[gnso-lockpdp-wg] MP3 Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP proceedings teleconference - Thursday 30 May 2013

[Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine@xxxxxxxxx>]

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!