RE: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Proposed Agenda UDRP Domain Name Lock WG Meeting

["Roache-Turner, David" <david.roacheturner@xxxxxxxx>]

Many thanks Marika.

All,

Some additional points which might also be helpful for the WG to consider with 
respect to comment number 56 in particular, concerning UDRP suspension 
procedures, some of which were also discussed during our Prague Meeting 
session, might include:


 *   The utility of registrar cooperation when a registrant has requested a 
transfer to a Complainant, and the UDRP provider and Complainant have agreed to 
suspend the proceedings for that purpose, has been recognized from the earliest 
days of UDRP operation (for example, as illustrated by ICANN’s then-Chief 
Registrar Liaison’s below reply to a 2003 query from the WIPO Arbitration and 
Mediation Center on the subject, which was briefly mentioned in general terms 
in the Prague discussion);
 *   This long-standing suspension practice (as is also noted in the below 
email) allows parties to settle, and avoids the unnecessary procedure of 
appointing a panel and rendering a decision when parties have already reached 
an agreement.   (Sometimes, as is often the case in many forms of dispute 
resolution including the UDRP, party agreement is only reached after initiation 
of the relevant proceedings, but before it is necessary to take the dispute all 
the way to a decision.)
 *   UDRP Panels (which on appointment also have power under the URDP Rules to 
order termination of settled UDRP cases) have recognized that UDRP proceedings 
may be legitimately suspended at party request to enable settlement by agreed 
transfer prior to UDRP panel appointment (for example, as illustrated by the 
below extract from the WIPO jurisprudential Overview 2.0 and cases cited 
therein. (http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview2.0/index.html)
 *   In the event that a UDRP case would be suspended for purposes of 
settlement (at least at WIPO), the registrar would typically be notified of 
this, and advised that it may “unlock” the disputed domain name for the purpose 
of allowing transfer to the Complainant (and only the Complainant).  (Although 
the UDRP provider would typically provide the notice of suspension, the actual 
means of giving effect to a registrant request to transfer a domain name to 
another party (in this, instance, the UDRP Complaint) may vary from registrar 
to registrar.)
 *   A significant number of UDRP disputes (for example, approximately 25% at 
WIPO) are in fact already settled in this way.

I hope this additional information on point may be helpful for any further 
deliberations on this point, and that it could perhaps also be taken into 
account by the group in considering recommended action (if any) on this issue 
going forward, if ultimately considered to be within scope.


Kind regards,

David



4.12 Can UDRP proceedings be suspended for purposes of settlement?

See also the relevant 
section<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/legalindex.jsp?id=12840> in 
the WIPO Legal Index.

WIPO panels have recognized that UDRP proceedings may be suspended by the WIPO 
Center at the request of the parties to enable settlement of their dispute 
prior to panel appointment. Where a signed suspension request for such purpose 
identifying the period of time sought (typically not more than 30 days) is 
submitted to the WIPO Center by the complainant (and not objected to by the 
copied respondent) or by both parties, a notification would normally be issued 
to the parties and registrar advising the period of the suspension, and that 
the domain name should be unlocked only for the purpose of any transfer of the 
domain name from the registrant to the complainant under the terms of any 
agreed settlement between the parties. In the latter scenario, in order to 
encourage settlement where appropriate, WIPO will fully refund the fee advanced 
for the not-yet-appointed panel. A request for suspension would not normally be 
granted where either party objects. Given the expedited nature of UDRP 
proceedings, the WIPO Center will normally grant a request to extend the 
initial suspension by one further period of up to 30 days. A request from the 
parties to suspend proceedings to explore possible settlement options only 
after panel appointment would be at the discretion of the panel. Whether or not 
the proceedings have been suspended, where a settlement is found to have 
occurred prior to the rendering of the panel's decision, the panel would 
normally order the proceedings terminated in accordance with paragraph 17 of 
the UDRP Rules.

