Hi Catitlin and everyone on the IRT, This looks great! Two quick suggestions for everyone to mull over via e-mail or on the call: * In "Lock," should "by the registrar" should be "by the Respondent" or perhaps "by the Respondent or by the registrar"? * Do we need to add the bold text shown below in 4(b) to clarify that the panel must decide what to do with post-Lock modification requests? Without "requests for" it might imply that the modification can be made (without approval) so long as the Panel retroactively decides on the correctness of the request. o Any requests for modification(s) of the Respondent's data following the two (2) business day period shall be addressed by the Panel. Thanks again for coordinating the process. Best, Matt Schneller | Attorney | Bracewell & Giuliani LLP 701 5th Avenue, Suite 6200, Seattle, WA 98104-7043 T: 206.204.6241 | F: 800.404.3970 | C: 206.679.1895 matt.schneller@bgllp.com<mailto:matt.schneller@bgllp.com> | www.bgllp.com/schneller<http://www.bgllp.com/schneller> From: gnso-impl-udrp-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-udrp-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Caitlin Tubergen Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 2:18 PM To: gnso-impl-udrp-rt@icann.org Subject: [gnso-impl-udrp-rt] Meeting invitation: UDRP IRT call on 22 April 2014 Hi All, The next Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure (UDRP) Implementation Review Team meeting will be held on Tuesday 22 April 2014 at 1600 UTC. 9:00PDT, 12:00EDT, 17:00London Adigo Conference ID: 28462745 Adigo numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/udrp I have attached the second version of the revised UDRP Rules, which we will discuss during the call. The most recent changes, which were the result of our last call, have been highlighted in yellow. We will also discuss implementation timelines, and how long the IRT feels is necessary to implement these changes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN