[lac-discuss-es] Rv: [ALAC-Announce] Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings - Initial Report

Juan Manuel Rojas jumaropi en yahoo.com
Mar Mar 19 14:28:49 UTC 2013

Estimada región

Envío la información sobre la apertura de comentarios de UDRP.

Comunicador Social  
Presidente - AGEIA DENSI Colombia

Twitter: @JmanuRojas

Unete a LACRALO: 


----- Mensaje reenviado -----
De: At-Large Staff <staff en atlarge.icann.org>
Para: ALAC Announce <alac-announce en atlarge-lists.icann.org> 
Enviado: Lunes, 18 de marzo, 2013 11:40 A.M.
Asunto: [ALAC-Announce] Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings - Initial Report

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
To Submit Your Comments (Forum)
<mailto:comments-locking-domain-name-15mar13 en icann.org>
View Comments Submitted
Brief Overview
Originating Organization:
* 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 en icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Locki
Detailed Information
Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose:
In its Initial Report
[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
.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
.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
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

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.

.htm#text1>  The WG is considering adding the bracketed language and would
welcome community input on the proposed addition.

.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

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

Section III: Document and Resource Links:
* Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings ­ Initial Report -
[PDF, 883 KB]
* Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy -
* Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy -
* Working Group Workspace - https://community.icann.org/x/xq3bAQ
Section IV: Additional Information:

(*) 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.



Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie
Peregrine and Julia Charvolen
ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC
E-mail: staff en atlarge.icann.org

One World, One Internet

ALAC-Announce mailing list
ALAC-Announce en atlarge-lists.icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org

Más información sobre la lista de distribución lac-discuss-es