<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Reminder - please share your views
- To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Reminder - please share your views
- From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 11:55:59 +0200
I currently favor option three. Our main objective is to define "locking
procedures"; the removal of the obligation to notify the respondent is
only peripherally connected to this objective and the loss of potential
time to respond is not a trivial matter even if a majority of
registrants do not exercise their right to a defense. The question of
whether the respondent is a "filthy cybersquatter" or a victim of
reverse domain hijacking is made at the end of the process in the panel
decision, not at the beginning, after all.
Volker
Reminder - if you have not done so yet, please share your views on the
options outlined below, including the alternative proposed by David
Roche--Turner as well as the comments made by Luc with the mailing
list ahead of Thursday's meeting to facilitate our discussion.
Thanks,
Marika
On 23/05/13 21:10, "Luc SEUFER" <lseufer@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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>
<Mailto:lseufer@xxxxxxxxxxx%3Cmailto:lseufer@xxxxxxxxxxx%3E>
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><mailto:kdorrain@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:kdorrain@xxxxxxxxxxxx%3E>> 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><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:owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx%3Cmailto:gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx%3E>]
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><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>
[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><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><mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx%3E>>
Date: Wednesday 22 May 2013 12:17
To: "Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx%3E>" <Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx%3E>>
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.
--------------------------------------------------------
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen
Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder
Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht
nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder
telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this
email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the
author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|