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

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

Proposed Agenda for Providers Sub Team - Wed 28 Feb
by Ariel Liang Feb. 28, 2018

Feb. 28, 2018

Dear Sub Team members, In preparation for tomorrow’s call (Wed, 28 Feb at 23:00 UTC – APAC time zone rotation), staff wish to propose the following agenda for your consideration: 1. Sub Team continue reviewing and developing objective questions with regard to the URS Rules (Section 9 et seq.), and then proceed with the URS Procedures, MoU between ICANN and Providers, and the Providers’ Supplemental Rules that contain variations. 2. Next steps/next meeting * Reporting at ICANN61 * Review questions from Practitioner / Documents Sub Teams to Providers * Number of future meetings; planning/building timeline for completing questions for URS Providers Regarding agenda item 2a, staff believes that the WG Co-Chairs plan to use some part of the RPM sessions at ICANN61 for reports and discussions of the work of the various Sub Teams. As such, for tomorrow’s Sub Team call, staff would recommend the Sub Team to allocate some time to agree on what and how you will be reporting back to the full group at ICANN61. Regarding agenda item 2b, staff would like to give the Sub Team a heads up that the Documents and Practitioners Sub Teams have been proposing some questions targeting the Providers. They will share these questions with the Providers Sub Team shortly. The Sub Team may need to decide how to incorporate these questions in the list of questions for Providers. Regarding agenda item 2c, staff would like to remind the Sub Team that the full WG has previously agreed to invite URS Providers to attend future meeting(s) to answer questions. It would be beneficial for the Sub Team to follow a set timeline and deliver questions to the Providers in a timeline manner. Related to this point, it would be helpful for the Sub Team to estimate the number of future meetings needed to complete the review of the pertinent documents, as well as the deliberation of the questions, factoring APAC time zone rotation. It would be ideal if the Sub Team could wrap up the work shortly after ICANN61 (e.g. April). Last, staff has completed the action item related to URS Examiners’ qualifications (shared last week and attached the file again), and is in process developing the table that maps URS Rules, Procedures, and Supplemental Rules. Thank you all for your review and consideration of the suggested agenda! Best Regards, Ariel

1 0

Summary Notes from the Sub Team URS Documents Meeting 21 February
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 23, 2018

Feb. 23, 2018

Hello everyone, Per the staff action item from the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs, please find attached summary notes for your reference from the meeting of the Sub Team URS Documents on 21 February. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] [Ext] RE: List of Examiners on URS Providers' Website
by Ariel Liang Feb. 23, 2018

Feb. 23, 2018

My pleasure. Happy to help! Best Regards, Ariel From: Carrie Shu Shang <cshang(a)hkiac.org> Date: Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 7:16 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-providers] List of Examiners on URS Providers' Website Thanks Ariel, Very helpful. _____________________________________________________________________ Carrie Shang ADR Counsel | Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre Address: 38/F, Two Exchange Square, 8 Connaught Place, Central, Hong Kong Tel: +852 2525 2381 Fax: +852 2524 2171 E-mail: cshang(a)hkiac.org<mailto:sgrimmer@hkiac.org> Webpage: http://www.hkiac.org[hkiac.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.hkiac.org_&d=DwMF-g…> _____________________________________________________________________ ________________________________ From: Gnso-rpm-providers [gnso-rpm-providers-bounces(a)icann.org] on behalf of Ariel Liang [ariel.liang(a)icann.org] Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 7:31 AM To: gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-providers] List of Examiners on URS Providers' Website Hello everyone, As per staff action item, please find attached a document about the Examiners’ information on the three URS Providers’ websites. Besides checking Examiners’ qualifications, staff also included information related to language skills, location of the Examiners, etc. The additional information may be useful when we discuss the URS Rules Section 9 next week. Welcome your input and comment. Thank you, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0