Begin forwarded message: > From: Glen de Saint Géry <[log in to unmask]> > Date: March 17, 2013 3:58:04 PM PDT > To: liaison6c <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: [liaison6c] Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP > Proceedings - Initial Report > > > https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-15mar13- > en.htm > Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings – Initial Report > > Comment / Reply Periods (*) > Comment Open Date: > 15 March 2013 > Comment Close Date: > 26 April 2013 - 23:59 UTC > Reply Open Date: > 27 April 2013 > Reply Close Date: > 17 May 2013 - 23:59 UTC > Important Information Links > Public Comment Announcement > To Submit Your Comments (Forum) > View Comments Submitted > Brief Overview > Originating Organization: > GNSO > Categories/Tags: > Policy Processes > Purpose (Brief): > The Generic Names Supporting Organization Working Group tasked with > addressing the issue of locking of a domain name subject to Uniform > Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Proceedings has > published its Initial Report for public comment. > Current Status: > The Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group has published > its Initial Report and is soliciting community input on the > preliminary recommendations contained in the report. > Next Steps: > Following review of the public comments received, the Working Group > will continue its deliberations and finalize its report for > submission to the GNSO Council. > Staff Contact: > Marika Konings > Email Staff Contact > Detailed Information > Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: > In its Initial Report [PDF, 883 KB], the PDP Working Group presents > eleven preliminary recommendations, which are expected to usefully > clarify and standardize how a domain name is locked and unlocked > during the course of a UDRP Proceeding for all parties involved. > Amongst others, these recommendations include: > > A definition of 'locking' in the context of a UDRP Proceeding - the > term "lock" means preventing any changes of registrar and > registrant [without impairing the resolution of the domain name]1 > (Preliminary recommendation #1) > Proposed modification of the UDRP rules to no longer require that > the complainant sends a copy of the complaint to the respondent to > avoid cyberflight2 (Preliminary recommendation #2) > Requirement for the registrar to 'lock' the domain name > registration within 2 business days following a request for > verification from the UDRP Provider (Preliminary recommendation #3) > Clarifying how to deal with changes to contact information and/or > lifting of proxy / privacy services (Preliminary recommendation #7 > and #8) > Clarifying the process for the unlocking of a domain name > registration following the conclusion of a UDRP proceeding > (Preliminary recommendation #9) > In addition to these recommendations, the WG has put forward two > possible options in its report to clarify the process in case a > settlement is reached and is requesting community input on these > two options or possible alternatives. > > It is important to emphasize that most of these preliminary > recommendations codify existing practices in line with the UDRP and > are not expected to require any changes to the existing policy. > However, should these recommendations be adopted in their current > form, minor changes may need to be made to the UDRP rules and/or > UDRP Provider supplemental rules. > > Those interested in providing input are strongly encouraged to > especially review section 5 and 6 of the Initial Report in order to > obtain a further understanding concerning the WG's thinking and > rationale with regards to these recommendations as well as further > details with respect to the preliminary recommendations. In > addition to input on the preliminary recommendations, the WG is > also interested to receive further feedback on the expected impact > should these recommendations be adopted. > > The WG would like to encourage all interested parties to submit > their comments and suggestions so these can be considered as the WG > continues its deliberations in view of finalizing its report and > recommendations in the next phase of the policy development process. > > 1 The WG is considering adding the bracketed language and would > welcome community input on the proposed addition. > > 2 Cyberflight in this context means changing the registrant > information with the intent to escape from the dispute. > > Section II: Background: > The "locking" of a domain name registration associated with UDRP > proceedings is not something that is literally required by the UDRP > as written, but is a practice that has developed around it. As a > result, there is no uniform approach, which has resulted in > confusion and misunderstandings. To address this issue, the GNSO > Council decided to initiate a Policy Development Process on 15 > December 2011. As part of its deliberations, the WG was required to > consider the following questions: > > 1. Whether the creation of an outline of a proposed procedure, > which a complainant must follow in order for a registrar to place a > domain name on registrar lock, would be desirable. > > 2. Whether the creation of an outline of the steps of the process > that a registrar can reasonably expect to take place during a UDRP > dispute would be desirable. > > 3. Whether the time frame by which a registrar must lock a domain > after a UDRP has been filed should be standardized. > > 4a. Whether what constitutes a "locked" domain name should be defined. > > 4b. Whether, once a domain name is 'locked' pursuant to a UDRP > proceeding, the registrant information for that domain name may be > changed or modified. > > 5. Whether additional safeguards should be created for the > protection of registrants in cases where the domain name is locked > subject to a UDRP proceeding. > > Section III: Document and Resource Links: > Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings – Initial > Report -http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/locking/domain-name- > initial-15mar13-en.pdf [PDF, 883 KB] > Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - http:// > www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy > Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - http:// > www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/rules > Working Group Workspace - https://community.icann.org/x/xq3bAQ > Section IV: Additional Information: > N/A > (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not > guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, > reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period > lapses. > > > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > [log in to unmask] > http://gnso.icann.org > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]