August 2016 - GNSO-RPM-WG - lists.icann.org

Further Action Items from the Working Group call held on Wednesday 10 August
by Mary Wong Aug. 12, 2016

Aug. 12, 2016

Dear all, In addition to the initial list of immediate Action Items that was circulated following the Wednesday call, here are the remaining Action Items for your further discussion and feedback. (1) FOLLOW UP WITH ICANN COMPLIANCE The WG discussed 2 possible questions to be put to Compliance for follow up. WG members are requested to review these and provide your feedback as well as suggest any additional questions: 1. When community or review work brings to light circumstances which may warrant further investigation, is Compliance empowered to investigate, especially if a formal complaint has not been filed? If yes, have you done so previously? 2. If Compliance becomes aware of possible problematic activity involving use of TMCH or other RPMs e.g. by registrars or registries (or any other circumstance comes to light which may justify further investigation), do they proceed to investigate in the absence of a formal complaint? If they are empowered to act, have they taken action based on the data/information they have? Staff Note: WG members may recall that Compliance was asked a specific question previously about whether they had received complaints that they dealt with but that might otherwise fall under the TM-PDDRP though no complaint was filed under that Procedure. Here is their response: “Compliance has received a minimal number of complaints from trademark holders regarding registry operator’s practices. However, not having received them in the context of a TM-PDDRP complaint, they were not assessed for viability under the Procedure and therefore, it would be speculative to opine whether they could have been covered under the Procedure.” (2) ADDITIONAL NOTES ON ISSUES/CONCERNS/SUGGESTIONS DOCUMENT Online mediation - Staff to add to Summary Document that the online mediation option nevertheless should include the ability to use the "regular" tools that would be used for physical real-time mediation e.g. side meetings and caucuses. Further, in-person mediation should also an option as long as both parties agree. Collecting information about substantial infringement and bad faith registry practices – consider approaching entities such as INTA, MARQUES, Managing IP for information; staff to gather letters and other documents sent to ICANN previously (e.g. by INTA) Burden of proof – Suggestion that the status quo should remain as the default unless there is evidence justifying change (per Jeff Neuman: "the status quo with respect to the PDDRP (both substantive and procedural) should be maintained unless there is a good reason to change it. By good reason I mean that it should be the burden of those requesting a change to show good cause as to why it should be changed. Good reason should be supported by evidence".) Staff to work with Jeff to compile the documents available, including prior legal analysis by ICANN. WG members to send in additional materials for staff compilation. WG members are invited to continue discussions via this email list prior to the next WG call. Please also note the action items and deadlines from the initial list sent on Wednesday (see below). Thank you! Cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 15:49 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Action Items (initial list) from the Working Group call held earlier today (Wednesday 10 August) Dear Working Group Members, The following is the initial list of Action Items from the call held earlier today. Staff will send the second additional list of Action Items following confirmation of specific suggested language from the call transcript and recording. Action Item #1: · Members who were on the call today approved the proposed set of follow up questions to be sent to the three TM-PDDRP Providers. Members who were not able to be on the call are kindly requested to review the attached questions and send any concerns or objections to this mailing list by Monday 15 August. We hope to send the questions out early next week, with a view to receiving the providers’ input by end-August. Action Item #2: · Members who were on the call today approved the proposed list of questions for the ICANN community survey. Members who were not able to be on the call are kindly requested to review the attached questions and send any concerns or objections to this mailing list by Monday 15 August. We hope to create the survey and send out the link by the end of next week, with a view to receiving responses by Friday 16 September. Action Item #3: · All members are invited to provide their view as to the scope of the mandate of the TMCH Sub Team. As noted on the call today, some Working Group and Sub Team members thought it would be appropriate for the Sub Team to catalogue all existing information and data they consider relevant, to be reported back to the full Working Group – this could include developing appropriate questions to be answered (based on those in the Working Group Charter and additional Working Group/community questions) and requesting materials from third parties (e.g. the TMCH Providers, registrars, others). The information sought could include not just materials that are easily accessible by public search but potentially also information that, while already in existence, will be provided by request. Other Working Group members thought that the Sub Team’s mandate was limited to gathering information and data that was already publicly available and reporting that back to the full Working Group – this would not include the Sub Team contacting third parties who may be able to provide additional data or materials. · For further background, please refer to the Sub Team’s initial report on the Working Group wiki space: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61605051/TMCH%20Sub%20Team…. · To join the Sub Team, please contact the GNSO Secretariat at gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> with your request to be added to the list. Action Item #4: · With thanks to those Members who have already completed the Doodle poll on mediation and burden of proof, Members who have not yet participated in the straw poll are kindly requested to do so by Friday 12 August: http://doodle.com/poll/nc8ydu8cbbywtabm. As always, the call recording and transcript as well as any follow up documents will be posted to the Working Group wiki space, under the relevant meeting date: https://community.icann.org/x/uwSsAw. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Scope of TMCH Sub-group
by Luc SEUFER Aug. 12, 2016

Aug. 12, 2016

Hello Jeff, For sake of clarity, could you confirm that by "whether that data is public or whether that data has to be gathered by any other source” you refer to actual facts which can be verified and not stuff one “think they read on the internet”. All the best, Luc // Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS office: +35227220166 fax: +35220300166 mobile: +352691600417 lseufer(a)eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com/> 21, rue Léon Laval, L-3372 Leudelange, Luxembourg On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> wrote: All, I know this came up at the end of the call this week and there was not an extensive discussion on the topic, but I just wanted to reiterate for the record that I support the proposal of members of the subcommittee that they work on gathering all data around the Clearinghouse/Sunrise/Claims, etc. whether that data is public or whether that data has to be gathered by any other source. I believe that group should work on a list of questions/surveys/interviews, etc. of all applicable parties to help the working group make informed decisions on whether any changes should be made to the existing processes and what those changes should be. I know the subgroup is meeting tomorrow, so I hope this e-mail helps progress the discussion. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone. Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. --------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Scope of TMCH Sub-group
by Jeff Neuman Aug. 11, 2016

Aug. 11, 2016

All, I know this came up at the end of the call this week and there was not an extensive discussion on the topic, but I just wanted to reiterate for the record that I support the proposal of members of the subcommittee that they work on gathering all data around the Clearinghouse/Sunrise/Claims, etc. whether that data is public or whether that data has to be gathered by any other source. I believe that group should work on a list of questions/surveys/interviews, etc. of all applicable parties to help the working group make informed decisions on whether any changes should be made to the existing processes and what those changes should be. I know the subgroup is meeting tomorrow, so I hope this e-mail helps progress the discussion. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw

1 0

Survey on Newcomer Tools
by Nathalie Peregrine Aug. 11, 2016

Aug. 11, 2016

Dear ICANN Community member, We need your input to improve GNSO newcomer and training tools. GNSO Council has directed<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201607> staff to develop a survey to assess the familiarity that the community has with the different newcomer and training tools as well as their perceived usefulness. Staff would kindly request that you complete the attached survey available here<http://www.clicktools.com/go?iv=1063kkc3v1m98>. Please provide your response by 11 September 2016. Should you have any further comments please do not hesitate to contact us. Kind regards, David Tait David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait(a)icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org> www.icann.org

1 0

Action Items (initial list) from the Working Group call held earlier today (Wednesday 10 August)
by Mary Wong Aug. 10, 2016

Aug. 10, 2016

Dear Working Group Members, The following is the initial list of Action Items from the call held earlier today. Staff will send the second additional list of Action Items following confirmation of specific suggested language from the call transcript and recording. Action Item #1: · Members who were on the call today approved the proposed set of follow up questions to be sent to the three TM-PDDRP Providers. Members who were not able to be on the call are kindly requested to review the attached questions and send any concerns or objections to this mailing list by Monday 15 August. We hope to send the questions out early next week, with a view to receiving the providers’ input by end-August. Action Item #2: · Members who were on the call today approved the proposed list of questions for the ICANN community survey. Members who were not able to be on the call are kindly requested to review the attached questions and send any concerns or objections to this mailing list by Monday 15 August. We hope to create the survey and send out the link by the end of next week, with a view to receiving responses by Friday 16 September. Action Item #3: · All members are invited to provide their view as to the scope of the mandate of the TMCH Sub Team. As noted on the call today, some Working Group and Sub Team members thought it would be appropriate for the Sub Team to catalogue all existing information and data they consider relevant, to be reported back to the full Working Group – this could include developing appropriate questions to be answered (based on those in the Working Group Charter and additional Working Group/community questions) and requesting materials from third parties (e.g. the TMCH Providers, registrars, others). The information sought could include not just materials that are easily accessible by public search but potentially also information that, while already in existence, will be provided by request. Other Working Group members thought that the Sub Team’s mandate was limited to gathering information and data that was already publicly available and reporting that back to the full Working Group – this would not include the Sub Team contacting third parties who may be able to provide additional data or materials. · For further background, please refer to the Sub Team’s initial report on the Working Group wiki space: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61605051/TMCH%20Sub%20Team…. · To join the Sub Team, please contact the GNSO Secretariat at gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> with your request to be added to the list. Action Item #4: · With thanks to those Members who have already completed the Doodle poll on mediation and burden of proof, Members who have not yet participated in the straw poll are kindly requested to do so by Friday 12 August: http://doodle.com/poll/nc8ydu8cbbywtabm. As always, the call recording and transcript as well as any follow up documents will be posted to the Working Group wiki space, under the relevant meeting date: https://community.icann.org/x/uwSsAw. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

2 1

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Materials on Willful Blindness / PDDRP
by Mary Wong Aug. 10, 2016

Aug. 10, 2016

Thanks very much for the links and materials, Jeff – staff will add them to the Working Group wiki space. As staff has also been trying to locate historical information relating to the development of the various RPMs we are reviewing in this Working Group, we would like to invite Working Group members to send on similar information so that we can continue to compile a useful bibliography, including (when the time comes) for the other RPMs. Regarding the TM-PDDRP, Working Group members may in addition be interested in seeing all the community comments that were provided in response to a public comment opportunity on the TM-PDDRP in early 2010: https://forum.icann.org/lists/ppdrp-15feb10/threads.html (Jeff has already included links to a few, and to the staff analysis of those comments). We are truly grateful for the tremendous depth of expertise in this Working Group. While staff may be able to find and collate a certain amount of material, being able to leverage your knowledge and memories is invaluable. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 16:36 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Materials on Willful Blindness / PDDRP All, I just want to restate my point that I made on the call today. I believe our job is not to rehash discussions that took place in 2008-2012 on the rights protection mechanisms. Rather I believe our job is to assess whether any changes to the RPMs (or additions to the RPMs) need to be made based on actual evidence. In my personal opinion (not of my company or any client), a person proposing changes to the policies or processes should have the burden showing good cause as to why those change should be made. Absent a showing of that good cause, I do not believe we should make the changes. On the call (and the chat) Lori (from INTA) and Susan K.(from Facebook) stated that they had filed concerns with ICANN on certain registry practices and the failure of ICANN to address them or the inapplicability of the existing RPMs to cover those activities. I believe we should be looking at those concerns (as well as any other issues that are brought forward), evaluate whether any of them could (or should) have been brought under the existing RPMs, why they were not, and whether we should address them by changing an existing RPM or even adding a new one. Discussions on the PDDRP thus far have focused on what theoretical changes we can make to the PDDRP to “make it better” without any evidence being evaluated by the group on whether or not there is a need to “make it better.” One of those proposals contemplates adding a willful blindness standard to the PDDRP without any showing that such a lower standard is necessary or whether there is any activity going on now (or in the past) that would fall under that lower standard necessitating a change to the policy. Absent any evidence showing good cause to change the policy to include willful blindness, the policy should not change. In fact, this issue was HEAVILY discussed and argued in 2010-2011. Ultimately, ICANN decided that the PDDRP should not include a willful blindness standard. I have included just some of the comments that were filed by WIPO, myself, the Registries, Neustar and others on this Issue including ICANN’s analysis. There were other proponents of willful blindness other than WIPO (including I believe MARQUES, INTA and other IP organizations. I believe that this was even supported by the governments during the Board-GAC consultations. I know I do not have them all on here. But at the end of the day, this was not accepted. The point is that we should not be rehashing these old arguments. Our RPM PDP should not a “second bite at the apple”. Here is a start for collecting the discussions that have already taken place: WIPO Proposal: · https://forum.icann.org/lists/ppdrp-15feb10/pdfkYQ1rYb8Ni.pdf (March 2010) · https://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-base/pdfjIZkXr0Dc2.pdf (June 2010) · https://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-base/pdf0nS63XScIt.pdf (December 2010) Circle ID Articles · http://www.circleid.com/posts/say_no_to_wipos_proposal_to_amend_the_pddrp_t… (May 5, 2010) ICANN Analysis: · https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/pddrp-comment-summary-and-ana… (also has info on contract compliance) (May 2010) · https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-agv4-12nov10… (November 2010) - Pg 118 ICANN PDDRP (Revised May 2010): https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/pddrp-clean-28may10-en.pdf (Introduction addresses “The procedure is not intended to hold liable a registry operator that simply happens to have or knows of infringing domain names within its gTLD. Affirmative conduct is required.”) RYSG Statement to WIPO Proposal: https://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-base/docLoFbNFb2jb.doc (June 2010) Neustar position: https://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-guide/pdf6T19n10mO4.pdf (July 2010) Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Materials on Willful Blindness / PDDRP
by Paul Keating Aug. 10, 2016

Aug. 10, 2016

+1 absolutely. From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "David W. Maher" <dmaher(a)pir.org> Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 10:46 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Materials on Willful Blindness / PDDRP > +1 > > > David W. Maher > Public Interest Registry > Senior Vice-President Law & Policy > +1 312 375 4849 > > > From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On > Behalf Of Jeff Neuman > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 3:37 PM > To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Materials on Willful Blindness / PDDRP > > All, > > I just want to restate my point that I made on the call today. I believe our > job is not to rehash discussions that took place in 2008-2012 on the rights > protection mechanisms. Rather I believe our job is to assess whether any > changes to the RPMs (or additions to the RPMs) need to be made based on actual > evidence. In my personal opinion (not of my company or any client), a person > proposing changes to the policies or processes should have the burden showing > good cause as to why those change should be made. Absent a showing of that > good cause, I do not believe we should make the changes. > > On the call (and the chat) Lori (from INTA) and Susan K.(from Facebook) stated > that they had filed concerns with ICANN on certain registry practices and the > failure of ICANN to address them or the inapplicability of the existing RPMs > to cover those activities. I believe we should be looking at those concerns > (as well as any other issues that are brought forward), evaluate whether any > of them could (or should) have been brought under the existing RPMs, why they > were not, and whether we should address them by changing an existing RPM or > even adding a new one. > > Discussions on the PDDRP thus far have focused on what theoretical changes we > can make to the PDDRP to ³make it better² without any evidence being evaluated > by the group on whether or not there is a need to ³make it better.² One of > those proposals contemplates adding a willful blindness standard to the PDDRP > without any showing that such a lower standard is necessary or whether there > is any activity going on now (or in the past) that would fall under that lower > standard necessitating a change to the policy. > > Absent any evidence showing good cause to change the policy to include willful > blindness, the policy should not change. In fact, this issue was HEAVILY > discussed and argued in 2010-2011. Ultimately, ICANN decided that the PDDRP > should not include a willful blindness standard. I have included just some of > the comments that were filed by WIPO, myself, the Registries, Neustar and > others on this Issue including ICANN¹s analysis. There were other proponents > of willful blindness other than WIPO (including I believe MARQUES, INTA and > other IP organizations. I believe that this was even supported by the > governments during the Board-GAC consultations. I know I do not have them all > on here. But at the end of the day, this was not accepted. > > The point is that we should not be rehashing these old arguments. Our RPM PDP > should not a ³second bite at the apple². > > Here is a start for collecting the discussions that have already taken place: > > WIPO Proposal: > · https://forum.icann.org/lists/ppdrp-15feb10/pdfkYQ1rYb8Ni.pdf (March > 2010) > > · https://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-base/pdfjIZkXr0Dc2.pdf (June 2010) > > · https://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-base/pdf0nS63XScIt.pdf (December > 2010) > > > Circle ID Articles > · > http://www.circleid.com/posts/say_no_to_wipos_proposal_to_amend_the_pddrp_t… > reate_new_law/ (May 5, 2010) > > > ICANN Analysis: > · > https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/pddrp-comment-summary-and-ana… > is-28may10-en.pdf (also has info on contract compliance) (May 2010) > > · > https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-agv4-12nov10… > .pdf (November 2010) - Pg 118 > > > ICANN PDDRP (Revised May 2010): > https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/pddrp-clean-28may10-en.pdf > (Introduction addresses ³The procedure is not intended to hold liable a > registry operator that simply happens to have or knows of infringing domain > names within its gTLD. Affirmative conduct is required.²) > > RYSG Statement to WIPO Proposal: > https://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-base/docLoFbNFb2jb.doc (June 2010) > > Neustar position: https://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-guide/pdf6T19n10mO4.pdf > (July 2010) > > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Senior Vice President |Valideus USA| Com Laude USA > 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 > Mclean, VA 22102, United States > E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or > jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > T: +1.703.635.7514 > M: +1.202.549.5079 > @Jintlaw > > > _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

1 0

Materials on Willful Blindness / PDDRP
by Jeff Neuman Aug. 10, 2016

Aug. 10, 2016

All, I just want to restate my point that I made on the call today. I believe our job is not to rehash discussions that took place in 2008-2012 on the rights protection mechanisms. Rather I believe our job is to assess whether any changes to the RPMs (or additions to the RPMs) need to be made based on actual evidence. In my personal opinion (not of my company or any client), a person proposing changes to the policies or processes should have the burden showing good cause as to why those change should be made. Absent a showing of that good cause, I do not believe we should make the changes. On the call (and the chat) Lori (from INTA) and Susan K.(from Facebook) stated that they had filed concerns with ICANN on certain registry practices and the failure of ICANN to address them or the inapplicability of the existing RPMs to cover those activities. I believe we should be looking at those concerns (as well as any other issues that are brought forward), evaluate whether any of them could (or should) have been brought under the existing RPMs, why they were not, and whether we should address them by changing an existing RPM or even adding a new one. Discussions on the PDDRP thus far have focused on what theoretical changes we can make to the PDDRP to "make it better" without any evidence being evaluated by the group on whether or not there is a need to "make it better." One of those proposals contemplates adding a willful blindness standard to the PDDRP without any showing that such a lower standard is necessary or whether there is any activity going on now (or in the past) that would fall under that lower standard necessitating a change to the policy. Absent any evidence showing good cause to change the policy to include willful blindness, the policy should not change. In fact, this issue was HEAVILY discussed and argued in 2010-2011. Ultimately, ICANN decided that the PDDRP should not include a willful blindness standard. I have included just some of the comments that were filed by WIPO, myself, the Registries, Neustar and others on this Issue including ICANN's analysis. There were other proponents of willful blindness other than WIPO (including I believe MARQUES, INTA and other IP organizations. I believe that this was even supported by the governments during the Board-GAC consultations. I know I do not have them all on here. But at the end of the day, this was not accepted. The point is that we should not be rehashing these old arguments. Our RPM PDP should not a "second bite at the apple". Here is a start for collecting the discussions that have already taken place: WIPO Proposal: * https://forum.icann.org/lists/ppdrp-15feb10/pdfkYQ1rYb8Ni.pdf (March 2010) * https://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-base/pdfjIZkXr0Dc2.pdf (June 2010) * https://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-base/pdf0nS63XScIt.pdf (December 2010) Circle ID Articles * http://www.circleid.com/posts/say_no_to_wipos_proposal_to_amend_the_pddrp_t… (May 5, 2010) ICANN Analysis: * https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/pddrp-comment-summary-and-ana… (also has info on contract compliance) (May 2010) * https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-agv4-12nov10… (November 2010) - Pg 118 ICANN PDDRP (Revised May 2010): https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/pddrp-clean-28may10-en.pdf (Introduction addresses "The procedure is not intended to hold liable a registry operator that simply happens to have or knows of infringing domain names within its gTLD. Affirmative conduct is required.") RYSG Statement to WIPO Proposal: https://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-base/docLoFbNFb2jb.doc (June 2010) Neustar position: https://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-guide/pdf6T19n10mO4.pdf (July 2010) Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw

3 2

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group 10 August 2016
by Terri Agnew Aug. 10, 2016

Aug. 10, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call held on Wednesday, 10 August 2016 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/uwSsAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-10aug16-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXz…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/rhiOAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 10 August 2016: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call scheduled on Wednesday, 10 August 2016 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/uwSsAw George Kirikos:Hi folks. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hi All Paul Tattersfield:Hi All Sonigitu Ekpe:Hello All! Salvador Camacho Hernandez:Hello everybody! Mary Wong:@Kathy we will upload the redline Mary Wong:If it will make it easier to see the changes Marie Pattullo:Can answers be anonymous/aggregated? I'm not sure we'd get as much input if not. Mary Wong:@Marie, we can report aggregated total numbers but survey responses will be individual forms. Respondents can choose not to give their name, though. Marie Pattullo:Thanks Mary - that's what I was getting at; companies who may not wish to be named/cited. Dominic DeLuca(FORUM):Will/should UDRP decisions have any influence on the outcomes of PDDRPs? - Potential question for ICANN Compliance Marie Pattullo:Agree with Susan's question to Compliance. And can they say why the potential complainant chose not to proceed? Denise Michel:@ susan - i'd suggest not only asking if Compliance is empowered but also ask if they HAVE taken action based on data/information George Kirikos:Do we know if those registars were closely related to certain registries? (e.g. wholly-owned subsidiaries, common shareholders, etc?) susan payne:@George, we diont have any information about who the registrars are George Kirikos:Thanks, Susan. susan payne:the Analysis report does not identify organisations Sonigitu Ekpe:Yes susan payne:sounds good thanks Mary Wong:@Kathy, what you see in AC is the clean version of the updated document - seemed easier to review than the redline Mary Wong:OK let us know if you want us to switch to the redline - it gets a bit messy with the new boxes, though. George Kirikos:There was a straw poll sent to the mailing list, but only 17 folks filled it out: http://doodle.com/poll/nc8ydu8cbbywtabm George Kirikos:That was from last Friday's email, see: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2016-August/000407.html George Kirikos:I'm not sure what was meant with "mediation online" -- I think often it's by telephone, to be in "real-time", rather than "online". If it's online, it could drag on forever. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:George, online mediation is often conducted over Skype, etc. Mary Wong:@George, all - we note that further deliberation on the actual details of what that mediation would look like will be needed. The agreed idea is that it would have to be lightweight and lean. Kurt Pritz:If mediation is voluntary (and I think it should be) I don't think we should be prescriptive as to form. It can be whatever form the two parties wish it to be. Alistair Payne:I agree with Kurt - if mediation is voluntary then the parties should be able tio run it as they wish. Justine Chew:Submissions are submitted online too, no? Lori Schulman:Agree with Alistair and Kurt. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:Agree with Kurt, the key with mediation is that it meets the current needs of the current parties. Mary Wong:Sure thing, Kathy - that was our understanding but it may make sense to make it explicit, I guess. Luc Seufer:So Amazon is for online services? How surprising ;-) George Kirikos:I'd agree, that it should be "real-time", but not necessarily "online". If both parties are in the same location, a face-to-face mediation, with a mediator chosen in the same city, can be advantageous. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:Luc, to be clear, I disclaimed that as an Amazon statment. I was speaking historically from my experience as former director of NAF Luc Seufer:I was just teasing. I am also convinced online is the way for such mediation. Lori Schulman:I responded this morning. George Kirikos:i.e. goal of mediation is to encourage settlement, or narrowing the issues; can use technology in some ways to complement the "human" aspect, but not replace it. Lori Schulman:George, given our virtual world, mediation is a very good option for many. It should be consented on both sides. It is not intended to replace human aspects but to facilitate good outcomes. Mediation has been an extremely useful tool to settle distributes in my experience. Alistair Payne:Lori/George - agree with both but i think that the point is that in person mediation as an option is essential, not just on-line Paul Tattersfield:Alistair +1 Luc Seufer:if the party willing to have the in person mediation is accepting to support the extra costs, why not Lori Schulman:Alistair, yes, I agree with human or virtual option...option is key. George Kirikos:I agree, Alistair, keep options open that would help those involved with the dispute (i.e. the parties). Mandating a certain method in order to make it more convenient for a particular mediation provider shouldn't be a priority. George Kirikos:(i.e. parties might want to choose a mediation provider that is unrelated to the PDDRP dispute resolution providers) Justine Chew:+1 Jeff Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:YES Jeff. Alistair Payne:or simply to agree a mediator in their jurisdiction who is convenient and effective Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 Jeff Statton Hammock:Great point Jeff N. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:We are shooting in the dark trying to "solve" problems that haven't yet arisen. Darcy Southwell:+1 Jeff Justine Chew:Yes, Jeff sets out the logic for this point correctly. Lori Schulman:INTA has done that on several occasions. Lori Schulman:Many are reluctant to submit evidence for fear of reprisal. Lori Schulman:We are on record with a bad practices letter that was submitted to ICANN compliance last year. Lori Schulman:I can send letter to the list. John McElwaine:Its not only reprisal, but there are concerns of attorney/client privilege and waiver in providing such examples. Robin Gross:I agree with Jeff. George Kirikos:I agree with Jeff that 'evidence' should be the major impetus for change. However, one can also use reason and logic to justify changes, especially when there are scenarios that were not contemplated when the policy was put into place. George Kirikos:e.g. the limitation period for bringing disputes doesn't appear to have even been contemplated. Getting rid of that absurd scenario (where someone could initiate a PDDRP, when they could not file in court) would make sense, even if there's no "data" behind it since no disputes have ever even been filed. Darcy Southwell:Agree with Jeff - "evidence" needs to be presented that indciates a change is needed - otherwise we're trying to "fix" or "improve" upon something we don't know is a problem Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):was the behaviour allowed by the legal framework? Lori Schulman:Just sent INTA letter to Terri for posting. Mary Wong:Thanks, Lori. Paul Tattersfield:@George as well as time limitations there should be something to stop vexatious filings Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):As far as I know - the pricing is not regulated George Kirikos:In particular, it might be 10+ more years that these policies might be reviewed again within ICANN, so it makes sense to fix some absurdities. Lori Schulman:Also, INTA is planning an anonymized study on effect of new gTLD program and RPM's. We are hoping for more data based on anonymous responses to avoid the issues with reprisal, attorney client privilege, etc. George Kirikos:Right, Paul. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:What vexation filings???? Lori Schulman:Already sent. Mary Wong:All, just FYI - 18 respondents to the Doodle poll. All support not discussing burden of proof any further at this stage in the PDP. George Kirikos:Were we supposed to talk about the TMCH? (10 minutes ago) George Kirikos:I guess we're on it now. Jeff Neuman:I will put in my standing comment in the entire document which is that I believe the status quo with respect to the PDDRP (both substantive and procedural) should be maintained unless there is a good reason to change it. By good reason I mean that it should be the burden of those requesting a change to show good cause as to why it should be changed. Good reason should be supported by evidence. Caroline Chicoine:Sorry, but need to sign off Laurie Anderson:+1 Jeff Jeff Neuman:Mary - Can my note be added to the minutes or notes as a standing comment Mary Wong:@Jeff, sure. David Maher (PIR):+1 Jeff George Kirikos:We're getting a few more Doodle poll results (up to 20 participants now). http://doodle.com/poll/nc8ydu8cbbywtabm Folks might want to take a few minutes after this call to fill it out, if they've not already done so. Jeff Neuman:I think the subgroup should work on getting any and all information that people are willing to make available. Public or not. Terri Agnew:Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Groupis scheduled for Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 16:00 UTC for 60 minutes. George Kirikos:Bye folks. Laurie Anderson:Bye all Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:Thanks everyone, bye! Luc Seufer:bye all Jeff Neuman:bye Georges Nahitchevansky:Thanks everyone Salvador Camacho Hernandez:Bye! Robin Gross:bye Elizabeth Featherman:bye!

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for the WG call on Wednesday 10 August
by Paul Keating Aug. 10, 2016

Aug. 10, 2016

Please accept my regrets but I now have a client conference call that conflicts with this WTC call. Paul Keating From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 11:33 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for the WG call on Wednesday 10 August > Dear Working Group Members, > > Please find below the proposed agenda for the next Working Group call, > scheduled for Wednesday 10 August at 1700 UTC: > > 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect/audio bridge only); updates to Statements > of Interest > > 2. Finalize and agree on: (i) follow up questions to the three TM-PDDRP > Providers; (ii) questions for proposed Community Survey; and (iii) follow up > with ICANN Compliance (see attached document) > > 3. Continue discussion on Issues/Concerns/Suggestions with the TM-PDDRP > (see attached document and additional notes below) > > 4. Initial Report from TMCH Sub Team (see attached document) > > 5. Next steps/next meeting > > > For Agenda Item #2 please note that the questions for (i) and (ii) remain > unchanged from the version circulated on 5 August; the text for (iii) was > added but is taken from the previous Issues/Concerns/Suggestions document. > > For Agenda Item #3 this has been updated from the 5 August version > circulated previously. Please note that while the changes were based on > staff¹s subsequent consultation with the co-chairs, the co-chairs have not had > a chance to review the actual changes made. > > For Agenda Item #4 the TMCH Sub-team has prepared an Initial Report of its > activities to date. > > All documents referenced in this email have also been posted to the Working > Group wiki space for your easy reference: > https://community.icann.org/x/uwSsAw. For Members who have not yet filled out > the Doodle poll on the mediation option and burden of proof, please do so by > FRIDAY 12 AUGUST here: http://doodle.com/poll/nc8ydu8cbbywtabm. > > Finally, a gentle reminder: Members who unable to attend the meeting are > kindly requested to send your regrets to the GNSO Secretariat at > gnso-secs(a)icann.org. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary > > > Mary Wong > > Senior Policy Director > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org > > Telephone: +1-603-5744889 > > > _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

1 0