December 2013 - Gnso-irtpd - lists.icann.org

Holiday card (electronic version)
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 29, 2013

Dec. 29, 2013

De : Glen de Saint Géry Envoyé : dimanche 29 décembre 2013 11:17 À : gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Objet : Holiday card (electronic version) [cid:578EC140-800D-4AE9-B80A-BC051E7CE466]

1 0

Summary of Compliance's assessment, p
by Lars Hoffmann Dec. 17, 2013

Dec. 17, 2013

Dear all, Following Monday's call, please fine below's summary of the points that Carlos from ICANN Compliance raised during the call. In case you did not attend the call or would like to listen again, you can find the MP3 recording here<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20131216-en.mp3>. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars >From an ICANN Compliance point of view Scenarios (under IRTP as it stands) in which ICANN Compliance has the authority to act: Regarding the loosing registrar: Auth-code related: - the registrant was not able to retrieve the auth code from the control panel, then the registrant requested the registrar to send it but it was not sent within the required 5 days ----- (the breach in this case is when both conditions are present) - the means provided by the registrar for the registrant to retrieve the auth code are more restrictive than the means provided for the registrant to update its contact or name server information - the registrar sends the Auth Code to someone who is not the registered name holder - the registrar does not even send it at all FOA related: - the registrar does not send the FOA - sends it to someone who is not a Transfer Contact Unlocking of the domain name: - the registrant did not have the means provided by the registrar to unlock the domain name, then the registrant requested the registrar to unlock the domains and the registrar did not unlock them within the five days ----- (the breach in this case is when both conditions are present) Regarding the gaining registrar: Auth-code related: - the registrar allows the transfer without receiving the Auth-code - which would be technically impossible but can theoretically happen (in a scenario also involving registry error) FOA related: - the registrar does not send the FOA - the registrar sends the FOA to someone who is not a Transfer Contact - the registrar allows the transfer without receiving confirmation after sending the FOA

1 0

MP3 IRTP D WG - Monday 16 December 2013
by Julia Charvolen Dec. 16, 2013

Dec. 16, 2013

Dear All, The next Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group meeting will be held on Monday 06 January 2014. Please find the MP3 recording for the IRTP Part D Working Group call held on Monday 16 December 2013 at 16:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20131216-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may>dec The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: James Bladel - RrSG Avri Doria – NCSG Mikey O'Connor – ISPCP Graeme Bunton - RrSG Kristine Dorrain – NAF Barbara Knight – RySG Kevin Erdman - IPC Holly Raiche – ALAC Chris Chaplow – CBUC Bartlett Morgan – NCUC Chris Chaplow – CBUC Holly Raiche - ALAC Apologies: Paul Diaz – RySG Bob Mountain - RrSG ICANN staff: Marika Konings Lars Hoffmann Caitlin Tubergen Carlos Alvarez Maguy Serad Julia Charvolen ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtpd/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/B4JwAg Thank you. Kind regards, Julia Charvolen Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 16 December 2013: Lars Hoffmann:Welcome to the IRTP Part D PDP Working Group on Monday 16 December 2013 Carlos Alvarez:Not yet, I'm coming in in about a minute and a half Barbara Knight - RySG:Hi Mikey, I just joined. Sorry that I am running a bit late today Julia Charvolen:Maguy Serad joined the phone bridge Julia Charvolen:Chris Chaplow joined the phone bridge Julia Charvolen:Bartlett Morgan joined the Adobe Connect Bartlett Morgan:hello all Julia Charvolen:Marika joined the phone bridge Chris Chaplow:Company and employee - interesting area Bladel:What is the role in discreprencies/disputes between different fields (e.g. Registrant Name vs. Registrant Organization) in the REgistrant contact of the WHOIS record? Bladel:Some large registrars interpret that, in any dispute, the Registrant Organization field will prevail. Bladel:Is this left to the discretion of the Registrar? Is this practice standard? Should it be? Graeme Bunton:I'm in Holly's turf until the 13th of January Barbara Knight - RySG:I will not be available until 6 January. Kristine Dorrain:I never go anywhere. :) Holly Raiche:Welcome Graeme to Oz Holly Raiche:Happy with that - the 6th is fine Graeme Bunton:I'll still be on vaycay. Holly Raiche:Happy holidays to all Barbara Knight - RySG:Thanks All!!! Happy Holidays!!!! Kristine Dorrain:Happy Holidays! Bartlett Morgan:by all

1 0

a good example of the "employee takes the domain name with them" use-case -- and how UDRP was the wrong tool to use
by Mike O'Connor Dec. 15, 2013

Dec. 15, 2013

hi all, i thought of our use-case conversation when i saw this piece by Mike Berkins (www.thedomains.com) this is a UDRP case that failed mostly because UDRP wasn't the right way to solve this problem. this emphasizes for me the need for a clear description, somewhere, of what course people should pursue under different use-cases. here's the link; http://www.thedomains.com/2013/12/09/udrp-panel-fails-to-order-transfer-of-… and here's the write-up; UDRP Panel Fails To Order Transfer Of Domain Back From Ex-Employee 2013 December 9 by Michael Berkens Follow @TheDomains The Law Firm Dr. Khalid Alnowaiser of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, just lost its bid to get the domain name lfkan.com in a UDRP The Complainant is a law firm established in 1996, with offices in Riyadh and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The Complainant offers a range of legal services to local and international clients, in both Arabic and English. Although the one member UDRP panel found that “The record suggests bad faith on the part of a disaffected former employee of the Complainant, who seems to have hijacked the Domain Name and thereby caused injury to the Complainant’s business. ” “The Complainant may be able to pursue other legal remedies for this conduct, but the UDRP offers no remedy without establishing rights in a relevant mark, which the Complainant has failed to do.” “The Complainant does not claim a registered trademark right. According to the Complaint, the Complainant has been “known in the market” since 1996 by the initials “LFKAN”: “LF” for “Law Firm”, “K” for “Khalid”, and “N” for “Nowaiser”, eliding the prefix “AL” (the definite article “the” in Arabic) because it so commonly appears at the beginning of surnames in Saudi Arabia. (The Complaint does not explain why the letter “A” is used nonetheless in the abbreviation.) The Complainant asserts, with support from DomainTools screen shots of historical WhoIs records, that the Complainant registered and used the Domain Name from November 2000 until July 2013 for its firm website and email addresses. In July 2013, however, the registration of the Domain Name was updated, apparently by Mr. S. Faraz, who was the Complainant’s employee responsible for information technology and whose firm email address was formerly listed in the administrative and technical contact details for the Domain Name. According to the Complaint, the firm had recently terminated Mr. Faraz for unrelated reasons. Mr. Faraz refused to furnish the password used to administer the Domain Name registration, and he changed the name servers so that the firm’s website was no longer displayed and its email addresses were deactivated. At the time of this Decision, the Domain Name resolves to a version of the Complainant’s website that appears not to display information dated more recently than 2012. The current registration details for the Domain Name show the registering organization as “andrewsmith”, which does not appear to be a registered legal entity in the United Kingdom or in Saudi Arabia. The administrative and technical contact person is listed as “andrew smith”, with a Google Gmail address. (The Complaint attaches a message from Gmail regarding the creation of this particular Gmail account, which was found on the firm laptop used by Mr. Faraz). The updated postal address in the WhoIs database shows London as the registrant’s city and lists a London postal code. However, Guam is shown as the state or province, and Guam, of course, is a territory of the United States of America. The telephone number given for the administrative and technical contact is actually the Complainant’s telephone number in Saudi Arabia. On the face of it, then, the registration data are inaccurate and misleading. The Policy does not require a registered mark right, but a complainant relying on a common law or unregistered mark right must demonstrate that the mark has acquired secondary meaning: “Consensus view: The complainant must show that the name has become a distinctive identifier associated with the complainant or its goods or services. Relevant evidence of such ‘secondary meaning’ includes length and amount of sales under the trademark, the nature and extent of advertising, consumer surveys and media recognition. [...] a conclusory allegation of common law or unregistered rights (even if undisputed) would not normally suffice; specific assertions of relevant use of the claimed mark supported by evidence as appropriate would be required.” WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 1.7.) “The Complainant has simply not furnished such evidence in this proceeding. The Complainant only asserts that it has been “known in the market” by the initials “LFKAN” since 1996. However, the evidence in the record concerns only the use of those initials in the Domain Name itself.” The Complainant relies on the fact that many of the published articles and interviews displayed Dr. Alnowaiser’s email address, which used the Domain Name. An email address is not sufficient to establish a trademark, or the basis for the filing of a UDRP action. There is no evidence in the record, for example, showing that the initials “LFKAN” are used on the firm’s stationery, advertising, or business cards. It is telling that even the Complainant’s website does not prominently display the initials “LFKAN”. Instead, it is headed “The Law Firm of Dr. Khalid Alnowaiser & Partners”. “The Complainant must establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to “a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights”. The Complainant does not establish that unregistered trademarks are recognized under common law or otherwise in Saudi Arabia, or that the Complainant’s initials are otherwise legally protected in any jurisdiction. Even if such protection were theoretically available, the Complainant has not demonstrated on this record that the initials “LFKAN” have acquired secondary meaning as a distinctive identifier of the Complainant or its goods or services in any geographic market.” “The Panel concludes that the first element of the Complaint has not been established.” PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

2 1

Monday's agenda
by Lars Hoffmann Dec. 13, 2013

Dec. 13, 2013

Dear all, Please find below the draft agenda for Monday's call. Best wishes, Lars Proposed Draft Agenda for IRTP Part D PDP Working Group, Monday 16 December 2013, 16.00 UTC (For other places: http://tinyurl.com/o44avnk) 1. Roll Call / SOI Updates 2. Feedback from ICANN Compliance on some of the Scenarios discussed last week 3. Continued debate on Charter Question c) 4. Next steps / confirm next meeting ---- Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/irtppartd/ The link to the IRTP Part D Working Group Wiki pages: https://community.icann.org/x/B4JwAg Mailing list archives: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtpd/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ The dial-in details are below – please let me know if you require a dial-out. _________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: IRTP For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA 000-800-852-1268 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. ----------------------------

1 0

here's a lightly reworded version of the scenarios we described on the call today
by Mike O'Connor Dec. 9, 2013

Dec. 9, 2013

hi all, the subject says it all. here are the scenarios we came up with. i have two requests. see if i captured them right, if you were proposing them. try to think up other cases that we need to include in our list. thanks, mikey Scenarios The Administrative Contact authorises a transfer but the Registrant is challenging that A Registrar is not participating in resolving an issue with a transfer. Several attempts to engage have been made by the other Registrar, including a message the Emergency Action Contact, to no avail. Two registrants are disputing the right to a domain name after an inter-reigistrar transfer -- registrars went through the right process and have no further information to add. Both registrants were acknowledged at some point in time as being registrants. Both of their names have appeared in Whois, but they now disagree as to who the true registrant is. +- Administrative and Registrant contacts are spread across two parts of an organization and there's a disagreement between them as to the validity of a transfer Different contacts or departments within an organization have conflicts +- A registrant-claimant approaches a Registrar claiming that they are the registrant rather than the Proxy Service Provider to whom the domain name is registered Maybe refer this edge case to the PPS WG? Proxy is acting as an agent Maybe a subset of the "confusion of roles within an organization" case +- One registrant is completely unknown to the registrars A website designer registers a domain under their name on behalf of a customer for whom they build a website. They are challenged by their customer who claims to be the registrant but has never appeared in any Whois record at any time. A website designer registers a domain under their name on behalf of a customer, and then goes out of business - causing domain to expire, leaving registrants to resolve the issue with a registrar who has never heard of them. +- Registrant says "I'm the owner, but I'm not in control of the name, here's why, help me get it back" Two business partners split and claim rights on the domain name Contract disputes sometimes enter into this Company goes through an ownership/structure change -- the original owner tries to retain the name +- Privacy services -- losing registrar doesn't remove privacy service, the gaining registrar can't validate the identity of the person registering the name This is also the case for any other entity that's providing the privacy service -- resellers or other 3rd parties for example Somebody registers a domain name as part of their job, does it under their own personal account, they and company part ways, which trumps? Person works at the company -- maybe in the corporate account -- their contact info is listed -- they have left the company and access to the account and controlling email address is no longer possible PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

2 1

MP3 IRTP D WG - Monday 09 December 2013 at 1600 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 9, 2013

Dec. 9, 2013

Dear All, The next Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group meeting will be held on Monday 16th December 2013 Please find the MP3 recording for the IRTP Part D Working Group call held on Monday 09 December 2013 at 16:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20131209-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may>dec The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: James Bladel - RrSG Avri Doria - NCSG Volker Greimann - RrSG Mikey O'Connor - ISPCP Graeme Bunton - RrSG Barbara Knight - RySG Kevin Erdman - IPC Holly Raiche - ALAC Chris Chaplow - CBUC Bob Mountain - RrSG Rob Golding - RrSG Kristine Dorrain - NAF Bartlett Morgan - NCUC Apologies: Paul Diaz - RySG Angie Graves - CBUC ICANN staff: Caitlin Tubergen Lars Hoffmann Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtpd/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/B4JwAg Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Peregrine Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 09 December 2013: Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, Welcome to the IRTP Part D WG call on Monday 9th December 2013 Avri Doria:Hard to read on tablet Avri Doria:Thanks good now Nathalie Peregrine:Kevin Erdman has joined the call Nathalie Peregrine:Chris Chaplow has joined the audio bridge Nathalie Peregrine:Rob Golding has joinded the AC room Chris Chaplow:Thanks Natalie, apologies for late join, client was on the phone Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):@james - totally agree - we get those all the time - and advise they talk to a solicitor Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):As registrar we only deal with the people listed as registrant Bladel:But Rob - both Registrant and Admin Contacts have the authority to transfer. Kristine Dorrain:Sorry I'm late...got sidetracked in another meeting. Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):I was referring to the 'ownership' argument we often see Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):Can you even transfe a domain with provacy on - we always advise clients turn it off at the existing registrar before transferring them to us Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):yes, you captured it great :) Nathalie Peregrine:Kristine Dorrain has joined the AC room Barbara Knight - RySG:The one that we hear the most is when the admin contact authorizes that transfer and the registrant doesn't agree with it Bladel:Rob - our privacy service will always NACK transfer requests, utnil it is canceled or removed. Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):James - so will ours Barbara Knight - RySG:Thanks James and Rob. That is encouraging Chris Chaplow:Thanks Volker Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):No, the registrant is the registrant :p Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):The registrar still has teh real data and escrows the real data Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):just what is shown on teh whois is not 'public' Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):if a 3rd party os providding that sevice, then yes, they are actually the registrant (i.e. their details are the ones held by the registrar) Bladel:My shuttle is here, so need to run. Thanks Mikey & Team! Barbara Knight - RySG:By James. Safe travels Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):take care james Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):Yes, in that circumstance it _should_ have been dealt with at due-diligence at the company sale, and if they failed to do so need to be sent to legals Kristine Dorrain:Rob, I'm always amazed at the lack of due diligence... Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):@kristine - I'm not :) Kristine Dorrain:oooooh, that's unfortunate. "( Chris Chaplow:yes good plan Holly Raiche:Thanks MIkey Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):thanks mikey

1 0

Re: [gnso-irtpd] here's the little summary of that sequence of events i rattled off on the call just now -- registrant role in TDRP
by Mike O'Connor Dec. 6, 2013

Dec. 6, 2013

hi Rob, can you expand on why you prefer the idea that Compliance get's involved over making a determination? i think we're on to something here, so i'm just looking for ideas on what the appropriate role would be for Compliance, not trying to mousetrap you. thanks, mikey On Dec 5, 2013, at 6:24 AM, "Rob Golding" <rob.golding(a)astutium.com> wrote: > >> so can we say that in cases where the registrant and their registrar >> disagree about the merits of the case, they should go to Compliance for >> a determination? > > For compliance to get involved, yes. > > Rob > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

4 4

Re: [gnso-irtpd] here's the little summary of that sequence of events i rattled off on the call just now -- registrant role in TDRP
by Holly Raiche Dec. 5, 2013

Dec. 5, 2013

Thanks Rob and Mikey the one piece of the puzzle Mikey added was to work through what documentation would be required for the registrant to establish improper transfer of the domain name. One of the issues that has been raised is the possibility of a 'flood' of potentially vexatious complaints. So we need to have a check list of some sort to say that, if you the registrant are going to compliance, they will ask the following. Hopefully, it will both weed out potentially vexatious complaints and assist registrants with a genuine complaint in addressing their problem. Holly On 06/12/2013, at 12:06 AM, Rob Golding wrote: > >> can you expand on why you prefer the idea that Compliance get's involved >> over making a determination? > > Depends on your definition of 'determination' - I more expect them to review > things and prompt the registrar(s) as necessary (subject to previous posts > about fees) if policy has not been followed. > > Afterall isn't compliance role/remit to ensure that all registrars follow > policy/process? > > If a registrant thinks that is not what has been done, they already have the > option(s) to talk to compliance (and we all know registrants regularly talk > to them about complete nonsense/trivia anyway) . > >> just looking for ideas on what the appropriate role would be for >> Compliance, not trying to mousetrap you. > > The appropriate role would be for them to do their job, just their job and > only their job - and to apply/enforce those items of policy fairly and > consistently across all registrars... > > Rob >

2 1

here's the little summary of that sequence of events i rattled off on the call just now -- registrant role in TDRP
by Mike O'Connor Dec. 5, 2013

Dec. 5, 2013

Provide the ability for the registrant to trigger the TDRP process in cases when they disagree with their registrar over an IRTP issue In general, registrars initiate TDRP when they can't resolve matters between themselves In the case of disagreement between registrar and registrant as to whether to initiate a TDRP, provide a path for the registrant to take the issue to Compliance Build minimum documentation requirements for registrants into the policy as a filter to prevent frivolous filings If Compliance agrees with registrant, TDRP proceeds as normal, with fees paid by registrars, as normal If Compliance disagrees with registrant, that's it -- it's off to court if the registrant wants to proceed. PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

7 28