Re: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] For your review and feedback - modified settlement option A
In light of the feedback received so far, would the following reflect your comments (note, I did add one sentence to reflect that settlement could also include that the domain name remains with the respondent): Option A: (1) parties ask for suspension, (2) parties settle, (3) parties submit a standardized ³settlement form² to UDRP provider, (4) UDRP provider confirms to the registrar, copying both the Complainant and the Respondent, whether the terms of the settlement indicate Respondent agreement to the transfer or cancellation of the disputed domain name(s) to the complaint, [or Complainant agreement that domain name(s) remain with the Respondent] (5) settlement agreement is implemented by registrar (6) Complainant confirms the implementation to the UDRP Provider and (7) provider dismisses the case. If not, please feel free to suggest additional edits. Thanks, Marika From: <Roache-Turner>, David <david.roacheturner@xxxxxxxx> Date: Friday 21 June 2013 11:36 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] For your review and feedback - modified settlement option A Also, it would not be practicable in any event, in my view, to ³confirm details of the settlement² in general terms (settlements and their terms can take many forms, which may go beyond parameters of the UDRP) if we would need to go further down this route, it would really only be feasible, in my view, to confirm whether the terms of the settlement indicate Respondent agreement to the transfer or cancellation of the disputed domain name(s) to the Complainant, or not. (In cases of any ambiguity, provider would not confirm). If so confirmed by the provider to the registrar, copying both Complainant and Respondent, it would then need to be for the registrar to implement the party-agreed (provider-confirmed) transfer of the disputed domain name from the Respondent to the Complainant, or its cancellation. Best, David From: owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: vendredi 21 juin 2013 10:24 To: Volker Greimann Cc: Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] For your review and feedback - modified settlement option A Hi Volker, I believe that is what (4) says: 'provider issues notice to registrar to confirm the details of the settlement'. Maybe the strikethrough / bolded language did not make this clear? Marika From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Friday 21 June 2013 10:17 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] For your review and feedback - modified settlement option A Hi Marika, no, as this change to (4) would change the entire purpose of this clause and make our argument ad absurdum. As registrars, we cannot be in the position to "confirm the details of the settlement" as this could entail legal review that we cannot provide. It should really be the provider confirming the details of the settlement to the registrar. Best, Volker > 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. Attachment:
smime.p7s
|