Relevant decisions:

AT&T Corp. v. Ondonk Partners, WIPO Case No. 
D2000-1723<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1723.html>,
 <attplaza.com>, Transfer
Mori Seiki Co. Ltd. v. Texas International Property Associates, WIPO Case No. 
D2007-1795<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-1795.html>,
 <mori-seiki.com> inter alia, Transfer
MasterCard International v. Bankrate, WIPO Case No. 
D2008-0704<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0704.html>,
 <mastercreditcard.com>, Transfer
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Texas International Property Associates – NA NA, 
WIPO Case No. 
D2008-0752<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0752.html>,
 <hoffman-laroche.com>, Transfer
ANOVO v. Moniker Privacy Services / Alexander Lerman, WIPO Case No. 
D2008-1049<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-1049.html>,
 <anovo.com>, Transfer
Grundfos A/S v. Luca Mueller, WIPO Case No. 
D2009-0091<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-0091.html>,
 <grundfosinsite.com>, Transfer
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. P Martin, WIPO Case No. 
D2009-0323<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-0323.html>,
 <alli-xenical.com>, Transfer


From:                 “Dan Halloran” <halloran@xxxxxxxxx>
To:                      “‘Eun‑Joo Min’” <eunjoo.min@xxxxxxxx>
Date:                  9/2/03 7:06PM
Subject:              RE: Transfer during Suspension

Eun‑Joo Min,

Thank you for your inquiry.

I agree that Registrars should cooperate when a registrant has requested a
transfer to a Complainant, and the provider and Complainant have agreed to
suspend the proceeding.  I’ll copy Ms. Zhang on my reply.

I hope this is helpful.  Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any
other assistance.

Best regards,
Dan Halloran
Chief Registrar Liaison
ICANN
halloran@xxxxxxxxx
1‑310‑301‑5822



‑‑‑‑‑ Original Message‑‑‑‑‑
From: Eun‑Joo Min [mailto:eunjoo.min@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: 02 September, 2003 01:39
To: halloran@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Transfer during Suspension


Dear Dan,

I hope this email finds you well.

I am writing as usual to seek your assistance.  As you aware, when parties
settle during a pending UDRP proceeding, it has become a standard procedure
for the dispute resolution service provider to suspend the proceeding and
allow the parties to implement any settlement agreement.  Registrars
“unlock” the domain name in such circumstances and allow a transfer of the
domain name to the Complainant (and only to the Complainant) even though the
UDRP case is suspended and not officially terminated. This procedure, while
not provided for explicitly in the UDRP, has been designed to  assist
parties in implementing settlement agreements, as it was clear from the
early stage of the UDRP that Complainants were not willing to “terminate” a
UDRP proceeding until they were in fact in control of the domain name for
the concern that the domain name registrant may rescind on the agreement.
This procedure hence allows parties to settle and avoids the unnecessary
procedure of appointing a panel and rendering a decision when parties have
already reached an agreement. When WIPO first implemented this procedure in
early 2000, we had discussed the procedure with ICANN and had received
ICANN’s endorsement.

We now have a case involving a domain name registered with OnlineNIC,Inc.,
and Ms. Celia Zhang of Legal Affair Dept., OnlineNIC,Inc., has requested the
Center to ask ICANN for confirmation of above.

Could you kindly inform Ms. Zhang that you agree with above? Thank you.

Sincerely,
Eun‑Joo Min


Eun‑Joo MIN
Senior Legal Officer
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
Tel: +41‑22‑338‑8565
Fax: +41‑22‑740‑3700
Email: eunjoo.min@xxxxxxxx



________________________________
From: owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: jeudi, 27. septembre 2012 14:26
To: Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Proposed Agenda UDRP Domain Name Lock WG Meeting

All, please find attached an updated version of the public comment review tool 
which now also includes a comment that came in today.

Best regards,

Marika

From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday 26 September 2012 16:48
To: "Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: FW: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Proposed Agenda UDRP Domain Name Lock WG Meeting

Dear All,

As a reminder, please find below the agenda for tomorrow's UDRP Domain Name 
Lock WG meeting. Attached you will find an updated version of the public 
comment review tool which now also includes the comments submitted in response 
to the public comment forum (see http://forum.icann.org/lists/udrp-locking/). 
If you have any comments / edits, feel free to share those with the mailing 
list.

With best regards,

Marika

From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday 19 September 2012 23:13
To: "Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Proposed Agenda UDRP Domain Name Lock WG Meeting

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the next UDRP Domain Name Lock WG 
meeting.

With best regards,

Marika

Proposed Agenda – UDRP Domain Name Lock WG Meeting – 20 September 2012

 1.  Roll Call / SOI
 2.  Status update public comment forum / SG – C Statements / SO – AC outreach
 3.  Continue review of Charter Questions and related comments received as part 
of the Registrar / UDRP Provider Survey (see updated public comment review tool 
attached)

 1.  Continue deliberations on UDRP Registrar Lock definition (see latest 
version attached)

 1.  Next steps & confirm next meeting


World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer:

This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and
copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail
by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this
e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments
are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.