[gnso-impl-udrp-rt] Meeting invitation: UDRP IRT call on22April2014

Dorrain, Kristine kdorrain at adrforum.com
Tue Apr 22 16:25:01 UTC 2014


Yes, this is my recollection.  There is no required amendment after the lock/2 business days.  If a privacy service comes up later, it's optional.

-----Original Message-----
From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:12 AM
To: Luc SEUFER; Dorrain, Kristine
Cc: gnso-impl-udrp-rt at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-udrp-rt] Meeting invitation: UDRP IRT call on22April2014

I just wanted to point out that the Final Report also noted that:
'Depending on the terms of service of the Proxy /
Privacy service, a Registrar may opt to reveal underlying data as a result
of privacy/proxy services to the Provider or in Whois, or both, if it is
aware of such. This will not count as a "transfer" in violation of the
above, if it occurs in accordance with draft recommendation #2. If a
privacy/proxy service is revealed or proxy customer information released
after the Lock is applied and the Provider is notified, the Provider is
under no obligation to require the Complainant to amend its complaint
accordingly, but may do so in its discretion'.

Best regards,

Marika

On 22/04/14 18:03, "Luc SEUFER" <lseufer at dclgroup.eu> wrote:

>Hi Kristine,
>
>As I see it, if the proxy/privacy provider (i.e. the registrant of the
>domain name) isn't informed of the complaint at the time of the
>verification but afterwards, the UDRP provider will need to review the
>request to modify the registrant data, the complainant will need to amend
>their complaint and the registrar will need to unlock the domain and
>appoint the applicable details upon instruction of the UDRP provider.( in
>accordance with paragraph 2 (e) of the UDRP rules)
>
>Luc
>
>
>
>On Apr 22, 2014, at 17:25, Dorrain, Kristine <kdorrain at adrforum.com>
>wrote:
>
>> In my recollection, we had not built in any additional time for
>>privacy/proxy services that were not controlled by the Registrar because
>>it was too big a question mark, but as Marika pointed out, we were going
>>to allow the Privacy/Proxy Accreditation WG to develop a plan.
>>
>> What extra work do you think is proposed?  If there is no lifting of
>>the privacy service, the UDRP proceeds.  If anyone want to do something
>>after that point, they can, but the Provider and complainant are done at
>>that point. That was the decision, as I recall it.
>>
>> Kristine
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: gnso-impl-udrp-rt-bounces at icann.org
>>[mailto:gnso-impl-udrp-rt-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 8:07 AM
>> To: Marika Konings
>> Cc: gnso-impl-udrp-rt at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-udrp-rt] Meeting invitation: UDRP IRT call
>>on22April 2014
>>
>> Hi Marika,
>>
>> Thanks for the swift feedback (as always).
>>
>> I also recall that the WG discussed the issue on multiple occasions,
>>but I thought we agreed to give some room for manoeuvre to privacy/proxy
>>providers until the eponym accreditation program is put together. With
>>the proposed wording every party involved (complainant - UDRP provider -
>>registrar) will have to cope with extra work each time a privacy/proxy
>>provider will want to reveal the underlying data. Indeed, any such
>>request will logically only happen after the 2 business days delay has
>>passed and the respondent/proxy/privacy provider has been informed of
>>the proceedings.
>>
>> In my mind I thought we had recommended a more pragmatic approach but I
>>may be wrong.
>>
>> Luc
>>
>> On Apr 22, 2014, at 13:14, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Luc,
>>>
>>> Re. your comment on 4 b, this is something that the WG did anticipate
>>> in its recommendation #3: 'In the case of accredited privacy / proxy
>>> Providers or a privacy / proxy provider affiliated with the registrar,
>>> the registrar may contact the accredited / affiliated privacy / proxy
>>> provider to allow for the reveal of the proxy customer data. However,
>>> such contact may only be established after an initial lock has been
>>> applied preventing any changes of registrar and registrant'. However,
>>> the WG did specify that this should only apply to accredited privacy /
>>> proxy providers following finalization of the privacy / proxy
>>> accreditation program by ICANN. So in other words, this is something
>>> that would need to be added / clarified either in the UDRP rules
>>> and/or the P/P policy once the privacy/proxy accreditation program is
>>> in place. If I recall well, the WG did discuss this issue extensively,
>>> but as in the current environment it is not always clear what is and
>>> what isn't a P/P service, it is not possible to establish any
>>> enforceable rules until the accreditation program has been finalised.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Marika
>>>
