RE: [gnso-res-sga] DRAFT Subgroup A report

["Peter Stevenson- Fabulous.com" <peter.stevenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Steve,

 

Some comments:

 

OPOC Attributes - WHO

.     Capability for RELAY - the OPOC must meet technical requirements (such
as 24x7 coverage; automatic real-time forwarding for e-mail requests and
responses from RNH, with automatic real-time acknowledgement to the other
party that the RELAY has occurred;  automated copying to registrar under
certain circumstances; capability to forward requests and responses in other
formats [e.g., postal mail]; etc.)

      

      If the OPoC and the Registrar are one and same they obviously do not
need these capabilities. Therefore it must be able to be determined by the
person looking at the whois information if these are one and the same. This
may seem obvious, however where a domain name is owned by a company and
they are using one of their employees for the OPoC as they do now for Admin
and Technical contacts.

 

OPOC Attributes:  HOW (enforcement)

It was AGREED that if there has been a failure of the RELAY process
(including a failure to forward a response from the RNH within the specified
time periods), and the OPOC has not REVEALED RNH contact data, then the
registrar should do so by conveying full contact details to the requester.
Similarly, if there is a failure of the REVEAL process, the registrar should
REVEAL contact data to the requester.   

 

      Q. How is this determined? It is very broad statement, however agreed
that action needs to be taken, but a lot of work is needed to make sure the
OPoC is at fault and not the RNH.

 


OPOC Attributes - WHAT

The case in which the request is made in the context of a possible UDRP case
was discussed.  There was SUPPORT for requiring the OPOC to REVEAL the full
RNH contact data whenever the domain name was identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark or service mark in which the requester has rights
(see UDRP para. 4(a)(i)).  An ALTERNATIVE VIEW was that REVEAL would be
required only upon the filing of a UDRP case.  

 

      When lodging a UDRP you need to have the Respondents (RNH) details, so
you would either need to have those details already or lodge it with the
OPoC's details and then lodge a change of details for the Respondent once
those details are received. Quite often the first time a RNH hears about a
dispute is when they get the WIPO documents via email/mail.

 

 

OPOC Attributes:  HOW (enforcement)

 

2. Request the Registry to suspend website DNS (although TTL means that
resolutions would still occur for 24-48 hours)

 

      This can be done at Registrar level and maybe a quicker turn around by
placing the responsibility there rather than involving the Registry

 

3. Request the Registry to lock the subject domain so that it cannot be
transferred.  The name should be available for resale after 90 days unless
the registrant has initiated an approved dispute resolution mechanism.

 

      Locking of the domain name can also be done at Registrar level, again
maybe a quicker turn around by placing the responsibility here rather than
involving the Registry

 

The name should be available for resale after 90 days unless the registrant
has initiated an approved dispute resolution mechanism.

 

      There would need to be a change to the current delete process for
domain names for this to happen. When a deletion request goes through it is
at    least 35 days before it is avilable to be registered again.

 

 

Hope this helps.

 

Regards,

 

Peter Stevenson 

www.Fabulous.com

________________________________

 

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient, you may not disclose or use the information in this
e-mail in any way. Fabulous.com does not guarantee the integrity of any
e-mails or attached files. The views or opinions expressed are the author's
own and may not reflect the views or opinions of Fabulous.com. Fabulous.com
does not warrant that any attachments are free from viruses or other
defects. You assume all liability for any loss, damage or other
consequences, which may arise from opening or using the attachments.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 12:24 AM
To: Maria Farrell; gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-res-sga] DRAFT Subgroup A report 

 

 Subgroup A participants, 

 

With apologies for the delay, please see a draft subgroup report attached.
Your comments would be most useful if received by 12 noon Edt tomorrow
(Tuesday). Thanks in advance. 

 

Steve Metalitz

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx]

Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 5:27 AM

To: gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx

Cc: sjmeta2@xxxxxxxxxxx; Burchette, Pamela; Metalitz, Steven

Subject: Subgroup A report delay

 

Dear participants in Whois Sub Group A,

 

This group's chair, Steve Metalitz is having technical difficulties at the
moment and can't access this mailing list.  

 

Please be advised that Steve will circulate a revised outline report for Sub
Group A's work by Monday. 

 

Steve also sends his apologies for this unavoidable delay. 

 

All the best, Maria