Re: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Proposed agenda UDRP Domain Name Lock WG meeting

[Luc SEUFER <lseufer@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ladies, Gentlemen,

First of all a bunch of thanks to Marika for putting our ramblings in such a 
professional looking form!

I realise I should have tried to better articulate my comment on Recommendation 
10 during our calls, but I was truly intimated by David mastering of the 
English language. ;-)

The concern I have regarding this recommendation is that we spent a fair amount 
of time devising a process that would ease the involvement and protect each 
party during the proceedings, but are leaving/creating a huge hole with this 
recommendation.

>From my experience, most of the settlement happening during the course of the 
>proceedings involve a payment in consideration for the transfer of the domain 
>name. With the proposed wording, we are creating a situation where the 
>registrar is forced to take on escrow services and ensure the compensation in 
>money (or any other kind) has been received before unlocking the domain. 
>Furthermore, this also implies that the registrar has to review the settlement 
>agreement which suppose that the parties agree to disclose it to the 
>registrar, that this document be drafted in a language the registrar 
>understands, that the transfer of the compensation contingent upon the 
>transfer be monitored….

On top of those, and providing each issue I have mentioned be tackled, we are 
also unclear as to the method for the registrar to confirm the details of the 
settlement, would a "yes transfer it"  by both party in an email be sufficient? 
How does the registrar knows who is the legal representative of the complainant 
(most of the times the signatory of the complaint is not the same as the one 
contacting us by email)? Also, imposing a delay to implement a settlement seems 
far-fetched, as much as implementing a UDRP decision can be easily undertaken - 
providing the winning party has provided all necessary details to do so - how 
is the registrar supposed to enforce a settlement which has no imposed format 
whatsoever?

To simplify this process, I believe that we should remove this recommendation 
and let the parties settle between them without any further involvement. If a 
settlement is found during a suspension of the proceedings, then the 
complainant should simply terminate them. Upon notification by the UDRP 
provider, the registrar would then unlock the domain and let the settlement 
terms being enforced without its intervention.

Speak to you all tomorrow.

All the best,

Luc




On 27 Feb 2013, at 16:19 , Marika Konings 
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's UDRP Domain Name Lock WG 
meeting. As a reminder, please send any comments / edits you may have on the 
straw man proposal (see latest version attached) to the mailing list prior to 
the meeting.

Thanks,

Marika

Proposed Agenda – UDRP Domain Name Lock Working Group Meeting 28 February 
2013Roll Call / SOI UpdatesReview of latest version of straw man proposal (see 
attached)
  *   Review of latest version of Initial Report (see attached)Confirm Deadline 
for submission of comments on the Initial Report Next steps / confirm next 
meeting

<Final Straw Man Proposal - Updated 26 February 2013.doc><UDRP Domain Name Lock 
Initial Report - Updated 19 February 2013.doc>


________________________________

--------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the 
use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have 
received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and 
delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its 
contents to anyone.

Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

--------------------------------------------------------