ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-lockpdp-wg] MP3 Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP proceedings teleconference - Thursday 28th February 2013 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 UDRP proceedings teleconference - Thursday 28th February 2013 at 15:00 UTC
  • From: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:05:42 -0800

Dear All,

The next Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP proceedings teleconference is 
scheduled for Thursday, 07 March 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 28th February 2013 at 15:00 UTC


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

The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master 
Calendar page:

Hago Dafalla - NCUC
Alan Greenberg - ALAC (Vice Chair)
Matt Schneller - IPC
Laurie Anderson - RrSG
 Michele Neylon - RrSG (Chair)
Luc Seufer - RrSG
Celia Lerman - CBUC
Gabriela Szlak - CBUC
Volker Greimann - RrSG
Ty Gray (for David Roache-Turner, WIPO)
Jonathan Tenenbaum - RrSG

Apologies :
Lisa Garono - IPC
Faisal Shah - IPC
David Roache-Turner - WIPO
Kristine Dorrain - NAF

ICANN staff:
Berry Cobb
Lars Hoffman
Marika Konings
Nathalie Peregrine

** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **

Thank you.
Kind regards,
Nathalie Peregrine
For GNSO Secretariat


 Adobe Connect Chat transcript for 28th February:

Marika Konings:Welcome to the UDRP Domain Name Lock WG Meeting of 28 February 
  Hago Dafalla:hi all
  Nathalie  Peregrine:Hello Hago and Michele, we are starting to dial out to 
you now
  Nathalie  Peregrine:Hago, we have muted your line as there was background 
noise, please let me know when you wish to be unmuted
  Laurie Anderson:Hi all
  Alan Greenberg:Calling in
  Laurie Anderson:im dialed in but not hearing anything
  Celia Lerman:Hi all!
  Celia Lerman:Im having trouble connecting to the line
  Nathalie  Peregrine:we can dial out to you Celia
  Celia Lerman:I just connected, thanks!
  Nathalie  Peregrine:Ty Gray (for David Roache Turner) has joined the AC room
  Nathalie  Peregrine:Matt Schneller has joined also
  Ty Gray (for David R-T/WIPO):Hello all.  This is Ty Gray on behalf of David 
and WIPO
  Luc Seufer:Hi Ty Gray on behalf of David and WIPO
  Ty Gray (for David R-T/WIPO):Long time listener, first time caller.
  Matt Schneller:Welcome to Michele and Marika in the Morning
  Michele Neylon:lol
  Michele Neylon:Marika is in EU
  Michele Neylon:she's in the afternoon
  Michele Neylon:I'm jetlagged in LA and you can hear it
  Luc Seufer:I would watch that show!
  Matt Schneller:ESPN3.com always needs content...
  Ty Gray (for David R-T/WIPO):One note we would like to make on Draft 
Recommendation 3, we would recommend the sentence "For the purposes of the 
UDRP, the Registrant listed in the WhoIs record at the time of the Lock will be 
recorded as the Respondent" be changed to read "... will be recorded as A 
Respondent", noting that Respondent is defined in the rules as "holder of a 
domain-name registration against which a complaint is initiated".
  Matt Schneller:sounds good, Marika (and Ty)
  Laurie Anderson:Sorry, I'm typing because my voice is almost gone....In the 
case of proxy/privacy services, NAF allows the lifting of privacy at the time 
of verification, WIPO, in our experience, adds the underlying registrant as a 
respondent, in addition to the privacy service. 
  Laurie Anderson:just wanted to point out the difference between the providers
  Michele Neylon:thanks
  Luc Seufer:digging up the marvellous presentation I did last year
  Luc Seufer:NAFPursuant to the Forum's Supplemental Rules, effective July 1, 
2010, the entity named in the Whois is the Respondent.  Therefore, if you wish 
to lift any privacy services, please do so promptly.WIPO(3) confirm that the 
Respondent is the current registrant of the domain name(s) (under section of the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement, the use of privacy 
registration services may require disclosure of any underlying registrant upon 
notice of a UDRP dispute)CACNone
  Gabriela Szlak:I have a comment for recommendation 5
  Gabriela Szlak:after we finish with this
  Luc Seufer:TY, would WIPO be ready to take other this part and gather the 
confirmation from both parties and assessing the settlement terms?
  Luc Seufer:and then give directions to the registrar?
  Matt Schneller:Luc / Volker - would you prefer to have the Provider report 
that the parties have settled and ask the registrar to do (whatever it is the 
settlement requires, e.g. transfer the domain from party 1 to party 2) pursuant 
to the settlement (and during suspension)?
  Luc Seufer:yes that would be perfect!
  Matt Schneller:report to the registrar I meant
  Laurie Anderson:We've had really good results during a suspension by getting 
permission from both sides, to move the name to the control of the complainant, 
but we would not remove the lock until we received a dismissal from the 
  Luc Seufer:just like if a decision would have been rendered, we are equipped 
to deal with that
  Volker Greimann:shouldn't it be "enable a transfer" instead of "transfer"?
  Luc Seufer:@Laurie so you are agreeing with us.
  Ty Gray (for David R-T/WIPO):Luc, I don't think I could give an answer to 
this, as this may be something which might not be within our purview as the 
Provider.  Basically, we would need to look at that and come back with further 
  Laurie Anderson:well, if we communicate with the parties, we have written 
permission from both sides, the provider is simply suspending to allow the 
parties to work it out. 
  Laurie Anderson:the point i am trying to make is we should not unllock the 
name until we have confirmation from the provider that the case is terminated 
and we can unlock
  Luc Seufer:yes but you are not enforcing the settlement, you are waiting for 
the proceedings to be dismissed
  Laurie Anderson:im sorry, can you repeat that?
  Laurie Anderson:we've never had that happen. We simply receive notice of a 
suspension. If both parties agree, we will move the domain to  the 
complainant's account but it remains locked until we receive a dismissal. 
  Matt Schneller:So, timeline could be something like: (1) parties ask for 
suspension, (2) parties settle, (3) parties inform provider, (4) provider 
issues order allowing registrar to unlock for the sole purpose of (whatever the 
settlement is), (5) that change happens, (6) parties confirm change is 
complete, and (7) provider dismisses case
  Laurie Anderson:the complainant is reluctant to dismiss unless they can see 
the domain in their account. 
  Luc Seufer:@Matt that would be ideal
  Matt Schneller:good point, the complainant would also want to know about 
  Ty Gray (for David R-T/WIPO):Rules, paragraph 4(a)
  Matt Schneller:no limitation on the ability to notify others, though
  Ty Gray (for David R-T/WIPO):Rules, paragraph 4(d) will cover the Complainant
  Ty Gray (for David R-T/WIPO):in addition, paragraph 2(h) of the Rules will 
ensure these communications will be copied to all relevant parties.
  Gabriela Szlak:Thank you  Ty

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy