FW: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - UDRP Domain Name Lock WG meeting

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Reminder ­ the next meeting of the UDRP Domain Name Lock WG is scheduled for
tomorrow, Thursday 30 May at 14.00 UTC. You will find the proposed agenda
below.

Best regards,

Marika

From:  Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:  Wednesday 22 May 2013 12:17
To:  "Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <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:
* 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)
* 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.
* 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

Attachment: Public Comment Review Tool ­ Initial Report - Updated 22 May 2013.doc
Description: MS-Word document

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