Question re: URS Rec #2 as revised
Hi Co-Chairs Paul and Zak, I hope all is well. I have a question about the summary of URS Q#2. If I read it correctly, it suggests that we recommend to the WG that it modify the current URS #2 recommendation with a change that I don't recall our endorsing. As you know, URS Rec #2 had enormous support (65.5% as written): URS RECOMMENDATION #2: "The Working Group recommends that URS Providers send notices to the Respondent by the required methods after the Registry or Registrar has forwarded the relevant WHOIS/RDDS data (including contact details of the Registered Name Holder) to the URS Providers." However, the public comment analysis suggests that the Subgroup endorsed a change to this recommendation: "PCRT ROW #31 [1]: Support the recommendation as written, with the caveat that if the registry or registrar do not timely provide, or fail to provide, within the designated period of time, the underlying information regarding the Respondent, the URS provider shall then send the notice by the prescribed manner to the Respondent at the contact information that is then available." But such a change would alter the way things are done now. From our public comment summary: “If the Registry/Registrar failed to respond after several attempts, historically the Complainant gave FORUM the permission to hold off on commencing the case until the information was obtained. This practice seems consistent with that of WIPO as the UDRP Provider;” I don’t recall our agreement to change the recommendation as written, and the current recommendation, as broadly supported, provided a certain flexibility that appears to be working well. _When did we endorse such a change? Tx for the review!_ Best, Kathy __ ____ __ Links: ------ [1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSK...
Hi Kathy, As I recall, we agreed there was widespread support for Recommendation #2 as written. We also agreed that the entire working group should review whether to make explicit next steps if the Registry/Registrar does not act timely on URS info requests. I’m still of the opinion that he Working Group as a whole should weigh in. On the one hand, it’s unfair for Complainants to be blocked from proceeding w/ a case because the Registry/Registrar doesn’t provide contact info. Likewise Registrants deserve as much as possible. On the other hand, some on the call noted that if a Registry/Registrar doesn’t respond then they may not have locked the domain, which could be problematic if a Respondent is notified before the domain is locked. Finally, Providers on the call said they’d had good results asking ICANN to facilitate in the rare instances where the info isn’t timely provided. Cyntia King O: +1 816.633.7647 C: +1 818.209.6088 From: GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGB <gnso-rpms-wg-sgb-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 8:41 PM To: gnso-rpms-wg-sgb@icann.org Subject: [GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGB] Question re: URS Rec #2 as revised Hi Co-Chairs Paul and Zak, I hope all is well. I have a question about the summary of URS Q#2. If I read it correctly, it suggests that we recommend to the WG that it modify the current URS #2 recommendation with a change that I don't recall our endorsing. As you know, URS Rec #2 had enormous support (65.5% as written): URS Recommendation #2: "The Working Group recommends that URS Providers send notices to the Respondent by the required methods after the Registry or Registrar has forwarded the relevant WHOIS/RDDS data (including contact details of the Registered Name Holder) to the URS Providers." However, the public comment analysis suggests that the Subgroup endorsed a change to this recommendation: " <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSK...> PCRT Row #31: Support the recommendation as written, with the caveat that if the registry or registrar do not timely provide, or fail to provide, within the designated period of time, the underlying information regarding the Respondent, the URS provider shall then send the notice by the prescribed manner to the Respondent at the contact information that is then available." But such a change would alter the way things are done now. From our public comment summary: “If the Registry/Registrar failed to respond after several attempts, historically the Complainant gave FORUM the permission to hold off on commencing the case until the information was obtained. This practice seems consistent with that of WIPO as the UDRP Provider;” I don’t recall our agreement to change the recommendation as written, and the current recommendation, as broadly supported, provided a certain flexibility that appears to be working well. When did we endorse such a change? Tx for the review! Best, Kathy -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
All, Two clarifications on the last point: 1) At least in our UDRP Provider experience, while it can be said that the situation has improved over the years, in our view there is still significant room to grow in terms of ICANN assisting us in chasing up non-replying registrars (e.g., for registrant contact information, confirmation of the language of the registration agreement, etc.). 2) As to the slightly separate topic of assistance in the case of non-lock / cyberflight (and related issues), while the problem itself is fortunately not terribly common, despite clear language in the UDRP (Paras 7 and 8) in conjunction with the RAA, we have found clarity and assistance on this to be wanting. Brian From: GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGB <gnso-rpms-wg-sgb-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of cking@modernip.com Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 8:36 PM To: 'Kathy Kleiman' <kathy@kathykleiman.com>; gnso-rpms-wg-sgb@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGB] Question re: URS Rec #2 as revised Hi Kathy, As I recall, we agreed there was widespread support for Recommendation #2 as written. We also agreed that the entire working group should review whether to make explicit next steps if the Registry/Registrar does not act timely on URS info requests. I’m still of the opinion that he Working Group as a whole should weigh in. On the one hand, it’s unfair for Complainants to be blocked from proceeding w/ a case because the Registry/Registrar doesn’t provide contact info. Likewise Registrants deserve as much as possible. On the other hand, some on the call noted that if a Registry/Registrar doesn’t respond then they may not have locked the domain, which could be problematic if a Respondent is notified before the domain is locked. Finally, Providers on the call said they’d had good results asking ICANN to facilitate in the rare instances where the info isn’t timely provided. Cyntia King O: +1 816.633.7647 C: +1 818.209.6088 [Email Logo5] From: GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGB <gnso-rpms-wg-sgb-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpms-wg-sgb-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 8:41 PM To: gnso-rpms-wg-sgb@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpms-wg-sgb@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGB] Question re: URS Rec #2 as revised Hi Co-Chairs Paul and Zak, I hope all is well. I have a question about the summary of URS Q#2. If I read it correctly, it suggests that we recommend to the WG that it modify the current URS #2 recommendation with a change that I don't recall our endorsing. As you know, URS Rec #2 had enormous support (65.5% as written): URS Recommendation #2: "The Working Group recommends that URS Providers send notices to the Respondent by the required methods after the Registry or Registrar has forwarded the relevant WHOIS/RDDS data (including contact details of the Registered Name Holder) to the URS Providers." However, the public comment analysis suggests that the Subgroup endorsed a change to this recommendation: "PCRT Row #31<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSK...>: Support the recommendation as written, with the caveat that if the registry or registrar do not timely provide, or fail to provide, within the designated period of time, the underlying information regarding the Respondent, the URS provider shall then send the notice by the prescribed manner to the Respondent at the contact information that is then available." But such a change would alter the way things are done now. From our public comment summary: “If the Registry/Registrar failed to respond after several attempts, historically the Complainant gave FORUM the permission to hold off on commencing the case until the information was obtained. This practice seems consistent with that of WIPO as the UDRP Provider;” I don’t recall our agreement to change the recommendation as written, and the current recommendation, as broadly supported, provided a certain flexibility that appears to be working well. When did we endorse such a change? Tx for the review! Best, Kathy [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png]<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free. www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
Thanks, Brian. I think this further supports bringing the issue before the full Working Group. Cyntia King O: +1 816.633.7647 C: +1 818.209.6088 From: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 9:00 AM To: cking@modernip.com; 'Kathy Kleiman' <kathy@kathykleiman.com>; gnso-rpms-wg-sgb@icann.org Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGB] Question re: URS Rec #2 as revised All, Two clarifications on the last point: 1. At least in our UDRP Provider experience, while it can be said that the situation has improved over the years, in our view there is still significant room to grow in terms of ICANN assisting us in chasing up non-replying registrars (e.g., for registrant contact information, confirmation of the language of the registration agreement, etc.). 2. As to the slightly separate topic of assistance in the case of non-lock / cyberflight (and related issues), while the problem itself is fortunately not terribly common, despite clear language in the UDRP (Paras 7 and 8) in conjunction with the RAA, we have found clarity and assistance on this to be wanting. Brian From: GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGB <gnso-rpms-wg-sgb-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpms-wg-sgb-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of cking@modernip.com <mailto:cking@modernip.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 8:36 PM To: 'Kathy Kleiman' <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> >; gnso-rpms-wg-sgb@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpms-wg-sgb@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGB] Question re: URS Rec #2 as revised Hi Kathy, As I recall, we agreed there was widespread support for Recommendation #2 as written. We also agreed that the entire working group should review whether to make explicit next steps if the Registry/Registrar does not act timely on URS info requests. I’m still of the opinion that he Working Group as a whole should weigh in. On the one hand, it’s unfair for Complainants to be blocked from proceeding w/ a case because the Registry/Registrar doesn’t provide contact info. Likewise Registrants deserve as much as possible. On the other hand, some on the call noted that if a Registry/Registrar doesn’t respond then they may not have locked the domain, which could be problematic if a Respondent is notified before the domain is locked. Finally, Providers on the call said they’d had good results asking ICANN to facilitate in the rare instances where the info isn’t timely provided. Cyntia King O: +1 816.633.7647 C: +1 818.209.6088 From: GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGB <gnso-rpms-wg-sgb-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpms-wg-sgb-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 8:41 PM To: gnso-rpms-wg-sgb@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpms-wg-sgb@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGB] Question re: URS Rec #2 as revised Hi Co-Chairs Paul and Zak, I hope all is well. I have a question about the summary of URS Q#2. If I read it correctly, it suggests that we recommend to the WG that it modify the current URS #2 recommendation with a change that I don't recall our endorsing. As you know, URS Rec #2 had enormous support (65.5% as written): URS Recommendation #2: "The Working Group recommends that URS Providers send notices to the Respondent by the required methods after the Registry or Registrar has forwarded the relevant WHOIS/RDDS data (including contact details of the Registered Name Holder) to the URS Providers." However, the public comment analysis suggests that the Subgroup endorsed a change to this recommendation: " <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSK...> PCRT Row #31: Support the recommendation as written, with the caveat that if the registry or registrar do not timely provide, or fail to provide, within the designated period of time, the underlying information regarding the Respondent, the URS provider shall then send the notice by the prescribed manner to the Respondent at the contact information that is then available." But such a change would alter the way things are done now. From our public comment summary: “If the Registry/Registrar failed to respond after several attempts, historically the Complainant gave FORUM the permission to hold off on commencing the case until the information was obtained. This practice seems consistent with that of WIPO as the UDRP Provider;” I don’t recall our agreement to change the recommendation as written, and the current recommendation, as broadly supported, provided a certain flexibility that appears to be working well. When did we endorse such a change? Tx for the review! Best, Kathy <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...> Virus-free. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...> www.avg.com World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
participants (3)
-
BECKHAM, Brian -
cking＠modernip.com -
Kathy Kleiman