AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large Priority Activities - 2021

Comment Close
Date
Statement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s) and
RALO(s)

Call for
Comments
Call for
Comments
Close 
Vote
Announcement 
Vote Open
Vote 
Reminder
Vote Close
Date of Submission
Staff Contact and Email
Statement Number
23.08.2013Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings Policy Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board Consideration No Statementn/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/aMarika Konings
policy-staff@icann.org		n/a
Comment / Reply Periods (*)
Comment Open Date: 
2 August 2013
Comment Close Date: 
23 August 2013 - 23:59 UTC
Reply Open Date: 
24 August 2013
Reply Close Date: 
13 September 2013 - 23:59 UTC
Important Information Links
Public Comment Announcement
To Submit Your Comments (Forum)
View Comments Submitted
Brief Overview
Originating Organization: 
ICANN Policy Staff
Categories/Tags: 
  • Contracted Party Agreements
  • Policy Processes
Purpose (Brief): 

Obtain community input on the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Policy Development Process recommendations adopted by the GNSO Council prior to ICANN Board consideration.

Current Status: 

The Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group delivered its Final Report[PDF, 1.01 MB] to the GNSO Council on 5 July 2013. The report and its recommendations were adopted unanimously by the GNSO Council on 1 August. As required by the ICANN Bylaws, public notice is hereby provided of the policies that are considered for adoption as well as an opportunity to comment on the adoption of the proposed policies, prior to consideration by the ICANN Board of these recommendations.

Next Steps: 

ICANN Staff will prepare a summary of the public comments received that will be submitted to the Board in conjunction with the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings recommendations adopted by the GNSO Council.

Staff Contact: 
Marika Konings
Email Staff Contact
Detailed Information
Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: 

The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) unanimously approved at its meeting on 1 August 2013 the recommendations of the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group. The 17 recommendations, which are pending for Board action, are intended to clarify and standardize the process for locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings, including:

  • Definition of 'locking'
  • Requiring registrar to apply lock within 2 business days following request for verification
  • Removing obligation for complainant to notify the respondent at the time of filing, but add automatic extension of 4 days to response time upon request
  • Step by step clarification of requirements of different parties involved
  • Development of educational and informational materials to assist in informing affected parties of new requirements and recommended best practices

For the full details of these recommendations, you are strongly encouraged to review section 7 of the Final Report [PDF, 1.01 MB].

You are invited to submit your comments before final consideration of these recommendations by the ICANNBoard.

Section II: Background: 

Currently there is no requirement to lock names in period between filing complaint and commencement of proceedings and no definition of 'status quo', which has resulted in different interpretations and confusion of the policy. 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.

The Working Group published its Initial Report for public comment on 15 March 2013 (seehttp://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/locking-domain-name-15mar13-en.htm), followed by its Final Report on 5 July 2013.

Section III: Document and Resource Links: 
Section IV: Additional Information: 

None

(*) 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.

FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED

The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote. 

FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.

FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED

The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins.

  • No labels

1 Comment

  1. Alan Greenberg

    No statement is needed.

    For the record, I was Vice-Chair of the WG and this was probably the most effective and collaborative PDP WG I have worked on.