October 2018 - GNSO-RPM-WG - lists.icann.org

ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018
by Ariel Liang 11 Feb '20

11 Feb '20

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP WG call held on 08 August 2018 (17:00-18:30 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/uwNpBQ Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) == ACTION ITEMS: * Brian Beckham to send to the WG a WIPO FAQ with regard to “Doe Complaint”. * Renee Fossen to provide more information on HSTS-preloaded domain suspension issues in the written responses. * Staff to recirculate the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document * WG members to provide substantive comment and raise anything they believe is missing on the WG mailing list by COB Tue, 14 Aug. Co-Chairs will then discuss among themselves to determine further actions/process. * WG members to finish reviewing the rest of the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document, including page 24-35, during next week’s call. Later period to discuss larger policy issues. NOTES: Review Agenda/Statements of Interest * George Kirikos has become a member of the At-Large Community: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/George+Kirikos+SOI General Comment on the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table Document * The topics in the table were developed by the WG members and deliberated on by the WG & URS Sub Teams. Each Sub Team then did very substantial work on data collection and reviewing what came back. While the actual Sub Team recommendations and suggestions captured in this document are what is intended the WG should discuss - to see if it wishes to develop policy or operational recommendations - discussion over what should be on the actual list of topics should not be reopened unless the WG agrees to do so. We encourage all WG members to review all the previous reports from each Sub Team, and all the documents they worked on. They are linked in this Super Consolidated document (page 2). * The Super Consolidated document is a summary of findings and suggestions by the Sub Teams. The Table does not mean to limit/restrict recommendations from the WG members. If there is any issue overlapping with UDRP, can possibly be carried over to the phase II of the PDP. * Is it possible to add additional topics to the Super Consolidated Table? One WG member said that access to the Courts, for example, is a topic he raised, which isn't in the table. Statute of Limitations, whether URS should apply to legacy gTLDs as a consensus policy, are just a few of the topics not in the table. He brought it up in November 2017 (see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-November/002585.html ) and it was reflected in a later document. That's a critical issue for registrants. if they don't have access to the courts to challenge a URS decision, then it's a huge denial of their rights. * While the chart is not meant to foreclose further discussion, it is a good faith attempt at capturing the work of the sub teams. The purpose of today's, and likely the next few, calls was to make sure this was an accurate and comprehensive reflection of our discussions so far. That said, WG members should bear in mind that we are seeking consensus, so items which are unlikely to achieve that may not be appropriate to reflect as a recommendation, but could be included in public comments on the Initial Report. Also, before adding items to this chart, we will want to work with staff to see whether such topics was previously discussed, and if so, the level of agreement/consensus. In other words, it is not necessary final, but is equally an opportunity to reintroduce topics which have been discussed, but for which consensus is/was not possible. * Could we create a list of "missing issues" -- a list of issues raised in this call (and calls to follow); we can evaluate the nature and weight of these ideas later. * Regarding the Action Items highlighted in column 3 of the table, Providers ST will do a first pass of the responses from the Providers to the follow-up questions, and then discuss the issues that they identified and proposed suggestions with the full WG. Limited filing period (page 3) * One WG member believes that there should be limitation for filing period to bring URS Complaints, so the domain registered many years ago would not be subject to unfair treatment. He said a registrant who owns a domain for 20 years, for example, shouldn't have to be concerned about a policy that can take their domain down with very short time period to respond. * Other WG members said this was discussed, and did not achieve agreement. That would only even be an option if the trademark pre-dated. This is unlikely to be a situation in practice where a URS was brought because it would probably not be a "slam dunk" case after 20 years unless there had been a change of circumstances. * On the issue of delay and laches - as reported by the Docs Sub Team, the data did not provide any basis for which a policy recommendation should be made. The Providers and Practitioners Sub Teams also did not uncover any specific issues that came to either practitioners' or providers' attention. Administrative Review (page 3-4) * One WG member asked whether ICANN should bring Providers into contractual relationship in order to enforce the URS Rules & Procedures. Another member said it probably need to be ICANN’s legal department to enforce the rules & procedure. * URS Providers have MoU with ICANN. Whether it is ICANN’s compliance department or legal department to enforce the rules & procedures, it should not be controversial that Providers must abide by them. * An MOU could be legally enforceable, depending on the circumstances. 500-word Complaint limit (page 4-5) * On 500-word Complaint Limit - Practitioners' survey results were split (out of 12, 5 agree it's sufficient, 4 disagree); results included feedback from some that the word limit was too low: "arbitrary and often insufficient" and "should be slightly increased". * One member said he understands and generally agrees with the decision not to suggest an expansion of the word limit, he wonders if there aren't situations (multi- domain challenges, etc.) where a Complainant or Respondent might be given the opportunity to request an expansion. This point can be captured for decisional phase. * Another member suggested that perhaps providers can provide stats on the average word length of complaints, to see how close to the 500 words they are at present. (i.e. a table of distributions, e.g. 10% under 200 words, 20% between 201 and 300, etc.) Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec (page 5-6) * One member believes that 2-3 days might not be a good rule (e.g. weekends, time to research, etc.). Maybe 5 business days. * WIPO’s approach to “doe complaints” has been very helpful and provides some comfort that the lack of true registrant/registrant organization data masked due to GDPR will not result in a deficient complaint for an omitted respondent. * ACTION ITEM: Brian Beckham to send to the WG a WIPO FAQ with regard to “Doe Complaint”. * Forum is asking for amendment of the complaint in UDRP - under the rules that's not allowed in URS. SMD Files (page 6-7) * SMD files are used for limited purpose of demonstrating the use. * Recollection is that SMD files would be passed to the Examiners and relay the critical information related to the TM registration. That's why some people are surprised by the limited info SMD files would provide. * The SMD files contain some basic human-readable information, with the rest of the information coded. For example, the trademark itself is human-readable but the applicable Nice classification is coded. A SMD file is used by registries/registrars for validation, and as Greg noted, to demonstrate use. From the TMCH provider: http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/help/faq/which-information-does-smd-… * If the intent of the STI was that the SMD file would be a file summary, that got lost somewhere along the way, way before the SMD file was designed by the TMCH providers. * Rules 3(b)(v) Specify the trademark(s) or service mark(s) on which the complaint is based and the goods or services with which the mark is used including evidence of use –which can be a declaration and a specimen of current use in commerce - submitted directly or by including a relevant SMD (Signed Mark Data) from the Trademark Clearinghouse * It might be useful to look at the spec that they relied on. But the real question is how should the examiner get the relevant data about the Complainant’s mark. The SMD file is probably not the answer, if it was ever intended to be. * the Examiner is not required to second-guess the SMD file. Its existence is sufficient that the mark has had use validated by the TMCH. Other Topics (page 7-8) * These are policy proposals can be brought up when WG members are proposing changes to the URS policy itself. Charter asks us to address the question whether the URS should become a consensus policy applicable to legacy domains. Charter is not specific regarding whether such discussion should occur in phase I or phase II. This feedback illustrates that the ST didn't get to propose policy changes, it is for the WG to discuss and propose changes. * when we reference the STI and IRT reports, we need to keep in mind they only had about 1-2 months to complete their work and produce a report; they were not standard PDP working groups and had limited charters and mandates, which were set by the Board * This is feedback from one Provider, who may want to grow their business. Practitioners survey are from Complaints' side. Need to have a balanced solution when considering the input. * There were plenty of practitioners that represent registrants in the Subgroup, although their experience was largely with the UDRP. Duration of response period (Page 11) * One member believes that if the URS continues in its current form, it would affect valuable domain names. The ones the registrants that do want to defend them, 14 days are not sufficient. 20 days may be more appropriate. It should be based on the age of the domain name. If a domain is 3 months, it will have a shorter period to respond. If you own a domain name for 5-10 years, response period would be longer so less urgency. * Several other WG members disagree. The URS is supposed to be an expedited proceeding so increasing the length of time of a streamlined proceeding defeats the purpose. At most, there could be an additional 3 or 4 days extension period for cause. The point is that there are enough circumstances that give rise to the URS 'quick response' that we should NOT make assumptions into policy. It is an assumption that an "aged" domain would not require a fast response. In Mexico, we have not been able to file a domain name case due to Courts ignorance about the subject and also, because it could take years to be solved. We're spinning out fo control - extending the time to respond to URS cases just because a domain registration is not new defeats the purpose of fast action to take down an infringing domain once it's discovered. The URS is meant to address clear and convincing cases of infringement. A person registers a domain name for less than $50 and brand owner find out about at some point and then files an injunction in court for tens of thousands of dollars. Where is the balance. Examiners Guide (page 13) * The WIPO guidance for examiners took 1500 hours to develop. * The WIPO guidance is relevant to the URS, the elements are shown are the same and the differences include the burden of proof, word limit, etc. A lot of WIPO guidance goes to the shade of grey issues. URS is for clear black/white cases, so if there is a URS guidance it would likely be abbreviated. Duration of Suspension Period & Review of Implementation (page 21-23) * One WG member suggests to find out how much cost for registries & registrars to comply with the URS rules and procedures. Need to get data/feedback from the registries/registrars. * Other WG members are not sure "cost of implementation of URS" for Registries/Registrars is relevant to effectiveness of URS. We don't need to do a cost/benefit analysis (the costs & benefits aren't ICANN's), the providers, registrars, registries need to be asked if they are overburdened by the costs of compliance. * There is an action item to contact the registries/registrars about these issues. Timing TBD due to Sunrise & Claims survey launch. Other topics (page 23-24) * One WG member thinks the HSTS issue is not difficult to fix. The Providers need to improve their technical applicability to resolve the issue. Renee Fossen from Forum disagrees. * ACTION ITEM: Renee Fossen to provide more information on HSTS-preloaded domain suspension issues in the written responses. NEXT STEPS * ACTION ITEM: Staff to recirculate the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document and ask all WG members to provide substantive comment and raise anything they believe is missing on the WG mailing list by COB Tue, 14 Aug. Co-Chairs will then discuss among themselves to determine further actions/process. * ACTION ITEM: WG to finish reviewing the rest of the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document, including page 24-35. Later period to discuss larger policy issues.

