Dear All,

Kindly find below the action items and notes captured in today’s call. They have been published on the meeting wiki page, along with call recordings and attendance record: https://community.icann.org/x/gYH3B.

Best Regards,

Ariel

Ariel Xinyue Liang

Policy Analyst | Washington, DC 

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 

Action Items:

1. Sub Team members to suggest additional edits, as well as additional questions related to the ADNDRC and MSFD Supplemental Rules, directly on the Google Document by Monday, 16 April at 23:59 UTC and inform others to review via the mailing list when edits are added. Staff to convert a clean version of the Google Doc, incorporating all edits/comments as is, and forward to the full WG on Tuesday, 17 April.
2. Staff to incorporate suggestions/edits discussed in the meeting on the Google Doc [DONE]
3. Staff to insert the already received responses to Provider questions in the Google Doc; Sub Team to evaluate whether these questions should be struck, or need to be asked differently to gain further clarification.
4. Phil, Lori, and Susan to refine the questions related to GDPR impact and consider whether a new section needs to be added:
   • The Complaint (Q3): Have you encountered any issues receiving WHOIS info needed for URS proceedings when dealing with Complaints against Registrants due to privacy laws/regulations? If so, what are the countries/nations of these Registrants?  
   • The Complaint (Q13): How will the URS rules pertaining to cases involving domains utilizing privacy or proxy services be affected if full access to WHOIS data is no longer publicly available due to GDPR implementation? What WHOIS data elements do you require to perform your role as a URS dispute resolution provider?
   • Others (Q1): Do you envision any difficulty complying with the provisions related to WHOIS contained in the URS Rules, Procedure, Technical Requirements, and your own Supplemental Rules, upon the 25 May 2018 effective date of GDPR enforcement?
5. Justine to redraft the following question:
   • Examiner Determination (Q6): (To FORUM and MFSD) How do FORUM and MFSD compel their Examiners to comply with their such templates in writing their determinations or guidelines? Noting previous remarks that the quality of determinations vary from Examiner to Examiner.
6. Sub Team to table Michael K’s suggestion to Examiner (Q1) for further discussion with the full WG: “I would appreciate if we could dig a little deeper into Q1 under examiners, specifically to look into what (if any) proportion of the Examiners have experience representing the registrant side, or if they tend to mostly have a background representing trademark holders.”

Notes:

• Communications (Q4): Staff to reword the question in a positive manner
• Communications (Q6): Staff to add reference to URS Rules 2(f)
• The Complaint (Q3): Don’t limit the question within the scope of EU nations, as there are privacy laws in other countries. The question should be territory neutral. Perhaps add a question asking “If so, what are the countries/nations of these Registrants?”
• The Complaint (Q8): Add “How do you find this information?”
• The Complaint (Q12): Drop the explanatory notes within the brackets; add the third part of the question: “Are you able to determine whether the mistake was due to Complainant error, or a WHOIS inaccuracy? If so, please share with us your analysis.”
• The Complaint (Q13): GDPR is going to impact domains not registered via P/P services as well. An additional, overarching question may need to be asked: “How would you perceive the URS related rules and procedures change after GDPR goes into effect?” ACTION: Phil, Lori, and Susan to reconsider wording this question, as well as Q3 under The Complaint and Q1 under Others; staff to remove these three questions from the Google Doc.
• Fees (Q1): Drop the question “What are your filing fees for Complainants and Respondents (where applicable)?” as it has been answered in Providers’ Supplemental Rules.
• Administrative Review (Q1): Direct the question only to FORUM as the other two Providers have answered it
• Administrative Review (Q2): Drop the question as it has been answered by all three Providers
• Examiners (Q1): Michael K’s suggestion seems unanswerable by the Providers. Table the discussion till when the full WG reviews the suggested questions.
• Examiner Determination (Q6): ACTION: Justine to reword and clarify the question.