[gnso-lockpdp-wg] Additional comments straw man proposal

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

In addition to the comments from Kristine, here are some additional 
questions/comments that the WG may want to consider as part of its review of 
the updated straw man proposal:

 *   Draft recommendation #1: the WG should try to be specific whether it wants 
to require that complainants no longer sent a copy of the complaint to the 
respondent at the time of filing or whether it is just not longer a requirement 
to do so, and possibly a best practice recommendation not to do so, but the 
complainant can opt to send a copy of the complaint to the respondent if it 
would still want to.
 *   Draft recommendation #1 and #2: Commencement is defined as the date on 
which the UDRP Provider finishes sending the complaint to the respondent, 
including to the registration's billing contact supplied by the Registrar, 
which usually precipitates a request to the registrar for the billing contact 
which can result in notice to the registrant. This also raises the question of 
whether the registrar may notify the registrant about a verification request or 
whether the registrar is to be prohibited from notifying the registrant.
 *   Draft recommendation #3: Is the registrar allowed (before initiating the 
lock) to process a change of registrant to transfer the rights to the domain 
from a proxy service to the licensee of the proxy service?
 *   Draft recommendation #3: The WG should try to be specific about which 
changes should / must / may be allowed and which should / must / may not be 
allowed.
 *   Draft recommendation #4: WG may want to clarify that 'confirm' is to the 
UDRP Provider
 *   Draft recommendation #4: Would it be helpful to clarify what 
'verification' means? What information is requested? Is there a standard 
template that the registrar can expect to receive? If so, would it be helpful 
to include it or link to it?
 *   Draft recommendation #5: There would be some gap in time between when the 
registrar lock is applied and when the registrant is notified of the complaint. 
Any reason the registrant shouldn't be notified as soon as the lock is applied? 
Otherwise the registrant might notice a mysterious lock on the domain name 
registration without any apparent reason.
 *   Draft recommendation #5: Further clarification may be needed: is the 
notification 3 days after the provider deems the complaint to be compliant, or 
is the notification of commencement three days after forwarding the complaint, 
or is the commencement supposed to happen within 3 days after forwarding the 
complaint.

With best regards,

Marika

From: <Dorrain>, Kristine <kdorrain@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:kdorrain@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Saturday 8 December 2012 00:22
To: 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: For your review - Updated straw man proposal & public comment 
review tool

In an effort to streamline our discussions a little, I thought I’d write down a 
few thoughts on the Strawman Proposal.  Thank you, Marika, for your work on 
this!

These may not be *all* of my thoughts, but these are ones that came to mind 
today as I was reviewing this.

Draft Rec. #6:  You may not have intended to fully capture the entire UDRP 
process here, but just FYI, if the complaint is not compliant, the complainant 
has five calendar days to get it compliant.  Then the Provider has to notify 
respondent/commence the case if they do.  If not, then the case is deemed 
withdrawn.  It’s probably irrelevant, but if part of the purpose of this doc is 
to explain where the lock happens in the process, it’s helpful to know that, 
perhaps.

Draft Rec. #7:  This is included in UDRP Rule 5(ii) and (iii) where Respondent 
is required to provide its contact information to the Provider.  My only 
suggestion here is that perhaps we also reference the UDRP Rule in our final 
document as authority for that requirement.

Draft Rec #8:  This is pretty vague.  It doesn’t tell the Registrar whether 
they should be lifting or not.  Again, I realize there is a wide range of 
practices between Registrars, but it might be helpful here to make a 
recommendation or best practice, if the alternative is this vague.  I recommend 
something like:  It is not within the scope of this WG to determine if lifting 
the privacy/proxy service is permissible, however, if it’s done, it needs to be 
completed and the lock instituted within the one business day proscribed and 
the Registrar and Registrant should be aware that the Panel may make any 
findings therefrom as appropriate, including a determination as to the correct 
Respondent.

I believe both WIPO and NAF have similar general practices with respect to 
handling privacy/proxy services and changing the Whois information at the 
moment of lock, but I don’t think we are 100% uniform.  I believe this language 
accommodates the varying Registrar and Provider practices…thoughts?

Draft Rec. #9:  Three points:

1.    UDRP Rule 16 says the communication of the decision date is to be within 
3 *calendar* days (as David pointed out on an earlier call, most of the UDRP is 
run in calendar days, so it can get confusing).

2.    UDRP Para 4(k) says the domain name shall not be transferred to 
Complainant before 10 business days (to allow time for any Respondent-initiated 
lawsuit to be filed)—transfer is done by the *registrar* not the registrant.

3.    UDRP Para 8 prohibits the *registrant* from transferring the domain name 
to anyone before 15 business days following the UDRP proceeding.  It does not 
contradict UDRP para 3(c), which says the *registrar* will implement a Panel 
order (see also, Point 2).

So….Point 1 is where the Registrar has calculated what the date referenced in 
Point 2 shall be and let everyone know.  Our recommendation can mention this 
and if it does, should mention that nothing happens to the lock yet.
Point 2 is for when the Complainant prevails.  The Registrar implements the 
transfer when the time period has run out.
Point 3 is for when the Respondent prevails (just using logic…it doesn’t say 
that).  Here is where I think clarification could help because Respondents get 
very angry that they can’t freely transfer their domain name when they have 
prevailed.  Additionally, if we’re talking about the type of Registrar that 
does more than just prevent transfer, but moves the domain to a “problem” 
account or otherwise limits the Respondent’s access to his/her domain name, 
having this “penalty” instituted for 15 days *after he has won* is insulting.  
If our definition of lock will permit a full hold on the user’s account, etc, 
perhaps we recommend that for this UDRP Para 8 portion, the user’s rights be 
restored????

In any event, I’m not sure there is a contradiction there, but if one is 
perceived, it may be ripe for explanation, at least within the context of this 
WG’s charter.


Just my thoughts.

Have a lovely weekend, all.

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: Friday, December 07, 2012 4:09 AM
To: Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] For your review - Updated straw man proposal & 
public comment review tool

Dear All,

Following yesterday's meeting, please find attached the following documents for 
your review:

 1.  Completed public comment review tool – please note that I made a small 
correction to the response for comment #81 to reflect the clarification 
received during the call yesterday on what happens in case of a suspension. 
Please submit any comments / edits at the latest by 11 December.
 2.  Updated straw man proposal – I've tried to capture the items discussed 
during the meeting yesterday and as a result please note that I have made 
significant changes to the straw man proposal and have started to write it in 
the form of draft recommendations. Highlighted in yellow are some outstanding 
items that we have not addressed yet, in addition to defining 'lock' (although 
I have tried to avoid that term by focusing on preventing changes of registrar 
/ registrant). If I've missed anything, or you have any other comments / edits 
/ questions, please feel free to share these with the mailing list ahead of 
next week's meeting. For your convenience, I've also attached a clean version.
For those that have not been able to participate in the last couple of 
meetings, please have a look at the straw man proposal and draft 
recommendations. As we are starting to get to a point where there seems to be 
support from those that have attended the last couple of meetings for some/most 
of these recommendations, please share your views with the mailing list if you 
do not agree with the direction of the recommendations.

With best regards,

Marika