Re: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] For your review and feedback - updated public comment review tool & two issues

[Gabriela Szlak <gabrielaszlak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

I have just finished reading transcripts from the last two calls as I was
not available to attend.
Thanks to all for the work done!
I am adding comments and suggestions below in blue.


2013/5/13 Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Dear All,
>
> Please find attached for your review an updated version of the public
> comment review tool, including the notes from our last meeting. For those
> not on the call, the WG considered the following two issues and is
> encouraging your feedback on the mailing list ahead of the next meeting:
>
> Definition of 'lock': based on the comments received, the WG is
considering
> removing the brackets in the definition and add 'solely on the basis of
the
> UDRP' so that the full definition would read: "lock" means preventing any
> changes of registrar and registrant without impairing the resolution of
the
> domain name solely on the basis of the UDRP. This addition aims to clarify
> that this prohibition to impair the resolution of the domain name only
> relates to the UDRP and does not prevent the impairment of the resolution
of
> the domain name registration for other valid reasons (for example, breach
> under other provisions in the registration agreement).


Regarding this proposed change I agree with eliminating the brackets and
adding the phrase "solely on the basis of the UDRP".
I just wanted to call  the attention of the group on the other issue
highlighted in the same ICA comment:
"or the ready ability to renew it"
So, as far as I understand - and this it was also mentioned at our Report -
when a domain name is subject to UDRP proceedings and locked, I understand
that it is still possible to renew it through the EDDP (Expired Domain
Deletion Policy).
Am I understanding this correctly?
And if so, maybe we can clarify this issue  also in our response to the ICA
comment? Just a suggestion.
Thank you

> Removing the requirement for the complainant to inform the respondent at
the
> time of filing: Based on the discussion, the WG is considering different
> alternatives to address the comments received (see notes in attached
> document). One issue the WG would like input on ahead of the next meeting
is
> whether there is any outright objection to considering extending the
> response time for respondents to accommodate the potential loss of
> 'informal' response time as a result of the proposed change to no longer
> require the complainant to inform the respondent at the time of filing.
>

Regarding this issue I have read the interesting discussions on the last
call and I look forward for more interchange of ideas.
I will make some comments on this, that are more of a reflection on the
issues at stake.

As I understand this, ICA and others are considering this extra days as an
"acquired right" for respondents under the current practice. I agree with
the comments in the group that considered this issue of relevance,
particularly because the respondents that actually respond, sometimes have
or believe they have rights to their domain names, so there is an important
issue here to consider. And the fact that the complaint might change or
other domain names will be added before commencement, does not affect the
fact that respondents had a notice from before that something is going to
happen. Today this gives them more time, as many in the call stated.

Also, if there was more information available in general about what is the
UDRP, from the moment people register a domain name, maybe this extra time
would not be considered so relevant. So maybe part of the problem is that
actually most registrants do not know what UDRP is, and actually, in our
part of the world, even most lawyers do not know much about UDRP either,
which is why it is too expensive to hire legal services for responding. (so
maybe the 30% response rate mentioned by Kristine would change at least in
some numbers in the future if there is more awareness in general, about
UDRP, particularly in the developing world)

And the reason I say this is because in my country for instance, you do not
get more that 15/10/5 business days - depending on the type of case-  to
respond a complaint (with no extension time available). And I am not
referring to an arbitration but to the courts system. And of course you
need to get a lawyer for responding and this complaints are much more
complex than UDRP cases.

So 20 days, on the one hand, tends to sound quite reasonable at a first
sight in comparison with other legal systems (and then also an extension is
available!!) but still, of course, if the time offered to respond a UDRP is
reasonable - too long or too short - , is not really the point we are
discussing here, and this is not even under our scope.

But ... what is relevant here is the fact that we might be proposing to
reduce some days of notice that are the consequence of a practice, and that
are being considered by ICA and others as an acquired right for respondents
... and this happens in a context in which we can assume that the majority
of the respondents/registrants are unaware of the existence of the UDRP,
which makes this extra days so important.

So we need to be creative here, if we want to take into account this very
important issue and provide a reasonable solution that would be under our
scope.

If I have to choose, I would prefer the second alternative proposed by ICA
than the first, because I don´t believe that asking registrars to notify
respondents is really a good idea - basically as registrars might not
support this - , but also, the second alternative asks for a 10 days
extension which sounds too much and might not be supported by many members
of the community.

To consider what is a reasonable extension (and I am not sure this is even
under our scope), it might be good to have some accurate information from
UDRP providers, about how many days - in average-  respondents get, under
the current practice, from the first email from complainant till
commencement of proceedings.

I look forward for more discussions tomorrow and maybe we can come up with
other alternatives to address this issue,
Gabi

-- 
*Dra. Gabriela Szlak *

Abogada & Mediadora en Estudio ROSZ

Directora Regional en eInstituto

Consultora en Derecho y Nuevas Tecnologías
www.estudiorosz.com.ar
www.einstituto.org <http://www.einstituto.com.ar/>
www.gabrielaszlak.com.ar  <http://www.gabrielaszlak.com.ar/>

*Skype:* gabrielaszlak

*Twitter: @*GabiSzlak


La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial.
The information in this e-mail is confidential.