[gnso-lockpdp-wg] MP3 Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP proceedings - 10 January 2013 at 15:00 UTC

[Julia Charvolen <julia.charvolen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,


The next Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP proceedings teleconference is 
scheduled for Thursday, 17 January 2013 at 15:00 UTC.



Please find the MP3 recording of the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP 
proceedings teleconference held on  Thursday 10 January  at 15:00 UTC

http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-locking-domain-name-20130110-en.mp3

On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jan

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
Celia Lerman - CBUC
Michele Neylon - RrSG (Chair)
David Roache-Turner - WIPO
Luc Seufer - RrSG
Matt Schneller - IPC
Faisal Shah - Individual
Gabriela Szlak - CBUC

Apologies :
David Maher – RySG

ICANN staff:
Marika Konings
Berry Cobb
Lars Hoffman
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 for 10 January meeting:

Marika Konings:Welcome to the UDRP Domain Name Lock WG Meeting of 10 January 
2013
  Hago Dafalla:hi all and happy new year,merry christmas
  Kristine Dorrain:Thanks...that was what I thought....  :)
  Matt Schneller:sorry.  wrong button
  Celia Lerman:+1
  Alan Greenberg:Dialing in now.
  Matt Schneller:Or, David, there arguably aren't parties" prior to commencement
  Kristine Dorrain:I like that., David.
  Matt Schneller:So, amending 2(a)(iii) to something like "sending the 
complaint" to "MAY send the complaint..."
  Matt Schneller:(and the same change in 2a(i) and 2a(ii) too, I suppose)
  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):I agree Matt, these could be possible options
  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):For present purposes, perhaps consider targetted 
adjustment or clarification to the UDRP Rules under which a complainant may 
(but is not required) to copy Respondent on initial filing of its complaint 
noting any implementation would need to consider workability in lerms of  UDR 
Rules 2(h) and 3(b)(xii)
  Matt Schneller:That was re Draft Rec #10
  Kristine Dorrain:to be clear, I was noting disagreement, as much as peaceful 
co-existance.
  Kristine Dorrain:"wasn't"
  Laurie Anderson:Lifting of privacy and implementation of the lock occur 
almost simultaneously at GD/DBP. The DBP customer is notified but the domain is 
already locked.
  Matt Schneller:That's a contract problem or issue of the individual 
privacy/proxy service, isn't it?
  Kristine Dorrain:Isn't the lock distinct from the Whois record data?  I feel 
like we've decided the Whois record is not necessarily linked to the lock...
  Luc Seufer:@Laurie yes because GD is acting as both. We are not providing 
this service, so if no email is sent to the proxy provider, they will never 
about the proceedings
  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):in essence, first ensure lock, then notify, then 
either settlement or issues as to privacy or proxy identy can be resolved as 
needed
  Kristine Dorrain:Luc, if the Privacy service has an email address in the 
Whois at the time of filing, they will be served as a Respondent.
  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):laurie's described approach works well in practice 
for us
  Kristine Dorrain:yes, GD/DBP works well..  :)
  Luc Seufer:unless recom. 1 is accepted and no complaint is sent to registrant.
  Kristine Dorrain:Luc, Recommendation 1 only says the complainant doesn't send 
the notice.  The PRovider still will.
  Kristine Dorrain:And Rec 2 still allows the Registrar to send notice...once 
there is a lock.
  Laurie Anderson:We also always notify the registrant as soon as the domain is 
locked.
  Volker Greimann:UDRP: 8.a) ; or (ii) during a pending court proceeding or 
arbitration commenced regarding your domain name unless the party to whom the 
domain name registration is being transferred agrees, in writing, to be bound 
by the decision of the court or arbitrator. We reserve the right to cancel any 
transfer of a domain name registration to another holder that is made in 
violation of this subparagraph.
  Luc Seufer:But if you lock, you can't update the details anymore.
  Laurie Anderson:the registrar has control of the lock. If the privacy 
provider wants to remove their service, would they not just notify the 
registrar?
  Hago Dafalla:I agree with Luc Seufer
  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):on one reading, a UDRP is an adminstrative 
proceeding, as distinct from a court proceeding or arbitration
  Luc Seufer:Yes after the lock and after the verification request.
  Kristine Dorrain:I think we've discussed that the Registrant *should* be able 
to update their Whois record even with a lock
  Kristine Dorrain:+1 David
  Volker Greimann:+1 Michele
  Matt Schneller:8(a) and 8(b) specifically cal out paragraph 4 (i.e. the UDRP)
  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):exactly - hence transfers during a pending 
adminstrative proceedings are not permitted
  Luc Seufer:so we would need several lock stages: - Regsitrar Transfer and 
Trade
  Matt Schneller:Yes, I agree with your reading, David.  The "transfer with 
written agreement" provision ONLY applies to litigation or arbitration 
proceedings OTHER than the policy.
  Volker Greimann:gotcha
  Matt Schneller:Good point, Marika.  Could we say that the registrar may only 
contact the privacy service if the privacy service agrees not to contact the 
ultimate registrant?
  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):we only need a single lock, but there may be 
limited circumstances in which it could be lifted for specific purposes, such 
as enbabling settlement between parties, and/or to adjust to indicate 
identified registrants in privacy/proxy cases
  Volker Greimann:Michele: I May help here
  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):...or changes to contact data (short of 
transferring to another registant or registrar during a pending UDRP proceeding)
  Luc Seufer:David I think WIPO has supplemental rules regarding the lifting of 
privacy/proxy service
  Volker Greimann:Corrrect, Alan
  Matt Schneller:I understand it the same way as Marika did.  Registrant info 
could not be changed, but changes other than to the "registrant" field were OK
  Luc Seufer:is there a specific timing in those?
  Luc Seufer:what Alan says!
  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):Luc:  not supplemental rules as such, but WIPO 
panels have provided guidance distilled in paragraph 4.9 of the WIPO 
jurisprudential Overview 
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview2.0/index.html
  Volker Greimann:Correkt Marika
  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):I think we should avoid 'dual' (or multiple sets 
of UDRP rules for different privacy or proxy registration services, we need to 
keep it uniform to a reasonable extent to be workable in practice
  Kristine Dorrain:Agreed, David
  Matt Schneller:<lowering hand - out of time.  we can keep this going on the 
list>
  Luc Seufer:how do you deal with the lift if the domain is locked then?
  Volker Greimann:we don't
  Volker Greimann:we inform the provider when we respond
  Matt Schneller:adios all
  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):thanks all bye