[gnso-lockpdp-wg] For your review and feedback - modified settlement option A
Dear All (and especially Kristine and David R-T), As discussed during yesterday's meeting concerning the options for settlement, it appears that the majority of WG members is either strongly or moderately in favour of option A, with only the UDRP Providers participating in this WG strongly in favour of option B. In order to address the concerns raised by the UDRP Providers, those on the call yesterday would like to explore whether the following, slightly modified version of option A, including implementation guidance, would make it acceptable to the UDRP Providers, noting that additional edits could definitely be explored (please note that I also identified an additional question when revising the current language): Option A: (1) parties ask for suspension, (2) parties settle, (3) parties inform provider, (4) provider issues order notice to registrar to confirm the details of the settlement change the holder details or delete the domain name, (5) that settlement is carried out by the registrar change or deletion happens, (6) complainant confirms change or deletion is complete [question should it be the complainant or the registrar that confirms that the settlement has been carried out?] , and (7) provider dismisses the case. Implementation guidance: The provider notice confirming the settlement could be a standardised form issued by the UDRP Provider to the complainant and respondent at the time a suspension is requested to discuss settlement. Such form would have to be executed by both parties (or their representatives) and would confirm that the parties have settled and request that the domain name(s) subject to the proceedings a) remain with the respondent, b) be transferred to the complainant (details of the latter for each contact set would have to be specified, or c) be deleted. Please share any comments / edits you may have with the mailing list. With best regards, Marika Attachment:
smime.p7s
|