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

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Echoing Marika

Please review and submit your thoughts

Regards

Michele

Mr. Michele Neylon
Blacknight
http://Blacknight.tel

Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity

On 23 May 2013, at 10:26, "Marika Konings" 
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

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<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday 22 May 2013 12:17
To: "Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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