ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

[gnso-lockpdp-wg] Re: For immediate review - updated definition of locking

  • To: "Schneller, Matt" <Matt.Schneller@xxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Re: For immediate review - updated definition of locking
  • From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:39:30 -0700

Matt, we do note in the report that:
'The Working Group discussed that one of the areas where additional
safeguards might be appropriate is in relation to the registrant¹s control
of the name server. It was noted that there are cases known in which the
registrar moves the domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings to a different
account, which means the registrant does not have any control anymore over
its domain name registration. It was pointed out that changes to the DNS are
not considered Œtransfers¹ as defined in the UDRP and any changes to the DNS
would therefore not need to be prevented. The Working Group suggested that
clarifying that changes to the DNS are allowed, may ensure sufficient
safeguards as per the charter question'.
However, if you feel that adding this language warrants further discussion,
we can leave it out for now and discuss it in further detail as part of the
deliberations on the Final Report. Let me know what you prefer.
Best regards,
From:  <Schneller>, Matt <Matt.Schneller@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:  Thursday 14 March 2013 16:29
To:  Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx"
Subject:  RE: For immediate review - updated definition of locking

Sorry to miss the call this morning without prior notice.
I don¹t know that I care a lot about the definition either way, but I
thought we had adopted the former definition to maintain the broadest
possible range of registrar discretion.  Under the former definition, it¹s
up to the registrar (and the registrar¹s contract terms with their clients)
to determine whether or not they do anything (or even can do anything) that
would impair the domain name¹s resolving.  Since our initial registrar
survey indicated that some registrars do disable the domain from resolving
to a live website, the latter definition might override pre-existing
registrar contract terms or practice.  So long as the minimum baseline of
lock (no changes of registrar or registrant) are met, I don¹t know that it¹s
of concern to anyone other than the registrar and registrant what else that
registrar does or doesn¹t do.

From: owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 7:30 AM
To: Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] For immediate review - updated definition of

Dear All,


We had a relatively short call today as only few people were able to join
the meeting. There was one item of substance that was discussed and we would
like to receive your feedback on by COB today (Thursday 14 March). As
suggested on the mailing list, those on the call agreed to modify the
current definition of 'locking' from:


"the term ³lock² means preventing any changes of registrar and registrant"




"the term "lock" means preventing any changes of registrar and registrant,
without impairing the resolution of the domain name"


If there are any objections to this change, please make those known to the
mailing list at the latest by close of business (wherever you are) today.


With best regards,



Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy