Dear Providers Sub Team members, Per direction from the Co-Chairs, staff are sending this email to provide a summary of the discussion today and the next steps. The Sub Team reviewed the responses from Providers through page 7 of the spreadsheet attached (row 19) and identified follow up questions to seek further information/clarification from the Providers. Staff have updated the spreadsheet with these follow up questions (colored in blue), as well as Sub Team comments (placed in the “additional notes” column). The spreadsheet has also been updated to include row numbers for easier reference. You may also access the spreadsheet via this Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I-qe_I4OkQT7IU_rjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1vr... The Sub Team are tasked to review Providers’ responses and bring up points for discussions via the mailing list. By Friday, 15 June, the Sub Team will need to decide whether a call is needed prior to ICANN62. In addition, staff will circulate with the Sub Team questions that Providers’ responses are divergent by Friday, 15 June. We will check with the Providers and let the Sub Team know their availability to attend the ICANN62 RPM session. Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff. They have been posted to the wiki space at https://community.icann.org/x/vSwFBQ, which also publishes the recording, AC chat, and attendance records. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry ==== ACTION ITEMS * Staff to send an email by 13 June to the Sub Team summarizing the discussion today and the next steps. (DONE) * Staff to update/highlight the spreadsheet with the comments/follow up questions captured during the call. (DONE) * Staff to identity the divergent answers from providers and circulate with the Sub Team by Friday, 15 June. * Staff to let Sub Team know if the representatives from URS Providers would attend ICANN62. * Sub Team to review the spreadsheet and discuss via the mailing list; Sub Team to decide by the end of the week whether they need another call before ICANN62. COMMENTS ON PROVDER RESPONSES * ROW 7: * Delivering Notice of Complaint: Ask ADNDRC why they do not deliver the Notice of Complaint in hard copy. * Discuss potential difficulties created by GDPR. * ROW 12: * Note possible clerical issue concerning out of date email information. "1. Some Registry Operators communicate from email addresses different from the contacts present in ICANN's repository. In that case it is not possible to send them encrypted notifications with the PGP key." * ROW 14: * Follow up with ADNDRC about what they meant by "Yes". Incomplete complaints are not supposed to be accepted. * Ask the other two Providers (FORUM + ADNDRC) whether they accept the "Doe Complaint". * ROW 16: * Flag that FORUM seems to have confirmed that most of the data in the SMD file is difficult to read/remains encoded. Check further on jurisdiction of the trademark/ category of goods and services -- whether the examiners have those data. * ROW 18: * Follow up with FORUM on the suggested word limit. Look at the issue when we are discussing policy recommendations. * ROW 19: * Follow up with FORUM what triggers such suspicion. * Follow up with ADNDRC about how they conduct cross-checks. NOTES -- Received responses from URS Providers on 08 June by the deadline. -- Forum needs a bit more time to provide responses and will have them by ICANN62. -- The spreadsheet was circulated around 1200 UTC on 12 June. Concerns were expressed about not having more time to review the document. -- Light orange cells were questions sent to Providers, dark orange are responses with attachments, yellow is where Forum will provide additional responses. -- Could we use this meeting to do an overview to better understand what is in front of us. -- Prof. Tushnet can't be on the call today, but we circulated the 7 questions for which her data could provide answers. Prof. Tushnet provided answers and they are incorporated into the spreadsheet. Discussion of Responses from Providers: ROW 7: Re: URS Rule 2(a), Procedure 4.2 -- delivering Notice of Complaint: -- ADNDRC has not engaged with the practice of delivering the Notice of Complaint in hard copy. etc. -- Might want to discuss the potential difficulties from GDPR. Questions for ADNDRC: -- Why do you not deliver the Notice of Complaint in hard copy? -- Do you not follow the same rules? Answer: We all use the same rules and we have the same panelists. When a complaint comes in it gets sent to the most appropriate office, depending on location. -- Which office answered the questions? Answer: Carrie Shang, HKIAC. Other offices reviewed and commented. Discussion: -- Requirement is for the original complaint to be delivered via three separate means, but not subsequent communications. -- Can staff highlight anything from Prof. Tushnet that doesn't gibe? Answer from staff: Prof. Tushnet's answers are included in the Additional Notes column. Also, her answers are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/FBu8B ROW 12 Re: difficulties in communicating with Registry Operators: -- MFSD response -- Using different email addresses. Not a policy issue, but could be a clerical issue concerning out of date email information. "1. Some Registry Operators communicate from email addresses different from the contacts present in ICANN's repository. In that case it is not possible to send them encrypted notifications with the PGP key." --Question: How does ADNDRC receive complaints? Is it via email or via online form? Answer: We receive the complaint via online forms. ROW 14 Re: Accepting Complaints that do not contain all the elements required in URS Rule 3(b): -- ADNDRC: accepts complaints that might be incomplete. -- MFSD: accepts complaints even if Complainant does not provide the contact details of the Respondent ("Doe Complaint") because they are not available in the publicly accessible Whois or not otherwise known to the Complainant." -- Might be worth checking with the other providers to see if they have changed their processes because of GDPR in this case. -- Follow up with ADNDRC about what they meant by "Yes". Incomplete complaints are not supposed to be accepted. -- Ask the other two Providers (FORUM + ADNDRC) whether they accept the "Doe Complaint". -- Understand the Forum have. But agree we should have a formal response to this from both, re GDPR/Doe complaint ROW 16 Re: URS Rule 3(b)(v) concerning SMD Proof of Use: -- Flag that FORUM seems to have confirmed that most of the data in the SMD file is difficult to read/remains encoded. Check further on jurisdiction of the trademark/ category of goods and services -- whether the examiners have those data. -- The SMD file is only for demonstrating that proof of use has been provided. Doesn't seem to be needed to identify the trademark. ROW 18 Re: URS Procedure 1.2.7: 500-word limit: -- Follow up with FORUM on the suggested word limit. Look at the issue when we are discussing policy issues. ROW 19 re: URS Rule 3 (g) checking a domain cited in a URS complaint: -- Follow up with FORUM what triggers such suspicion -- Follow up with ADNDRC about how they conduct cross-checks NOTE: The Sub Team could use the time in Panama to continue progressing on this work ACTIONS: -- Staff to identity the divergent answers from providers and circulate with the Sub Team ahead of time -- Staff to prepare an email to the Sub Team, indicating we reviewed responses through page 7 , identify the things that we want to follow up with Providers, and staff to go through the document pointing answers that there are significant divergent for responses, and decide by the end of the week whether we need another Sub Team call before ICANN62 (send the email today), take the from the notes the follow up questions/comments, review the document/discuss on the email. -- Staff to let Sub Team know if we will have representatives from Providers in ICANN62.