ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-lockpdp-wg] MP3 Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP proceedings teleconference - Thursday 06 June 2013

  • To: "Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] MP3 Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP proceedings teleconference - Thursday 06 June 2013
  • From: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 10:45:31 -0700

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.


On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jun

The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master 
Calendar page:



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 

  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 

  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!

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy