ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-lockpdp-wg] TR: UDRP Domain Name Lock - Request for Input by 15 September

  • To: "gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] TR: UDRP Domain Name Lock - Request for Input by 15 September
  • From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:44:00 -0700


De : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@xxxxxxx]
Envoyé : mercredi 19 septembre 2012 01:03
À : Glen de Saint Géry
Cc : Stéphane Van Gelder; Margie Milam; Marika Konings; gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx; 
ICANN At-Large Staff
Objet : Re: UDRP Domain Name Lock - Request for Input by 15 September

Dear Glenn,

I realise that our response should have been sent by 15 September. It was not. 
This is because I can confirm that at this stage the ALAC will not be making a 
comment/statement. Please be so kind to thank the Working Group for its efforts 
in actively seeking community input on this matter.
Warmest regards,

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
ALAC Chair

On 27/08/2012 18:05, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:

My apologies, this notice  should have gone out some time ago, it is entirely 
my fault that I missed sending it.
Please provide your input by 15 September.
Thank you.
Kind regards,


Dear SO/AC Chair,

As you may be aware, the GNSO Council recently initiated a Policy Development 
Process (PDP) on the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings. As 
part of its efforts to obtain input from the broader ICANN Community at an 
early stage of its deliberations, the Working Group that has been tasked with 
addressing this issue is looking for any input or information that may help 
inform itsdeliberations. To this end a public comment forum has been opened 
(see https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/udrp-locking-25jul12-en.htm) 
You are strongly encouraged to provide any input your respective communities 
may have either as part of the public comment forum or by providing it to the 
GNSO Secretariat 

For further background information on the WG's activities to date, please see 
https://community.icann.org/x/xq3bAQ. You may also want to review the results 
of the survey that the WG conductedamongst registrars and UDRP providers to get 
further insight into the current practices and issues experienced (see 
https://community.icann.org/x/l6-bAQ). Below you'll find the charter questions 
that the WG's has been tasked to address.

If possible, the WG would greatly appreciate if it could receive your input by 
1 September at the latest. Your input will be very much appreciated.

With best regards,

Michele Neylon, Chair of the WG and Alan Greenberg, Vice Chair of the WG

Charter Questions

1.     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]

2.     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 

3.     Whether the time frame by which a registrar must lock a domain after a 
UDRP has been filed should be standardized.

4a.  Whether what constitutes a "locked" domain name should be defined.

4b.  Whether, once a domain name is 'locked' pursuant to a UDRP proceeding, the 
registrant information for that domain name may be changed or modified.
5.    Whether additional safeguards should be created for the protection of 
registrants in cases where the domain name is locked subject to a UDRP 


Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy