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

Pre-ICANN63 Policy Report
by Terri Agnew Oct. 10, 2018

Oct. 10, 2018

Dear all, The Pre-ICANN63 Policy Report has been published: https://go.icann.org/pre63 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 visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ [learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icann…> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_&d=Dw…>

1 0

Dealing with unsatisfactory proposals
by Paul Tattersfield Oct. 9, 2018

Oct. 9, 2018

I was unable to attend last week’s call because a couple of other long standing Wednesday meeting commitments, unfortunately it looks increasingly likely I will unavoidable need to be elsewhere this week too and I have serious concerns with some of the proposals. I reviewd the AC chat recording from last week and I was very concerned to hear one of the co-chairs say he [personally] believed a proposal from an Industry Group should get an automatic entry into to initial report. If I remember correctly we had a similar problem with the IGO/INGO draft report where those driving the working group wouldn't listen and the resulting public comment period wasn't kind. The working group then had to waste a not inconsiderable amount of its time redrafting its report to correct that fundamental error. So what is the best way to ensure fundamentally flawed proposals are considered more fully before there is any expectation they will meet the initial report? Yours sincerely, Paul.

3 4

ICANN63: GNSO Sessions How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Julie Bisland Oct. 8, 2018

Oct. 8, 2018

Dear all, The one-stop wiki page for all your Remote Participation queries is now available. This wiki page covers remote participation details for all GNSO open and public meetings. In addition to this, ICANN meetings' team has put together an updated ICANN meeting website which allows you to download all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. 2 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN63 Meeting Schedule<https://63.schedule.icann.org/> GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/nxVpBQ> Step 1 - Create a profile and your personalized ICANN63 schedule Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage and create a profile and login. Every session on the schedule can be selected and added to your individual schedule by clicking the Add box to the bottom right of each meeting, this adds it to your individual schedule which you can then email to yourself or add to your calendar. See next step. Step 2 - There are two ways to import your schedule into Outlook: once you've added all your chosen meetings to "My Schedule" go to Export. 1. Importing creates a one-time snapshot of your schedule and copies it into Outlook. If you subsequently make changes to your Pathable calendar, they will not be reflected in Outlook. 2. Subscribing creates a live feed of your schedule in Outlook. Outlook checks for changes every few hours and updates your calendar appropriately. * For Outlook calendars: http://support.pathable.com/knowledgebase/articles/81449-moving-your-schedu…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__support.pathable.com_kn…> * For Google calendars: http://support.pathable.com/knowledgebase/articles/1313-moving-your-schedul…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__support.pathable.com_kn…> Step 3 All Adobe Connect rooms (which can be found on the session information on the ICANN63 Meeting Schedule<https://63.schedule.icann.org/> and on the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/nxVpBQ>) will provide audio streaming only, Adobe Connect room microphones will not be enabled. If you cannot join an Adobe Connect room for a session, and will need to dial in with your phone, please refer to the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/nxVpBQ> for the audio pass codes and dial in numbers. Please also follow the previous steps if you wish to take part in the session over the phone. Step 4 Please download the mobile app by searching for "ICANN63" in your app stores. Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew will be onsite in Barcelona to assist you directly. For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team Julie Bisland Secretariat Operations Coordinator for the GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy…>

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Supplemental information on URS proposal #6
by claudio di gangi Oct. 5, 2018

