[gnso-lockpdp-wg] MP3 Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP proceedings teleconference - Thursday 13 June 2013
Dear All, The next Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP proceedings teleconference is scheduled for Thursday 20 June at 1400 UTC. Please find the MP3 recording of the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP proceedings teleconference held on Thursday 13 June 2013 at 14:00 UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-locking-domain-name-20130613-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 Michele Neylon - RrSG (Chair) David Roache-Turner - WIPO Ty Gray - WIPO Hago Dafalla - NCUC Laurie Anderson - RrSG David Maher - RySG Gabriella Szlak - CBUC Lisa Garono - IPC Apologies : none 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 13 June: Marika Konings:Welcome to the UDRP Domain Name Lock WG Meeting of 13 June 2013 Hago Dafalla:hi all Michele Neylon:Will join at top of the hour - on another call Matt Schneller:he's got his new Call of Duty username locked down Michele Neylon:lol Nathalie Peregrine:Laurie Anderson and David Maher have joined the call Nathalie Peregrine:Gabriela Szlak has also joined Gabriela Szlak:Thanks Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine:David Roache Turner has also joined Marika Konings:We actually have 30 people listed as members of the WG Marika Konings:but only 15 or so show up regularly for calls David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):option 3) of option b) should probably be modified to indicate soley for pruposes of transferring to the COmplainant with whom the settlement has been reached David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):+1 laurie Kristine Dorrain:+1 David and Laurie Marika Konings:Shouldn't it also include the option that the name stays with the respondent as part of the settlement? Kristine Dorrain:Yes, Marika. Gabriela Szlak:Yes David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):@laurie that would also work for us (change in control) David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):Although just to note, that when we say transfer in the UDRP provider contextm we are usually referring to change in registrant (rather than as between registrars) Matt Schneller:should we just say that we are "changing the registrant to the Complainant"? "Control" could be a little more vague - the registrant may not have to change so long as effective control was ceded to the Complainant David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):Matt, that could be clearer still Matt Schneller:along those lines, in the third new bullet point, maybe we say "Transfer of registrars is not allowed..." David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):Im sorry, I didn't vote, but if I would vote, I would vote for option B Marika Konings:Only 3 registrars responded to the poll Gabriela Szlak:Can the providers explain why they prefer B instead of A? Matt Schneller:for what it's worth, I voted for (a) because it doesn't provide for automatic dismissal if the settlement isn't implemented (ie by the registrar) as the parties requested Gabriela Szlak:(sorrry my office is too noisy to open mu mike) David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):Option B is based essentially on party agreement, option A would, in effect require the provider to order registrar to transfer, which we lack authority to do. David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):+1 Kristine; the provider is a neutral administrator. Gabriela Szlak:thanks Kristine, I believe I am understanding better now Laurie Anderson:David, the registrar is also neutral. We are simply acting on the diretion of the provider and the parties in the case of a settlement. Laurie Anderson:direction rather... Matt Schneller:Complainant's counsel don't care. Respondent's counsel may well care for exactly the reasons K noted (although a consent judgement shouldn't have any impact down the road, e.g. as bad faith evidence or impacting gTLD applications or etc) Laurie Anderson:There is also a lot of back and forth getting agreement between the parties in a lot of cases that the registrar ends up having to coordinate. Kristine Dorrain:As I mentioned last week, the suspension process "steps out of" the UDRP. Kristine Dorrain:Matt, you're right that C's counsel doesn't care, but I know some C's use it as leverage to get R's to settle. David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):Kristine: well put - it steps out, on the basis of party agreement David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):B is much more "hands off" Hago Dafalla:I agree with option A Matt Schneller:I guess the other metric that might be useful to know is how strongly everyone cares about the settlement options. At least personally, while I prefer A, my preference is really, really weak. Clearly, the providers feel pretty strongly about B. Do others that voted have strong/weak preferences on this? Kristine Dorrain:As I mentioned last week, Alan, we have not heard, anecdotally, that any registrars have been burned. David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):Alan, we