[gnso-lockpdp-wg] MP3 Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP proceedings teleconference - Thursday 07 March 2013 at 15:00 UTC

[Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,





The next Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP proceedings teleconference is 
scheduled for Thursday, 14 March 2013 at 14:00 UTC.



Please find the MP3 recording of the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP 
proceedings teleconference held on Thursday 07th March 2013 at 15:00 UTC



http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-locking-domain-name-20130307-en.mp3



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



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

http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/





Attendees:

Alan Greenberg - ALAC (Vice Chair)

Matt Schneller - IPC

Laurie Anderson - RrSG

Michele Neylon - RrSG (Chair)

Luc Seufer - RrSG

Ty Gray (for David Roache-Turner, WIPO)

Kristine Dorrain - NAF

Lisa Garono - IPC



Apologies :

David Roache-Turner - WIPO

Hago Dafalla - NCUC

Celia Lerman - CBUC

Gabriela Szlak - CBUC

Volker Greimann - RrSG

David Maher - RySG



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 07th March:



  Marika Konings:Welcome to the UDRP Domain Name Lock WG Meeting of 7th  March 
2013

  Luc Seufer:are we about to die?

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Lisa Garono has joined the call

  Ty Gray (for David R-T/WIPO):Yes we do require registrar notification.

  Kristine Dorrain:Impact:  If Luc's version of the suspension process flies, 
at least NAF will need to change their Stay Procedure, which will affect how 
our "frequent filers" use the Stay process.

  Kristine Dorrain:Not sure about other Providers

  Luc Seufer:what about the one proposed by Ty/David/WIPO?

  Luc Seufer:would it involve a modification of NAF Stay Procedure?

  Ty Gray (for David R-T/WIPO):I am not sure how many people were able to 
reflect on our suggestion, but as we mentioned, we would not be opposed per se 
to an optional confirmation by the provider of the receipt of 
settlement-related documents, although such would involve a change to our 
process.

  Kristine Dorrain:I read WIPO's on my phone last night and I didn't see any 
change, just an acceptance that WIPO would notify the registrar if the parties 
told them about a settlement (noting that providers have no authority to order 
a transfer apart from a panel)

  Kristine Dorrain:Our Stay process does not require the complainant to come 
back to us with notice of settlement at all (and does not require us to notify 
the registrar).  Like WIPO, we *can* do that, but training parties to notify us 
of settlement will be a big undertaking.

  Kristine Dorrain:Parties are used to just working out their deals and 
notifying the registrar, without any provider input.

  Ty Gray (for David R-T/WIPO):Our suggestion would involve at least recording 
as a baseline recommendation the process which currently exists (as I 
understand our process currently at WIPO is similar or the same at NAF), which 
is as Kristine has described.

  Ty Gray (for David R-T/WIPO):Should a registrar find it useful, we are not 
opposed to providing further confirmation of receipt to a registrar.

  Luc Seufer:But then we leave a huge hole in the lock process as we leave the 
implementation of a settlement to a technical intermediary without the 
necessary knowledge to do so.

  Luc Seufer:Thanks Ty, this is excatly what I am after

  Kristine Dorrain:Luc, we aren't fundamentally opposed either, but requiring 
Provider intervention before a settlement can happen could result in a 
situation where the Stay would expire before we would be able to react (in the 
case of an 11th hour settlement).

  Luc Seufer:If the parties are duly informed tehy will have to take that in 
account. 45 days should be quite enough

  Matt Schneller:The problem for complainants is when the provider requires 
that a complaint be dismissed in order to unlock and finalize, and the transfer 
doesn't go through.  Re-instituting is kind of a pain.  It's just a matter of  
keeping jurisdiction before dismissing under Rule 17(b) instead of 17(a), right?

  Kristine Dorrain:No disagreement there.  My initial point is that this is an 
impact as it will result in re-educating filers

  Kristine Dorrain:I support WIPO's opinion that if a registrar optionally 
wants some confirmation or data from the PRovider, that's fine.  We currently 
do that.

  Ty Gray (for David R-T/WIPO):Matt, our understanding is that currently, 
during a suspension, the domain name may be transferred or cancelled during the 
suspension period, and so, a complainant may wait until such transfer or 
cancellation occurs before the proceedings are terminated/withdrawn.

  Kristine Dorrain:+1

  Luc Seufer:Kristine, this is not what your colleagues told us in a pending 
case where an order of stay has been granted.

  Luc Seufer:can I email you off-list?

  Kristine Dorrain:Please do, I'd love to try to figure out where the breakdown 
is.  :)

  Luc Seufer:thanks!

  Marika Konings:The session is scheduled for Thursday from 9.00 - 10.30 (local 
time)

  Kristine Dorrain:no one from NAF will be there

  Kristine Dorrain:but i plan to call in

  Marika Konings:We'll have remote participation for the session

  Luc Seufer:where is the applause button?

  Kristine Dorrain:+1

  Marika Konings:Thank you :-)

  Matt Schneller:you can use the smiley emoticon in the drop down list

  Marika Konings:Next week the meeting will be at 14.00 UTC