[gnso-lockpdp-wg] RE: Cancelling today's UDRP Domain Name Lock WG meeting
Many thanks Marika. For our part, we would be inclined to support option two. We believe this would be an appropriate and proportionate means to address concerns raised, by highlighting and utilizing an existing extension mechanism, and keeping any consequent changes to the UDRP which may be made as a result of this group's mandated work with respect to LOCK as targeted as possible. To the extent that there would nevertheless be changes recommended to extend the existing UDRP response time (e.g. to in a way "compensate" Respondents for any WG decision to not require Complainant's to copy Respondent on their initially filed UDRP Complaint so as to minimize risk of cyberflight between that point and confirmation of registrar lock), given the approx 75% of UDRP cases in which Respondents do not participate, and the fact that this would add four days to the duration of the UDRP mechanism overall (even in cases where the Respondent apparently did not need or seek those further four days), we would NOT suggest an extension by four days to the prescribed Response period and thus UDRP timelines overall (there may also be mandate issues here given the LOCK-targeted focus of the group's work). In such cases, we would instead suggest participating UDRP Respondents be granted an express option to request a four day extension should they so choose, with any such received four day extension request to be automatically granted, and the corresponding deadline extended by the UDRP provider, at no cost to Respondent. The availability of such automatic four day extension option on request could also be flagged by the UDRP provider for the Respondent's information on commencing the proceedings. This may give those participating Respondent's that actually need the extra four days the comfort of cost-neutral certainty where requested, without impacting UDRP timelines overall. Kind regards, David David Roache-Turner Head, Internet Dispute Resolution WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center From: owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: jeudi 23 mai 2013 10:25 To: Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Cancelling today's UDRP Domain Name Lock WG meeting Importance: High 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 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.