<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[gnso-lockpdp-wg] MP3 Locking of a Domain Name subject to URDP proceedings - Thursday 13 December at 15:00 UTC
- To: "gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] MP3 Locking of a Domain Name subject to URDP proceedings - Thursday 13 December at 15:00 UTC
- From: Julia Charvolen <julia.charvolen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:04:01 -0800
Dear all,
The next Locking of a Domain Name subject to URDP Proceedings teleconference is
scheduled EXCEPTIONALLY on Wednesday 19 December at 1400 UTC .
Please find the MP3 recording of the Locking of a Domain Name subject to URDP
Proceedings teleconference held on Thursday 13 December 2012 at 15:00 UTC at:
http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-locking-domain-name-20121213-en.mp3
On page:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#<http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep>dec
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master
Calendar page:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/
Attendees:
Laurie Anderson – RrSG
Hago Dafalla - NCSG
Kristine Dorrain - NAF
Lisa Garono - IPC
Alan Greenberg - ALAC (Vice-Chair)
Volker Greimann – RrSG
David Roache-Turner - WIPO
Juan Manuel Rojas – ALAC
Matt Schneller - IPC
Gabriela Szlak – CBUC
Melody Agee and Michelle Coon (representing David Maher) - RySG
Apologies:
Celia Lerman – CBUC
David Maher – RySG
Michele Neylon – RrSG
Staff:
Marika Konings
Berry Cobb
Julia Charvolen
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Julia Charvolen
For GNSO Secretariat
Adobe Connect Chat transcript:
Marika Konings 2:Welcome to the UDRP Domain Name Lock WG Meeting of 13
December 2012
Matt Schneller:morning all
Juan Manuel Rojas:morning all
Hago Dafalla:hi all
Gabriela Szlak:good morning (afternoon here :)
Hago Dafalla:good evening all
Gabriela Szlak:or noon
Juan Manuel Rojas:good morning/afternoon/evening all :)
Laurie Anderson:Morning everyone
Julia Charvolen:Lisa Garono joined the bridge
Matt Schneller:Hi Kristine, is there a document that NAF issues if the
complaint isn't fixed in 5 days? Maybe we could refer to the document that's
issued by name
Marika Konings:David Roche-Turner has joined the call
Matt Schneller:(and maybe David could identify what WIPO calls their
equivalent document)
David Roache-Turner:At WIPO, we call it a complaint defeciency notice
Matt Schneller:David, if the complainant doesn't fix after receipt of the
deficiency notice, what issues then - notice of withdrawal?
David Roache-Turner:we also need to make provision for the complaint being
withdrawn for any other reason (for example, because the matter settles, and
the complainant requests withdrawal of its complaint on that basis)
Kristine Dorrain:Matt, our document is called "Dismissal Order"...which is
generic for any type of Dismissal at NAF (for any reason--compliance,
settlement, etc)
Kristine Dorrain:We call the deficiency notice the same thing: something
like "Notice of Deficiencies."
Matt Schneller:covered it!
Matt Schneller:Does this work "within one business day (for registrar) after
transmission of notice of withdrawal..."?
Laurie Anderson:We go by the time stamp on the notice.
Laurie Anderson:From a process standpoint, we notify domains by proxy upon
receipt of the verification request.
Laurie Anderson:in their agreement with their customer, DBP will cancel
privacy and we verify the registrant to the arb. provider.
Juan Manuel Rojas:Sorry, My call was down.
Matt Schneller:Good point - draft rec #3 seems to be the best place. Agree;
I think having it there provides the groundwork for future enforcement
Kristine Dorrain:and, it allows registrars trying to act in good faith to do
so
Matt Schneller:The p/p service is listed as registrant, and so may need to
comply in order to satisfy their contractual obligations to registrars
Matt Schneller:It's a contractual matter between the registrant and p/p
service, isn't it? If the p/p service's contract says they will change Whois,
no reason why we should override that
Laurie Anderson:agreed Matt.
Volker Greimann:Remember that for any registrar-affiliated privacy service of
a registrar also affiliated with a registry, three contrary UDRP decision may
mean exclusion from the new gTLD progra
Volker Greimann:m
Volker Greimann:regardless of whether there are an underlying registrant
Volker Greimann:if it says [Privacy Provider] in the decision, that is the
losing respondent
David Roache-Turner:re DR # 9 should be upon receipt of a panel decision from
the provider, per the Rules
Kristine Dorrain:yes
David Roache-Turner:As a prelude to receomndation to DR #7, would we also
need to identify the basis of such requirement on the registrant to so notify
the provider in the event of contact info chnages
Kristine Dorrain:Agrreed
Hago Dafalla:Agree
Marika Konings:Please note that the next WG meeting will be scheduled for
Wednesday 19 December at 14.00 UTC following the results of the doodle poll.
Hago Dafalla:oky
Volker Greimann:2 days before the end of the world? You are very hopeful,
Marika ;-)
Marika Konings::-)
Matt Schneller:Should we just note that changes to contact information under
UDRP Rule 2(e) instead of addressing the accuracy policy?
Matt Schneller:Should we just note that changes to contact information under
UDRP Rule 2(e) are permitted instead of addressing the accuracy policy?
Matt Schneller:(fixed typo)
Volker Greimann:indeed
David Roache-Turner:thanks alan thanks all
Matt Schneller:adios
Alan Greenberg:ANd thanks to Marika and to Kristine for leading us through
these points.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|