[council] Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings - Initial Report

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxx?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 
cyberflight2<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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://gnso.icann.org