November 2017 - GNSO-RPM-WG

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Availability of Court for Domain Name owners challenging a URS decision -- false assumption?
by socata Nov. 23, 2017

Nov. 23, 2017

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Action Items from 15 November Working Group Call
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 21, 2017

Nov. 21, 2017

Hi Brian, Thank you for your helpful comments and suggestions. Your request is noted. Kind regards, Julie From: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int> Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 5:09 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Action Items from 15 November Working Group Call Thanks Julie, all, As I will not likely make the next call, given inter alia the timing, I would like to recall for staff, the co-chairs, and other WG members that (as was also made clear both in Abu Dhabi and on the last call) I have a range of comments on the URS charter questions. I believe others do as well. I understand that this is a work in progress, and that the chart staff is to prepare will try to capture comments made in Abu Dhabi and on the last call, so that is already helpful and very much appreciated! Noting the above, I would like to hereby request that no official WG decision is made as to the finalization of the URS charter questions until the WG has had a chance to meaningfully provide input. More specifically, if it is not possible to coalesce WG feedback via email, I would suggest that this is likely to require at least two full WG calls. Thanks for noting. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 8:55 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from 15 November Working Group Call Dear all, The action items noted by staff from the Working Group call held yesterday, Wednesday, 15 November, are as follows: Actions Items: 1. Staff will recirculate slides from the first URS session at ICANN60. 2. Staff will create a table with columns for the questions; proposed edits/comments/clarifications; provide context; new questions. Add a reference to the relevant section of the URS and link to the URS. For example: Column 1 is Original Charter Questions (the grouping as in the ICANN60 slides can provide a useful categorization to break up the table meaningfully); Column 2 can be Suggestions for Refinement; Column 3 can be Context/Additional Background (or similar); and Column 4 Data Collection Suggestions. The notes from the call and the actions have been posted to the Working Group wiki space, together with the call recording, transcript and Adobe Connect chat and attendance records. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Availability of Court for Domain Name owners challenging a URS decision -- false assumption?
by George Kirikos Nov. 21, 2017

Nov. 21, 2017

Hi folks, I brought up this topic on Wednesday's RPM PDP call, and Kathy suggested that I put the issue in writing for the benefit of the broader working group that hadn't attended the call. There's been an implicit and fundamental assumption that the URS (and similarly, the UDRP) doesn't interfere with the existing legal rights of a TM holder or a domain name registrant, and that either party can bring an action in court, heard on a de novo basis, to challenge the outcome of a URS (or a UDRP), either before, during or after the ADR procedure devised by ICANN. The ADR was intended to complement existing law, and wasn't intended to interfere with or replace existing law. Is that assumption correct in all jurisdictions worldwide? If not, what must be done to correct the situation? (since this violates the fundamental "bargain" that led to the establishment of those policies in the first place) This is not some theoretical concern. Consider the Yoyo.email case, described at: https://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2015/december/ruling-means-uk-courts-wi… https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b19a14df-9dc5-494e-bb6e-6351… https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4f1b77cc-8474-4e9f-b02d-f654… http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2015/3509.html "31. My conclusions on the application to strike out the Claim are: 1) adopting the reasoning of Ms Proudman in Patel drives me to hold that on a proper construction of the UDRP clause 4k does not give rise to a separate cause of action in favour of the claimant; 2) nor does it afford any jurisdiction to this Court to act as an appeal or review body from the Decision;" While the Yoyo.email court complainant is not a sympathetic party to some, the above decision attacks the very foundation of the URS (and UDRP). This should be a high priority for remedial policymaking, as it was an unintended consequence that is now having real-world effects. While the above is in the context of a court challenge to a UDRP decision against a domain name registrant, the exact same analysis applies to the URS. Thus, now is the appropriate time to tackle the issue (and kill two birds with one stone). This jurisprudence appears limited to the UK, and perhaps Australia where apparently a few other cases may have encountered the same problem (as has been discussed in the IGOs PDP where I and a few other members of this RPM PDP first discussed the issue). The cause of the problem is easy to identify. If there was no URS (or UDRP) policy in place what would be the "law" and the procedural path to justice? Clearly, a trademark holder would have a "cause of action" under trademark law against a domain name registrant. The TM holder would file a lawsuit (as plaintiff) against the domain name registrant (as defendant). With the URS (or UDRP), the procedural path to justice is altered in the event a TM holder uses it and is successful under the ADR. To challenge the outcome of the ADR, the domain name registrant now has the role of the plaintiff in court, and the TM holder is the defendant. The parties have switched their prior positions as plaintiffs and defendants, and it turns out that might cause a significant problem in some jurisdictions. i.e. it might make a difference which party to the dispute files in court as plaintiff in some jurisdictions. That UK court is saying that ICANN can't simply conjure a "cause of action" out of thin air. If the domain name registrant brings a case in that UK court, that court is saying "you have no cause of action, ICANN can't create one for you, bye bye, case dismissed." Now, under the ACPA in the USA, there is a clear cause of action for domain name registrants that they can follow, so it's not a problem. And other courts in other jurisdictions have heard cases similarly brought by a domain name registrant challenging ADR procedures devised by ICANN. If we look at the language of URS itself: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf "13. Other Available Remedies The URS Determination shall not preclude any other remedies available to the appellant, such as UDRP (if appellant is the Complainant), or other remedies as may be available in a court of competent jurisdiction. A URS Determination for or against a party shall not prejudice the party in UDRP or any other proceedings." It's clear that in some jurisdictions, there appears to be that exact "prejudice" to the domain name registrant, who now becomes a "plaintiff with no cause of action". Without the procedure, they would have been a "defendant with available defenses to the cause of action brought by the trademark holder." The ADR procedure itself, by switching who becomes plaintiff and who becomes defendant in a lawsuit, is interfering with the rights those parties had before the policies were adopted by ICANN. What could be done to restore the proper balance? (1) the URS (and/or UDRP) could be eliminated entirely (or made optional for the domain name owner), or (2) in the event a court refuses to hear a case brought by the domain name owner challenging a URS (or UDRP) ruling, then the URS (or UDRP) decision needs to be set aside, and the TM owner can instead file a TM dispute themselves directly in real court if they want to take the dispute further. Paul McGrady suggested a third option on Wednesday, namely: (3) allowing all domain registrants to file actions in US courts which, I think would be problematic for obvious reasons (but I do applaud him for participating in the active discussions, thinking on his feet and helping to brainstorm during a live call). [Why should a Chinese registrant in a dispute with a Pakistani TM holder for a domain at an Irish TLD / registry operator and a German registrar be compelled to have the dispute heard in the USA?] We have to make policies that are robust to global law and international jurisdictions. I look forward to a productive discussion on this important topic. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

5 15

Action Items from 15 November Working Group Call
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 21, 2017

Nov. 21, 2017

Dear all, The action items noted by staff from the Working Group call held yesterday, Wednesday, 15 November, are as follows: Actions Items: 1. Staff will recirculate slides from the first URS session at ICANN60. 2. Staff will create a table with columns for the questions; proposed edits/comments/clarifications; provide context; new questions. Add a reference to the relevant section of the URS and link to the URS. For example: Column 1 is Original Charter Questions (the grouping as in the ICANN60 slides can provide a useful categorization to break up the table meaningfully); Column 2 can be Suggestions for Refinement; Column 3 can be Context/Additional Background (or similar); and Column 4 Data Collection Suggestions. The notes from the call and the actions have been posted to the Working Group wiki space, together with the call recording, transcript and Adobe Connect chat and attendance records. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

2 1

REMINDER - no meeting this week / Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group
by Terri Agnew Nov. 20, 2017

Nov. 20, 2017

**REMINDER: the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 22 November has been canceled to avoid conflicts with those members in the US who may be traveling for the US Thanksgiving holiday. Thank you. With kind regards, Terri --- Terri Agnew Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: terri.agnew(a)icann.org <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org> Skype ID: terri.agnew.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy…>

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Article on Combo-squatting study conducted by Georgia Institute of Technology and Stony Brook University affecting our discussion of Trademark + Industry Terms in the TMCH, Sunrise and Claims (among other RPMs that it may also implicate)
by icannlists Nov. 17, 2017

Nov. 17, 2017

Hi George, Not parody at all. I think it was important for you to raise the issue of how far the Georgia Tech report goes and keeping us aware of where it doesn't go. By you extrapolating the unlikely worst case scenario (e.g. nearly all domain names are abusive), you encourage us to deal with the problem as identified by the Georgia Tech report (which is bad enough) and keeps us focused on trying to draw reasonable extrapolations from the data as applied to the other marks not mentioned in the study rather than running off and viewing the problem through a strictly apocalyptic lens. In other words, the problem is bigger than just the data set that Georgia Tech came up with, but smaller than "all domains." This is an important thing to keep in mind as we try to work together to build constructive solutions to deal with the problem. Best, Paul -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 7:57 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Article on Combo-squatting study conducted by Georgia Instutute of Technology and Stony Brook University affecting our discussion of Trademark + Industry Terms in the TMCH, Sunrise and Claims (among other RPMs that it may also implicate) Hi Paul, I'm not sure if that was a parody post, or whether the point I was making was missed. If one reasonably extrapolates and gets to a point where one has to claim that more than 100% of all domains are abusive, that implies something is wrong with one's starting point (i.e. the claimed abuse for the small sample was likely overstated; or as Zhou Heng noted earlier, was unrepresentative, just like the poorly done INTA study). To get a sense of scale, 268 marks is less than 1% of just the TMCH-listed marks. And the set of TMCH-listed marks (what was it, 40K or 50K total?) are a small subset of all TMs. Another data point was the number from Nominet released earlier this week: https://www.nominet.uk/collaboration-keeps-uk-safe-record-16000-domains-sus… "The criminality report shows that the number of .UK domains suspended between 1 November 2016 and 31 October 2017 has once again doubled year on year to 16,632, which represents around 0.14% of the more than 12 million .UK domains currently registered." I think that's perhaps a more realistic metric of the incidence of criminality (0.14%), and those suspensions *include* IP-related crime. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 8:29 AM, icannlists <icannlists(a)winston.com> wrote: > Hi George, > > You raise a fair point. With just 268 US based marks examined, the abuse is beyond rampant. If we are to extrapolate to other well-known marks, for example the excellent examples you mention - pharma, childrens toys, the abuse moves from beyond rampant to just plain old staggering, even without assuming (as you did in your note) of a 1 to 1 ration of abuse between the 268 noted examples and the remaining marks in the world. > > Unfortunately for the abusers in the domain name industry, it will not be possible to un-shine the light that the Georgia Tech study has shown on them. It is up to all of us to deal with the head on. Glad to see you joining in that effort!! > > Best, > Paul > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of > George Kirikos > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 5:49 PM > To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Article on Combo-squatting study conducted > by Georgia Instutute of Technology and Stony Brook University > affecting our discussion of Trademark + Industry Terms in the TMCH, > Sunrise and Claims (among other RPMs that it may also implicate) > > P.S. Where the math really starts to break down is if one attempts to extrapolate this to the larger population of all markholders and marks worldwide. Remember, this was just 268 *US* ones. Even "Lego" > wouldn't have been on the list (famous for their voluminous UDRP filings), since their Alexa rank is around 2647 worldwide, 1,785 in the USA (see https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/lego.com ), and thus not in the top 500. Many of those pharma brands that are famous and see a lot of cybersquatting aren't in the Alexa top 500 either (I won't name them, lest they trigger spam warnings). > > What % of worldwide marks is 268? Far below 1%. But, let's suppose that they represent 1% of cybersquatting. Would it be argued that 2.7 million "bad" domains for that subset of 268 marks means that the number of "bad" domains classified as "combosquatting" must be 100 times 2.7 million, or 270 million? Depending on how one extrapolates, one might even generate a claimed total abuse (just from combosquatting, not even counting all the other types of typosquatting, etc.) that exceeds the actual total number of domain name registrations quite easily (which is absurd). > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > http://www.leap.com/ > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 5:23 PM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: >> The numbers appear overstated. After a first pass, I don't see the >> complete list of all 268 of the marks they studied (maybe I missed >> it), but several (Amazon, Adobe, Delta, Yahoo) still appear to be >> dictionary words where it would be false to claim that >> Mark+Dictionary word is automatically "bad." Indeed, when you look at >> table 7 at the top right of page 11, they classify 86.6% of the >> so-called "combosquatting pages" as "Unknown", and only 13.39% as "Malicious". >> And of those alleged "malicious" ones, 69.9% were an ambiguous >> "trademark abuse" (not phishing, social engineering, or "affiliate >> abuse"), which seems likely to yield even more false positives. >> >> Their attempt at detecting "false positives" leaves much to be >> desired, i.e. whitelisting only the top 10,000 Alexa domains (see >> page 4, Alexa list). My company's math.com domain name wouldn't get >> white-listed by that standard (and it gets millions of visitors/year). >> Neither would school.com. Alexa Top 10,000 sites get enormous traffic >> --- many legitimate but lower traffic sites wouldn't be whitelisted >> by their methodology. >> >> Importantly, they didn't seem to use WHOIS or Zone Files in their >> data sets (see page 4, section 3.2). i.e. they trumpet the "468 >> billion DNS records" (many DNS requests and website visits are >> generated by bots, not human beings, these days), but there are >> perhaps roughly 150 million gTLD domain names for which ICANN makes policy. >> >> And it would seem, by their methodology, that they might even count >> defensive registrations by brand owners themselves as "combo >> squatting". e.g. if Microsoft owns MicrosoftOffice.com, does that get >> accounted for properly? 2.7 million domains divided by 268 marks >> equals 10,074 domains/mark, which sounds like a lot, but Microsoft >> already owns tens of thousands of domains, according to DomainTools: >> >> https://whois.domaintools.com/microsoft.com >> >> as do many of the other markholders like Google, Yahoo, etc. I hope >> those weren't counted improperly. >> >> I think seeing the results by TLD would also be useful (e.g. .TK >> domains are free, and openly abused), as well as what effect the >> "promos" from new gTLDs has had (e.g. domains under $1/yr), and >> whether historic domain tasting might have also accounted for some of >> the measurements. >> >> Not saying the problem doesn't exist, as there are lots of bad actors. >> But, if it was a "growing threat" as claimed, the evidence would be >> directly observable via increased lawsuits, increased UDRP filings, >> etc. More important would be to discern whether there is an increase >> in the number of bad actors, rather than just measuring things by >> domains. e.g. 2.7 million bad actors registering one domain name each >> is a lot different than 10 bad actors registering 270,000 bad domains >> each. I think the latter situation is to be preferred, from a policy >> perspective (i.e. better to have tools to handle the >> industrial-cybersquatter, where the incidence of false positives and >> collateral damage from policymaking will be lower). Others might >> correct me, but it's my sense from media reports that more of the bad >> actors have shifted their focus to social media and apps abuse, >> rather than domain abuse, to generate traffic (e.g. Facebook, Android >> apps, etc.). Due to tools like Chrome "Safebrowing" blacklists, >> rarely do I ever actually encounter abusive domains these days. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> George Kirikos >> 416-588-0269 >> http://www.leap.com/ > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg > > ________________________________ > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

1 0

Article on Combo-squatting study conducted by Georgia Instutute of Technology and Stony Brook University affecting our discussion of Trademark + Industry Terms in the TMCH, Sunrise and Claims (among other RPMs that it may also implicate)
by icannlists Nov. 17, 2017

Nov. 17, 2017

http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/Blog/detail.aspx?g=cf4bc6c3-272f-4ccd-8… A few quotes from the article for those with less time: · “Combosquatting is a type of domain name squatting in which website addresses confusingly similar to well-known brands are deliberately registered, often with a view to committing fraudulent activity. Specifically, it involves the registration of a popular trademark combined with another phrase – for example, ‘brand-shop.com’.” · “Among the striking findings is that there were over 2.7 million combosquatting domains targeting the 268 most popular US trademarks – a prevalence over 100 times greater than typosquatting domains.” · “The problem seems to be getting worse with the number of queries to these domains growing year-on-year, also in contrast with typosquatting sites.” · “This potential to more effectively dupe consumers has serious consequences for both internet users and brand owners. To date, combosquatting domains have been used for phishing, spamming, hacking, and affiliate abuse.” Here is a link to the Full Study: http://iisp.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/images/hiding_in_plain_sight-_a_… Here is the Conclusion Section (I’ve taken the liberty of highlighting a few phrases): “In this paper, we study a type of domain squatting termed “combosquatting,” which has yet to be extensively studied by the security community. By registering domains that include popular trademarks (e.g., paypal-members[.]com), attackers are able to capitalize on a trademark’s recognition to perform social engineering, phishing, affiliate abuse, trademark abuse, and even targeted attacks. We performed the first large-scale, empirical study of combosquatting using 468 billion DNS records from both active and passive DNS datasets, which were collected over an almost six year time period. Lexical analysis of combosquatting domains revealed that, while there is an almost infinite pool of potential combosquatting domains, most instances add only a single token to the original combosquatted domain. Furthermore, the chosen tokens were often specifically targeted to a particular business category. These results can help brands limit the potential search space for combosquatting domains. Additionally, our results show that most combosquatting domains were not remediated for extended periods of times—up to 1,000 days in many cases. Furthermore, many instances of combosquatting abuse were seen active significantly before they were discovered by public blacklists or malware feeds. Consequently, our findings suggests that current protections do not do a good job at addressing the threat of combosquatting. This is particularly concerning because our results also show that combosquatting is becoming more prevalent year over year. Lastly, we found numerous instances of combosquatting abuse in the real world by crawling 1.3 million combosquatting domains and manually analyzing the results. Based on our findings we discuss the role of different parties in the domain name ecosystem and how each party can help tackle the overall combosquatting problem. Ultimately, our results suggest that combosquatting is a real and growing threat, and the security community needs to develop better protections to defend against it.” I’m asking Staff to enter this study into the record of this WG Actual, growing problem identified and verified by external research: Let’s get down to business solving it by enhancing the RPMs to address it in order to protect end users of the Internet. I don’t think we need to wait for the rest of the studies to come back to get underway. It is laid out pretty plainly in the Georgia Tech Study. Best, Paul ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.

7 10

Presentation from Saturday URS RPM Session at ICANN60
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 16, 2017

Nov. 16, 2017

Dear all, An action item from the call on 15 November was for staff to circulate the slides from the URS RPM session at ICANN60 that was held on Saturday, 28 October. As excerpted from the message below, this was the relevant session: Saturday 28 October, 17.00-18.30: Staff presentation & Working Group discussion – Overview of the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS); initial staff data findings on URS cases – See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbIa/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-… As with the other RPMs, the Working Group commenced with a brief overview of the URS presented by ICANN staff, as a framework for staff’s presentation of the initial data we have compiled about URS cases filed and decided up to June 2017. While the materials and presentation slides are available at the above link, staff also has attached the slides for reference. Best regards, Julie From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 2:36 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items and Links from RPM Sessions at ICANN60 Dear all, Staff is pleased to provide the following action items and links from the RPM sessions at ICANN60. These also are posted to the Working Group wiki meetings pages at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2017+Meetings by meeting date. Please let us know if you have any questions or need further information. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Saturday 28 October, 15.15-16.45: Data Sub Team Working Session – See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbIa/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-… This session was a full working session for the Data Sub Team, which has begun reviewing the Sunrise and Trademark Claims data request recently approved by the GNSO Council with a view toward developing clarifications and specific guidance regarding the proposed surveys for the survey designer to be selected through an ICANN Request for Proposals (RFP). The session was open to all to attend. Action Items: Post Table 2 to the ICANN meeting schedule (DONE). UDRP data – Once we have a better sense of how to get the data, and what to get, staff can develop a timeline to produce usable data. In addition to research and blog, should we get a sampling of different types of domains in terms of sunrise and general availability pricing – look at the charter question as to whether this prevented someone from participating in sunrise? Question 8 re: semantics of programming that can be used to test historical data to see how many claims notices can be generated – examples: “fat-finger typos”. Rules can be applied for each type of mistake. Need to determine these rules before requesting the data so we don’t end up with too many. Put this on a back burner until we do more of the quantitative analysis on URS and UDRP data. Need to answer the question: What types of data should generate claims notices? Are there other ways we can get the data to inform that analysis? Saturday 28 October, 17.00-18.30: Staff presentation & Working Group discussion – Overview of the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS); initial staff data findings on URS cases – See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbIa/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-… As with the other RPMs, the Working Group commenced with a brief overview of the URS presented by ICANN staff, as a framework for staff’s presentation of the initial data we have compiled about URS cases filed and decided up to June 2017. Action Items: Table 4: Possible to get a column showing when these domains launched for the top 30 shown in the chart. Staff will review the data charts to make sure the total numbers are consistent. In Table 6, the number for default (no response filed) does not show the number for which the claimant did not prevail: staff will develop an additional table (per the added note below the current table). Staff likely will review/refine tables 8 and 9, and also get more detail on average of duration. Staff will produce another version of the data in a couple of weeks. Staff will fetch WHOIS data for these URS cases to help address charter questions. The data will be useful both to analyze Trademark Claims and URS. Newer cases (e.g. less than a year) will be relatively easy to obtain. Older ones will be more of a challenge. Monday 30 October, 15.15-16.45: Meeting with the Competition, Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust (CCT) Review Team – See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbK7/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-… The CCT Review Team is preparing its final recommendations, which includes a section on RPMs. Their preliminary report (issued in March 2017) had included some initial recommendations concerning RPMs that implicate our PDP work. The CCT Review Team briefed our Working Group on their likely final RPM recommendations at this meeting. Action Items: Staff will forward DMPM request to the CCT-RT. The RPM PDP WG will share with the CCT Review Team what their plan is with regard to the TMCH to ensure that we are headed in right direction to meet Recommendation 42. The CCT Review Team will follow up with the Analysis Group about the questions concerning costs. Staff will forward to CCT-RT Support Team the recording/transcript of the Mon 30 Oct session once they are available. Staff will post the AC transcript of the Mon 30 Oct session on the wiki workspace (DONE). Staff will post the CCT-RT slides to the wiki workspace & meeting schedule webpage (DONE). Thursday 2 November, 13.30-15.00: Working Group and Community Feedback Session on Experiences with the URS – See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbF6/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-… and This session followed on the introductory Saturday session. The Working Group and community members were invited to provide direct feedback on their experiences with the URS, to inform the Working Group’s review of the Charter questions for the URS. As was the case with the TMCH, Sunrise and Trademark Claims, the Working Group is expected to form a Sub Team to review and refine the URS Charter questions for further Working Group consideration. Action Items: (referenced slides are posted to the wiki and also at the above link) Slide 4: “Should the ability for defaulting respondents in URS cases to file a reply for an extended period (e.g. up to one year) after the default notice, or even after a default determination is issued (in which case the complaint could be reviewed anew) be changed?” [first bullet] Comments: Understanding is that in that case (before a complaint is filed), the registrant then renews for up to 10 years, in which case, if he/she loses a URS proceeding then the suspension could last for as long as 10 years. Slide 6: Question on sanctions needs to be rephrased (“what sanctions should be allowed for misuse of the URS for Trademark owners”) – also doesn’t mention sanctions for repeat offenders. Exercise for the Sub Team to find the context/origins for the questions, for which staff can help. Split the sections into two for sake of clarity. Sounds like the need for training/education needs to be raised (training registrants in rights and protections). Slide 7: Request to strike the first question: “Assess the benefit of the Arbitration Forums Self-Reviews...” Think about what is the financial model for the URS? Slide 8: Consider bifurcating this question. 1) whether administering consistently; 2) if the supplemental rules are inconsistent. Encourage the WG to look into the relationship between ICANN and providers. Question bullet 4: strike the question or comprehensively re-write. Try to find the context.

1 0

Updates RE: Clarification re: Timing of Working Group Weekly Calls
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 16, 2017

Nov. 16, 2017

Dear all, Just a few updates. First, the meeting on Wednesday, 22 November will be canceled to avoid conflicts with those members in the US who may be traveling for the US Thanksgiving holiday. Second, if we move the meeting time to 1800 UTC then to be consistent we should move the rotating APAC time for every 4th meeting currently at 0300 UTC to 0400 UTC. Thus, we would like to hear from WG members if they have any concerns about moving the meeting times one hour ahead (1700 to 1800 UTC, and 0300 to 0400 UTC), noting that the next meeting on Wednesday, 30 November is the APAC rotation. Kind regards, Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 2:17 PM To: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Clarification re: Timing of Working Group Weekly Calls Thanks for the feedback Brian and we do note the challenges. If I recall correctly (and others can correct me if I am wrong) I think the original time was the consensus of a Doodle poll. As always when using these polls while the time may have worked for a majority of respondents, it is unlikely that it worked for everyone. Kind regards, Julie From: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int> Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 2:10 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Clarification re: Timing of Working Group Weekly Calls Thanks Julie, >From Europe, moving the start of these calls from 6pm to 7pm (ending at 8:30 pm) makes consistent participation more difficult, though we will do our best. If anything, moving the calls an hour in the other direction would be better. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 7:50 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Clarification re: Timing of Working Group Weekly Calls Dear Working Group members, Staff would like to point out that following the time change from daylight to standard time, it has been customary to change the time in UTC in order to preserve the original time of the meetings so that they stay at the same time as they were for most zones. Thus, although today’s call (15 November) was set at 1700 UTC, if we followed our usual custom it would revert to 1800 UTC in order that the time remains at 1000 PST, 1300 EST, etc. Note that some Working Group members did alert us to the fact that they assume the call would stay the same time and that they have conflicts if it is an hour earlier (as it was today). Unless there are objections, staff would like to suggest that we follow that custom for future meetings of this Working Group, by which the next call would be at 1800 UTC on 22 November for 90 minutes. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Recordings, Attendance, AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 15 November 2017 17:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Nov. 15, 2017