20 45

Corrected Action Item: RPM PDP WG Meetings 21-22 October 2018 (ICANN63)
by Julie Hedlund 24 Oct '18

24 Oct '18

Dear All, Per the emails below, please see the following corrected action item (action item 1a). The wiki pages also have been corrected at: Sunday, 21 October 2018, Sessions 1 and 2: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-21+ICANN63+Barcelo… Monday, 22 October 2018, Sessions 3 and 4: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-22+ICANN63+Barcelo… Action Items: URS: Staff will update the table of individual proposals to remove the levels of support and update the list of the sections of the Initial Report in which they will appear; Staff will send to the WG the updated table of individual proposals and the table of sub team proposals; Staff will review the timeline and indicate where they might be able to start on the URS portion of the Initial Report and possible efficiencies for WG review. TMCH Sunrise and Claims: TMCH Sunrise & Claims Survey Final Report: WG members should submit clarifying questions & comments by Monday 05 November using the Google doc tool at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S3OLDD0IviloUjvqlcXq3GMENStYhFeozi57I4t… [docs.google.com] See the email sent by Ariel Liang on 23 October 2018. Staff will send the final version of the questions to Analysis Group and to the WG to review prior to the next meeting on 07 November. Staff will send to the WG the links to the TMCH Sunrise and Claims data sub teams and their final output to the WG and Sub Team members, and request members to confirm interest/new volunteers; Co-Chairs and WG members will consider whether to re-establish the data sub teams. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 5:03 PM To: Justine Chew <justine.chew(a)gmail.com>, "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meetings 21-22 October 2018 (ICANN63) Thank you Joyce and Brian for your additional comments. Unless there are any objections staff will not include the support levels in the table of individual proposals and update the action item accordingly. Best, Julie From: Justine Chew <justine.chew(a)gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 5:00 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meetings 21-22 October 2018 (ICANN63) Hi Julie, I agree with Phil and Brian (in replying to Phil), in that there is no need to update the support levels in the Individual Proposals table even, given that those proposals were all going into the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comments. Thanks, Justine Chew ----- On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, 16:36 Julie Hedlund, <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> wrote: Phil, Apologies if it is unclear. Staff was referencing updating the table of individual proposals, which is just the tool for determining how proposals would appear in the Initial Report. You are correct that the level of support will not indicated in the Initial Report, but it had been indicated in the table. If you wish we can remove the level of support from the table, but in any case it will not appear in the Initial Report. Best, Julie From: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin(a)verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 4:31 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meetings 21-22 October 2018 (ICANN63) Thank you Julie. Subject to feedback from the other co-chair and other WG members, I believe there is one error in the action items; namely, this one – “Staff will update the table of individual proposals to reflect all proposals as having adequate support and updating the sections of the Initial Report in which they will appear” (emphasis added) My recollection is that we agreed yesterday that all individual proposals would be placed in the IR for the purpose of soliciting public comment without any designation of support level. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 10:11 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-RPM-WG] Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meetings 21-22 October 2018 (ICANN63) Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group meetings held on 21-22 October 2018 at ICANN63. Staff have posted these to the wiki space. The transcripts, meeting slides (general and the Analysis Group presentation), and the Analysis Group report are posted on the wikis at: Sunday, 21 October 2018, Sessions 1 and 2: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-21+ICANN63+Barcelo… Monday, 22 October 2018, Sessions 3 and 4: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-22+ICANN63+Barcelo… Sessions 1 and 4 were on the review of the individual URS proposals and Initial Report drafting. Sessions 2 and 3 were on Analysis Group presenting the results of the TMCH Sunrise and Claims Surveys. The next meeting will be in two weeks on Wednesday, 07 November at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes. A meeting invite will be sent separately. Note that in the US the change to Standard Time occurs on Sunday, 04 November, but the UTC time of the meeting remains the same. The effect is that for US members the meeting will begin one hour earlier than under Daylight Saving Time. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == ACTION ITEMS URS: Staff will update the table of individual proposals to reflect all proposals as having adequate support and updating the sections of the Initial Report in which they will appear; Staff will send to the WG the updated table of individual proposals and the table of sub team proposals; Staff will review the timeline and indicate where they might be able to start on the URS portion of the Initial Report and possible efficiencies for WG review. TMCH Sunrise and Claims: TMCH Sunrise & Claims Survey Final Report: WG members should submit clarifying questions & comments by Monday 05 November using the Google doc tool at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S3OLDD0IviloUjvqlcXq3GMENStYhFeozi57I4t… [docs.google.com] See the email sent by Ariel Liang on 23 October 2018. Staff will send the final version of the questions to Analysis Group and to the WG to review prior to the next meeting on 07 November. Staff will send to the WG the links to the TMCH Sunrise and Claims data sub teams and their final output to the WG and Sub Team members, and request members to confirm interest/new volunteers; Co-Chairs and WG members will consider whether to re-establish the data sub teams. _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