>>> On 22/04/14 12:22, "Luc SEUFER" <lseufer at dclgroup.eu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Matt and other working groupers,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it should indeed read ³by registrant² in the lock definition as
>>>> it is the party that should be prevented from initiating any
>>>> modification to the domain name.
>>>>
>>>> As to 4 (b) I agree with Matt and also see another issue. The way it
>>>> is written now prevent the Registrar from notifying the Respondent of
>>>> the proceeding until the Lock measures have been applied. However,
>>>> the privacy/proxy provider (if any) is supposed to somehow learn
>>>> about the proceeding and provide the registrant underlying data
>>>> before the Lock measures are applied. In every case where the
>>>> privacy/proxy provider will be a different entity than the registrar,
>>>> they won¹t know about the proceedings and won¹t be able to terminate
>>>> their service in a timely fashion. Thus requiring the panel to review
>>>> this request and delay the proceedings.
>>>>
>>>> I may not be able to attend Today¹s meeting as it may conflict with
>>>> another meeting I have.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best Wishes,
>>>>
>>>> Luc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 15, 2014, at 2:29, Schneller, Matt
>>>> <Matt.Schneller at bgllp.com<mailto:Matt.Schneller at bgllp.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Catitlin and everyone on the IRT,
>>>>
>>>> This looks great!  Two quick suggestions for everyone to mull over
>>>> via e-mail or on the call:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ·         In ³Lock,² should ³by the registrar² should be ³by the
>>>> Respondent² or perhaps ³by the Respondent or by the registrar²?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ·         Do we need to add the bold text shown below in 4(b) to
>>>>clarify
>>>> that the panel must decide what to do with post-Lock modification
>>>> requests?  Without ³requests for² it might imply that the
>>>> modification can be made (without approval) so long as the Panel
>>>> retroactively decides on the correctness of the request.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> o   Any requests for modification(s) of the Respondent¹s data
>>>>following
>>>> the two (2) business day period shall be addressed by the Panel.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again for coordinating the process.  Best,
>>>>
>>>> Matt Schneller | Attorney | Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
>>>> 701 5th Avenue, Suite 6200, Seattle, WA 98104-7043
>>>> T: 206.204.6241 | F: 800.404.3970 | C: 206.679.1895
>>>> matt.schneller at bgllp.com<mailto:matt.schneller at bgllp.com> |
>>>> www.bgllp.com/schneller<http://www.bgllp.com/schneller>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From:
>>>> gnso-impl-udrp-rt-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-udrp-rt-bounces@
>>>> icann .org> [mailto:gnso-impl-udrp-rt-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>>>> Caitlin Tubergen
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 2:18 PM
>>>> To: gnso-impl-udrp-rt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-udrp-rt at icann.org>
>>>> Subject: [gnso-impl-udrp-rt] Meeting invitation: UDRP IRT call on 22
>>>> April 2014
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> The next Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure (UDRP)
>>>> Implementation Review Team meeting will be held on Tuesday 22 April
>>>> 2014 at 1600 UTC.
>>>> 9:00PDT, 12:00EDT, 17:00London
>>>>
>>>> Adigo Conference ID: 28462745
>>>>
>>>> Adigo numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/
>>>>
>>>> Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/udrp
>>>>
>>>> I have attached the second version of the revised UDRP Rules, which
>>>> we will discuss during the call.  The most recent changes, which were
>>>> the result of our last call, have been highlighted in yellow.  We
>>>> will also discuss implementation timelines, and how long the IRT
>>>> feels is necessary to implement these changes. Please let me know if
>>>>you have any questions.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Caitlin Tubergen
>>>> Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> gnso-impl-udrp-rt mailing list
>>>> gnso-impl-udrp-rt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-udrp-rt at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-udrp-rt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> gnso-impl-udrp-rt mailing list
>>>> gnso-impl-udrp-rt at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-udrp-rt
>>>
>>> <default.xml>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-impl-udrp-rt mailing list
>> gnso-impl-udrp-rt at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-udrp-rt
>
>
>________________________________
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>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.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------



More information about the gnso-impl-udrp-rt mailing list