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

[Luc SEUFER <lseufer@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello All,

Just playing the devil's advocate here, but I don't see a factual difference 
between option 1 and 2. (I may be missing something though)

If the respondent is a filthy cybersquater whose goal is to keep the infringing 
domain name under their control for the longest time they can without spending 
a dime, they will always ask and be automatically granted the 4 days extension, 
wouldn't they? Thus turning the extension in an automatic one even though they 
wouldn't actually submit a reply at the end of the 20+4 days period.

If the obligation for the complainant to inform the respondent of the filing at 
the time the complaint is submitted to the UDRP provider is to be removed, then 
better go for the 24 days standard than see an "on-request" one being lead 
astray.

All the best,

Luc

______________________
Luc Seufer

Chief Legal Officer
DCL Group
2, rue Léon Laval
L-3372 Leudelange



Tel.:  +352  27 220 166
Mobile : +352 691 600 417
Fax.:   +352 20 300 166
Mailto:lseufer@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lseufer@xxxxxxxxxxx>




www.dclgroup.eu<http://www.datacenter.eu/>  | 
www.datacenter.eu<http://www.datacenter.eu/>   | 
www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com/>   | 
www.voipgate.com<http://www.voipgate.com/> |  
www.luxcloud.com<http://www.luxcloud.com/>

On 23 May 2013, at 16:01 , "Dorrain, Kristine" 
<kdorrain@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:kdorrain@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

I agree with David Roache-Turner on all points.

I also think that if we did end up going with a recommendation like the 4-day 
automatic extension, we would not necessarily need to amend the UDRP to achieve 
it (though that would remain an option).  We would have to check in with CAC 
and ADNDRC, but the Providers could unilaterally amend their Supplemental Rules 
to accommodate this “best practice” at ICANN’s suggestion.  I can say that NAF 
would be willing to voluntarily make the change.

Kristine

Kristine F. Dorrain, Esq.
Director of Internet and IP Services

National Arbitration Forum (FORUM)
P.O. Box 50191
Minneapolis, MN 55405
Phone  952.516.6456
Fax  866.342.0657
Email  kdorrain@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:kdorrain@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
domains.adrforum.com<http://domains.adrforum.com>

This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible 
for delivering it to the intended recipient, please notify the sender 
immediately and destroy all copies of this message and attachments



From: owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>] On 
Behalf Of Roache-Turner, David
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 7:26 AM
To: Marika Konings; Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Teng, Joanne; Gray, Ty
Subject: [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> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: jeudi 23 mai 2013 10:25
To: Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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.


________________________________

--------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the 
use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have 
received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and 
delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its 
contents to anyone.

Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

--------------------------------------------------------