[gnso-lockpdp-wg] MP3 Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP proceedings teleconference - Thursday 17 January 2013 at 15:00 UTC

[Julia Charvolen <julia.charvolen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

The Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP proceedings teleconference 
scheduled on Thursday 22 January 2013 is CANCELLED.

The next Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP proceedings teleconference is 
scheduled for Thursday, 31st 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 17 January 2013 at 15:00 UTC

http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-locking-domain-name-20130117-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 – NCUC
Kristine Dorrain – NAF
Lisa Garono - IPC
Alan Greenberg - ALAC (Vice Chair)
Volker Greimann - RrSG
Celia Lerman - CBUC
David Maher - RySG
Michele Neylon - RrSG (Chair)
David Roache-Turner – WIPO
Juan Manuel Rojas - ALAC
Luc Seufer – RrSG
Matt Schneller - IPC
Fisal Shah – IPC

Apologies :
Gabriela Szlak – CBUC


ICANN staff:
Marika Konings
Berry Cobb
Lars Hoffmann
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 17 January:
 Marika Konings:Welcome to the UDRP Domain Name Lock WG Meeting of 17 January 
2013
  Juan Manuel Rojas:I will join to this call in some minutes, I am on WCIT 
webinar. Good afternoo, evening, morning to all.
  Hago Dafalla:hi all
  Matt Schneller:Deleting prior to a UDRP complaint seems fine.  Deleting in 
response to a lock request seems to violate Policy 7: Maintaining the Status 
Quo. We will not cancel, transfer, activate, deactivate, or otherwise change 
the status of any domain name registration under this Policy except as provided 
in Paragraph 3 above.
  Kristine Dorrain:Agreed.  I think my thoughts were primarily around the Whois 
updating portion.  I do agree that deletion is "too far."
  Laurie Anderson:hi all sorry Im late.
  Matt Schneller:Updating the info for the panel isn't equivalent to updating 
whois, though
  Kristine Dorrain:And to clarify, the Registrant has the responsiblity to 
update their data with the Provider....it's not a burden on the Registrar...
  Kristine Dorrain:Updating Whois, from a Provider's perspective, is a 
non-issue.  Once the case is commenced, it's commenced. The reason I think 
we're even discussing this is in relation to Privacy/Proxy services.... (I 
think)
  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):Provided that it doesn't go to the substantive 
identity of the Respondent
  Laurie Anderson:But registrars are not required to delete the name for 
invalid whois. I know I came into the conversation late though, maybe I am 
misunderstanding the question.
  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):And provided that the 'update' occurs in time 
before notifcation and formal comencement by the proviuder, so that the 
Complaint is directed to the correct receipient
  Volker Greimann:rthat would be my assumption
  Laurie Anderson:Totally agree with Matt
  Luc Seufer:I thought the goal here was to obtain a decision against the 
actual registrant (but I may be wrong)
  Matt Schneller:We could tweak Rule 4(a) if needed
  Laurie Anderson:Agreed Luc but allowing information that was not in existence 
in the privacy providers system, opens the door to more invalid Whois
  Matt Schneller:registrants have an ongoing obligation to be accurate in 
Whois.  If they weren't accurate prior to the filing, whois is stuck.  But they 
can update their contact info under Rule 2(e) for the purposes of the proceeding
  Luc Seufer:@Laurie I am not sure about that. But it would surely be more 
conveninet to amend their complaint from the get go thatn having the proxy 
provider disclosing the registrant's details at a later stage
  Kristine Dorrain:agree Matt, the Registrant can always come back and give the 
Provider more accurate data.
  Volker Greimann:i would consider that amendment friendly
  Matt Schneller:lol
  Laurie Anderson:In our case, we would cancel privacy, lock the name and send 
the verification to the provider. If the whois is invalid, the customer is 
still notified. If they informed us their whois is invalid, we would notify the 
provider and I *believe* the provider allows the actual registrant to submit a 
response. 
  Kristine Dorrain:yes Laurie...
  Matt Schneller:I think Volker's does the trick
  Luc Seufer:We should consider providing a proxy/privacy services then. That 
would make it easier
  Kristine Dorrain:(and probably more trusted...)  ;)
  Volker Greimann:So you are saying you are not a Geek, Michele?
  Michele Neylon:I'm not a coder :)
  Luc Seufer:amen
  Matt Schneller:Wouldn't a statement like the following work ("we" = 
registrar) "We may not permit changes to the registrant name or address fields 
in WHOIS after receipt of a request for verification is received from the 
Provider.  Any other changes may be permitted or prohibited based on our 
policies and contracts." ?
  Kristine Dorrain:Marika, can you send the right-hand doc around if you 
haven't already?
  Marika Konings:@Kristine - yes will do
  Juan Manuel Rojas:thanks to all.
  Kristine Dorrain:thanks
  Juan Manuel Rojas:bye
  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):tx