1 0

Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meetings 21-22 October 2018 (ICANN63)
by Julie Hedlund 23 Oct '18

23 Oct '18

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group meetings held on 21-22 October 2018 at ICANN63. Staff have posted these to the wiki space. The transcripts, meeting slides (general and the Analysis Group presentation), and the Analysis Group report are posted on the wikis at: Sunday, 21 October 2018, Sessions 1 and 2: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-21+ICANN63+Barcelo… Monday, 22 October 2018, Sessions 3 and 4: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-22+ICANN63+Barcelo… Sessions 1 and 4 were on the review of the individual URS proposals and Initial Report drafting. Sessions 2 and 3 were on Analysis Group presenting the results of the TMCH Sunrise and Claims Surveys. The next meeting will be in two weeks on Wednesday, 07 November at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes. A meeting invite will be sent separately. Note that in the US the change to Standard Time occurs on Sunday, 04 November, but the UTC time of the meeting remains the same. The effect is that for US members the meeting will begin one hour earlier than under Daylight Saving Time. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == ACTION ITEMS URS: Staff will update the table of individual proposals to reflect all proposals as having adequate support and updating the sections of the Initial Report in which they will appear; Staff will send to the WG the updated table of individual proposals and the table of sub team proposals; Staff will review the timeline and indicate where they might be able to start on the URS portion of the Initial Report and possible efficiencies for WG review. TMCH Sunrise and Claims: TMCH Sunrise & Claims Survey Final Report: WG members should submit clarifying questions & comments by Monday 05 November using the Google doc tool at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S3OLDD0IviloUjvqlcXq3GMENStYhFeozi57I4t…. See the email sent by Ariel Liang on 23 October 2018. Staff will send the final version of the questions to Analysis Group and to the WG to review prior to the next meeting on 07 November. Staff will send to the WG the links to the TMCH Sunrise and Claims data sub teams and their final output to the WG and Sub Team members, and request members to confirm interest/new volunteers; Co-Chairs and WG members will consider whether to re-establish the data sub teams.

4 5

Note to Mr. Kirikos Regarding His Characterization of URS Sub-team Recommendations as "Wishlists"
by Corwin, Philip 23 Oct '18

23 Oct '18

Mr. Kirikos: This note is sent in my capacity as co-chair. It is in reference to a statement you made in chat during yesterday's final session of the WG. A full excerpt of the relevant chat exchange appears below. The statement I am commenting upon is, "George Kirikos: (14:01) It was only asserted afterwards (especially by those who participated in the sub-teams, to advantage their wishlists)." I did not comment in real time on this assertion because I did not wish to disrupt the important and constructive discussion that was taking place within the WG. The assertion that sub-team members seek to elevate the status of sub-team recommendations because that would advantage their "wishlists" (sic) appears to imply that the recommendations consist of wish lists. I believe that this assertion is untrue as to both the motivations of sub-team members and the nature of the recommendations. Sub-teams were open to participation by an WG member and you could have joined any or all of them. I participated in almost every meeting of the Providers sub-team and saw no evidence that its members were pursuing any personal or organizational agenda. What I did see was serious consideration of all available data, and constructive efforts to develop and compromise on responsive recommendations seeking to correct operational and policy shortfalls revealed by the data. Sub-team recommendations were subsequently vetted and extensively discussed by the full WG and generally adopted for public comment purposes absent significant change. However they are characterized they carry greater weight than individual URS proposals due to their joint development. I perceive your use of the term "wishlists" pejorative in intent, in both implying that sub-team members joined to pursue preordained agendas, and that the resulting recommendations are fanciful or unrealistic. For example, using the term wish list in that sense, if I believed in Santa Claus I would send him a wish list that started with a private jet whisking me to a five star resort on a tropical island, and finding a gift wrapped Aston Martin in my garage upon return. Finally, I find your use of the term particularly inappropriate given that all fourteen of your individual URS proposals, including one to eliminate the URS entirely, are going to be included in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment. If others shared your attitude they might observe that those fourteen proposals constitute your personal URS wish list. In closing, I strongly urge you to refrain from using terms that denigrate the efforts and ideas of other WG members, and to confine your remarks to the merits or deficiencies of proposed operational or policy changes. ************************************************************************************************************************* George Kirikos: (13:55) Sub-team recommendations don't necessarily have support. Griffin Barnett: (13:56) Agree with Susan re differentiating sub-team recommendations vs. "individual" WG member proposals George Kirikos: (13:56) <COMMENT>Sub-team recommendations don't necessarily have any support outside the subteam. So, disagree with Susan.</COMMENT> Greg Shatan: (13:56) I thought we were treating the subteam recommendations as Preliminary Recommendations.. George Kirikos: (13:57) <COMMENT>Disagree with Phil. It was a rebuttable assumption not of SUPPORT, but support for INCLUSION in the Initial Report.</COMMENT> Greg Shatan: (13:58) Disagree with George. Agree with Phil. George Kirikos: (13:59) GregS: See page 6 of the slides (next). Greg Shatan: (13:59) Glad to hear that Panama City was not a fever dream. George Kirikos: (13:59) "s have a rebuttable presumption, subject to WGfeedback, of enjoying an adequate level of support to be included in theInitial Report for the purpose of soliciting community input;" Georges Nahitchevansky: (14:00) The individual proposals are just that, proposals by an individual and should be noted as such. The sub-team recommendations had multiple data points and views -- and compromises were reached. They represent way more consensus than a proposal by an individual and should should be in a different category. As an aside, any individual could have joined one or all of the sub-teams. So if someon, such as George K, did not join any of the groups when he could of then I think he should be barred form aguing they have no support (after no joining when you could is akin to consent that the sub-teams are constituted were adequate) George Kirikos: (14:01) @GeorgesN: disagree, because that standard wasn't set *before* the creation of the subteams. George Kirikos: (14:01) It was only asserted afterwards (especially by those who participated in the sub-teams, to advantage their wishlists). Martin Silva: (14:02) + 1 on Georges Martin Silva: (14:02) lot of us were in subteams doing a lot of compromises all around Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

2 1

Submit Clarifying Questions & Comments - TMCH Sunrise & Claims Survey Final Report
by Ariel Liang 23 Oct '18

23 Oct '18

Dear RPM Working Group Members, Following the presentation of Analysis Group on the TMCH Sunrise & Claims survey results (Session 2 & 3 during ICANN63), staff have created a google doc to facilitate the process of gathering clarifying questions and comments for Analysis Group’s Final Report: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S3OLDD0IviloUjvqlcXq3GMENStYhFeozi57I4t…. Specifically, you are welcome to focus your clarifying questions/comments on the Survey Results Section (Section V, pp.7-45). The full responses to all survey questions are included in the Appendix A.1-4; you are also encouraged to ask clarifying questions or comment on the survey results not highlighted in Section V. When providing input, please reference the page number, as well as the chart/table number (if applicable) of the Final Report. Everyone can suggest edits/comment on the Google Doc, so your input will show as redline and can be identified with individuals. Please provide your input no later than Monday, 05 November. Session 2<https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901716> and Session 3<https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901722> audio and AC room recordings are already available on the meeting pages. Transcripts should be available shortly after ICANN63. Thank you for your time and contribution! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry

1 0

Final Report: TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Survey
by Ariel Liang 22 Oct '18

22 Oct '18

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, Analysis Group will present the TMCH Sunrise and Trademark Claims survey results during session 2<https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901716> and session 3<https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901722> of the Working Group meetings at ICANN63. To facilitate your participation in the sessions, please find attached the Final Report prepared by the Analysis Group. Key findings from the survey results are from page 6 to page 52. The complete survey results are included in the appendixes. Analysis Group plans to review the survey results in the order of the report and engage in discussions with the Working Group. The order is as follows: 1. Actual Domain Name Registrants 2. Potential Domain Name Registrants 3. Trademark Owners 4. New gTLD Registry Operators 5. Registrars Selling Domain Names Registered in the New gTLDs As a refresher and for those who may not be familiar with the survey, page 2 to page 6 provides background information of this survey project. The complete final survey questions are also included in the appendixes. The survey was launched on 6 September and closed on 5 October 2018. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry

2 3

REMINDER TODAY: ICANN63: Schedule of RPM PDP Working Group Meetings
by Julie Hedlund 22 Oct '18

22 Oct '18

Dear Working Group members, As a reminder please see below the schedule and links for the RPM PDP Working Group meetings at ICANN63 for Sessions 3 and 4 today. Please also see the attached PDF for details. Please also see the full ICANN63 schedule at: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie Barcelona ICANN63: Face-to-Face Full RPM PDP WG Meetings (with remote participation in the links below): GNSO - RPM working group (3 of 4): 12:15 - 13:30, Mon, Oct 22, 2018 – lunch provided for WG members Remote Participation -- https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901722 Wiki Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-22+ICANN63+Barcelo… GNSO - RPM working group (4 of 4): 13:30 - 15:00, Mon, Oct 22, 2018 Remote Participation -- https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901723 Wiki Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-22+ICANN63+Barcelo…

1 0

REMINDER: ICANN63: Schedule of RPM PDP Working Group Meetings
by Julie Hedlund 21 Oct '18

21 Oct '18

Dear Working Group members, As a reminder please see below the schedule and links for the RPM PDP Working Group meetings at ICANN63, starting with Sessions 1 and 2 today. Please also see the attached PDF for details. Please also see the full ICANN63 schedule at: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie Barcelona ICANN63: Face-to-Face Full RPM PDP WG Meetings (with remote participation in the links below): GNSO - RPM working group (1 of 4): 15:15 - 16:45, Sun, Oct 21, 2018 Remote Participation -- https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901715 Wiki Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-21+ICANN63+Barcelo… GNSO - RPM working group (2 of 4): 17:00 - 18:30, Sun, Oct 21, 2018 Remote Participation -- https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901716 Wiki Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-21+ICANN63+Barcelo… GNSO - RPM working group (3 of 4): 12:15 - 13:30, Mon, Oct 22, 2018 Remote Participation -- https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901722 Wiki Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-22+ICANN63+Barcelo… GNSO - RPM working group (4 of 4): 13:30 - 15:00, Mon, Oct 22, 2018 Remote Participation -- https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901723 Wiki Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-22+ICANN63+Barcelo…

1 0

Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] URS Proposal #13 - WG Comments & Questions
by Marie Pattullo 21 Oct '18

21 Oct '18

All, Firstly, I’m so sorry for the delay in responding and many thanks to all the Staff for taking this on for me - I’m very grateful. And at the risk of becoming a phantom, also apologies for the 1st meeting this afternoon: it clashes with the GAC-GNSO joint session. I’ve made some comments inline below. And to comment briefly on the “support” thread: I’m from the BC. I’m of course not representing the BC in this WG – I’m 100% here for my employer – but I hope this goes to show that no one member of this WG speaks for the BC (indeed, for any C/SG) so that can’t be a “support measure” IMO. Thanks again Marie From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 5:32 PM To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo(a)aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>; Berry Cobb Mail <mail(a)berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com>> Subject: URS Proposal #13 - WG Comments & Questions Hello Marie, We hope this email finds you well. Staff helped present your proposal #13 to the WG during its 10 Oct meeting. You may reference page 28-35 of transcript<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcrip…> and page 9-13 of the AC chat record<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/95095467/Attendance%20%26%…> for the full record of discussion of your proposal. Some WG members supported your proposal, while some opposed and/or expressed concerns. We have highlighted the WG’s questions, oppositions, suggestions below. If you wish to respond, please be so kind to send your response via the WG mailing list. Thank you for your time and help! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry == * Michael Karanicolas: What is the evidence supporting the claim that a losing respondent is able to reregister a domain name once it becomes available? Does it happen often? (Staff’s data: Up to 2017, recall one domain that was re-registered by the original registrant. The domain was dropped after suspension and seemed to be legit use. There were other domains that were dropped and re-registered by a different registrant. Not a huge % but still significant.) We based this on the comments in the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table, F(2)/Practitioners Sub-Team: “in some cases, a losing Respondent is able to re-register a domain once it becomes available”; “after the lock, the cybersquatters just renew the domain name” – if it were an important enough concern to be in that Table, we thought it ought to be discussed further. * Kristine Dorrain: Strong disagreement - It's absolutely impossible to implement. You cannot distinguish between registrants even within a registry or registrar. There's evidence that there are cyber squatters that have thousands of new accounts with new identities, and they can hop from place to place and even between registrars. How can those people be prevented from registering the domain name? Assuming a registrar/registry can identify a single customer (who hasn’t opened a new account), how would that information be included across hundreds of registrars? As a complainant, let's say you win a URS and the domain is immediately re-registered. How will you know if the registrant is the same? How will you enforce this proposal? How would ICANN enforce this proposal? We hadn’t gone into implementation, but in essence: we’d like to disrupt the business model of those who abuse the system – as we assume everyone here would, as it negatively affects us all! Could we consider the systematic verification of a registrant’s data when they are trying to register a domain name that has been the subject of a URS where the Complainant prevailed? Connected to a common database of such cases to which all Registrars/Registries would have access? * George Kirikos: There's no registrant verification taking place, so it would be nearly impossible for a registrar to handle it on their own, let alone having all registrars potentially block one registrant from registering the relevant domain name at the other registrar. How can we overcome these technical problems with regard to implementation? There is no “know your client” requirement for registrars to know the registrant. Also, what if the WHOIS of the registrant is fake? The lack of KYC and fake info are without doubt huge problems. Data accuracy is something I know we would all love to work towards. * Maxim Alzoba: There are two issues with this proposal. 1) It would create gaming concerns, as the registrant can simply use false contact information. Wouldn’t it be great if they couldn’t... But also – as said in the proposal – it could actually reduce gaming. (“This would help to prevent gaming of the system and unnecessary cluttering of the providers’ workload with spurious or vexatious cases”). 2) For registrars, there is almost no way to identify the person behind it – it could be a good guys’ domain name that is stolen and used for bad things, and the registrars cannot share information with those parties outside the law. There are no safeguards for the situation where trademark is no longer protected. There is no way to identify a bad guy before they do something fishy or before they follow a pattern. They would have done here – that’s exactly the point. Maybe something limited could be implemented, such as limiting the registration of this domain name for one year. * Christine Farley: If a registrant has been shown to have a bad faith in registering a domain, does it mean that all future registrations will be in bad faith? Or might it be possible for that registrant to re-register that domain with a good faith in future? Is that not a bit unrealistic? * Griffin Barnet: Could perhaps link the registrant to his/her email address, payment info, or something more unique to the actual registrant? Maxim Alzoba: Payment info does not propagate further than one registrar and potentially ICANN. See idea above re a database. * Justine Chew: Could perhaps use a blacklist to identify "losing respondent" as named by that party itself, even if they used false name, contact info etc. Interesting.

1 0

Revised Version of URS Proposal #12
by George Kirikos 21 Oct '18

21 Oct '18

[re-sending from my correct email address] Hi folks, Attached is the revised version of URS Proposal #12, after discussions with Rebecca on how to handle the unintended consequences she identified in the original proposal. Many thanks to Rebecca for identifying the issue and the solution. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

10 29