ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< 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.


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.



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 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

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

    On 23 May 2013, at 16:01 , "Dorrain, Kristine"
    <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 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

    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
    On Behalf Of Roache-Turner, David
    Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 7:26 AM
    To: Marika Konings; 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 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).



    From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx
    Date: Wednesday 22 May 2013 12:17
    To: "Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx
    <mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx%3E>" <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,


    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:

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP

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:

CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP

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 >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy