Re: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] For your review and feedback - options to address settlement
I also agree. The role of the registrar in the UDRP is of an executing nature, not of a deciding or evaluating nature. In other words, the UDRP directs us to perform certain actions when certain situations are met. If the provider tells us to lock, we lock, if it tells us to unlock, we unlock and if it tells us to transfer ownership, we transfer ownership. The suspension is no different from that. In case of a suspension, we will do exactly what we are told to do by either the provider or both parties. I also note that the summary by Marika " that a transfer can only be carried out once the UDRP has been dismissed" does not accurately reflect the current situation. In most cases of a suspension today, the complainant will ask to reinstate the proceedings if the transfer has not already taken place. In various messages from UDRP providers, the procedure of transferring a domain name to the complainant during the suspension (not after) was confirmed, for example when a provider inquired in case of a suspended proceeding "if the domain name has been transferred to the complainant or the suspension should be extended; or the proceeding should be resumed" or writes that "During the suspension, the domain name may only be transferred to Complainant. Once the transfer of the domain names has been concluded, the proceedings will be terminated at the request of the Complainant.". The only change we should be looking at is whether the provider should be responsible for determining if a settlement has been reached or if this is the responsibility of the registrar. Based on LUc's comment, I would argue the former would be more adequate. Best, Volker Luc et al Removing my chair hat .. I fully support Luc's views on this. We are a small registrar. We do not have a team of lawyers, nor are we involved in many UDRPs. I'm sure there are quite a few other registrars in a similar position. With that in mind we need simple, clear instructions on what we need to do. Call it simplistic, but the UDRP provider appears to be the only entity who can provide these instructions with respect to settlements etc., and I think Luc's suggested process below makes a lot of sense. As a registrar the stakes are very high. If we do not enact the UDRP decision / settlement etc., correctly we risk losing our accreditation with ICANN. Regards Michele On 17 Jun 2013, at 03:54, Luc SEUFER <lseufer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi All, Sorry for not being able to join last week. I am one of those few (in the working group but majority I am sure in the registrar community) strong supporter of Option A. As far as I know, option B is how a settlement during UDRP proceedings is currently operated by most of the providers, so it would be solely a vetting of current practices which in my opinion are full of grey areas. As evidenced by Marika’s to the point description, registrars are currently asked to: unlock for the sole purpose of (whatever the settlement is), As the registrars on this working group have been explaining since its start there are no uniform lock measures and those have several layers. Solely asking registrars to unlock the domain name for a purpose that is not yet agreed upon by the parties is just too vague. Furthermore, some in this group were apparently dead-scared of the cyberflight risk at the beginning of the process, but this broad unlock instruction would bring back the same risk level. Solely asking registrars to unlock is not precise enough, the purpose needs to be expressly stated i.e. change the owner details to XXXX, initiate a deletion procedure at the registry’s level... At the end of the day registrars are mere technical intermediaries and not law firms able to understand settlement agreements and to take all necessary measures to ensure their timely execution. From what I understand, UDRP providers seem to fathom option A as an added layer liability for them, which it is not if this process is clearly defined. I trust they are ways to do so. For example, we could imagine that a simple standardised form be used by UDRP providers. Such form which would be executed by both parties (or their representatives) would state that the parties have settled and request that the domain name(s) subject to the proceedings remain with the respondent, be transferred to the complainant (details of the latter for each contact set would have to be specified) or be deleted. UDRP providers would then only operate the so-called administrative review of the form and if such review is conclusive would instruct the registrar of the action to take. By doing so we would leave all the issues attached to a settlement in the hand of the applicable parties and not grant new powers and responsibilities to UDRP providers, or ask of registrars to try and decipher settlements between while having their ICANN accreditation at stake in case of a misinterpretation of said settlement. Let me have your thoughts, Luc On Jun 16, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: Dear All, As discussed during our last meeting, please find below the two options in relation to settlement under consideration, as well as some of the notes reflecting our discussion. Although option A received the most support in response to the survey, following further discussion during the meeting, it seems that there are some strong views in support of option B, while the support for option A is perceived to be weaker. As a result, those on the call appear to be leaning towards favouring option B (as modified below) for inclusion in the Final Report. If there is disagreement with this approach, you are encouraged to share your views with the mailing list ahead of the next meeting. Note, in reviewing preliminary recommendation #10, which is linked to this issue, it looks like we may need to update the language to reflect that a transfer can only be carried out once the UDRP has been dismissed, so replacing 'the registrar must remove any lock preventing a transfer or cancellation within 2 Business days of confirmation of the settlement by both Parties' with 'the registrar must remove any lock preventing a transfer or cancellation within 2 Business days of confirmation of the settlement by both Parties and confirmation of the dismissal by the UDRP Provider (noting that such confirmation of automatic dismissal may be included in the original order issued by the Provider informing the Registrar of the suspension). If my assumption is incorrect or you have other suggestions on how to address this issue, please feel free to share your comments / suggestions with the mailing list. With best regards, Marika Settlement – Options under consideration Option A: (1) parties ask for suspension, (2) parties settle, (3) parties inform provider, (4) provider issues order to registrar to change the holder details or delete the domain name, (5) that change or deletion happens, (6) complainant confirms change or deletion is complete, and (7) provider dismisses the case. Note – UDRP Providers noted that no transfer is allowed until the case is dismissed which, should this option be supported, would mean that step 7 may need to be added to step 4. Option B (as updated during the last meeting) – (1) parties ask for suspension (suspension request includes automatic dismissal when the suspension period is up), (2) provider issues order allowing registrar to unlock for the sole purpose of (whatever the settlement is), (3) parties settle), (4) parties request the registrar to implement the settlement agreement - in case of a settlement in favor of the complainant, by moving the domain name to the control of the complainant where it shall remain locked pending the receipt of a dismissal from the provider when the domain name will be unlocked, and (4) provider dismisses case automatically with no further action needed (if settlement discussions break down, either party can request that the case be reinstated before automatic dismissal). Issues discussed during the last meeting: · Registrar does not have relationship with Complainant, but has received a copy of the complaint that contains the relevant information · UDRP Provider does not have relationship with Respondent, but information should have been verified by the registrar · If UDRP Provider is responsible for ‘confirming’ settlement, registrars need to be aware that this will not absolve them from any responsibility under the UDRP · Transfer is not allowed until UDRP case is dismissed · Settlement can also include agreement that domain name registration stays with respondent (i.e. does not always involve a transfer) · Provider is administrative body, does not have legal authority to ‘order’ transfer · If option A would become the new process (part of UDRP rules or in the form of an advisory), wouldn’t it become enforceable on registrars (via ICANN Compliance)? Note, this recommendation is linked to Preliminary Recommendation #10: In the case of suspension of a proceeding (when the parties have agreed to a settlement), the UDRP Provider informs the Registrar of the Suspension, including the expected duration of the suspension. Should both parties come to a settlement, which would involve a transfer, cancellation or agreement that the registration will remain with the Respondent, the registrar must remove any lock preventing a transfer or cancellation within 2 Business days of confirmation of the settlement by both Parties. ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- 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. ---------------------------------------------------------- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://mneylon.tel/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -- 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 / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems 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 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 / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems 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 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.
|