[gnso-lockpdp-wg] Cancelling today's UDRP Domain Name Lock WG meeting

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

All, apologies for the late notice, but as neither Alan or Michele are
available to chair today's meeting we've decided to cancel it. However, as
we are on a tight timeline to deliver our final report, we would like to
encourage you to use the hour, or part of it that was blocked in your
calendar for this meeting, to review the proposals below and share your
feedback with the mailing list so that we can hopefully come to closure on
this topic during the next meeting (Thursday 30 May at 14.00 UTC).

Thanks,

Marika  

From:  Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:  Wednesday 22 May 2013 12:17
To:  "Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject:  [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - UDRP Domain Name Lock WG
meeting

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the next UDRP Domain Name Lock
Working Group meeting on Thursday 23 May at 14.00 UTC.

With regard to our discussions last week, based on the feedback received
from WG members as well as commenters, it appears that as a result of the
proposed WG recommendations a respondent would have 3-5 days (on average)
less informal notification time to prepare a response to a UDRP Complaint.
At the same time it has also been pointed out that a response is only
received in 25-30 % of cases and it is possible to ask for an extension if
more time is needed (at a cost in certain cases). Also, the new requirement
for the registrar to lock the domain name registration within 2 business
days may in certain cases reduce the timeframe by which the proceedings
comments. Furthermore, it has been noted that even though cyberflight
happens in very few cases (1%), when it does happen it creates a significant
burden to complainants, UDRP Providers, registrars, respondents as well as
ICANN. The WG has been considering the following proposals:
1. In order to accommodate this loss of informal response time due to the
proposed changes in the rules to no longer require the complainant to notify
the respondent of filing, 4 days are added to the official response time the
respondent has from the moment of commencement. It is the expectation that
for the overall timeframe, this would partly be balanced by the quicker
start of the commencement of proceedings as a result of the requirement to
lock the domain name registration by the registrar within 2 business days.
Such as change to the response time would require another targeted change to
the current UDRP rules (idem to the change to no longer require notification
by the complainant)
2. No change is made to the current recommendations regarding timing, but
UDRP Providers are required to inform the respondent at the moment of
notification of commencement of the option to ask for an extension.
3. Change the WG's recommendation and no longer recommend the removal of the
requirement for the complainant to notify the respondent at the time of
filing. This would mean that status quo is maintained. The WG would
recommend that this issue is then further considered as part of the overall
review of the UDRP.
You are encouraged to either share your support / non-support for these
proposals and/or put forward any other alternatives you think the WG should
consider in addressing this issue.

Best regards,

Marika

Proposed Agenda ­ UDRP Domain Name Lock Working Group Meeting of 23 May 2013
1. Roll Call / SOI
2. Review & discuss options to address comments received in relation to loss
of informal response time for respondent (see above)
3. Continue review of comments received (see public comment review tool
attached)
4. Planning for Durban meeting ­ possible WG session?
5. Next steps / confirm next meeting

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