Nov. 15, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Wednesday, 15 November 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/egByB MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-15nov17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p8ykgtkkwoh/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=ce7e785a0a091b72 246862de4fa632b84d8777a9ce753fff8c3bfcf2940c2a6f> https://participate.icann.org/p8ykgtkkwoh/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: <https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw> https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Adobe Connect chat transcript for 15 November 2017: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Wednesday, 15 November 2017 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minute duration. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ egByB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wGj1MdxonDKms &s=kjzUHs1lkd31YpjR-olT5SZb7tdRYAZmCDhDrjf2hMU&e> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_e gByB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIg mkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wGj1MdxonDKms& s=kjzUHs1lkd31YpjR-olT5SZb7tdRYAZmCDhDrjf2hMU&e= George Kirikos:Hi folks. Kathy Kleiman:Hi George and All! George Kirikos:Welcome Kathy. Paul Tattersfield:Hi Everyone George Kirikos:Hi Paul. Philip Corwin:Hello all Paul Tattersfield:Congratulations on your new appointment Phil Philip Corwin:Thanks Paul. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Registry call immediately precedes this. Susan Payne:this works well for the RySG call which just finished Mary Wong:Yes, both RySG and this WG call changed according to the change in daylight savings Steve Levy:Sorry for joining late Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): Hello all Kathy Kleiman:Next slide, please George Kirikos:Muffled audio? John McElwaine:Are these the identical slides that we went over in Abu Dhabi or have they been edited based upon our discussions there? Rebecca L Tushnet:Can other people hear? Terri Agnew:@Kristine, let me know if a dial out is needed on the telephone George Kirikos:Not well. Mary Wong:@John, these are the same slides WIPO - Brian Beckham:(very muffled, Kristine) George Kirikos:It's best to use the telephone bridge. George Kirikos:VOIP sucks. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:This is the same headset that's been craxy loud until now...weird. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):skype to ICANN's number works fine sometimes Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:just waiting for someone to pick up Terri Agnew:I have alerted the op WIPO - Brian Beckham:(sorry) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'm bad Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:back Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:LOL George Kirikos:All the docs are at: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-November/002560.html> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-November/002560.html for those who want to scroll on their own. WIPO - Brian Beckham:Have we agreed not to use a subteam to refine these URS questions? Mary Wong:@Brian, I believe not using a sub taem for URS charter questions is something the co-chairs are proposing Jon Nevett:Does Kristine get an award for that?? George Kirikos:Plus additional questions in the middle column of that table. George Kirikos:+1 Kristine Susan Payne:only if i get one too Jon. and I think we deserve something :) George Kirikos:Those 2 other columns would be blank, so this is just a starting point. Brian J Winterfeldt:Wanted to send along aplogies for Lori Schulman from INTA who continues to unfortunately be under the weather. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:To be clear, this slide is current charter questions? Not proposed new ones? Mary Wong:@KRistine, yes George Kirikos:Right, the "new" ones were in that 2nd document. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:OK, good. thanks for helping me catch up. Mary Wong:The additional document that Julie sent around has the additional sugestions George Kirikos:Plus, other ones that might come up (I have a couple of questions to add, when we get to the next slide). Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Brian, the subteams who've used this process HAVE extensively relied on offline review and doc collaboration. I expect we'll get there. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Point being: I think you're not wrong, just early. claudio:once we finalize the list of questions, I think it may make sense to consider using subteams, if for example there are 4-5 major URS subtopics under review Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree with Phil, if you wouldn't join a URS Subteam, then skip Wednesdays for a while. :) Paul Tattersfield:Would it be possible to unlock the slides please George Kirikos:I think we've all read them already? Mary Wong:Link to the slides: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ Qi0hB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wGj1MdxonDKms &s=v86KacsCe-Cb6EsBRSZsTgY07BKNaxDMkeCFPEMIhMc&e> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_Q i0hB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIg mkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wGj1MdxonDKms& s=v86KacsCe-Cb6EsBRSZsTgY07BKNaxDMkeCFPEMIhMc&e= Paul Tattersfield: thank you Susan Payne:sorry, I forgeot to dial in J. Scott:Given the low turnout in Abu Dahbi, reading the comments would be helpful. Terri Agnew:Susasn is on audio J. Scott:Couldn't we shorten Q1 so the question isn't so convoluted? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I think one of the problems with these questions is that they ask for a recommendation without highlighting the issue. I think we can sort of imagine what the problems might be but I wonder if our chart should have an "issues" column so we can try to identify the "why" WIPO - Brian Beckham:@J Scott: perhaps it should be broken up into different questions? J. Scott:+1 @ Kristine George Kirikos:Ensures due process for registrant. WIPO - Brian Beckham:Agree with Kristine - this goes to my earlier comment about these questions making unstated assumptions/lacking context. Griffin Barnett:Agree we could improve the clarity of Q1, and also agree with Kristine's suggestion of expressly identifying the issue/concern that the Q is aimed at addressing Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:For examples, is Q1, really: Do defaulting respondents get a disproportionate benefit from the extended reply period? Do complainants have disproportionate uncertainty? Is the extended reply process even used? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:^Example, not opinion George Kirikos:Cracking noise on audio. Mary Wong:@Brian, what unstated assumptions or context is lacking? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Mary, I think it's the same problem we had on the claims subteam, where every question is "should we do x" without any statement of the concern (and which party might be affected) J. Scott:Agree Kristine. Jeff Neuman:There are a number of us on this call and in this group that were part of the original drafters of the URS from the IRT, STI, etc. I think I speak for all of us when we state that every word of the URS was intentionally put in there for a reason and had a purpose. All of this is to say that context is going to be critical within this group Jon Nevett:One related issue to add please is whether an unsuccessful registrant should be able to renew the domain name (unlimited renewal or just during an appeal) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:It reads like a hodgepodge of wishlists from a variety of parties....no context (again, this is par for the charter questions we've been looking at) Terri Agnew:Cracking is from Claudio's line, we are attemping to adjust on the telephone side Mary Wong:@Kristine and everyone - as noted previously, these are basically all the suggestions received from comments without any further edits from the Council Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes, for sure Mary George Kirikos:Are burdens shifted in court when parties have lost cases previously? Methinks not. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Just flagging "same problem" :) Paul Tattersfield:Good question Griffin Barnett:@Jon, good question; we can probably address this in connection with the remedies question(s) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree, Susan, our edits column needs to not only address context, but also neutrality Paul McGrady:+1 Susan. The questions can't presuppose the answers to the unasked questions. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Charter questions should be neutral. Susan Payne:we want to edit Susan Payne:we spend months editing previously - possibly too long. But no editing at all misses the balance entirely Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I am not sure similarity could be checked via a cheap simple process Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree with Susan. Whether we call this "the WG" or a "subteam", we cannot skip the editing step. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:If people don't want to do that, they need to skip a few calls. Susan Payne:excellent suggestion J Scott J. Scott:Before you call on me I heard Jonathan Matkowsky speak upt Paul McGrady:@J. Scott - +1 Paul McGrady:Agree. Let's get them organized and then clean them up to be nuetral and clear. Mary Wong:@J Scott, @Kristine and everyone - presumably this exercise should not only clarify the actual questions but also fill in gaps if needed (as per the other Sub Teams for the other RPMs)? J. Scott:We could take a look at the suggested edits each week and come to consensus. Cyntia King:+1 J Scott WIPO - Brian Beckham:Yes, agree Mary, we should have the opportunity to add questions, as needed George Kirikos:Yes, the recent 3-letter .com default cases have helped highlight this issue. George Kirikos:(in the UDRP) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree Mary. I am advocating strongly (since my first comment today) that we repeat the SAME process we've used previously. J. Scott:@Mary and Brian. I agree. We can edit the curent questions for clarity and neutrality and add any additional questions the group feels are need to fill gaps to cover the issue identified. Susan Payne:@Kristine -= me too Paul McGrady:@Kathy - very useful exercise Susan Payne:@Kathy, well there were various comments in AD about the Qs, but since these are the same slides those comments haven't yet been incorporated. When we have our grid it can capture feedback from both sessions Susan Payne:You can seek a declaration of non infringement in the UK George WIPO - Brian Beckham:An example of what I meant earlier: this third bullet asks "how" the appeals process can be "expanded" without asking whether it should be, and if so, why (and what does "expanded" mean anyhow?) Griffin Barnett:+1 Brian...maybe just "improved" Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):a simple village court hearing halts URS ... Jon Nevett:I'm putting this back in chat b/c the question might be more applicable here -- One related issue to add please is whether an unsuccessful registrant should be able to renew the domain name (unlimited renewal or just during an appeal) Michael R Graham:My Chat is not opeating correctly -- it is still congratulating Phil -- which is great, but misses the postings. Susan Payne:We are dealing with the URS here. Not the UDRP. Just to be clear Sara Bockey:I will need to drop at the top of the hour for another call. Griffin Barnett:@Claudio: what would be the practical difference between a perpetual suspension vs. perpetual block? Terri Agnew:@Michael, you may need to upgrade your adobe connect plug in's. Check you plug in's: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_icannactest &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wGj1MdxonDKms&s=sq aSlwT9wHymJ50SuwGeS8pOI_rX5XeGI_AdLKfbO0U&e> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_icannactest& d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhF zL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wGj1MdxonDKms&s=sqa SlwT9wHymJ50SuwGeS8pOI_rX5XeGI_AdLKfbO0U&e= Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Julie, just flagging Jon's question above for the notes - I can see you're typing like mad... WIPO - Brian Beckham:In terms of appeals questions, we may want to consider a question to address the potential for gaming, as was raised in the past in the UDRP context: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_amc_en_doc s_icann090409.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=D Ra2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1w Gj1MdxonDKms&s=AYyL4ZS6e9Ava4rQ4rTVE_E5Jaes9pf4bIpjO37TJyY&e> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_amc_en_docs _icann090409.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DR a2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wG j1MdxonDKms&s=AYyL4ZS6e9Ava4rQ4rTVE_E5Jaes9pf4bIpjO37TJyY&e= George Kirikos:The right to appeal to the courts affects BOTH the UDRP and the URS. Griffin Barnett:+1 Paul - let's just focus on URS now. Might be same issues again during UDRP review, but it's not what we are doing now. George Kirikos:So, now is the time to do it. Julie Hedlund:@Kristine: I'll be reviewing the chat for questions to add too -- can't keep up ;-) Julie Hedlund:As you can see. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I know! you're amazing. Paul Tattersfield:Can URS not be appealed? Griffin Barnett:OK to raise the issue now as it relates to URS, but let's not conflate the two Griffin Barnett:URS absolutely can be appealed George Kirikos:@Griffin: it affects them both identically. Griffin Barnett:@George, that's fine if that's the case, but let's just focus now on the issue w/r/t URS Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:domain name cases are filed de novo....they're not really an appeal, which is a review of a lower court's determination. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):explicit use of a particular jurisdiction needs to be justified WIPO - Brian Beckham:For the fourth bullet, the cost allocation question, is this meant to cover a possible (ICANN, contracted party, etc.?) subsidy, e.g., as in the eBay VeRO program? Griffin Barnett:@Kristine, fair point Mary Wong:@Brian, all - if it helps, and possibly for specific questions, staff can go back and retrieve the origin of those questions for context. Griffin Barnett:Under URS tho there is a specific appeal mechanism, which remains within the domain dispute system George Kirikos:If we're going to make recommendations about the URS before we get to the UDRP, then this still needs to be studied in the context of the URS. WIPO - Brian Beckham:For the second bullet, how do we judge the "sufficiency" of the suspension? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@ Brian, I suggest (based on how we handled this before) asking: what evidence is there that the current term is too long or not long enough? To Jeff's point, we're looking for problems, If there are none, then the answer is "yes, it's sufficient." claudio:@Julie, here is my suggested tweak: "Should the URS allow for additional remedies, such as a perpetual suspension, block, or a "right of first refusal" to register the domain name in question?" Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'm a supporter of the Neuman rule Julie Hedlund:@Claudio: Thanks! Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Claudio, I'll push back...your question again is subjective. Should we do x. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Let's start with "what are the problems...." Justine Chew:+1 Kristine, and absolutely agree with what Jeff is saying. George Kirikos:Not in agreement. claudio:@kristine, I used should because that's how the question is currently framed, but agree George Kirikos:Bad past decisions should be reviewed. Paul Tattersfield:George +1 Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@George, past bad decisions can and should be evidence of some of the bad things we're trying to address. Those should be considered. George Kirikos:Zero-based budgeting. Start from zero. J. Scott:I think Jeff is saying that we need to identify a problem caused by the current policy. If it is simply, we do not like the policy or a part of the policy as written then we do not need to re-negotiate. Paul McGrady:An identifiable problem must proceed a decision to rethink a certain provision of the RPMs. No problems = high fives and moving on. George Kirikos:Perhaps removing those people who were part of the past policy should recuse themselves from the discussion? Since they might be biased in favour of the status quo. Jeff Neuman:@George - perhaps those that have criticized the policy from the beginning should also recuse themselves :) Paul McGrady:preceed. :) Griffin Barnett:Not a very fair multi-stakeholder approach George Paul McGrady:darn. precede. I'm not tired... Paul McGrady:[sic] Gary Saposnik:Paul- are U.S Federal Courts to be "the" jurisdiction, or "a" jurisdiction alternative? Paul McGrady:@Gary "a" jurisdiction. The other two would be the home of the registrar and the home of the registrant. claudio:@Jeff, agree w/ problem aspect, one distinction on the other issue is that the new gTLD policy went through a full PDP, whereas these RPMs did not Gary Saposnik:Paul- +1- the notes indicated "the" Phil Marano:Lack of robust use of the URS might be attributable to the higher evidentiary standard, or other aspects of the URS. So it might be tough to foreclose those types of questions out of the gate absent pertinent data. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):US courts litigation cost is prohibitive for the developing world companies Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Phil....feature or flaw? :) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:(that's Phil M) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I think we might see this particular part of PDP mentioned in next GAC communique George Kirikos:Paul M: that's one possible solution, but we should have a thorough review of all possible solutions, to find the best one for all stakeholders. Jeff Neuman:@Phil - and if we can establish that the standard is actually the reason behind no one using it, and we find that the lack of use of the URS is actually a problem, then yes we can look at the standard George Kirikos:Setting aside the URS decision is equally "simple", to compel the case in court. Paul McGrady:@George - I agree. It is only one solution - it just happens to be an easy one that will work. But, I agree, we have to talk through all the other options which may or may not be as easy and may or may not work. Jeff Neuman:but there should be hurdles to cross before re-litigating issues that were discussed and handled in 2009 - 2012 simply because we did not like the way they came out back then WIPO - Brian Beckham:To question 1 here, there are already sanctions built in to the mechanism itself. Paul Tattersfield:Do we need to add a question to see if we should put in provisions for the publishing of a list of any abuse of filing determinations? Philip Corwin:@Jeff--I personally don't think the evidentiary standard is a reason for the relatively low use of URS, but we can delve into that as our work continues Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Paul T, that's already in there. WIPO - Brian Beckham:To question 2 here - presumably (noting my comment on questoin 1) this is meant to address repeat registrant (not brand owner) offenders)? Paul Tattersfield:Thanks Kristine Paul McGrady:@George, just to clarify, agreeing with "Paul M: that's one possible solution, but we should have a thorough review of all possible solutions, to find the best one for all stakeholders." and not "Setting aside the URS decision is equally "simple", to compel the case in court." The latter would be an exception that swallows the whole of the URS. All a losing respondent would need to do is push the "reject" button and the complainant would be stuck with Court action, which deprives the complainant of the benefits of the URS. So, nope to that. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@ Brian...does it feel like deja vu? Susan Payne:NEUTRALITY WIPO - Brian Beckham:To question 3 here - where was it agreed/stated that it was ICANN's job to train registrants on URS defenses? Susan Payne:@Brian - yes as discussed in AD, Q2 is repeat offender registrants Mary Wong:@Brian, that is a consequence of basically importing community-suggested questions wholesale Justine Chew:Interestingly, the question on use of English-only is preceded with "What evidence is there of problems ...." Susan Payne:@Brian - quite Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):there are 2 sides of URS abuse (by the abusive registrants and by the party abusively claiming in URS that the name was used) WIPO - Brian Beckham:To question 4 here - the IRT and STI looked at these - do we have any benefit of the "legislative history" on this from them? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I reiterate my point in AD that the first bullet should have lower case "arbitration forums". Jeff Neuman:Brian - which question 4? WIPO - Brian Beckham:On slide 4/5, as I stated in Abu Dhabi, this question should be stricken as it goes to the UDRP (and is not timely, given WIPO's revised Jurisprudential Overview since 2015). George Kirikos:More on next slide, actually. Griffin Barnett:For the last question on this slide, we might say "What changes, if any, may be needed to ensure..." Griffin Barnett:Current wording seems to presuppose a problem WIPO - Brian Beckham:@Jeff slide 3/5 (as to Q4) Phil Marano:@Brian, support striking the question as outdated and not relevant to the URS. J. Scott:@George and all. We have to identify a problem before we can recommend a solution. Jeff Neuman:On this one, I will note that there was a GNSO Policy Recommendations that the Providers be "under contract" with ICANN.....I want to know why that was not implemented Mary Wong:@Jeff, we can check but I believe all URS providers have a MOU with ICANN George Kirikos:Here's the context for NAF: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_ Forum-5F-28alternative-5Fdispute-5Fresolution-29-23Legislation-5Fand-5Flawsu its-5Fagainst-5FNAF&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r =DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx 1wGj1MdxonDKms&s=uXWAhtMmQct4_K_tPoSbqLklLnrTazay5T1ei8xwQTg&e> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_F orum-5F-28alternative-5Fdispute-5Fresolution-29-23Legislation-5Fand-5Flawsui ts-5Fagainst-5FNAF&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r= DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1 wGj1MdxonDKms&s=uXWAhtMmQct4_K_tPoSbqLklLnrTazay5T1ei8xwQTg&e= J. Scott:Do we have any evidence the Forum has not effectively run the URS or their is some type of identifiable bias? Philip Corwin:@Jeff--it was implemented to some extent; ICANN entered into an MOU with all URS providers J. Scott:^*there* Philip Corwin:So the MOU essentially turns URS providers into a new species of contracted party, raiisng the issue of whether ICANN has or should engage in compliance efforts Paul Tattersfield:it would be a shame to restrict the breadth of the questions at an early stage Paul McGrady:+1 Susan. RPM Providers are not RPMs. Cyntia King:Agreed, Susan Rebecca L Tushnet:How would the evidence come to light if we don't look for it? And isn't compliance relevant to whether the RPMs are "working"? claudio:agree, unless provider is acting inconsistent with policy, there is nothing for us to review Cyntia King:Policy & execution of poicy by vendors are separate issues claudio:I looked at GNSO recommendations and didn't see that Rebecca L Tushnet:Some policies don't execute as well as others. claudio:the Business Constituency raised that issue, but don't think its in GNSO policy recommendations George Kirikos:Provider accountability goes to the heart of the legitimacy of the policy. claudio:here is link to GNSO policy recommendations: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issu es_new-2Dgtlds_pdp-2Ddec05-2Dfr-2Dparta-2D08aug07.htm&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6w rcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2E Bk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wGj1MdxonDKms&s=BfqJRSPBuZ-6A6-Gz_P1QMdft WwWaFFqXLYxHK1xG1E&e> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issue s_new-2Dgtlds_pdp-2Ddec05-2Dfr-2Dparta-2D08aug07.htm&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wr crwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EB k&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wGj1MdxonDKms&s=BfqJRSPBuZ-6A6-Gz_P1QMdftW wWaFFqXLYxHK1xG1E&e= Paul Tattersfield:The problems are heighten when there are egregious determinations Rebecca L Tushnet:+1 Kathy: when the issue was whether indications of origin were covered, we were very interested in implementation v. policy. Rebecca L Tushnet:(I am too, by the way!0 Berry Cobb:The MOUs can be found on the microsite: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_ applicants_urs&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2 dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wGj1 MdxonDKms&s=mt7h3_5et_xHxQdp6-FU7FfYWi4hmXWgKhleLJoYo-s&e> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a pplicants_urs&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2d XAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wGj1M dxonDKms&s=mt7h3_5et_xHxQdp6-FU7FfYWi4hmXWgKhleLJoYo-s&e= claudio:the only relevance of Providers that I see is whether they are implementing the RPM in way that is consistent with the URS, everything else that may be MOU seems out of scope John McElwaine:What is forum shopping? claudio:there is only one forum for URS Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):3 Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:There are three claudio:right? George Kirikos:@John: see <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.michaelgeist.ca_200 2_03_domain-2Ddispute-2Dbias-2Dgoes-2Dfrom-2Dbad-2Dto-2Dworse_&d=DwIFaQ&c=Fm Y1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AI gn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wGj1MdxonDKms&s=Cwu9QcV5r2-b2aA1 HzyRHrAJYyVocKALiwmrcN41pqE&e> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.michaelgeist.ca_2002 _03_domain-2Ddispute-2Dbias-2Dgoes-2Dfrom-2Dbad-2Dto-2Dworse_&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY 1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIg n-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wGj1MdxonDKms&s=Cwu9QcV5r2-b2aA1H zyRHrAJYyVocKALiwmrcN41pqE&e= WIPO - Brian Beckham:On slide 5/5, I don't fully understand bullets 2 and 4 claudio:Ok thanks, Kristine Cyntia King:Most companies create policy then have an implementation team look at how new & existing rules are absorbed into the ecosystem. Mary Wong:@Brian, again, these are verbatim from community suggestions and staff can go back to retrieve information about the specific comment period/issue for which they were provided as community input. Paul Tattersfield:no it doesn't it might be no changes are required Michael R Graham:@Paul +1 -- especially as to biased questions. George Kirikos:PaulT is right, the answer might be "none". George Kirikos:Not biased at all. John McElwaine:@George I reviewed that articvle and that is not forum shopping in the technical sense. George Kirikos:@John: it's shopping the providers. to the extent that each provider is a different forum (due to supplemental rules, or different panelists), then it is forum shopping. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I wonder if practices have changed since 2002? Jeff Neuman:@George, to point out the obvious, that article is over 15 years old Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:^More direct George Kirikos:@Jeff: that doesn't take away from its truth, though, Jeff. WIPO - Brian Beckham:On Slide 5/5, bullet 3, is this a requirement under the MOU or Policy itself? Mary Wong:Note that URS is not consensus policy J. Scott:@Jeff. Thank you. I thought that issue had died with the dinosaurs. Jeff Neuman:@Mary - you are correct...but in order to change the URS and have it applicable to all existing registries, those changes must be :) Michael R Graham:If studies are cited, please ensure they are both relevant to the CURRENT discussion, and both current and supported. John McElwaine:@George - I get your point. But forum shopping has nothing to do with provider selection and it causes me to question bias of the article. Here's the definition of forum shopping <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.law.cornell.edu_we x_forum-5Fshopping&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r= DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1 wGj1MdxonDKms&s=gNpYgtcPuu-0bvYMHP-QHYRB_WIqeJLjEcbQpzWERRI&e> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.law.cornell.edu_wex _forum-5Fshopping&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=D Ra2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1w Gj1MdxonDKms&s=gNpYgtcPuu-0bvYMHP-QHYRB_WIqeJLjEcbQpzWERRI&e= Jeff Neuman:So....the URS was not established by Consensus Policy....but all changes to the URS do need to be established by Consensus Policies in order for them to apply to existing registries George Kirikos:@John: still consistent with that definition. WIPO - Brian Beckham:On Slide 9, bullet 4, this raises a question I raised on several occasions concerning moving the URS to phase 2 as it is meant to be a complement to the UDRP; discussing them seperately is something of a fiction Mary Wong:@Jeff, understood - just thought it may be helpful esp for newer participants when we (perhaps informally) refer to "policy" :) John McElwaine:@George - not to a laywer claudio:if we need to answer these many URS questions, it may make sense to eventually start using Subteams David McAuley (Verisign):thanks all, good bye claudio:thanks all Philip Corwin:First we need to come up with final list of refined questions Paul Tattersfield:thanks all bye George Kirikos:Bye folks. J. Scott:ciao Griffin Barnett:thanks, bye Steve Levy:Bye all! Cyntia King:Bye! Monica Mitchell:thank you all. sorry I was late. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye Philip Corwin:Thanks. Good discussion

1 0