would be changing 10+ years of practice over thosuands of cases for a process which overall seems to be working well in practice David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):change in account has to be the registrar, because the provider has no control over this in practice Gabriela Szlak:thinking out of the box a little: this would be so much easier with a basic technology accesible by the parties, registrars and providers, where the parties choose options for settlements online and everybody sees this Gabriela Szlak:soem kind of platform Gabriela Szlak:to make people choose for options Gabriela Szlak:transfer Gabriela Szlak:not transfer Gabriela Szlak:i am sorry for thinking out the box Gabriela Szlak:exactly Gabriela Szlak:thanks Gabriela Szlak:some prefixed options Gabriela Szlak:Thank you Kristine Gabriela Szlak:Well I am participating next week at the Onlien Dispute Resolution Forum in Montreal David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):settlement agreements in our cases are generally communicated via email Gabriela Szlak:which is why I propose this David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):building infrastructure across all providers and 1000+ registrars would be quite an undertaking Kristine Dorrain:I agree. I don't think we're "there", I was just trying to clarify for Gabriela Gabriela Szlak:Yes, thanks and sorry for opening more issues, when we need to cloe Gabriela Szlak:close Kristine Dorrain:To be clear, Gabriela, it's not a bad idea...just not practicable right now. :) Matt Schneller:The main issue for complainant's counsel is typically that you're reliant on the good faith of everyone involved with the current procedure. After the stay is entered, the rest of the rpocess is up in the air - dependant on the registrant not to transfer to a different owner once it's unlocked (or to a different registrar or etc.) Generally, everyone DEOEs act in good faith, and it's fine. But, I certainly feel better about suggesting agreeing to a settlement with a domain that is, e.g., with a predictable registrar like GoDaddy than a registrar that is widely assumed to be an "in-house" registrar for a registrant David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):Matt: perhaps that could be adddressed via option B via making still clearer the change in registrant data should be limited by terms of party agreement itself? Gabriela Szlak:I don´t see where are you reading now? cna you clarify? Alan Greenberg:comment # 25 Gabriela Szlak:thanks Alan David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):can we put that language up on the screen? Marika Konings:@David - which language do you mean? David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):that michele just read out Marika Konings:it is there on page 14 David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):oh, I have found it, tx Marika Konings:I think you were actually the one that suggested it in Beijing ;-) Gabriela Szlak:hahaha Gabriela Szlak:(to Michele Comment on monitors) Kristine Dorrain:LOL Alan Greenberg:YAY! David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):marika, in that case, we are ok with that WG response in question 26! David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):The short answer to 26 is that it probably goes beyond scope David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):...as court proceeding go beyond UDRP Laurie Anderson:I'd like to see something more like.... Laurie Anderson:(3) parties request the registrar to implement the settlement agreement by moving the domain name to the control of the complainant where it shall remain lockedpending the receipt of a dismissal from the provider when the domain name will be unlocked. Matt Schneller:yeah, i like that. David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):+1 Laurie, we could support that Kristine Dorrain:I like it Marika Konings:Thanks Laurie for that suggestion. I'll incorporate it in option B. Laurie Anderson:This is the way we have handled these traditionally and it works well. David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):Court orders need to be distingusihed from UDRP obligations Kristine Dorrain:Alan, sometimes the court will issue its own lock order (or restraining order), sometimes no Gabriela Szlak:this should be distinguished are different locks? Gabriela Szlak:as Gabriela Szlak:my questions was for David David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):Alan, can depend on court jurisdiction, registrars are always subject to UDRP contractual obligations Laurie Anderson:We handle court cases as closely to the UDRP as we can unless there are specific instructions from the court. David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):Gabriela, the obligation to lock or unlock under UDRP should be distingusihed from any lock obligation pursuant to court actions, interim injections, etc, as to precedence, for the registrar to determine with advice if necessary Gabriela Szlak:thanks, I agree Matt Schneller:adios, everyone! Gabriela Szlak:adios Matt David Roache-Turner / Ty Gray (WIPO):farewell all! Gabriela Szlak:by!