- Gnso-rpm-providers - lists.icann.org

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 Sept 2018
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 5, 2018

Sept. 5, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 05 September 2018 (12:00-14:00 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-09-05+Review+of+all+R…. See also the attached referenced documents. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == ACTION ITEMS: Page 6, First Bullet: ACTION ITEM 1: Change “WHOIS” to “WHOIS/RDDS” and “Providers should modify their operational rules in terms of automatically populating the Complaint Form using WHOIS data [using WHOIS/RDDS data consistent with applicant ICANN Consensus Policies]” ACTION ITEM 2: Ask the Providers Sub Team to rework the language. Page 6, Second Bullet: ACTION ITEM: Ask the Providers Sub Team to clarify the notion of developing rules. Page 10: ACTION ITEM: Check that the reference to 4.2 is the intended reference. Pages 27-28: ACTION ITEM 1: Review the language in the recommendations to capture the compliance concept while leaving the implementation details open, but seek community feedback. ACTION ITEM 2: Staff to inquire and then inform the WG which ICANN body is responsible for enforcing URS Provider MOUs -- GDD Compliance, ICANN Legal, or both? NOTES: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates -- Maxim Alzoba: Selected as GNSO Council representative from the Registry Stakeholder Group to be seated at ICANN63. -- Kathy Kleiman: Upcoming update -- starting at Princeton as a visiting scholar. -- Brian Beckham: Updated that he has been an observer to the IGO Curative WG and that he is a Co-Chair of the RPM PDP Working Group. 2. Reminder Concerning the Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations and Revised Proposal Submission Deadline of COB on September 6th (see attached document) 3. Begin Discussion of URS Policy and Operational Recommendations (see attached Super Consolidated URS Topics Table): Operational Fixes Page 4 -- Proposal: Fully automate the list of cases with a centralized database/single repository of all cases provided in .XML format. The question of how a centralized database would be paid for and managed could be included in the Initial Report to seek feedback as there are different opinions on how to implement the recommendation. For example, this might be achieve via the inclusion of an EPP extension showing that there is a pending URS/UDRP proceeding, although this would require at least 180 days for implementation. -- Rule 3(g) “A URS Complaint may not be filed against a domain name that is part of an open and active URS or UDRP case” governing the overlapping of cases suggested that the implementation of this operational fix should be in the form of a suggestion, rather than a policy. It could become part of the Providers pre-action checklist. WG Agrees with the operational fix and on seeking feedback on ways to implement it. Page 6: First Bullet: -- Rationale for the operational fix: Post GDPR many complaints will be brought where the registrant is unknown. The Sub Team wanted to find a way to update the complaint to be able to indicate who the registrant is. ACTION ITEM 1: Change “WHOIS” to “WHOIS/RDDS” and “Providers should modify their operational rules in terms of automatically populating the Complaint Form using WHOIS data [using WHOIS/RDDS data consistent with applicant ICANN Consensus Policies]” ACTION ITEM 2: Ask the Providers Sub Team to rework the language. Second Bullet: -- Rationale for the operational fix: UDRP Rules, para 4(a) and 4(b) on the notion of a registry responding to a request. -- The public should have input on the development of any rules. Could change to "proposed rules that are approved by the GNSO". -- Note that the URS is currently not a Consensus Policy, so it is binding on registry operators via contract. Anything we would propose would require sufficient lead time and discussion. ACTION ITEM: Ask the Providers Sub Team to clarify the notion of developing rules. Page 10: WG agrees that ADNDRC should change its operations to come into compliance. There is a separate question of compliance generally and which topics fall into that general category. General suggestion: when the WG develops the text for the recommendations and proposals for the Initial Report, the text should be changed to phrase it without mentioning a particular provider. ACTION ITEM: Check that the reference to 4.2 is the intended reference. Page 11: -- There is a GDD portal through which ICANN contacts registries and registrars, but not sure we need to specify that at this point. There is no third party access currently. Best we could expect is that URS Providers could view the current list of contacts. WG agrees with the operational fix on the need for ICANN, Registries, Registrars, and Providers to have access to up-to-date contact information and for interaction. Page 16: -- Rationale for the operational fix: Envisioned that this would be a light recommendation to supplement existing policies, rather than creating a new policy. -- Possible questions for feedback in the Initial Report: Who would pay for this and does it also apply to examiners? Who would have responsibility for the overarching guidance repository? -- Educational materials should be made public. -- Note that this language was recently modified in the last iteration of the Super Consolidated document. -- Could be a more generalized suggestion, with this language being a possible implementation detail. -- Suggested including the text: "Any materials should be translated in the UN 6 languages." WG agrees with the operational fix on the need to develop educational materials, but wording could be rephrased to leave out specific implementation details, such as hiring Researchers/and or Academics. Page 17: -- Possible questions for feedback in the Initial Report: Who should have the responsibility to develop guidance and pay for the development? WG generally agrees with the operational fix that there should be guidance for practitioners and examiners; companion concept would be for a checklist; also in general for the public, including registrants and complainants. Page 27: -- Seems to be an umbrella theme of compliance. -- Could apply to URS and UDRP, but there doesn't seem to be a reason to hold up a recommendation for the URS. -- Is this a job for ICANN Compliance (which enforces Registry/Registrar contracts) or for ICANN Legal? The Providers MOUs are entered into by ICANN. So perhaps it should be just ICANN. -- There is a difference between monitoring and responding to complaints. Monitoring is a larger undertaking/responsibility. Typically ICANN Org does not continuously monitor these types of issues; a complaint is first filed. -- A Provider could be subject to an audit. -- The MOU contains a termination clause for Provider's failure to comply with terms of MOU or the URS Procedures or Rules. -- Question to staff: Is it already possible to register a complaint through ICANN's complaint portal? Answer: For the URS typically these are handled by ICANN Compliance. The complaint or question must first be addressed to the URS Providers directly. There also are forms where a Provider or a Complainant can file a complaint. See: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/urs-2013-10-31-en. WG generally agrees with the operational fix, but may ask the WG to reword it with respect to either proactive or reactive monitoring by ICANN. Pages 27-28: -- Any thoughts on how this effort could be achieved? Registries and Registrars must comply with their contracts and there are already ways to enforce compliance. URS is a policy both Registrars and Registries have to follow, and it is enforceable (Registry has to lock in 24 hours), but there is an implication with an extension for a year. -- There is a gap throughout the recommendations: database, compliance monitoring, publication of educational guides. Consider as a WG whether there needs to be some kind of URS/UDRP Commissioner to provide oversight, or an Ombudsperson for URS/UDRP. Could also be a standing advisory committee; however, there is a big distinction between the advisory committees and other structures under the Bylaws. -- There is an effort in the GNSO to review all consensus policies. Also, for PDP WGs to include metrics. Some WGs are developing recommendations for when and how policies could be reviewed. The WG could consider these points. WG generally agrees with the operational fix and the concept of increased monitoring and/or compliance. The WG should seek community feedback on how to implement/activate. ACTION ITEM 1: Review the language in the recommendations to capture the compliance concept while leaving the implementation details open, but seek community feedback. ACTION ITEM 2: Staff to inquire and then inform the WG which ICANN body is responsible for enforcing URS Provider MOUs -- GDD Compliance, ICANN Legal, or both? Page 33: The WG has discussed already in detail and agrees with the operational fix. Page 39: -- The WG may want to reword the operational fix so that it is not specific to ADNDRC. -- there are individual proposals which suggest rewording of Rule 6(a) "Each Provider shall maintain and publish a publicly available list of Examiners and their qualifications". See: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Proposals The WG agrees with the operational fix, pending discussion of related proposals.

1 1

Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Redline Edits to Providers ST's URS Proposals - Review by COB Fri
by Ariel Liang Sept. 4, 2018

Sept. 4, 2018

Dear All, Following the discussions about Justine’s message, staff would like to seek Providers Sub Team’s confirmation of the two outstanding proposed suggestions. Unless there is objection, staff intend to include the following in the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table: 1. Suggested Operational Fix: ADNDRC should change its operational rules to comply with URS Procedure para 4.2, requiring that Notice of Complaint be transmitted by the Respondent, with translation in the predominant language of the Respondent, via email, fax, and postal mail – No Change 2. Suggested Action Item for the WG: WG should consider explicit standards for the sanction and removal of Examiners – Staff to add a note next to this item: “not finalized due to some support with opposition” We will wait for an hour or so (apologies to members in the time zones outside of America), and if no objection, we will include these wordings in the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document by COB today for the circulation with the full WG. In the introductory note of the Super Consolidated Table, staff could include the caveat that not all Sub Team proposals are finalized due to continuing discussions of certain issues; Sub Team members are welcome to speak to them when the specific proposals are being discussed during the WG meetings. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 1:51 PM To: "gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org> Subject: Redline Edits to Providers ST's URS Proposals - Review by COB Fri Dear All, Per staff action item, we have updated the Super Consolidated URS Table with the suggested edits agreed to by the Sub Team, shown in redline. Please note: * Per ST’s direction, Staff inserted additional language in the proposed policy recommendations in section “L. Education & Training” (page 38-39) in light of the staff review of Providers’ online forms and Notice of Complaint (see staff review in the email attached). * Susan’s suggested operational fix with regard to compliance is inserted in section “F. Remedies 2./3.” (page 28) * Staff also slightly edited the language of “Provider ST’s Suggested Action Items for the WG” for consistency ACTION for SUB Team: Please review the latest redline language of all of Providers ST’s policy recommendations, operational fixes, and suggested action items for the WG by COB Friday, 31 August. If no objection or comment/input received, the redline language will be accepted by COB Friday, 31 August. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 9:41 AM To: "gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Actions & Notes: RPM Providers Sub Team 29 August 2018 Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the Providers Sub Team call held on 29 August 2018 (12:00-13:30 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-08-29+Sub+Team+for+UR…. See also the attached referenced documents. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == ACTION ITEMS: 1. Susan Payne will suggest language for an overarching recommendation concerning the need for ICANN Compliance proactive monitoring. 2. Staff will update the Super Consolidated URS Table with the suggested edits agreed to by the Sub Team shown in redline. Note in the cover email that staff has inserted additional language in the Education and Training section at the direction of the Sub Team. Ask for responses by COB Friday and if no objections the redlined document will be accepted by COB Friday. NOTES: Operational Fixes: A. THE COMPLAINT 4. Administrative review A URS provider should check the websites of other URS and UDRP providers to ensure that a disputed domain name is not already subject to an open/active URS/UDRP proceeding. -- I think registrant is in the best position, but I'm assuming it's not difficult for the providers to check? -- Accept the suggested revised language. 6. Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec -- page 5/6 Providers should modify their operational rules in terms of automatically populating the Complaint Form using WHOIS data. -and- GDD, [Providers, and Registries] should [jointly] develop a uniform system for interaction between the Providers and the Registries regarding registrant data that is unavailable in publicly accessible WHOIS [rules for the timely response by Registries to requests for non-public information from Providers] -- Not what sure we are suggesting -- what do we mean by "develop a uniform system for interaction" -- do we mean a system for timely response from the Providers? -- Accept the suggested revised language with strikeouts and additional text in brackets. B. NOTICE 1. Receipt by Registrant - Notice (feedback from Complainant & Respondent) ADNDRC should change its operational rules to comply with URS Procedure 4.2, requiring that notice of the Complaint be transmitted [with translation] by the registrant via email, fax, and postal mail. -- Accept the suggested revised language. 2. Effect on Registry Operator - Notice requirements for Registry Operators ICANN’s email addresses for Registry contacts (reached by Providers) should be kept up to date -and- GDD, [Providers, and registries] should [jointly] develop a uniform system for interaction between the Providers and the Registries regarding Registry notice requirements -- What does "(reached by Providers)" mean? Strike the parenthetical and change to "should be kept up to date for use by Providers". -- Accept the suggested revised language with additional text in brackets. F. REMEDIES 3. Review of Implementation There should be efforts undertaken to better inform and enhance the understanding by Registry Operators and Registrars of their role in the URS process -- Accept the suggested revised language ACTION ITEM: Susan Payne will suggest language for an overarching recommendation concerning the need for ICANN Compliance proactive monitoring. J. LANGUAGE ISSUES 1. Language issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice of complaint, response, determination ICANN should enforce the URS Rules 9 and URS Procedure 4.2 with respect to Providers communicating with the Registrant in the predominant language of the Registrant. In particular, as the WG has found that ADNDRC is not in compliance with URS Procedure 4.2 and URS Rules 9, ICANN should request ADNDRC to change their operational rules and to translate the Notice of Complaint “into the predominant language used in the Registrant’s country or territory”. -- Accept the suggested revised language. M. URS PROVIDERS 1. Evaluation of URS providers and their respective processes (including training of panelists) Provider compliance with URS Rule 6(a) should be enforced. ADNDRC, in particular, should be required to list the backgrounds of all of their Examiners so that Complainants and Respondents can check for conflicts of interest. -- Accept the suggested revised language. Policy Proposals: A. THE COMPLAINT 6. Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec URS Rule 3(b) should be amended in light of GDPR and the permissible filing of a “Doe Complaint”. -and- URS Procedure para 3.3 should be amended to enable modification of the Complaint within 2-3 days from disclosure of the full registration data by the URS Provider. -and- Outreach and education efforts should be undertaken via expert intermediaries to increase awareness and understanding of the common law concept of “Doe Complaint” in civil law jurisdictions, especially the EU. -- Accept the suggested revised language. -- Re: "WG to communicate with the EPDP Team about this issue: European civil law systems do not recognize the common law concept of "Doe Complaint", and the concept is not well understood in Europe" This could be addressed in an informal note. B. NOTICE 1. Receipt by Registrant -Notice (feedback from Complainant & Respondent) For “Doe Complaints’, Providers should [first] send notice to respondents [via the online registrant contact form and then by the required methods] as soon as relevant WHOIS data is forwarded by the registry. -- Accept the suggested revised language with additional text in brackets. E. DEFENSES 1. Scope of Defenses 2. Unreasonable delay in filing a complaint (i.e. laches) All Providers should provide similar types and forms of guidance to their examiners. -and- Examiners should document their rationale in all issued Determinations; in particular, when an Examiner finds that a registrant has registered and used a domain in bad faith supporting facts should be cited. -- Accept the suggested revised language. F. REMEDIES 2. Duration of Suspension Period 3. Review of Implementation URS Technical Requirements 3 and Registry Requirement 10 should be amended, [and compliance efforts should be directed,] to address problems with the implementation of the relief awarded following a URS decision; the implementation of a settlement (generally a domain transfer at the registrar level); and implementation of Complainant requests to extend a suspension. -- Do we need to mention ICANN Compliance role at all? Reword accordingly. -- Accept the suggested revised language. K. ABUSE OF PROCESS 1. Misuse of the process, including by trademark owners, registrants and “repeat offenders” Penalties for the abuse of the process by the Respondent should be added to the URS Rules; this proposal should be published to solicit public comment on what type of procedural abuse should be sanctioned, and in what manner. -- Don't think that anything discussed in the Providers Sub team to support or oppose this notion. We could seek public comment on it. -- Our "position" could be that this examination be for both Complainant and Respondent for fairness. But okay to action item to WG rather than as a recommendation. -- Create a new section 3: Suggested Action Items: The WG should consider whether to include the following question in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment: “Are penalties for abuse of the process by the Complianant or Respondent sufficient, or if not, or should they be expanded, and how?" -- Accept the suggested approach. Re: "WG to consider whether, in light of FORUM and MFSD feedback on use of WHOIS to help determine Respondent language, policy recommendations should be developed to handle language and related GDPR concerns." -- Not sure why this should be a concern since the information about the country should be available. -- Agree GDPR should not be a concern insofar as country of Registrant is concerned. -- Change from a recommendation to an action. L. EDUCATION & TRAINING 1. Responsibility for education and training of complainants, registrants, registry operators and registrars ICANN [should] develop easy-to-understand, multilingual, and linkable guidance (e.g. basic FAQs) for reference and informational purposes of both URS parties (Complainants and Respondents) -and- URS Providers should develop additional clear and concise reference and informational materials specific to their service, practice, and website for the use and benefit of both URS parties. -- Accept the suggested revised language. M. URS PROVIDERS 1. Evaluation of URS providers and their respective processes (including training of panelists) Explicit standards for [for the sanction and removal of Examiners should be considered” removal of Examiners based upon particular background and factors, such as continued representation of serial cybersquatters, or representation of parties found to have engaged in attempted reverse domain name hijacking, should be developed. -- I don't think we identified that there was a problem. -- Reword "Explicit standards for the sanction and removal of Examiners should be considered." Put into Section 3, Suggested Action Items. -- Accept the suggested revised language with strikeouts and additional text in brackets.

2 2

Actions & Notes: RPM Providers Sub Team 29 August 2018
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 31, 2018

Aug. 31, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the Providers Sub Team call held on 29 August 2018 (12:00-13:30 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-08-29+Sub+Team+for+UR…. See also the attached referenced documents. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == ACTION ITEMS: Susan Payne will suggest language for an overarching recommendation concerning the need for ICANN Compliance proactive monitoring. Staff will update the Super Consolidated URS Table with the suggested edits agreed to by the Sub Team shown in redline. Note in the cover email that staff has inserted additional language in the Education and Training section at the direction of the Sub Team. Ask for responses by COB Friday and if no objections the redlined document will be accepted by COB Friday. NOTES: Operational Fixes: A. THE COMPLAINT 4. Administrative review A URS provider should check the websites of other URS and UDRP providers to ensure that a disputed domain name is not already subject to an open/active URS/UDRP proceeding. -- I think registrant is in the best position, but I'm assuming it's not difficult for the providers to check? -- Accept the suggested revised language. 6. Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec -- page 5/6 Providers should modify their operational rules in terms of automatically populating the Complaint Form using WHOIS data. -and- GDD, [Providers, and Registries] should [jointly] develop a uniform system for interaction between the Providers and the Registries regarding registrant data that is unavailable in publicly accessible WHOIS [rules for the timely response by Registries to requests for non-public information from Providers] -- Not what sure we are suggesting -- what do we mean by "develop a uniform system for interaction" -- do we mean a system for timely response from the Providers? -- Accept the suggested revised language with strikeouts and additional text in brackets. B. NOTICE 1. Receipt by Registrant - Notice (feedback from Complainant & Respondent) ADNDRC should change its operational rules to comply with URS Procedure 4.2, requiring that notice of the Complaint be transmitted [with translation] by the registrant via email, fax, and postal mail. -- Accept the suggested revised language. 2. Effect on Registry Operator - Notice requirements for Registry Operators ICANN’s email addresses for Registry contacts (reached by Providers) should be kept up to date -and- GDD, [Providers, and registries] should [jointly] develop a uniform system for interaction between the Providers and the Registries regarding Registry notice requirements -- What does "(reached by Providers)" mean? Strike the parenthetical and change to "should be kept up to date for use by Providers". -- Accept the suggested revised language with additional text in brackets. F. REMEDIES 3. Review of Implementation There should be efforts undertaken to better inform and enhance the understanding by Registry Operators and Registrars of their role in the URS process -- Accept the suggested revised language ACTION ITEM: Susan Payne will suggest language for an overarching recommendation concerning the need for ICANN Compliance proactive monitoring. J. LANGUAGE ISSUES 1. Language issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice of complaint, response, determination ICANN should enforce the URS Rules 9 and URS Procedure 4.2 with respect to Providers communicating with the Registrant in the predominant language of the Registrant. In particular, as the WG has found that ADNDRC is not in compliance with URS Procedure 4.2 and URS Rules 9, ICANN should request ADNDRC to change their operational rules and to translate the Notice of Complaint “into the predominant language used in the Registrant’s country or territory”. -- Accept the suggested revised language. M. URS PROVIDERS 1. Evaluation of URS providers and their respective processes (including training of panelists) Provider compliance with URS Rule 6(a) should be enforced. ADNDRC, in particular, should be required to list the backgrounds of all of their Examiners so that Complainants and Respondents can check for conflicts of interest. -- Accept the suggested revised language. Policy Proposals: A. THE COMPLAINT 6. Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec URS Rule 3(b) should be amended in light of GDPR and the permissible filing of a “Doe Complaint”. -and- URS Procedure para 3.3 should be amended to enable modification of the Complaint within 2-3 days from disclosure of the full registration data by the URS Provider. -and- Outreach and education efforts should be undertaken via expert intermediaries to increase awareness and understanding of the common law concept of “Doe Complaint” in civil law jurisdictions, especially the EU. -- Accept the suggested revised language. -- Re: "WG to communicate with the EPDP Team about this issue: European civil law systems do not recognize the common law concept of "Doe Complaint", and the concept is not well understood in Europe" This could be addressed in an informal note. B. NOTICE 1. Receipt by Registrant -Notice (feedback from Complainant & Respondent) For “Doe Complaints’, Providers should [first] send notice to respondents [via the online registrant contact form and then by the required methods] as soon as relevant WHOIS data is forwarded by the registry. -- Accept the suggested revised language with additional text in brackets. E. DEFENSES 1. Scope of Defenses 2. Unreasonable delay in filing a complaint (i.e. laches) All Providers should provide similar types and forms of guidance to their examiners. -and- Examiners should document their rationale in all issued Determinations; in particular, when an Examiner finds that a registrant has registered and used a domain in bad faith supporting facts should be cited. -- Accept the suggested revised language. F. REMEDIES 2. Duration of Suspension Period 3. Review of Implementation URS Technical Requirements 3 and Registry Requirement 10 should be amended, [and compliance efforts should be directed,] to address problems with the implementation of the relief awarded following a URS decision; the implementation of a settlement (generally a domain transfer at the registrar level); and implementation of Complainant requests to extend a suspension. -- Do we need to mention ICANN Compliance role at all? Reword accordingly. -- Accept the suggested revised language. K. ABUSE OF PROCESS 1. Misuse of the process, including by trademark owners, registrants and “repeat offenders” Penalties for the abuse of the process by the Respondent should be added to the URS Rules; this proposal should be published to solicit public comment on what type of procedural abuse should be sanctioned, and in what manner. -- Don't think that anything discussed in the Providers Sub team to support or oppose this notion. We could seek public comment on it. -- Our "position" could be that this examination be for both Complainant and Respondent for fairness. But okay to action item to WG rather than as a recommendation. -- Create a new section 3: Suggested Action Items: The WG should consider whether to include the following question in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment: “Are penalties for abuse of the process by the Complianant or Respondent sufficient, or if not, or should they be expanded, and how?" -- Accept the suggested approach. Re: "WG to consider whether, in light of FORUM and MFSD feedback on use of WHOIS to help determine Respondent language, policy recommendations should be developed to handle language and related GDPR concerns." -- Not sure why this should be a concern since the information about the country should be available. -- Agree GDPR should not be a concern insofar as country of Registrant is concerned. -- Change from a recommendation to an action. L. EDUCATION & TRAINING 1. Responsibility for education and training of complainants, registrants, registry operators and registrars ICANN [should] develop easy-to-understand, multilingual, and linkable guidance (e.g. basic FAQs) for reference and informational purposes of both URS parties (Complainants and Respondents) -and- URS Providers should develop additional clear and concise reference and informational materials specific to their service, practice, and website for the use and benefit of both URS parties. -- Accept the suggested revised language. M. URS PROVIDERS 1. Evaluation of URS providers and their respective processes (including training of panelists) Explicit standards for [for the sanction and removal of Examiners should be considered” removal of Examiners based upon particular background and factors, such as continued representation of serial cybersquatters, or representation of parties found to have engaged in attempted reverse domain name hijacking, should be developed. -- I don't think we identified that there was a problem. -- Reword "Explicit standards for the sanction and removal of Examiners should be considered." Put into Section 3, Suggested Action Items. -- Accept the suggested revised language with strikeouts and additional text in brackets.

9 19

Redline Edits to Providers ST's URS Proposals - Review by COB Fri
by Ariel Liang Aug. 31, 2018

Aug. 31, 2018

Dear All, Per staff action item, we have updated the Super Consolidated URS Table with the suggested edits agreed to by the Sub Team, shown in redline. Please note: * Per ST’s direction, Staff inserted additional language in the proposed policy recommendations in section “L. Education & Training” (page 38-39) in light of the staff review of Providers’ online forms and Notice of Complaint (see staff review in the email attached). * Susan’s suggested operational fix with regard to compliance is inserted in section “F. Remedies 2./3.” (page 28) * Staff also slightly edited the language of “Provider ST’s Suggested Action Items for the WG” for consistency ACTION for SUB Team: Please review the latest redline language of all of Providers ST’s policy recommendations, operational fixes, and suggested action items for the WG by COB Friday, 31 August. If no objection or comment/input received, the redline language will be accepted by COB Friday, 31 August. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 9:41 AM To: "gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Actions & Notes: RPM Providers Sub Team 29 August 2018 Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the Providers Sub Team call held on 29 August 2018 (12:00-13:30 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-08-29+Sub+Team+for+UR…. See also the attached referenced documents. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == ACTION ITEMS: 1. Susan Payne will suggest language for an overarching recommendation concerning the need for ICANN Compliance proactive monitoring. 2. Staff will update the Super Consolidated URS Table with the suggested edits agreed to by the Sub Team shown in redline. Note in the cover email that staff has inserted additional language in the Education and Training section at the direction of the Sub Team. Ask for responses by COB Friday and if no objections the redlined document will be accepted by COB Friday. NOTES: Operational Fixes: A. THE COMPLAINT 4. Administrative review A URS provider should check the websites of other URS and UDRP providers to ensure that a disputed domain name is not already subject to an open/active URS/UDRP proceeding. -- I think registrant is in the best position, but I'm assuming it's not difficult for the providers to check? -- Accept the suggested revised language. 6. Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec -- page 5/6 Providers should modify their operational rules in terms of automatically populating the Complaint Form using WHOIS data. -and- GDD, [Providers, and Registries] should [jointly] develop a uniform system for interaction between the Providers and the Registries regarding registrant data that is unavailable in publicly accessible WHOIS [rules for the timely response by Registries to requests for non-public information from Providers] -- Not what sure we are suggesting -- what do we mean by "develop a uniform system for interaction" -- do we mean a system for timely response from the Providers? -- Accept the suggested revised language with strikeouts and additional text in brackets. B. NOTICE 1. Receipt by Registrant - Notice (feedback from Complainant & Respondent) ADNDRC should change its operational rules to comply with URS Procedure 4.2, requiring that notice of the Complaint be transmitted [with translation] by the registrant via email, fax, and postal mail. -- Accept the suggested revised language. 2. Effect on Registry Operator - Notice requirements for Registry Operators ICANN’s email addresses for Registry contacts (reached by Providers) should be kept up to date -and- GDD, [Providers, and registries] should [jointly] develop a uniform system for interaction between the Providers and the Registries regarding Registry notice requirements -- What does "(reached by Providers)" mean? Strike the parenthetical and change to "should be kept up to date for use by Providers". -- Accept the suggested revised language with additional text in brackets. F. REMEDIES 3. Review of Implementation There should be efforts undertaken to better inform and enhance the understanding by Registry Operators and Registrars of their role in the URS process -- Accept the suggested revised language ACTION ITEM: Susan Payne will suggest language for an overarching recommendation concerning the need for ICANN Compliance proactive monitoring. J. LANGUAGE ISSUES 1. Language issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice of complaint, response, determination ICANN should enforce the URS Rules 9 and URS Procedure 4.2 with respect to Providers communicating with the Registrant in the predominant language of the Registrant. In particular, as the WG has found that ADNDRC is not in compliance with URS Procedure 4.2 and URS Rules 9, ICANN should request ADNDRC to change their operational rules and to translate the Notice of Complaint “into the predominant language used in the Registrant’s country or territory”. -- Accept the suggested revised language. M. URS PROVIDERS 1. Evaluation of URS providers and their respective processes (including training of panelists) Provider compliance with URS Rule 6(a) should be enforced. ADNDRC, in particular, should be required to list the backgrounds of all of their Examiners so that Complainants and Respondents can check for conflicts of interest. -- Accept the suggested revised language. Policy Proposals: A. THE COMPLAINT 6. Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec URS Rule 3(b) should be amended in light of GDPR and the permissible filing of a “Doe Complaint”. -and- URS Procedure para 3.3 should be amended to enable modification of the Complaint within 2-3 days from disclosure of the full registration data by the URS Provider. -and- Outreach and education efforts should be undertaken via expert intermediaries to increase awareness and understanding of the common law concept of “Doe Complaint” in civil law jurisdictions, especially the EU. -- Accept the suggested revised language. -- Re: "WG to communicate with the EPDP Team about this issue: European civil law systems do not recognize the common law concept of "Doe Complaint", and the concept is not well understood in Europe" This could be addressed in an informal note. B. NOTICE 1. Receipt by Registrant -Notice (feedback from Complainant & Respondent) For “Doe Complaints’, Providers should [first] send notice to respondents [via the online registrant contact form and then by the required methods] as soon as relevant WHOIS data is forwarded by the registry. -- Accept the suggested revised language with additional text in brackets. E. DEFENSES 1. Scope of Defenses 2. Unreasonable delay in filing a complaint (i.e. laches) All Providers should provide similar types and forms of guidance to their examiners. -and- Examiners should document their rationale in all issued Determinations; in particular, when an Examiner finds that a registrant has registered and used a domain in bad faith supporting facts should be cited. -- Accept the suggested revised language. F. REMEDIES 2. Duration of Suspension Period 3. Review of Implementation URS Technical Requirements 3 and Registry Requirement 10 should be amended, [and compliance efforts should be directed,] to address problems with the implementation of the relief awarded following a URS decision; the implementation of a settlement (generally a domain transfer at the registrar level); and implementation of Complainant requests to extend a suspension. -- Do we need to mention ICANN Compliance role at all? Reword accordingly. -- Accept the suggested revised language. K. ABUSE OF PROCESS 1. Misuse of the process, including by trademark owners, registrants and “repeat offenders” Penalties for the abuse of the process by the Respondent should be added to the URS Rules; this proposal should be published to solicit public comment on what type of procedural abuse should be sanctioned, and in what manner. -- Don't think that anything discussed in the Providers Sub team to support or oppose this notion. We could seek public comment on it. -- Our "position" could be that this examination be for both Complainant and Respondent for fairness. But okay to action item to WG rather than as a recommendation. -- Create a new section 3: Suggested Action Items: The WG should consider whether to include the following question in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment: “Are penalties for abuse of the process by the Complianant or Respondent sufficient, or if not, or should they be expanded, and how?" -- Accept the suggested approach. Re: "WG to consider whether, in light of FORUM and MFSD feedback on use of WHOIS to help determine Respondent language, policy recommendations should be developed to handle language and related GDPR concerns." -- Not sure why this should be a concern since the information about the country should be available. -- Agree GDPR should not be a concern insofar as country of Registrant is concerned. -- Change from a recommendation to an action. L. EDUCATION & TRAINING 1. Responsibility for education and training of complainants, registrants, registry operators and registrars ICANN [should] develop easy-to-understand, multilingual, and linkable guidance (e.g. basic FAQs) for reference and informational purposes of both URS parties (Complainants and Respondents) -and- URS Providers should develop additional clear and concise reference and informational materials specific to their service, practice, and website for the use and benefit of both URS parties. -- Accept the suggested revised language. M. URS PROVIDERS 1. Evaluation of URS providers and their respective processes (including training of panelists) Explicit standards for [for the sanction and removal of Examiners should be considered” removal of Examiners based upon particular background and factors, such as continued representation of serial cybersquatters, or representation of parties found to have engaged in attempted reverse domain name hijacking, should be developed. -- I don't think we identified that there was a problem. -- Reword "Explicit standards for the sanction and removal of Examiners should be considered." Put into Section 3, Suggested Action Items. -- Accept the suggested revised language with strikeouts and additional text in brackets.

7 9

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat for RPM Sub Team for URS Providers call on Wednesday 29 August 2018
by Nathalie Peregrine Aug. 29, 2018

Aug. 29, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC Chat transcript attached to this email, and the mp3 link and AC recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) Sub Team for URS Providers call held on Wednesday 29 August 2018 at 12:00 UTC MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-urs-providers-29aug18-en.mp3 AC recording: https://participate.icann.org/p4psimwd7a7/<https://participate.icann.org/p4psimwd7a7/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=b53cd1dec1e5ee76…> Attendance and recordings of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/fgGNBQ The recording of the call is posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-providers/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie

1 0

Documents & Proposed Agenda for Providers Sub Team Call - 29 Aug 12:00-13:30 UTC
by Ariel Liang Aug. 28, 2018

Aug. 28, 2018

Dear Providers Sub Team, Following up on the staff message below, please find attached the two documents to be used for the Providers Sub Team call tomorrow (Wednesday, 29 August) at 12:00-13:30 UTC. The focus of the discussion is going to be Document 2: RPM-Proposed Wording of URS Providers Sub-082818. 1. RPM-CLEAN SUPER CONSOLIDATED URS TOPICS TABLE (24 August 2018) This is the latest version of the “Super Consolidated URS Topics Table” document prepared by staff. It incorporates all the resulting additional or amended findings/issues and proposed suggestions following the Sub Team’s completion of the action items from last week’s call. These additional/amended findings/issues and proposed suggestions are colored in PINK within the table. Besides this main update, the other changes are: 1. Intro text: updated the color legends in the red box, bullet points under “notes”, and minor grammatical corrections 2. Added the new category of “SUB TEAM CONCLUSION” in grey, which is neither policy recommendation nor operational fixe 3. Changed “DRAFT RECOMMENDATION” to “DRAFT POLICY RECOMMENDATION” 4. In Section E. Defenses, added “SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL RESEARCH” (can be treated as an action item) 5. Added data sources due to Providers Sub Team’s follow-up with Providers & ICANN GDD 6. Removed all ACTION ITEMS of the Providers Sub Team due to completion 7. Removed a couple of older proposed suggestions from the Providers Sub Team as they no longer stand 8. Removed the Co-Chairs’ comments about the SMD files under “Additional Sub Team Notes” as the SMD file issue has been addressed 9. Formatting improvements, e.g., including legend in the footer and repeating header row of each table 2. RPM-Proposed Wording of URS Providers Sub-082818 This document is drafted by Co-Chair Phil Corwin, which includes the proposed revised wording of the Providers Sub Team’s proposed suggestions (based on content in the column 3 of the updated “Super Consolidated URS Topics Table”). The document is solely for the purpose of efficiently facilitating tomorrow’s discussion, and the proposed wording is subject to the Sub Team’s modification. Likewise, Phil conveyed that the inclusion of a proposal in this document does not mean it will be forwarded to the full WG; that decision is for the Sub Team to make. Last, please find the proposed agenda for tomorrow’s meeting: 1. Review Agenda 2. Discussions of the Proposed Revised Wording of URS Providers Sub Team Proposals 3. AOB Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, August 27, 2018 at 6:39 PM To: "gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Review of Draft URS Policy Recommendations/Operational Fixes Dear URS Providers Sub Team members, The RPM PDP Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 29 August at 1200 UTC is cancelled. Instead, in preparation for the Working Group meeting to be held on 05 September, the Co-Chairs are requesting that the Sub Teams should review their draft URS policy recommendations and operational fixes reflected in the attached current version of the Super Consolidated table to ensure that they are specific and justified proposals for which there is sub team agreement for full WG discussion and consideration. For example, a recommendation might be, ““Providers should be required to check the websites of the other URS and UDRP Providers to ensure a disputed domain name is not already subject to an open/active URS/UDRP proceeding” to replace the current language at “4. Administrative Review, which currently reads, “WG to consider whether to recommend that Providers check the websites of the other Providers to ensure a disputed domain name is not already subject to an open/active URS/UDRP proceeding or court case.” That would create a specific detailed proposal as well as drop the reference to court cases, which the Providers Sub Team determined on its last call would be administratively burdensome, as well as unnecessary as a registrant would be in the best position to know of pending litigation against a domain. Putting this proposal out for public comment would allow the community to weigh in on whether this proposal had merit, or was unnecessary due to the brief duration of URS actions. To this end, the Sub Team leader will suggest language for consideration at a Sub Team call scheduled for this Wednesday at the Working Group meeting time above. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie On Behalf of the RPM PDP Working Group Co-chairs

1 0

Review of Draft URS Policy Recommendations/Operational Fixes
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 27, 2018

Aug. 27, 2018

Dear URS Providers Sub Team members, The RPM PDP Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 29 August at 1200 UTC is cancelled. Instead, in preparation for the Working Group meeting to be held on 05 September, the Co-Chairs are requesting that the Sub Teams should review their draft URS policy recommendations and operational fixes reflected in the attached current version of the Super Consolidated table to ensure that they are specific and justified proposals for which there is sub team agreement for full WG discussion and consideration. For example, a recommendation might be, ““Providers should be required to check the websites of the other URS and UDRP Providers to ensure a disputed domain name is not already subject to an open/active URS/UDRP proceeding” to replace the current language at “4. Administrative Review, which currently reads, “WG to consider whether to recommend that Providers check the websites of the other Providers to ensure a disputed domain name is not already subject to an open/active URS/UDRP proceeding or court case.” That would create a specific detailed proposal as well as drop the reference to court cases, which the Providers Sub Team determined on its last call would be administratively burdensome, as well as unnecessary as a registrant would be in the best position to know of pending litigation against a domain. Putting this proposal out for public comment would allow the community to weigh in on whether this proposal had merit, or was unnecessary due to the brief duration of URS actions. To this end, the Sub Team leader will suggest language for consideration at a Sub Team call scheduled for this Wednesday at the Working Group meeting time above. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie On Behalf of the RPM PDP Working Group Co-chairs

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat for RPM Sub Team for URS Providers call on Thursday, 23 August 2018
by Julie Bisland Aug. 27, 2018

Aug. 27, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC Chat transcript attached to this email, and the mp3 link and AC recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) Sub Team for URS Providers call held on Thursday, 23 August 2018 at 12:00 UTC MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-urs-providers-23aug18-en.mp3 AC recording: https://participate.icann.org/p44iv07snx5/ Attendance and recordings of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/WxdpBQ The recording of the call is posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-providers/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie

1 0

Staff's Review of Notice of Complaint & Providers' Forms & Instructions
by Ariel Liang Aug. 23, 2018

Aug. 23, 2018

Dear Providers Sub Team members, Per Action Item 4: Staff to review the Notice of Complaint and Providers’ forms and instructions to assist the Sub Team to consider proposed suggestions, if any. Staff reviewed all the requested materials and found: * Notice of Complaint: While ADNDRC didn’t provide the requested document, it seems that FORUM and MFSD have provided quite thorough instruction to the Respondent about the steps and what to expect in the URS proceedings. * Complaint/Response/Appeal forms: Providers vary in terms of the amount of guidance they provide to the URS Parties. E.g., FORUM provides PowerPoint Demo with step-by-step instructions; MFSD references specific URS Rules/Procedure & Supplemental Rules in detail; ADNDRC seems to only provide simple forms. Please see the notes below for details. Before the review of those materials, Providers Sub Team proposed the following draft recommendations for the WG’s consideration: 1. WG to discuss whether to recommend ICANN to develop an easy-to-understand, multilingual, and linkable guidance (e.g. basic FAQs) for both URS parties 2. WG to discuss whether Providers should develop additional materials specific to their service, practice, website, etc. QUESTION: Does the Sub Team believe any of those draft recommendations need to be amended? Staff have included the links to materials in case you would like to reference on your own. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry == Detailed Findings Notice of Complaint * ADNDRC didn’t provide the Notice of Complaint but provided an email they send to the Complainant to acknowledge receipt of the Complaint * FORUM and MFSD seem to provide thorough instruction to the Respondent about the steps, timelines, fees, potential outcomes, and other details of the URS proceedings. They also provided the contact information if the Respondent needs assistance. Links to the URS Rules, procedure, and Supplemental Rules are included in the Notice of Complaint. Complaint Form * ADNDRC: A simple form, no additional instruction on the form itself for the Complainant; didn’t ask for fax number from the Complainant and the Respondent (it is required in the URS Rule 3b) * FORUM: Includes a PowerPoint Demo for the Complainant about how to file a Complaint using their online portal, with step-by-step instructions and references to specific URS Rules/Procedure * MFSD: A Standard form but includes detailed references to specific URS Rules/Procedure and MFSD Supplemental Rules * All three Providers: Ask the Complainant to provide supporting documentation regarding the TM registration and proof of use Response Form * ADNDRC: A simple form, no additional instruction on the form itself for the Respondent; the handwritten notes on page 3-4 are a little bit confusing, and also there is text being crossed out * FORUM: Includes a PowerPoint Demo for the Respondent about how to file a Response using their online portal, with step-by-step instructions and references to specific URS Procedure * MFSD: A Standard form but includes detailed references to specific URS Rules/Procedure and MFSD Supplemental Rules Appeal Form * ADNDRC: A simple form, no additional instruction on the form itself for the Appellant/Appellee * FORUM: Includes a PowerPoint Demo for the Appellant and the Appellee about how to file an Appeal/Appeal Response using their online portal, with step-by-step instructions and references to specific URS Procedure * MFSD: A Standard form but includes detailed references to specific URS Rules/Procedure and MFSD Supplemental Rules Requested Materials ADNDRC: * ADNDRC Complaint Form<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/ADNDRC-Complaint%…> * ADNDRC Response Form<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/ADNDRC_Attachment…> * ADNDRC Appeal Form<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/ADNDRC_Attachment…> * ADNDRC Notice of Complaint<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/ADNDRC_Attachment…> FORUM: * FORUM Complaint Form<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/Forum-Appendix%20…> * FORUM Response Form<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/Forum-Appendix%20…> * FORUM Appeal Form<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/Forum-Appendix%20…> * FORUM Notice of Complaint<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/FORUM_NOTICE%20OF…> MFSD: * MFSD Complaint Form<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/MFSD-Complaint%20…> * MFSD Response Form<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/MFSD-Response%20F…> * MFSD Appeal Form<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/MFSD-Appeal%20For…> * MFSD Notice of Complaint<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/MFSD_Notice%20of%…>

1 0

Actions & Notes: RPM Providers Sub Team 23 August 2018
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 23, 2018

Aug. 23, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the Providers Sub Team call held on 23 August 2018 (12:00-13:30 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: INSERT. See also the attached referenced document and the Responses & Notes - URS Provider Questions [docs.google.com] Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == ACTION ITEMS: ACTION ITEM 1: Staff will update the Super Consolidated URS Table based on the notes from today’s meeting. ACTION ITEM 2: Re: 7. SMD File -- Sub Team to ask all three Providers to confirm whether their Examiners are able to obtain the jurisdiction information...(page 4): Staff to check the rules to see if the Providers' actions are compliant. See: URS Rules r.3(b)(v) ACTION ITEM 3: Re: J. LANGUAGE ISSUES -- Sub Team to ask ADNDRC how their Examiners' language skills are used in the URS proceedings where the Respondents are not English speakers (if any)? And ask ADNDRC how their Examiners handled the situation (if any) where a Respondent did not have the capability of understanding English. (pages 7-8) -and- Sub Team to ask MFSD for a direct response whether they think it would be feasible to mandate sending Registry and Registrar notices in the same languages. (pages 7-8): Staff will check to see what the rules require. ACTION ITEM 4: Re: L. EDUCATION & TRAINING -- Sub Team to review the Notice of Complaint and Providers' online forms/instructions before considering whether any recommendations should be made...(page 8): Staff will review the forms and bring any issues to the Sub Team. NOTES: Discussions of the URS Provider and GDD’s responses to follow-up questions, with the aim to identify issues and propose suggestions for the consideration of the full WG A. THE COMPLAINT 4. Administrative Review (pages 1 and 2) Sub Team to ask ADNDRC to explain why they accept Complaints that do not contain all of the elements required in URS Rule 3(b). ( page 1) Discussion: -- It seems that ADNDRC's initial response was a misinterpretation of the question. This is corrected. Proposed Suggestion: No action required. Sub Team to obtain details from ADNDRC and FORUM on their administrative check to determine whether a domain name is already subject to an open and active URS/UDRP proceeding or court case. ( page 2) Discussion: -- Domain registrant is best placed to know if there is an action in another forum. The Providers can't know all instances. -- As a best practice should there be a database maintained by ICANN of all URS/UDRP case listed by domain? But that seems like overkill and would require a lot of work to keep up to date. Also, there is less than a month before start to finish of the URS. -- MFSD uses a check list to determine if a client is compliant with the rules: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/MFSD-Check%20List… Proposed Suggestion: The WG could suggest that the Providers check the websites of the other providers, but it may be that no action is required. 6. Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec (pages 2-4) Sub Team to ask ADNDRC and FORUM whether they accept a URS Complaint if the Complainant does not provide the contract details of the Respondent ("Doe Complaint"). (pages 2-3) Discussion: -- Complaints are being accepted. -- URS is only for new gTLD. -- GDD and RySG could develop a uniform system for interaction between the Providers and registries. -- Also, there is the FORUM suggestion for a technical redesign of the URS filing process to allow manual amendments of the Complaint. Proposed Suggestion: WG to ask ICANN to determine whether operational fixes are required in light of GDD. Sub Team to follow up with MFSD to request data/evidence that support their claim about the difficulty in filing a "Doe Complaint". (pages 3-4) Proposed Suggestion: Communicate on this issue with the EPDP WG so they are aware of this issue with European URS Providers re: European civil law systems not recognizing the common law concept of "Doe Complaint", and that the concept is not well understood in Europe. WG could suggest outreach and education via INTA to make European Providers more aware of the possibility of a Doe Complaint. 7. SMD File Sub Team to ask all three Providers to confirm whether their Examiners are able to obtain the jurisdiction information...(page 4) Discussion: -- We are asking the wrong question. The SMD file is only for proof of use. It is not how you find out the details about the trademark/category of goods and services. -- If they cannot get this information from the SMD file how are they getting this information? -- Wouldn't that information be part of the complaint -- filed by the Complainant? They do have to upload evidence of use. -- MFSD's practice of verifying that a submitted SMD file has not been revoked is interesting. -- See p14 of the FORUM doc Colin circulated -- requires TM Cert to be uploaded. Proposed Suggestion: ACTION ITEM: Staff to check the rules to see if the Providers' actions are compliant. See: URS Rules r.3(b)(v) Specify the trademark(s) or service mark(s) on which the complaint is based and the goods and services with which the mark is used including evidence of use -- which can be a declaration and a specimen of current user in commerce -- submitted directly or by including a relevant SMD from the TMCH. 8. Other Topics (pages 4-5) Sub Team to follow up with MSFD to request data/evidence to support their claim regarding certain factors being possible deterrents to filing a URS Complaint. (pages 4-5) Proposed Suggestion: No action required. B. NOTICE 2. Effect on Registry Operator (page 5) Sub Team to follow up with FORUM and ask why GDPR may make the activation of URS Lock more difficult. (page 5) Proposed Suggestion: WG could suggest outreach and education via INTA to make European Providers more aware of the possibility of a Doe Complaint. C. RESPONSE 2. Other issues relating to Reponses (other than issues relating to Defenses), e.g. Default procedures. (page 5) Sub Team to review FORUM Appendix B and MFSD's Checklist used for the Administrative Review of the Response and consider whether further deliberation is needed. (page 5) Proposed Suggestion: Staff has reviewed the documents provided by FORUM and MFSD's documents and found that they satisfy the Administrative Review of the Response. No action required. E. DEFENSES (page 6) While the following action items are for the WG, the Providers Sub Team is likely to be asked to provide input...(page 6) Discussion: -- The ANDDRC guidelines don't appear to contain any consideration of defenses. FORUM templates also don't seem to have any consideration of defenses. -- Seems that these are just forms. -- Would support a minimum standard that applies across the board. Proposed Suggestion: -- WG to further examine the divergent practice and requirements of Providers with regard to Examiners' providing reasoning in support of their Determination. -- WG to consider whether all providers should give similar types/forms of guidance to their Examiners. F. REMEDIES 4. Other Topics (pages 6-7) Sub Team to solicit input from ICANN GDD and Registry Operators with regard to the HSTS-preloaded domain suspension issue and the potential GDPR impact on Providers' ability to check the completion of URS actions by Registry Operators. (pages 6-7) Proposed Suggestion: No action required. J. LANGUAGE ISSUES Sub Team to ask ADNDRC how their Examiners' language skills are used in the URS proceedings where the Respondents are not English speakers (if any)? And ask ADNDRC how their Examiners handled the situation (if any) where a Respondent did not have the capability of understanding English. (pages 7-8) -and- Sub Team to ask MFSD for a direct response whether they think it would be feasible to mandate sending Registry and Registrar notices in the same languages. (pages 7-8) Discussion: -- Given that ADNDRC's examiners also speak Chinese I don't know why they aren't working in the language that the registration is made. -- Suggestion could be that the Provider should operate in the language that the registration is made. -- Does there need to be some sort of auditing to catch this going forward? Yes, ICANN should check that Providers comply with the rules and procedures. See: 9. Language of Proceedings The URS Procedure Paragraph 4.2 specifies the languages in which the Notice of Complaint shall be transmitted. (a) The Complaint shall be submitted in English.(b) The Response may be provided in English, or in one of the languages used for the Notice of Complaint.10(c) The Examiner appointed shall be fluent in English and in the language of the Response and will determine in which language to issue its Determination, in its sole discretion.(d) In the absence of a Response, the language of the Determination shall be English.(e) The Provider is not responsible for translating any documents other than the Notice of Complaint. Procedure 4.2 The Notice of Complaint shall be in English and translated by the Provider into the predominant language used in the Registrant’s country or territory. Proposed Suggestion: WG should make sure that the registrant is getting a copy of the complaint in the language that they can understand so that they can respond. If ADNDRC does not translate the complaint then they are not following the rules. ICANN needs to be made aware that one of their providers is ignoring policy. ACTION ITEM: Staff will check to see what the rules require. See: "(b) The Notice of Complaint to the Respondent shall be transmitted in English and shall be translated by the Provider into the predominant language used in the registrant’s country or territory, as determined by the country(ies) listed in the Whois record when the Complaint is filed." L. EDUCATION & TRAINING (page 8) Sub Team to review the Notice of Complaint and Providers' online forms/instructions before considering whether any recommendations should be made...(page 8) Discussion: Staff reviewed the forms and didn't see problems. Some information is not mandatory in the forms, such as fax numbers. Proposed Suggestion: Pending information from the staff review. ACTION ITEM: Staff will review the forms and bring any issues to the Sub Team. M. URS PROVIDERS 1. Evaluation of the URS Providers and their respective processes (pages 9-11) Sub Team to ask ADNDRC to elaborate on their panel selection processes (pages 9-10) Discussion: -- ADNDRC process looks pretty positive. -- Haven't heard any complaints that anyone who wants to be an examiner is being blocked. Proposed Suggestion: No action required. Sub Team/WG to examine MFSD dispute no. 8422F178 e-leclerc.paris & no. 429EC571 (page 10) Discussion: -- This was not a follow up question. This was an action item to the Sub Team to review these two disputes. (f) If a Party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, these Rules, the URS Procedure or the Provider’s Supplemental Rules, the Examiner shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate -- This is what MFSD said before " Yes. In Default Determinations Examiners concluded that: "Respondent’s default does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant. Although, the Examiner may draw appropriate inferences from a Respondent’s default, Paragraph 12 of the URS Rules requires the Examiner to review the Complaint for a prima facie case, including complete and appropriate evidence [...] The Examiner finds that in this case there are no such exceptional circumstances. Consequently, failure on the part of the Respondent to file a response to the Complaint permits an inference that the Complainant’s reasonable allegations are true. It may also permit the Examiner to infer that the Respondent does not deny the facts that the Complainant asserted" (e.g. Dispute no. 8422F178 e-leclerc.paris; Dispute no. 429EC571 reinhausen.international). -- I think we are just meant to review those cases to make sure we aren't uncomfortable with them -- Still don't understand what the concern here is. I don't see an issue with Examiner being allowed to draw inferences from a Party's non-compliance to any provision or requirements under the Rules/Procedures -- I think the issue is to make sure the burden of proof remains firmly on the complainant -- I think it is just that they gave us some examples of where this had happened so for completeness we should review Proposed Suggestion: No action required. Sub Team to ask ADNDRC to provide details in order to understand whether ADNDRC has been out of compliance with technical requirements. (page 10) Proposed Suggestion: WG to consider a recommendation that ICANN should check Providers for compliance. Sub Team to ask ADNDRC to provide details on the information or data that ICANN requested from them via their regular communication. (pages 10-11) Proposed Suggestion: No action required. Sub Team to ask all three Providers to provide specific examples of their Examiner training and education programs/materials, to assist the WG to determine whether further deliberation is needed. (page 11) Proposed Suggestion: No action required. 1. Conflict of Interest (page 11) Sub Team to ask ADNDRC to confirm whether any of their Examiners voluntarily disclosed any conflict of interest. Proposed Suggestion: No action required.

1 0