Re: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] For your review and feedback - modified settlement option A

[Luc SEUFER <lseufer@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Kristine,

This is exactly what I was pushing for! Simplicity is the key.

Thank you,

Luc



On Jun 24, 2013, at 11:36 PM, Dorrain, Kristine 
<kdorrain@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:kdorrain@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Just a few thoughts that I believe echo what David said.  The “settlement form” 
cannot be the full agreement between the parties.  Clearly the provider is not 
in a position to weigh in on if any payments or covenants in the agreement are 
met.  We could provide a settlement form that allows the parties to simply 
check a box as to what they want from the limited universe of options:
1.    Transfer this list of  domain names from R to C
2.    Delete/cancel this list of domain names.
Then the form can provide a place for contact information and transfer 
information.

Any option where R keeps the domain names can be implemented simply through C 
withdrawing its complaint.  Nothing needs to be done here.

We could receive the form, signed by both parties, and forward it on to the 
Registrar.  There will be no policing or checking to see if anyone got paid or 
what-have-you.  If there are contractual terms that are not performed, it will 
be up to the parties to sue it out.

Apart from my routine grumbling that the Provider has no place sticking its 
nose into the “outside the UDRP” contract negotiations between two parties, 
this would be something I could live with <hopes that the extra hassle is 
mitigated by the prompter and more responsive verifications…>  :)

Kristine




From: owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 5:45 AM
To: Roache-Turner, David; Volker Greimann
Cc: Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: 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 “settlement form” 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<mailto:david.roacheturner@xxxxxxxx>>
Date: Friday 21 June 2013 11:36
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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 “confirm details 
of the settlement” 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> 
[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<mailto: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<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Friday 21 June 2013 10:17
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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.


________________________________

--------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the 
use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have 
received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and 
delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its 
contents to anyone.

Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

--------------------------------------------------------