[gnso-lockpdp-wg] MP3 Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP proceedings teleconference - Thursday 30 May 2013
Dear All, The next Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP proceedings teleconference is scheduled for Thursday 06 June at 1400 UTC. Please find the MP3 recording of the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP proceedings teleconference held on Thursday 30 May 2013 at 14:00 UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-locking-domain-name-20130530-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#ma<http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#mar>y The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Kristine Dorrain - NAF Alan Greenberg - ALAC (Vice Chair) Matt Schneller - IPC Faisal Shah - Individual David Maher - RySG Michele Neylon - RrSG (Chair) Volker Greimann - RrSG David Roache-Turner - WIPO Gabriella Szlak - CBUC Apologies : Laurie Anderson - RrSG Hago Dafalla - NCUC ICANN staff: Marika Konings Lars Hoffman Berry Cobb Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Peregrine For GNSO Secretariat Adobe Chat transcript for 30 May: Marika Konings:Welcome to the UDRP Domain Name Lock WG Meeting of 30 May 2013 Michele Neylon:I'm goihng to dial in now Michele Neylon:sory Michele Neylon:just finishing another call Nathalie Peregrine:Matt Schneller has joined the call Nathalie Peregrine:Volker Greimann has joined the call Nathalie Peregrine:David Roache Turner has joined the audio bridge Nathalie Peregrine:Luc Seufer has joined the czll Nathalie Peregrine:call Volker Greimann:if 80% default that also means that 20% do not default. Volker Greimann:that is a fifth, i.e. a significant number Faisal Shah:i can go with either 1 or 3 Kristine Dorrain:Yes , I don't mean to say 20% is insignificant. I was pointing out that extending the response period for all cases would be unnecessary for those 80%, so having the Respondent affirmatively indicate that they want some sort of extension so as to only extend the time for the folks who need/want it. Nathalie Peregrine:Gabriela Szlak haas just joined the AC room Gabriela Szlak:sorry for the delay, I got confused and thought the meeting was in the next half hour!! Luc Seufer:For the record I never was a cyberflight believer Volker Greimann:personally, I have never seen a case of cyberflight Gabriela Szlak:I would prefer to vote by email Luc Seufer:me neither not one in 6 years Gabriela Szlak:I just got here Volker Greimann:me Kristine Dorrain:Most cyberflight occurs when the Registrar does not quickly lock. Registrars that know what to do with a UDRP don't typically have it. :) David Roache-Turner:+1 Kristine - the other way to approach it could be to further condense registrar lock time per the URS for example Volker Greimann:it seems my microphone does not work Volker Greimann:but I wanted to tell Marika to go ahead anyway Michele Neylon::P Nathalie Peregrine:Volker, you are muted in the AC room Matt Schneller:It's a big enough issue for our WG that it's probably worth putting it on a web poll for the WG. Is there a way to let people rank order preferences? Matt Schneller:Also, Volker, given that rationale, could you describe why you preferred 4 to 2? Marika Konings:@Matt - yes, I think that is possible in survey monkey Volker Greimann:Matt, I could live with 2, but I'd prefer to see it as part of a complete review Luc Seufer:I am having an ideological problem not to inform someone that a proceedings has been initiated against them only to prevent a 1% risk of cyberflight, knowing that the transfer can still be reverted and no further transfer can be initiated if this unlikely situation was to happened. David Roache-Turner:Just for those who may not have not experienced 'cyberflight', where it does occurs, it is typically difficult and time consuming for all involved parties (including the involved registrar) to resolve. For further information of what can be involved, see list of previously circulated cyberflight decisions. Kristine Dorrain:+1 David Gabriela Szlak:The extension in option 2 would be for free? Gabriela Szlak:(sorry I cannot talk, just write) Kristine Dorrain:Transfer is not always reverted, Luc. the Registrars have refused. Kristine Dorrain:in some cases David Roache-Turner:+1 Alan Marika Konings:@David - would you mind sending that list again as it may be helpful to include as a reference in the Final Report Luc Seufer:Was ICANN compliance involved? Kristine Dorrain:Additionally, you now have significant issues like jurisdiction and language of the proceedings Gabriela Szlak:The extension in option 2 would be for free? Kristine Dorrain:Yes, always Kristine Dorrain:It takes a lot of ICANN Compliance's time too. Luc Seufer:and even when put on breach notice, those did not comply? Alan Greenberg:@Gabriela, 2 is not an extension but a legthening of the formal time to respond. David Roache-Turner:Marika - sure, will recirculate that list. Kristine Dorrain:to my knowledge there has never been a breach notice for faiilure to lock because there is no official requirement to lock Kristine Dorrain:which is part of the reason we're here.... David Roache-Turner:That's right Kristine Luc Seufer:Failure to maintain status quo should be enough Kristine Dorrain:According to *me* it is. :) David Roache-Turner:The issue is clarity in practice Kristine Dorrain:yes David Roache-Turner:especially for registrars which may be less familar with the UDRP process Matt Schneller:Seems to be a registrar-registrant contractual issue, isn't it? Gabriela Szlak:I am in the same situation Alan! David Roache-Turner:+1 Matt; for us, so long as the domain name is locked is the main issue rather than the actual 'how' David Roache-Turner:+ 1 Kristine Luc Seufer:Yes, let registrars implement the lock in the fashion they want to, what matter is the effect of the lock not the means. David Roache-Turner:we can only focus on lock ofr purposes of the UDRP, not any other changes that may be required by other processes, or law Kristine Dorrain:Agree Alan and David. Also, keep in mind that Registrants can move Registrars if they don't like how the Registrar handles UDRP. Yes, that doese mean the first one is a shocker, but they needn't tolerate it again. Matt Schneller:I thought we explicitly punted on that issue because it was a contract thing between registrars/registrants David Roache-Turner:Matt, my receollection also, similar to privacy proxy registration services David Roache-Turner:Marika, others, cases on cyberflight are on the list at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-lockpdp-wg/msg00142.html Kristine Dorrain:Nice threat Marika! Marika Konings:thanks David! Volker Greimann:as a GNSO councillor, we do like to get documents prior to the deadline Volker Greimann:and not on it Luc Seufer:yeay the last word was a French one! ;-) Gabriela Szlak:thanks you!