ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

[gnso-lockpdp-wg] Proposed agenda - UDRP Domain Name Lock WG meeting

  • To: "Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Proposed agenda - UDRP Domain Name Lock WG meeting
  • From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 00:23:41 -0700

Dear All,

The proposed agenda for today's meeting is as follows:

Proposed Agenda – UDRP Domain Name Lock WG Meeting 16 May 2013

 1.  Roll Call / SOI
 2.  Continue review of public comments received (see public comment review 
tool attached)
 3.  Next steps & confirm next meeting

If there are any further comments with regard to the two issues below, please 
share those with the mailing list.

Best regards,


From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Monday 13 May 2013 15:24
To: "Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" 
Subject: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] For your review and feedback - updated public 
comment review tool & two issues

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).
 *   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.

The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday 16 May at 14.00 UTC.

With best regards,


Attachment: docdLqtiwjQDE.doc
Description: Public Comment Review Tool ­ Initial Report - Updated 13 May 2013.doc

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy