March 2018 - Gnso-rpm-providers

Please Review: Supplemental Rules, Technical Requirements, Mapping Document
by Ariel Liang March 29, 2018

March 29, 2018

Dear Providers Sub Team, Following up on the staff action item, please be so kind to find attached the Providers’ Supplemental Rules and the High Level Technical Requirements. These are the remaining documents that the Sub Team needs to review and develop objective questions for the Providers. In preparation for next week’s call (Wednesday, 04 April at 17:00-18:30 UTC), kindly review these documents ahead of the call. Staff also attached the mapping document circulated previously. As mentioned earlier, the mapping document lists the URS Rules, Procedure, and Supplemental Rules side by side. We hope it would be a helpful tool for you to efficiently digest the information and discern inconsistency, if any. These documents have also been published in the wiki workspace of the Sub Team: * Documents & Materials on the URS: https://community.icann.org/x/FBu8B * Working Documents: https://community.icann.org/x/FBu8B Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0

Action Items & Notes: Providers Sub Team Call on Wednesday, 28 March
by Ariel Liang March 28, 2018

March 28, 2018

Dear All, Kindly see the notes and action items captured during today’s call. They are posted to the Sub Team wiki space; call recording will be posted shortly. See: https://community.icann.org/x/VC_8B. Thank you, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *** Action Items: 1. Sub Team to review Supplemental Rules prior to the call on Wednesday, 4 April; staff to circulate the Supplemental Rules, as well as the mapping document and high level technical requirement documents 2. Staff to update the proposed draft questions to Providers (incorporating the ones related to URS Procedure and the ones proposed by the Document Sub Team) and remove the duplicative ones 3. Staff to review the presentation slides and transcript from the URS Providers presentation session at ICANN61 (Thursday, 15 March) and check what proposed questions have already been answered. Staff to circulate the information with the Sub Team 4. Staff to check how the additional six months extension in 6.4. was originated, and what was changed between 2009 and 2013. Notes: 1. Review the proposed questions to URS Providers by the Documents Sub Team * All questions can be included in the consolidated list of proposed questions, given duplications are removed * Regarding the question for the topic “Standard of Proof”, if the guide is to be developed, it should be one, uniform guide used by all Providers * Regarding the question for the topic “Abuse of Process”, the definition of “Respondent abuse” needs to be clarified. How does the abuse of the URS process by respondent look like? 1. Proposed questions in relations to the URS Procedure * 1.1.3. Have the Providers accepted a Complaint that multiple related companies were against one Registrant? Have the Providers accepted a Complaint that was against multiple related Registrants? * 1.2.6.3. What other circumstances -- not included in the non-exclusive list in this provision -- have the Providers seen that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith? * 1.2.7. Has any Complainant expressed any difficulty about the 500 words limit? * 2.2. How many Complaints listed fifteen or more disputed domain names registered by the same Registrant? If the Providers have seen such cases, how many Respondents paid the Response Fee? * 3.2. Has there been any issue with regard to meeting the two (2) business days requirement of conducting the Administrative Review? * 3.4. How many Complaints have been found non-compliant? * 4.1. Have Providers heard any difficulty from Registry Operator with regard to locking the domain within 24 hours of receipt of the Notice of Complaint? * 4.2. Is there a way to know whether a Registrant has received the hard and electronic copy of the Notice of Complaint, and confirmed receipt? * 5.2. Have Providers received any late responses? What are the fees associated with these late responses? * 5.3. Have Providers received any extension of time to respond? If so, was the request received after Default (14 Calendar Days), or after Determination (no more than 30 Calendar Days)? * 5.4. Is it a reasonable balance of the word limits between the Complaint (500 words) and the Response (2,500 words)? * 5.7. Have the Providers received Responses that contain facts refuting the claim of bad faith registration by setting out any other circumstances not included in this provision? Is the list of circumstances inclusive? * 5.9. What percentage of URS cases contain elements of domain investing? * 6.4. (footnote) The definition of “extension” needs to be clarified – Extend what for six months? Why does a Registrant need an additional six months? * ACTION: Staff to check how the additional six months extension in this provision was originated, and what was changed between 2009 and 2013. * 7.3. What procedures does a Provider have to rotate the Examiners? * 8.1. Has any Examiner mistakenly rendered his/her Determination due to factors beyond the three elements mentioned in this provision? * 10.3. How many Complainants have requested to extend the registration period for one additional year? * 11.3. Have the Providers found any abusive Complaint? How do the Providers share information about abusive Complaints? * 12. Has there been any case that the same Examiner was selected for the Appeal Panel whose Determination was appealed? 1. Next Steps/Next Meeting * No more than two more meetings for the Providers Sub Team. * Next meeting to develop questions for Supplemental Rules, as well as the High Level Technical Requirements. Sub Team to review the relevant documents prior to the call. Sub Team to begin editing/finalizing all proposed questions.

1 0

Recordings, Attendance, & AC Chat for RPM Sub Team for URS Providers call on Wednesday, 28 March 2018
by Terri Agnew March 28, 2018

March 28, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC Chat transcript attached to this email, and the Webex recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) Sub Team for URS Providers held Wednesday, 28 March 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance and recordings of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/VC_8B WebEx recording: https://mytrials.webex.com/mytrials/lsr.php?RCID=8f1030a7dbf5087c8453d15e5fc d31f6 The recording of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-providers/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-providers/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: List of URS Provider questions from URS Documents Sub Team
by Mary Wong March 28, 2018

March 28, 2018

Dear URS Providers Sub Team, Please find attached a Word document that lists all the suggested questions from the URS Documents Sub Team for sending to the three URS Providers, following integration into the list that your Sub Team is currently compiling. Please let staff know if there are any clarifying questions about the suggestions that you would like further information or context on. A note for the URS Documents Sub Team – staff has gone over the recording and transcript from the ICANN61 URS Providers’ presentation session, and as a result have inserted several questions regarding the continuing relevance and need for some of the original suggestions. Please review and let us know if you wish to delete or amend those questions. Thank you to both Sub Teams! Cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry

1 0

REMINDER: Agenda/Actions/Logistics - Providers Sub Team Call
by Ariel Liang March 27, 2018

March 27, 2018

Dear Providers Sub Team, Please see below the draft agenda for tomorrow’s Providers Sub Team Call (Wednesday, 28 March at 17:00 UTC): 1. Sub Team continue reviewing and developing objective questions with regard to the URS Procedures, Providers’ Supplemental Rules, and High Level Technical Requirements for Registries / Registrars. 2. Next steps/next meeting Relevant documents for tomorrow’s meeting can be downloaded from the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/VC_8B. As per action item, staff has completed the mapping document that lists/maps the URS Rules, URS Procedure, and Providers’ Supplemental Rules (attached). We hope it would facilitate the work of the Sub Team. Google Doc version of the document can be accessed here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ej4rcuW3qYnj-vuMNZ2jF6aY6eoQOg9nGjj… In addition, the comments/inputs captured during the Providers Sub Team’s ICANN61 presentation (Sunday, 11 March) have been incorporated in the consolidated draft questions for the URS Providers document (attached). Google Doc version can be accessed here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I-qe_I4OkQT7IU_rjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1v…. Notes and transcripts from the RPM sessions in ICANN61 are posted here<https://community.icann.org/x/6gC8B>. IMPORTANT Adobe Connect will not be available for the call. We will use Webex for the virtual conference room, and Verizon for the audio connection. Kindly note the instruction sent by Terri below. ICANN org just started using this alternative web conference tool and is in process developing a guide. We will share with the community as soon as it becomes available. Thank you, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) From: Ntfy-gnso-rpm-providers <ntfy-gnso-rpm-providers-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 2:47 PM To: "'ntfy-gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org'" <ntfy-gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ntfy-gnso-rpm-providers] Meeting Invite (with new connection information)/ RPM Sub Team for URS Providers / 28 March 2018 at 17:00 UTC Dear all, The call for the RPM Sub Team for URS Providers: To develop and review questions for the URS providers will take place on Wednesday, 28 March 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 10:00 PDT, 13:00 EDT, 19:00 Paris CEST, 22:00 Karachi PKT, (Thursday) 02:00 Tokyo JST, (Thursday) 04:00 Melbourne AEDT For other times: https://tinyurl.com/yd2lvnm7 New Connection Information New Web conference tool: Webex Please join the meeting room here: https://mytrials.webex.com/join/terri.agnew With this access code: 926 506 278. Audio connection: It’s possible to connect via Webex VoIP, but audio quality cannot be guaranteed. We recommend you connect to the audio bridge with your telephone. To receive a call back, provide your phone number when you join the event, or call the number below and enter the access code. To Join by phone: 1-240-454-0879 USA Toll 1-240-454-0879 USA Toll Global call-in numbers<https://mytrials.webex.com/cmp3200/webcomponents/widget/globalcallin/global…> Access code: 926 506 278 Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/VC_8B If you require a dial-out or to send apologies (do not send to full working group) please send an email request with your preferred contact number to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. With kind regards, Terri

1 0

Actions & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Providers & call on Wednesday, 28 March 2018 18:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund March 22, 2018

March 22, 2018

Dear Sub Team members, Please see attached and on the wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/6gC8B the notes and transcript from the presentation from the Providers Sub Team on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61. Please also see the following action items: Action Items: 1. Communications: Add “Are providers coordinating abusive complaints across providers?” 2. Response: a) “Has the Provider conducted a compliance check for a Respondent for factors beyond the two items stated in the provision?” Add the questions, “How do the providers review the complaint? What is their intake process?” b) Ask “Who determines whether a response is non-compliant – the provider or examiner?” 3. Examiner: a) “Has there been any circumstance that gave rise to justifiable doubt of the independence/impartiality of an examiner? If so, did the examiner disclose this?” Add “Did the examiner disclose this [to the provider] before and/or during the case proceeding? If no, what happened?” b) Seem to be missing questions re: how examiners are selected, what training do they have, etc. Reference those questions captured in the notes on 21 February. Staff to check and add any missing questions. c) Replace “Providers” with “Examiners” in the proposed question: “Have Providers gotten Responses alleging any abusive complaint? If so, how did Providers act in those cases?” d) Add: “Does the respondent have the opportunity to point to a conflict of interest? How do respondents know of a conflict of interest in advance?” and “How the examiner confirms that it is impartial.” 4. General Powers of the Examiners: Add the following suggested questions for Providers in the consolidated document: “How examiners are selected? What background they have? What kind of training they have? How they determine the standard of proof in URS cases?” Based on last week’s discussion there is a need for at least one more meeting of the Sub Team, which is scheduled for the non-APAC time rotation (the last meeting was at the APAC time) of 18:00 UTC on Wednesday, 28 March. NOTE: By anchoring the time at UTC this advances the time of the meeting in the US following Daylight Saving Time by one hour to 11:00 PDT/14:00 EDT – please let us know ASAP if you have a conflict. NOTE: Adobe Connect will not be available for the call. We will use PGI for the teleconference and we’ll ask Sub Team members to reference the attached documents, which also will be on the wiki agenda at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Meetings+for+URS+Providers. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

PLEASE READ - NEW SESSION INFORMATION ICANN61
by Terri Agnew March 14, 2018

March 14, 2018

Dear all, Due to security difficulties, (see Goran's blog <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo g_issues-2Dwith-2Dadobe-2Dconnect-2Dat-2Dicann61&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwl l3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTB s0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=fxijpUJu6LmmroHN9tH8OL-ro_yRzrp5RcsF-DsRnHY&s=_RqTDbLxF ZWrmTMt09Hldqs9KQbB7-Kg-pZFjJw0ink&e=> here[icann.org]) the Adobe Connect room facilities will no longer be available to ICANN61 participants. In order to minimize disruption, we have the following steps we encourage you to follow: 1. TO JOIN THE AUDIO * Audio streaming will be available for all open, public meetings. Links can be find on the ICANN61 schedule meeting pages: <https://61.schedule.icann.org/> https://61.schedule.icann.org/ * The audio bridge is available for those who would like to ask questions or comment over the telephone. Dial in details for open GNSO sessions can be found here: <https://community.icann.org/x/3wC8B> https://community.icann.org/x/3wC8B 2. TO ACCESS THE PRESENTATIONS * All presentations and documents which were to be shown in the AC room will be uploaded to the corresponding page on the ICANN61 schedule meeting pages: <https://61.schedule.icann.org/> https://61.schedule.icann.org/ * Presentations and documents will also be circulated via email on demand 3. ASKING QUESTIONS AND COMMENTING IN WRITTEN FORMAT * These will be handed via live management of email comments and questions by the Remote Participation Manager. Please see list of meeting room email addresses here: <https://61.schedule.icann.org/pages/2350> https://61.schedule.icann.org/pages/2350 We apologize for the inconvenience caused. We encourage participants who have not already done so to download the ICANN61 mobile app by searching for "ICANN61" in your app stores. Please do not hesitate to email us at <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> gnso-secs(a)icann.org if you need a dial out specifying which meeting you would like to join and your preferred contact number. Kind regards, Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our i <applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses /gnso> nteractive courses and visiting the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn so.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DgM FAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUh becsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=-d9m4sr16OXloyLjz4TF6npbe51hgE0EH toX1U6WUOA&s=Bw2Uzbh2Pu1X0lObLtbwtN5ZNEP3ECdPAfcqzVvIOYE&e=> GNSO Newcomer pages

1 0

Website - Respondent Responds Within 6 Months After Default Determination
by Ariel Liang March 11, 2018

March 11, 2018

Dear Providers Sub Team, As per action item from the last meeting, staff checked with ICANN GDD colleagues on how a disputed website would resolve when the Respondent responded to the Complaint within the six-month period after the Default Determination. Please see their response below: After a URS provider receives a response for a Default Determination, the Provider will inform the Registry Operator to “roll back” the domain name per section 6.5 of URS Procedure. URS Procedure 6.5: If a Response is filed after: (i) the Respondent was in Default (so long as the Response is filed in accordance with 6.4 above); and (ii) proper notice is provided in accordance with the notice requirements set forth above, the domain name shall again resolve to the original IP address as soon as practical, but shall remain locked as if the Response had been filed in a timely manner before Default. The filing of a Response after Default is not an appeal; the case is considered as if responded to in a timely manner. The RO needs to “roll back” the re-direction of the nameserver so the domain name resolves as it did prior to the dispute. The RO must maintain the URS LOCK on the domain name, so the disputed website will remain inactive. The URS provider will inform the RO of the final determination which may require the RO to (1) suspend the domain name again; or (2) perform a full rollback, allowing the registrant to regain control. I will incorporate this information in the Sub Team’s consolidated questions & answers document. Please don’t hesitate to let me know if you have further inquiry on this. Thank you! Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

3 3

Publication of Determinations on URS Providers' Websites
by Ariel Liang March 6, 2018

March 6, 2018

Dear Providers Sub Team, As per action item from the last call, staff has prepared a table that shows the publication of Determinations on the three URS Providers’ websites (corresponding to URS Rule 15 (a)(c)(d)(e)). Please note the table is dated on 06 March 2018, as number may change (especially on the FORUM website due to incoming pending cases). Besides checking the publication and links, staff also gathered data related to the types of Determination published for a given case: Default Only = only Default Determination of a case is published Final Only = only Final Determination of a case is published Default & Final = both Default and Final Determinations of a case are published Final & Appeal = both Final and Appeal Determinations of a case are published Appeal Only = only Appeal Determination of a case is published For the “Default & Final” and “Final & Appeal” cases, staff also checked whether the latter Determination upheld or overruled the former Determination. Please note that this research is manual and preliminary, and staff will conduct a more thorough review when the raw URS case data spreadsheet (previously presented by Berry) is refreshed after ICANN61. In the meantime, hope the information is helpful. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0

ICANN61 Reporting by Providers Sub Team
by Ariel Liang March 5, 2018

March 5, 2018

Dear Providers Sub Team, Hope you all had a nice weekend. As per discussions with the Co-Chairs about the ICANN61 RPM sessions, staff anticipate that the two sessions at ICANN61 on Saturday, 10 March (15:15-18:30) will be used for the report from all three URS-related Sub Teams, along with further Working Group discussion of the suggestions made and possible next steps. The proposed agenda for the four RPM sessions will be circulated shortly (Providers Sub Team’s reporting will likely take place during the 15:15-16:45 session). As discussed in our last call, in reporting back to the full WG at ICANN61 about Providers Sub Team’s work progress, staff would like to confirm the representative to do the report. Based on the questionnaire circulated earlier, the following members + Co-Chair (Phil) have indicated that they will attend the Sat session at 15:15-16:45: * Carrie Shang (remote) * Justin Chew (remote) * Lori Schulman (in person) * Phil Corwin (in person) * Phil Marano (in person) * Michael Karanicolas (in person) * Susan Payne (in person) Please be so kind to let staff know who would like to volunteer to do the reporting on behalf of the Sub Team. In terms of the content of the report, the following general points could be mentioned: * The Sub Team has completed the review of URS Rules and Providers’ MoU with ICANN, and proposed objective questions to Providers with regard to specific rules/sections. * The Sub Team will next review and propose objective questions for the URS Procedures, Providers’ Supplemental Rules, and URS High Level Technical Requirements for Registries and Registrars. Some provisions in the URS Rules will be revisited when URS Procedures and Supplemental Rules are being reviewed. The Sub Team estimated 2-3 more meetings after ICANN61 to complete the review of all pertinent documents and the development of objective questions for the Providers. * The Sub Team plans to review and consider incorporation of questions for Providers proposed by the other two Sub Teams, and aims to send the questions to Providers by early April. Staff has compiled a consolidated the list of proposed questions by the Sub Team so far, and please find the document attached. Please let me know what additional materials would be useful for the Providers Sub Team’s reporting on Saturday, 10 March. Last, as discussed with the Co-Chairs, the last RPM session at ICANN61 on Thursday, 15 March will likely be used for URS Providers to conduct presentations. The goal is to help the Sub Team gain more insights into Providers’ practices and further refine the proposed questions. Once the topics of the presentations have been confirmed by the Co-Chairs, we will let the Providers and the Sub Team know; the topics of the “Meet the Providers” session can also be mentioned in the Sub Team’s reporting on Sunday. Thank you, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0

Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for Providers call on Wednesday, 28 February 2018 23:00 UTC
by Ariel Liang March 1, 2018

