[gnso-lockpdp-wg] Call for comments:Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-25jul12-en.htm
Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings
Comment/Reply Periods (*)

Important Information Links

Comment Open:

25 July 2012

Comment Close:

15 August 2012

Close Time (UTC):

23:59 UTC

Public Comment 
Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-25jul12-en.htm>

Reply Open:

16 August 2012

To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:udrp-locking@xxxxxxxxx>

Reply Close:

5 September 2012

View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/udrp-locking/>

Close Time (UTC):

23:59 UTC

Report of Public Comments

Brief Overview

Originating Organization:

GNSO Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group

Categories/Tags:


 *   Top Level Domains
 *   Policy Processes
 *   Contracted Party Agreements

Purpose (Brief):

The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Locking of a Domain Name 
Subject to UDRP Proceedings Working Group is looking for public input in order 
to have a clear understanding of the exact nature and scope of issues 
encountered with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings.

Current Status:

The GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on this topic in 
December 2011. A Working Group has now been formed and is looking for public 
input to help inform its deliberations.

Next Steps:

The Working Group will review the public input received and consider it as part 
of its deliberations on the topic and charter questions.

Staff Contact:

Marika Konings

Email:

policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Locking%20of%20a%20Domain%20Name%20Subject%20to%20UDRP%20Proceedings%20public%20comment%20period>

Detailed Information

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose


As noted in the Issue Report on the state of the Uniform Dispute Resolution 
Policy, there currently is no requirement to lock a domain name in the period 
between the filing of a complaint and the commencement of proceedings. In 
addition, it is unclear what is meant with 'status quo' as used in the UDRP 
(see http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy). As a result, the GNSO 
Council decided to initiate a Policy Development Process on the requirement to 
lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings. The WG Charter recommends that 
the Working Group as a first step, request public input on this issue in order 
to have a clear understanding of the exact nature and scope of issues 
encountered with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings. This 
public comment forum is one of the mechanisms that the Working Group is using 
to obtain such input. The Working Group would welcome any information, comments 
and/or suggestions that are deemed helpful to get a better understanding of the 
exact nature and scope of issues encountered with the locking of a domain name 
subject to UDRP Proceedings. In addition, input may be provided on the 
following charter questions that the WG is expected to address:

 *   Whether the creation of an outline of a proposed procedure, which a 
complainant must follow in order for a registrar to place a domain name on 
registrar lock, would be desirable. [Note 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]
 *   Whether the creation of an outline of the steps of the process that a 
registrar can reasonably expect to take place during a UDRP dispute would be 
desirable.
 *   Whether the time frame by which a registrar must lock a domain after a 
UDRP has been filed should be standardized.
 *   Whether what constitutes a "locked" domain name should be defined.
 *   Whether, once a domain name is 'locked' pursuant to a UDRP proceeding, the 
registrant information for that domain name may be changed or modified.
 *   Whether additional safeguards should be created for the protection of 
registrants in cases where the domain name is locked subject to a UDRP 
proceeding.

In order to obtain further information on the current practices of registrars 
and experiences of UDRP Providers, the WG conducted a survey and developed a 
summary of findings which interested parties may want to review as you prepare 
your comments (see https://community.icann.org/x/l6-bAQ).

Section II: Background


At its 15 December meeting, the GNSO Council initiated a 
PDP<http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201112> on the requirement to lock a 
domain name subject to UDRP proceedings.

A discussion on the requirements of locking a domain name subject to UDRP 
proceedings was initially conducted as part of the Inter-Registrar Transfer 
Part B PDP. As a result of that process, it was noted that "locking a domain 
name registration subject to a UDRP dispute should be a best practice." 
However, the WG "noted that any changes to making this a requirement should be 
considered in the context of any potential UDRP review." Subsequently, several 
community members called out this issue in their comments on the state of the 
UDRP Issue 
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issue-report-03oct11-en.pdf>
 [PDF, 2.69 MB] published in October 2011, and as a result, the GNSO Council 
initiated a PDP on this specific issue only. A sample of the community comments 
is below:

 *   "No requirement to lock names in period between filing complaint and 
commencement of proceedings."
 *   "Need clarification of domain locking."
 *   "Unclear what is meant by "Status Quo."
 *   "No explanation of 'Legal Lock' mechanisms and when they go into effect or 
when they should be removed."

Section III: Document and Resource Links


 *   Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group 
Charter<https://community.icann.org/display/udrpproceedings/3.+WG+Charter>
 *   Uniform Dispute Resolution 
Policy<http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy>
 *   The state of the UDRP Issue 
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issue-report-03oct11-en.pdf>
 [PDF, 2.69 MB]
 *   Working Group 
Workspace<https://community.icann.org/display/udrpproceedings/Home>

Section IV: Additional Information




(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to 
be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making 
that takes place once this period lapses.


Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://gnso.icann.org