http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-25jul12-en.htm Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 25 July 2012 Comment Close: 15 August 2012 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-25jul12-en.htm> Reply Open: 16 August 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:udrp-locking@icann.org> Reply Close: 5 September 2012 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/udrp-locking/> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: GNSO Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group Categories/Tags: * Top Level Domains * Policy Processes * Contracted Party Agreements Purpose (Brief): The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings Working Group is looking for public input 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. Current Status: The GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on this topic in December 2011. A Working Group has now been formed and is looking for public input to help inform its deliberations. Next Steps: The Working Group will review the public input received and consider it as part of its deliberations on the topic and charter questions. Staff Contact: Marika Konings Email: policy-staff@icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Locking%20of%20a%20Domain%20Name%20Subject%20to%20UDRP%20Proceedings%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose 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 the WG 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 UDRP Provider 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 WG conducted 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). Section II: Background At its 15 December meeting, the GNSO Council initiated a PDP<http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201112> on the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP 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<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issue-report-03oct11-en.pdf> [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." Section III: Document and Resource Links * Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group Charter<https://community.icann.org/display/udrpproceedings/3.+WG+Charter> * Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy<http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy> * The state of the UDRP Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issue-report-03oct11-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.69 MB] * Working Group Workspace<https://community.icann.org/display/udrpproceedings/Home> 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. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org