At-Large Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings Workspace

• Top Level Domains
• Policy Processes
• Contracted Party Agreements

As noted in the Issue Report on the state of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, there currently is no requirement to lock a domain name in the period between the filing of a complaint and the commencement of proceedings. In addition, it is unclear what is meant with 'status quo' as used in the UDRP (see http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy). As a result, the GNSO Council decided to initiate a Policy Development Process on the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings. The WG Charter recommends that the Working Group as a first step, request public input on this issue in order to have a clear understanding of the exact nature and scope of issues encountered with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings. This public comment forum is one of the mechanisms that the Working Group is using to obtain such input. The Working Group would welcome any information, comments and/or suggestions that are deemed helpful to get a better understanding of the exact nature and scope of issues encountered with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings. In addition, input may be provided on the following charter questions that theWG is expected to address:

• 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. [Note from the WG: only the UDRPProvider can notify a Registrar that a complaint has been officially filed and in the vast majority of cases, Registrars will only implement a lock based on the request by the UDRP Provider]
• 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.
• Whether the time frame by which a registrar must lock a domain after a UDRP has been filed should be standardized.
• Whether what constitutes a "locked" domain name should be defined.
• Whether, once a domain name is 'locked' pursuant to a UDRP proceeding, the registrant information for that domain name may be changed or modified.
• Whether additional safeguards should be created for the protection of registrants in cases where the domain name is locked subject to a UDRP proceeding.

In order to obtain further information on the current practices of registrars and experiences of UDRP Providers, the WGconducted a survey and developed a summary of findings which interested parties may want to review as you prepare your comments (see https://community.icann.org/x/l6-bAQ).

At its 15 December meeting, the GNSO Council initiated a PDP on the requirement to lock a domain name subject toUDRP proceedings.

A discussion on the requirements of locking a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings was initially conducted as part of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Part B PDP. As a result of that process, it was noted that "locking a domain name registration subject to a UDRP dispute should be a best practice." However, the WG "noted that any changes to making this a requirement should be considered in the context of any potential UDRP review." Subsequently, several community members called out this issue in their comments on the state of the UDRP Issue Report [PDF, 2.69 MB] published in October 2011, and as a result, the GNSO Council initiated a PDP on this specific issue only. A sample of the community comments is below:

• "No requirement to lock names in period between filing complaint and commencement of proceedings."
• "Need clarification of domain locking."
• "Unclear what is meant by "Status Quo."
• "No explanation of 'Legal Lock' mechanisms and when they go into effect or when they should be removed."

• Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group Charter
• Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy
• The state of the UDRP Issue Report [PDF, 2.69 MB]
• Working Group Workspace