[gnso-lockpdp-wg] RE: Final version of the straw man prior to incorporation in the Initial Report

["Dorrain, Kristine" <kdorrain@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I apologize that I couldn't make the call Thursday.  Did someone from WIPO 
agree to this timeline for suspensions?  I ask because this will alter the way 
both Providers currently handle Suspensions and may result in changes to our 
Supplemental Rules as it adds additional steps for the Provider.  It also 
changes how most of the larger registrars already handle suspensions (there are 
few problems with suspensions currently, that aren't easily remedied with an 
email from the Provider).

I guess we'd be willing to consider changing our process, but I'm still 
advocating for just codifying the current practice that is currently working in 
the majority of circumstances.

That would be

Timeline could be something like: (1) parties ask for suspension (suspension 
request includes automatic dismissal when the suspension period is up), (2) 
provider issues order allowing registrar to unlock for the sole purpose of 
(whatever the settlement is), (2) parties settle, (3) parties request the 
registrar to unlock (not to manage anything further, like terms, just unlock to 
allow transfer), and (4) provider dismisses case automatically with no further 
action needed (if settlement discussions break down, either party can request 
that the case be reinstated before automatic dismissal)".


Again, I apologize I wasn't on the call to have this conversation.

Kristine


From: owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 9:27 AM
To: Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Final version of the straw man prior to 
incorporation in the Initial Report

Dear All,

Following yesterday's meeting, please find attached the 'final' version of the 
straw man proposal which includes the changes discussed during the meeting. 
Please note that with regard to recommendation #10, a suggestion was made by 
Matt on how to handle a possible confirmation of a settlement: "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". 
Everyone is encouraged to provide their feedback on this proposed approach on 
the mailing list in order to determine whether it should be incorporated in the 
straw man or whether it is possibly something to raise for specific community 
input as part of the Initial Report.

This version of the straw man will now be incorporated in the Initial Report 
(normally early next week), so that the WG can start reviewing the Initial 
Report as a whole (which may still include minor adjustments or changes to the 
recommendations).

With best regards,

Marika