March 1, 2018

Dear All, Below are the action items and notes staff captured from the RPM Providers Sub Team meeting today (28 February 2018). The notes from the call are posted to the Sub Team wiki space, together with the call recording and Adobe Connect chat and attendance records. Please note that these notes are not meant as a substitute for the recording. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) == ACTION ITEMS: * Sub Team to develop objective questions with regard to the URS procedures, the Providers’ Supplemental Rules, and the URS High Level Technical Requirements for Registries and Registrars. * Staff to create a table that lists/maps the URS Rules, URS procedures, Providers’ Supplemental Rules; the table should include columns for suggested questions and notes. * When reviewing Providers’ Supplemental Rules, Sub Team to revisit Section 2(c), 5(a)(iv), 5(a)(v), 5(e), 5(k), and 7 in the URS Rules, and to check the Providers’ forms. * Staff to check how would the website resolve when the Respondent responded to the Complaint within the six-month period after the Default Determination, which rendered the suspension of the website due to infringement/being used in bad faith. * Staff to check whether URS Determinations have been published by all Providers. * Staff to check whether the three Providers establish and maintain the electronic abuse case database. * Staff to post the URS High Level Technical Requirements for Registries and Registrars on wiki NOTES: I. Review of the URS Rules and propose questions 6. Examiner (a) * Why the qualifications of some Examiners are not published, especially by ADNDRC? Discussion: - One possible recommendation from the WG may be asking ICANN to enforce this rule so all Examiners’ qualifications are published. - ADNDRC has a number of offices in Asia with some degree of regional autonomy. Does this distributed system cause the qualifications of certain Examiners not being published? 9. Language of Proceedings * Are all Examiners indeed fluent in English? * Are the assigned Examiners fluent in the non-English language of the Response? * Is there any challenge in the URS proceedings caused by the linguistic deficiencies of the Examiners? Discussion: - The indication of English fluency does not apply to all Examiners, but this does not mean they are not fluent in English. (Staff note: Some Examiners did indicate in their resumes that they have “good” or “fair” level of English skills, but not “excellent”). 10. Further Statements * Has any Examiner violated this rule by requesting further statements or documents from either of the Parties? 11. In-Person Hearings * Has the lack of in-person hearings been raised as an issue? Discussion: - MFSD confirmed that they have never conducted any in-person hearings (including teleconference, videoconference, web conference, etc.) and only reviewed written submissions. 12. Default (b) * Can the Registry Operator block any change to the content of a website when a case enters Default? ACTION ITEM: Staff to check how would the website resolve when the Respondent responded to the Complaint within the six-month period after the Default Determination, which rendered the suspension of the website due to infringement/being used in bad faith. (e) * What percentage of cases that the Respondent submitted an answer within six (6) months after a Default Determination? (f) * Has any Examiner drawn such inferences when a Party is not in compliance with URS Rules, Procedures, and Supplemental Rules, in the absence of exceptional circumstances? 13. Examiner Determination (a) * Has any Examiner evoked rules beyond the URS Rules, Procedures, and Supplemental Rules? (b) * Among Examiner’s Determinations, how many do not provide the reasons on which the Determination is based? Discussion: - This concerns with the qualitative review of the URS cases. Not all URS Determinations state the names of the attorneys of the Complaints and Respondents. - A potential recommendation from the WG may be that the URS Determination to include additional required data elements (e.g., legal counsel involved, trademark, website content), which are required in UDRP cases, without overburden the Examiners. (c) * What are the “guidelines”? Are they referring to the Provider’s Supplemental Rules? If not, can Providers provide a copy of their guidelines? (d) * How often was this rule invoked? What factors have been considered by the Examiners in making that determination? 15. Determinations and Publications (a) ACTION ITEM: Staff to check whether URS Determinations have been published by all Providers. (c) * Has any Examiner determined to publish both the Default and Final Determination, when the Final Determination changes the Default Determination outcome for the same case? (d) * Has any Examiner determined to publish both the Default and Final Determination, when the Final Determination upholds the Default Determination outcome for the same case? (e) * What are your Examiners’ practice with regard to the publication of Appeal Determination? (f) * What is the rationale behind not linking the Determinations related to the same domain names and/or parties, but not part of the same case? * Have you ever linked the Determinations related to the same domain names? If not, why not? * How many Final Determinations were made by the same Examiner who also made the Default Determinations for the same case? Discussion: - Should the WG recommend ICANN to aggregate the Determinations from the separate databases managed by the three Providers and place them in one central database? By doing so, it may be helpful to detect bad faith registrants and detect other patterns. 16. Settlement or Other Grounds for Termination (b) * How many such incidents have been recorded by the Provider (before the Examiner’s Determination is made, it became unnecessary or impossible to continue the URS proceeding for any reason)? 17. Effect of Court Proceedings (a) * How often was a legal proceeding initiated prior to or during a URS proceeding? Have there been any intervening lawsuit? Discussion: - WG should check the data gathered by Berry and see what Examiners have been done in dealing with court proceedings. 18. Abusive Complaints (d) * Have the Providers registered any case of abuse? (e) ACTION ITEM: Staff to check whether the three Providers establish and maintain the electronic abuse case database. (f) * Do the Providers verify the admissibility of the Complaint against the abuse case database for every single URS case? 19. Appeal (b) * How do the Providers implement this rule? How do the Providers determine that the Appellant is in fact seeking to introduce new admissible evidence that is material to the Determination, clearly pre-dating the filing of the Complaint? Do the Providers conduct administrative check on this? Discussion: - This may be explained in the Supplemental Rules. 20. Exclusion of Liability * Has any Provider or Examiner been directly sued for a URS Determination? II. Review of MoU Between Providers and ICANN (Example: FORUM) 2(b)(v) * What is the conflict of interest policy established by each Provider? * When a conflict of interest has been discovered, what remedial actions have been taken? 2(b)(viii) * How have the Providers complied with the obligation to establish and maintain a process to monitor URS abuse? 2(b)(x) * Has ICANN ever enquired any information or data from the Providers? 2(c) * Do ICANN and Providers maintain regular communications? III. Next Steps & Future Meetings * Future Sub Team Meetings: * No meeting next week (week of March 5) * May meet during ICANN61, pending Sub Team members’ availability * Estimated 2-3 more meetings after ICANN61; following meeting will take place at usual time (18:00 UTC). * Draft Timeline: * Finalize Questions to Providers by late March/early April * Send the questions to Providers in the first week of April * Providers to submit answers by late April * Wrap up all URS related work before the conclusion of the Sunrise and Trademark surveys * Additional Task: Sub Team to review the URS High Level Technical Requirements for Registries and Registrars.

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat from RPM Sub Team for URS Providers call on Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 23:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter March 1, 2018

March 1, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC Chat transcript attached to this email, and the Mp3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the RPM Sub Team for URS Providers call held Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 23:00 UTC Attendance and recordings of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/8xm8B Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-urs-providers-28feb18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p1ck9qo1n78/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-practitioner/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/xBW8B With kind regards, Michelle

1 0