Oct. 5, 2018

Fellow RPM colleagues, I have provided some supplemental information below on URS Proposal #6, in response to the feedback provided by working group members on our Monday, September 17th teleconference meeting. For ease of reference, proposal #6 is available in PDF at: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-6.pd… I hope this is helpful in clarifying the nature and purpose of the proposal; if there are any additional questions, please let me know at your convenience. Thanks and have a great weekend! Best regards, Claudio ---- *Description of Proposal* "The recommendation is to permit multiple unrelated complainants to bring a single complaint jointly against a single domain name registrant (or related registrants) who has registered multiple domain names, by deleting the following procedural element within Section 1.1.3 of the URS Procedure: "One Complaint is acceptable for multiple related companies against one Registrant, but only if the companies complaining are related" *Supplemental Information* The basis of the proposal is to harmonize the UDRP and URS mechanisms on this element of the complaint. The intended benefits are to: 1) create efficiencies; 2) enhance the utility of the URS by allowing consolidation under appropriate circumstances; and 3) reduce the cost burdens on all parties, in a manner that promotes fairness. - On the respondent-side, registrants can avoid the need to respond to multiple complaints, which may be brought independently over an extended period of time. By allowing multiple complainants to bring a single complaint jointly, the respondent can raise their arguments and defenses in one consolidated action against multiple unrelated complainants, and have the case disposed in one action. - On the complaint-side, multiple complainants can bring a single complaint jointly against one registrant who has registered multiple domain names under a common occurrence or scheme. To be clear, there is no specific component of the proposal that is designed to allow unrelated complainants to join their complaints against one registrant who has registered multiple domain names "randomly" or without an underlying pattern to the registrations. *Rather, the proposal is designed to address the circumstance when* *a domain registrant registers multiple domain names targeting unrelated complainants under a common occurrence or scheme, as per existing UDRP jurisprudence*. For example, the proposal would apply to the scenario when a cybersquatting registrant targets multiple brands by registering hundreds of domain names in a single occurrence. The companies targeted by the registration abuse may bear no formal legal relationship with each other, but may be part of the same industry, market sector, or provide similar goods and services in the marketplace. Under the current URS rules, these companies are not permitted to bring a single complaint jointly against the single domain name registrant, but must each bring separate, independent complaints, because they are considered unrelated entities. *This outcome is not an efficient use of resources for anyone, including Providers, and is unjustified as a matter of policy.* *Existing UDRP Rules*: see "3(c), The Complaint" which states the following: "The complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder." see "10(e), General Powers of Panel, which states: "A Panel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules." *Link to UDRP case law:* http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2013-0685 *London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), American Arbitration Association/International Center for Dispute Resolution (AAA/ICDR) v. ICSID Lawyers*, LLC, D2013-0685 (WIPO, June 21, 2013) Here is the relevant text from the *London Court of Arbitration* decision, which cites *Fulham Football Club (1987) Limited v. Domains by Proxy, Inc./ Official Tickets Ltd*, WIPO Case No. D2009-0331 as the basis of the holding. *6. Discussion and Findings * A. Multiple Complainants The Complaint is brought by 5 separate Complainants, each of which is a separate arbitral institution. In Fulham Football Club (1987) Limited v. Domains by Proxy, Inc./ Official Tickets Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2009-0331, the Panel outlined the circumstances in which it might be appropriate to permit a consolidated complaint involving multiple complainants and multiple domain names against a single domain name registrant to proceed. The relevant extract of that decision is below: “General Principles Applicable to Consolidation Under the UDRP In the National Dial A Word case (see supra), the panel held that the consolidation of multiple complaints in a single complaint should be permitted if the complainants: (i) have a common grievance against the respondent; and (ii) it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation of complaints. With regard to the first limb of the test, to establish a common grievance against the respondent the panel in the National Dial A Word case held that multiple complainants must; (i) have a common legal interest in the trade mark rights on which the complaint is based; or (ii) be the target of common conduct by the respondent which has clearly affected their individual legal interests in a similar fashion. Instances where multiple complainants may establish a common legal interest would include where: (i) the multiple complainants have a shared interest in a trade mark, such as may exist between a licensor and a licensee; or (ii) the multiple complainants form part of a single entity such as where individual companies are part of a larger corporate group or joint venture; or (iii) the multiple complainants are members of an established association or league (such as a sporting association) in which individual members have rights authorized to be enforced by the association, both the association and the members should have standing to appear as multiple complainants in a consolidated complaint against a single respondent. If multiple complainants cannot establish a common legal interest sufficient to justify their consolidation in a single complaint, to satisfy the “common grievance” limb of the test the complainants must establish that the respondent has engaged in common conduct that has affected their individual rights in a similar fashion. Such common conduct may be found to exist: (i) where the rights relied on and the disputed domain names in question involve readily identifiable commonalities; or (ii) where there is a clear pattern of registration and use of all the disputed domain names in question. If the multiple complainants establish that a common grievance exists against the respondent then the panelist considered that the second limb of the test should be addressed: would it be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit consolidation of the complainants?” The Panel, in considering whether the present proceeding should be allowed, adopts the test outlined above. In the present proceeding the Complainants do not appear to have a common legal interest that has been affected by the Respondent's conduct, as they do not share trade mark rights. Each of the Complainants own and is seeking to protect its trade mark rights separately, not jointly with each other. However the Complainants have established that the Respondent has engaged in common conduct which has affected their legal rights in a similar fashion. Indications of such common conduct on the part of the Respondent include: (i) the fact that the Domain Names, with the exception of <stockholmarbitration.com> each consists of the name or acronym of a Complainant, usually with the word “arbitration” or “arbitrations” appended on the end; (ii) 14 of the 17 Domain Names were registered on the same date and all of them were registered with the same Registrar; and (iii) Each of the Domain Names currently or previously resolved to the Respondent’s Website, which points to a clear pattern of use of all the Domain Names for the same purpose. In the Panel's view it is equitable and procedurally efficient to permit consolidation of the Complainants' complaints because: (i) although each of the Complainants operates under its own trade mark and each of the Domain Names incorporates elements of each of the Complainants' differing trade marks, in effect the Respondent is using the Complainants' trade marks for the same purposes. Therefore, the commencement of separate proceedings by each of the Complainants in relation to an otherwise common complaint would be inefficient and unnecessary under the Policy; (ii) the Complainants' substantive arguments made under each of the three elements of the Policy are common to the Domain Names; (iii) all the Complainants are represented by a single authorized representative for the purposes of the proceedings; and (iv) the Complainants have clearly stipulated each Domain Name, the individual Complainant making a claim thereto, the rights relied upon by that Complainant, and the registrar with whom the Domain Name is registered. Any transfer, if found to be justified and ordered by the Panel, will be to the individual Complainant holding the corresponding trade mark. Accordingly the Panel determines that the Complainants should, for the reasons discussed above, be permitted to have their complaints consolidated into a single Complaint for the purpose of the present proceedings under the Policy. Overall this is clearly a case fitting within the “common conduct” category in which it would be equitable and fair to permit consolidation. On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 5:25 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear RPM colleagues, > > This note is to provide the supplemental information that I promised to > provide in response to the feedback on my URS proposal, available at: > https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-6.pd… > > The proposal states the following: > > "The recommendation is to permit multiple unrelated complainants to bring > a single complaint jointly against a single domain name registrant (or > related registrants) who has registered multiple domain names, by deleting > the following procedural element within Section 1.1.3 of the URS > Procedure: "One Complaint is acceptable for multiple related companies > against one Registrant, but only if the companies complaining are related" > > ---- > > The basis of this proposal is to harmonize the UDRP and URS on this > element of the complaint, which will create significant efficiencies and > enhance the utility of the mechanism by consolidating the process in a > manner that promotes fairness, e.g. respondents can avoid the need to > respond to multiple independent complaints, but can raise their arguments > and defenses in one consolidated action against multiple unrelated > complainants. On the complaint-side, the ability for unrelated complainants > to join their claims into one complaint against one registrant who has > multiple domain names under a common occurrence or scheme. > > To be clear, there is no component of the proposal that permits > complainants to join their complaints against one registrant who has > registered multiple domain names "randomly" or without an underlying > connection or pattern. Rather, the proposal is designed to address the > scenario when a single registrant registers multiple domain names under a > common occurrence or scheme. > > There are examples when a cybersquatting registrant targets brands for > fraudulent purposes, by registering hundreds of domain names in a single > occurrence. The companies targeted by the registration abuse will bear no > formal legal relationship with each other, but rather are part of the same > industry, market sector, or provide similar goods and services in the > marketplace. Under the current URS, these trademark owners are unable to > bring a single complaint jointly against the single domain name registrant, > but must each bring separate, independent complaints. As a result, this > increases the resources required to administer the disputes since the cases > can not be consolidated. > > > >

1 0

Agenda and Materials for 10 October Working Group Meeting 1700 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 5, 2018

Oct. 5, 2018

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, On behalf of the Co-Chairs, please see the draft agenda below for the Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 10 October at 1700 UTC for 120 minutes. Per Co-Chairs’ Proposed Procedure, for this next meeting, the Working Group will continue discussion of the Individual URS Proposals. According to the timeline published on the wiki the order of the presentation is as follows. WG members are requested to review the presentations prior to Wednesday’s meeting. George Kirikos (#5): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-5.pd… George Kirikos (#7): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-7.pd… George Kirikos (#8): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-8.pd… Marie Pattullo (staff to present on behalf of Marie) (#13): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-13.p… George Kirikos (#12): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-12.p… George Kirikos (#18): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-18.p… George Kirikos (#19): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-19.p… George Kirikos (#20): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-20.p… NOTE FOR WG MEMBERS REVISING PROPOSALS: If WG members have revised/combined proposals the Co-Chairs request that they send them to the WG list as soon as possible and be ready to present them during the meeting on Friday, 12 October. Staff have updated the numberings displayed on the proposals to be consistent with the numberings on the wiki. The wiki page also includes a document that consolidates all URS proposals from individual members to facilitate viewing/reference. Per the procedure, please also note the following time requirements for the presentations: When a proposal is up for discussion, its proponent will be accorded a maximum of five (5) minutes to orally present the proposal, rationale, and supporting evidence. The floor will then be open to other Working Group members to comment on the proposal for a maximum of two (2) minutes each, with total discussion limited to twenty (20) minutes. However, if there is exceptionally high interest in a topic, the Co-Chairs would have discretion to increase the discussion time. At the end of twenty (20) minutes, or when there are no more commenters in queue, the proponent will have up to four (4) minutes to respond and/or propose a modification of the proposal based upon the discussion. Depending on the actual progress during the Wednesday meeting, if a proposal cannot be presented due to time limitation, the presentation should be deferred to the meeting on 12 October. Draft Agenda: Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates Discussion of Individual URS Proposals (See: wiki) AOB Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie On Behalf of the RPM PDP WG Co-Chairs

1 0

Interbrand's 2018 list of the most valuable brands
by George Kirikos Oct. 5, 2018

Oct. 5, 2018

Hi folks, Interbrand just released its 2018 ranking of the world's most valuable brands, see: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/04/apple-google-and-amazon-… https://www.interbrand.com/best-brands/best-global-brands/2018/ranking/#?li… It might be educational to compare that list with the list of most frequent complainants in the URS (and down the road, the UDRP). [It could also be useful for the TMCH work.] Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

2 1

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 03 October 2018 at 17:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Oct. 3, 2018

Oct. 3, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC Chat attached to this email, and the MP3 & AC recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Wednesday, 03 October 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/pwqrBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-03oct18-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p4myfjr7a5c/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind Regards, Michelle DeSmyter

1 0

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 03 October 2018
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 3, 2018

