[gnso-lockpdp-wg] MP3 Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP proceedings teleconference - Thursday 13 June 2013

[Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine@xxxxxxxxx>]

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!