Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Redline Edits to Providers ST's URS Proposals - Review by COB Fri
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@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 1:51 PM To: "gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers@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@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 9:41 AM To: "gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers@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+URS.... 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.
If nothing at all, shouldn't it be "*to* the Respondent" and not "by the Respondent" in the first bullet? Justine ----- On Sat, 1 Sep 2018, 04:20 Ariel Liang, <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
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@icann.org> *Date: *Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 1:51 PM *To: *"gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers@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@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Date: *Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 9:41 AM *To: *"gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers@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+URS....
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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
Hello Justine, Thank you. Staff made the edits. The version to be displayed during tomorrow’s RPM call should reflect this change. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> Date: Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:38 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Redline Edits to Providers ST's URS Proposals - Review by COB Fri If nothing at all, shouldn't it be "to the Respondent" and not "by the Respondent" in the first bullet? Justine ----- On Sat, 1 Sep 2018, 04:20 Ariel Liang, <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: 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@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 1:51 PM To: "gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@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@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 9:41 AM To: "gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@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+URS.... 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
participants (2)
-
Ariel Liang -
Justine Chew