[gnso-lockpdp-wg] MP3 Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP proceedings teleconference - Thursday 06 June 2013
Dear All, The next Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP proceedings teleconference is scheduled for Thursday 13 June at 1400 UTC. Please find the MP3 recording of the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP proceedings teleconference held on Thursday 06 June 2013 at 14:00 UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-locking-domain-name-20130606-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jun 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 Michele Neylon - RrSG (Chair) David Roache-Turner - WIPO Hago Dafalla - NCUC Luc Seufer - RrSG Apologies : Laurie Anderson - RrSG Volker Greimann - RrSG David Maher - RySG Gabriella Szlak - CBUC Celia Lehrman - CBUC 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 06 June: Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, Welcome to the UDRP Domain Name Lock Working group meeting on the 6th June 2013 Michele Neylon:hi Michele Neylon:on another call Michele Neylon:joining as soon as I can get off it Hago Dafalla:hi all Michele Neylon:I'm dialling in Michele Neylon:sorry Michele Neylon:waiting .. Michele Neylon:gah Alan Greenberg:me too Nathalie Peregrine:we have told the providers about the delay Alan Greenberg:on Kristine Dorrain:I got through at 9 am, but the call never connected...or I was the first person there. I hung up and called back and now I'm waiting too. Alan Greenberg:I JUST completed survey Nathalie Peregrine:Luc Seufer has joined the call Matt Schneller:Sorry for background noise. My toddler is super upset that he's not allowed into the office to join the call. Kristine Dorrain:And only 8 people even voted... Matt Schneller:Which is the second option? The third one listed has a lower aggregate preference Luc Seufer:can someone click on the "Try it now" button so that we get a better chart? I am having trouble reading the results in this format Matt Schneller:Closer to 1 = closer to group's aggregate first preference Matt Schneller:Marika, does the chart include the 2 new survey results, or just as of last night? Marika Konings:https://community.icann.org/display/udrpproceedings/4.+Members Matt Schneller:Couldn't it be pushed out as a Supp. Rule change? If ICANN strongly asks all providers to update their Supp Rules, it seems like it'll happen Luc Seufer:@Krisitine do you mean we should not amend the UDRP rule sat all? Kristine Dorrain:Likely...but I think Marika makes a good point, let ICANN work out how to make it happen. Matt Schneller:We can reach out to the Czech / Arab centers to verify that they can/would update their Supp R accordingly? Kristine Dorrain:I don't mean that we not amend, I just mean that we wanted to tread carefully on amendment so I wanted to point out that one implementation choice could be amending the UDRP Luc Seufer:Ok thanks for the clarification, I thought you also referred to the removal of the obligation to notify as well. Matt Schneller:Option C is what currently happens ;-) Kristine Dorrain:Oooh, burn Luc Seufer:Respond to the survey and win an iPad mini? Luc Seufer:nope Luc Seufer:always need the registrant agreement Luc Seufer:Most Registrars are not equipped to know if a settlement actually happened. Michele Neylon:Luc +1 Luc Seufer:No but it should be the Provider who instructs the registrar to unlock, not the registrar on its own Marika Konings:apologies, but I have to drop off here. Berry will cover the remainder of the call. Speak to you all next week. Luc Seufer:not on the phone and the audio stuff doesn't work Luc Seufer:I am fine with that. Berry Cobb:@Kristine - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swim_lane Luc Seufer:Yes we are a sheer technical intermediary not a legal advisor Berry Cobb:Perhaps it is a combination of both. Parties contact Rr and is confirmed by UDRP Provider. Only confirmation from all three parties will allow for the lock to be released. Luc Seufer:Registrars apply the lock measures upon request of the UDRP provider, it would be logical the same party instruct us to remove those Berry Cobb:But if they dont settle, even after they said they are trying, authority falls back to UDRP provider. Luc Seufer:yes Luc Seufer:20 days after the stay order if I am not mistaken Luc Seufer:Registrars do! Matt Schneller:All I was going to say - the one non-weird settlement option is that the parties agree to a consented judgment from the panel noting settlement and transferring Matt Schneller:that's pretty common Luc Seufer:Like it Kristine Dorrain:Berry, the current practice is that if the parties suspend the case, and then don't get back to the provider, then we just dismiss it assuming they've settled. That's how "outside the process" settlement is. Kristine Dorrain:Yes, there are a lot of consent judgments... Matt Schneller:And that's one reason complainants are hesitant to use the mechanism and push for the consent judgment instead. Less uncertainty and no risk of a random unexpected dismissal when transfer doesn't happen quickly enough. See ya'll next week Luc Seufer:see ya Kristine Dorrain:see you!