provider can tell a Registrar that a
complaint has really been filed (some complainants actually send a
UDRP complaint to the respondent and registrar and never actually
file it---it's rare but it's happened) and in the vast majority of
cases, Registrars will only implement a lock based on a request by
the Provider. I realize that is the wording of the charter
question, but I wonder if we can ask it differently or add a
sub-part? I think we want to know what information from the
Provider would make a Registrar's life easier. Or maybe we **do**
want to ask if Complainants should be submitting something
specially to the Registrar (in addition to the complaint, which I
believe at least NAF and WIPO require)? I suspect Registrars do
not want to hear from complainants, but I think we want to know
what the Registrar DOES want.
I hope I'm making myself clear. Or maybe the Registrars on the
list can clarify that they really do want the complainants to do
something.
Kristine
*Kristine Fordahl Dorrain*
Director of Internet and IP Services
National Arbitration Forum (FORUM)
Direct 952. 516. 6456
6465 Wayzata Blvd.
Mobile 952. 836. 8613
Suite 470
Email kdorrain@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:kdorrain@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Minneapolis, MN 55426
http://domains.adrforum.com
/This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may
be privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient,
or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended
recipient, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all
copies of this message and attachments./
*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, July 19, 2012 1:14 PM
*To:* Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* [gnso-lockpdp-wg] For your review by 25 July 2012
Dear All,
As discussed during today's meeting, please find attached for your
review the proposed public comment forum text, the request for
SG/C input and the email to request input from other ICANN SO/ACs.
Please send any comments / edits and/or questions you may have *by
Wednesday 25 July at 14.00 UTC* at the latest.
Thanks,
Marika
--
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 <mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.key-systems.net/facebook
<http://www.key-systems.net/facebook>www.twitter.com/key_systems
<http://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 <http://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 <mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.key-systems.net/facebook
<http://www.key-systems.net/facebook>www.twitter.com/key_systems
<http://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 <http://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.
--
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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|