ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

[gnso-lockpdp-wg] Reminder - please share your views

  • To: Luc SEUFER <lseufer@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Kristine Dorrain <kdorrain@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Roache-Turner <david.roacheturner@xxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>, "Teng, Joanne" <joanne.teng@xxxxxxxx>, "Gray, Ty" <ty.gray@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Reminder - please share your views
  • From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 02:24:13 -0700

Reminder - if you have not done so yet, please share your views on the
options outlined below, including the alternative proposed by David
Roche­Turner as well as the comments made by Luc with the mailing list ahead
of Thursday's meeting to facilitate our discussion.



On 23/05/13 21:10, "Luc SEUFER" <lseufer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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 ³best practice² at ICANN¹s 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 group¹s
> 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 ³compensate² Respondents for
> any WG decision to not require Complainant¹s 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 group¹s 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
> Respondent¹s information on commencing the proceedings.  This may give those
> participating Respondent¹s 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.
> --------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy