IDNO'ers, I thought this would be of EXTREME interest to your members... You might want to review this VERY carefully... Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
Dear Joan, This is very helpful. I will do my best to present it. I have sent to the pNC as follows (with model protocol attached): I attach for the purposes of discussion of agenda item 2b concerning the registration or transfer of domain names subject to dispute resolution proceedings, a further modified and clarified version of the draft resolution for today's teleconference. I realize that this is rather late in the game, but due to the exigency of the situation, we felt it was justified. The model protocol was formulated by members of the IP constituency over the weekend in an effort to be ready for today's meeting. The crux of the resolution remains the same. I attach in word and html as well as in the body of the e-mail. MODEL PROTOCOL FOR REGISTRAR TO REGISTRAR HANDLING OF REQUESTS BY A DOMAIN NAME HOLDER TO CHANGE REGISTRARS UPON NOTICE OF A POSSIBLE CLAIM Certain test bed registrars are already operational and more are rapidly coming on line with each passing week. There is presently evidence of forum shopping for registrars with different dispute policies by domain name holders for improper purposes, including, but not limited to seeking to avoid the assertion of rights by a third party to that same domain name or the compliance with a cease and desist letter, or to avoid the initiation of a dispute policy by the registrar from which the domain name holder is seeking transfer, or the resolution of a properly invoked dispute proceeding under the policy of the registrar from which the domain name holder is seeking transfer. The existing dispute policies presently in place and policies being discussed do not address any protocol for registrar to registrar handling of requests by a domain name registrant to change registrars upon notice of a possible claim. ICANN should be able to make decisions without having to wait for quarterly meetings and a decision on this proposed model protocol is necessary to discourage ongoing undesired forum shopping. ICANN already has made a decision that registrars must have a dispute policy in place before they can become operational. By resolution in Berlin, ICANN has encouraged the test bed registrars to formulate a model policy and is providing assistance to them in this regard. The Intellectual Property Constituency therefore offers the following proposed model protocol for registrar to registrar handling of transfers for second level domain name registration records. We believe that this protocol would assist in protecting intellectual property rights holders. Importantly, the proposed protocol does not call for hindering the use of the domain name by the registrant assuming the dispute policy of their existing registrar so permits. The proposed protocol also attempts to address the time gap between the receipt of a cease and desist letter by the domain name holder and the invocation of a registrar's dispute policy (assuming that policy does not provide for the placing of a hold on the name). During this time gap, a domain name holder can seek to change registrars in order to avoid the invocation of its initial register's dispute policy. Finally, if the domain name holder seeking the transfer has been improperly blocked by a third party from transferring registrars, that domain name holder will not be precluded from availing themselves of any and all appropriate remedies and actions. Once a registrar's dispute policy has been properly invoked and the dispute is pending and remains unresolved, the registration of second level domain name registration record shall not transfer that domain name to another registrar until the dispute is properly resolved. No registrar shall accept from any other registrar the transfer of a second level domain name registration record without receiving from the registrant seeking to transfer the domain name a sworn declaration or affirmation, under penalties of perjury in the applicable law of the jurisdiction where taken, that the domain name holder seeking such transfer has not received a cease and desist letter or notice of dispute concerning the domain name sought to be transferred from any third party. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, July 09, 1999 11:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Message for Ted Shapio Ted - this message is set forth in the clear and as an attachment in rich text - Dear Ted
