[bc-gnso] ALERTS From the Secretariat: Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings - Initial Report

Mon Mar 18 11:24:19 UTC 2013

Dear BC Members,

Please find below an ICANN Announcement regarding the Locking of a 
Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings - Initial Report.

Thank you,

Kind Regards,

Benedetta Rossi
BC Secretariat
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home
www.bizconst.org
bc-secretariat at icann.org

  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 
<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-15mar13-en.htm>

To Submit Your Comments (Forum) 
<mailto:comments-locking-domain-name-15mar13 at icann.org>

View Comments Submitted 
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-locking-domain-name-15mar13/>

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 
<mailto:Policy-staff at icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Locking%20of%20a%20Domain%20Name%20Subject%20to%20UDRP%20Proceedings%20%E2%80%93%20Initial%20Report%20public%20comment%20period>

Detailed Information

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose:

In its Initial Report 
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/locking/domain-name-initial-15mar13-en.pdf>[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
    <https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/locking-domain-name-15mar13-en.htm#foot1>
    (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 cyberflight^2
    <https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/locking-domain-name-15mar13-en.htm#foot2>
    (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 
<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/locking-domain-name-15mar13-en.htm#text1> 
The WG is considering adding the bracketed language and would welcome 
community input on the proposed addition.

^2 
<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/locking-domain-name-15mar13-en.htm#text2> 
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
    <https://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
    <https://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

gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>

http://gnso.icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20130318/ca4ef16b/attachment.html>