Oct. 3, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 03 October 2018 (17:00-19:00 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-03+Review+of+all+R…. See also the proposals at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Proposals. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Chair: Phil Corwin 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates: No updates. 2. Discussion of Individual URS Proposals (See: https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ) Order of Presentations: 22, 26, 27, 29, 28, 30, 31, 32 Brian Winterfeldt’s team (no. 22): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-22.p… Presented by John McElwaine Discussion: -- Since we are trying to determine if there is adequate support notwithstanding opposition, we will lean towards inclusion in the Initial Report. -- Concerns about identify theft issues and that registrant would be liable for damages for a name they never registered. -- Concern about undermining confidence in ICANN to have URS become a pseudo court that adjudicates money disputes. Putting out for public comment would be seen as a power grab to usurp the role of the courts. -- Question: Does the loser pay to both the complainant and the respondent? -- Question: Does this only apply to registrants that are habitual cyber squatters and if so what kind of numbers would determine that? -- Question: It isn't just loser pays but recovery of legal fees (by the registrant)? -- Imposing a filing fee to all respondents would be a barrier to access. -- Any proposal for a user pays system should be set out with exactly what is being proposed, rather than the details filled in later. -- For escrow, suggest a third party. Response: -- We would not adjudicate the amount of legal fees. The fees would be set at a maximum small amount. -- Not adjudicated against the respondent -- not need to be paid until they file their answer. -- Applies to both parties -- amount by complainant and respondent held in escrow. Delivered to the prevailing party. Also some amount to the registry for their administrative costs. -- Threshold: Could be an additional remedy if it only applied to an habitual offender, or could apply in all cases -- that would be for the community to decide. Zak Muscovitch (no. 26): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-26.p… Discussion: -- Support for the proposal. -- Question: Forum has a search page where you can enter the arbitrator name, etc. What in addition to that would he be looking for? -- Question: What harm has been identified? -- Question: Is this issue unique to the URS or for the UDRP? -- Support for the proposal and interacts with other proposals. Response: -- Re: the search function on Forum web site -- tweaking it would make it even more useful. Such as seeing how many decisions are provided over I would have to do that through many searches. -- Re: harm -- From Prof. Tushnet's data there was a wide discrepancy, which could mean two problems 1) any system requires a degree of transparency of who is adjudicating and if there is a concentration of adjudicators, which could be a breach of the policy and inadvertently relying on a small group of panelists; 2) if a select group is only deciding these cases then they aren't representing the full group. -- Re: applicable to UDRP -- comes up there as well and would propose in the context of UDRP. Zak Muscovitch (no. 27): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-27.p… Discussion: -- Seems to be an unnecessary recommendation. Seems like we've already included a recommendation on this. -- Question: Don't know if the proposal is asking if the providers should be ensuring the CVs should be updated. -- Support, but should be more specific -- updated at least once a year. -- Suggest when the CV is updated it should have a time stamp to indicate when it was last updated. -- Suggest URS provider should be sending reminders. -- Support and agree with annual updates. Response: -- This is a minor change. -- Re: Can't hold the provider responsible for CVs that aren't accurate, but the panelists should be required to post updates to their CVs. George Kirikos (no. 29): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-29.p… Discussion: -- Comments: Cost providers a lot of money to implement. Depending on the specification and output there would need to be retranslations and reviews. URS modeled to be fast and automated. Would start from scratch to put these in place. -- Would the same cost apply for doing this for only new cases? The cost would be less over time, but we'd need to redo the process. -- Support for the proposal. Support focusing on doing it going forward. -- Where would the costs be picked up for initial set up? Opposed to the proposal. Not a transparency issue since the data are published. Need to be clear what the costs will be, who picks up the costs, and who the benefit is for. -- Question: Are there any limitations? -- Question: What is the benefit of this proposal versus the search function already on the web site. WIPO does not support. Response: -- You can't capture the fields you want to search by that you can't capture in freeform text. -- The responses by the panelists/rationale wouldn't be standardized, although the decision would be. -- Who would benefit: Not a small group because it would encourage a wider group to study these cases. Zak Muscovitch (no. 28): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-28.p… Discussion: -- Question: If there is a proposal for a conflict of interest policy, would the details be worked out in implementation? Answer: The role of the WG is to develop the policy recommendation and if approved an implementation team comprised from community volunteers works with the Global Domains Division (GDD) to develop implementation details. However, the PDP WG could provide guidelines. -- Worth considering. Helpful to have clear guidance on what a conflict of interest means and unify over jurisdictions. -- Address potential for conflicting rules for conflicts of interest. Response: -- Not asking for the providers to write up a specific policy? No. -- Not asking the public to vote on a policy. -- Conflict of interest is a public interest matter. George Kirikos (no. 30): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-30.p… Discussion: -- Question: Explain mandatory mediation versus a mediation option. -- Doesn't seem to be much of an appetite for mediation and think it should be optional. The main issue seems to be cost. -- Timeline -- it is supposed to be a fast process and mediation would slow that down. -- Lack of use of mediation based on the default rate. -- Mediation cuts both ways. -- Good idea but there is an important issue of when does the mediation occurs. -- Time and costs are factors. Response: -- Statements made in mediation would be without prejudice. -- Don't think the default rate is an indicator as to whether people would engage in mediation. -- Flow of process: Don't need a full complaint, just a skeleton. -- In terms of mandatory: Forces people to think about settlement. David McAuley (no. 31): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-31.p… Discussion: -- Don't support, but agree that it should be put out for public comment. -- Question: In terms of data collection, there wasn't collection of data from registrants. -- Which URS should become Consensus Policy -- the current URS, or that as proposed to be modified by the WG recommendations? -- Worth putting out for public comment, but odd to talk about expanding it now. -- Support for the proposal and helpful to put it out for public comment. Response: -- There was some data collection, but we are asking people to comment. -- Whether this is a big leap that is why it is good to get public comment. -- As to which URS, that will always be an issue. The baseline will be the current URS, but they will see the proposals/options/questions for feedback. -- Re: tied to the price that Verisign charges: will come back to this on the list. Current registry agreement regarding .com may change before this PDP is completed and the cost to registries of implementing a URS decision is very low. 3. Next Meetings: 10 Oct and 12 Oct, 1700 UTC for 120 Minutes 4. Inclusion in Initial Report: See Section 7 of the Co-Chairs Proposed Procedures

1 0

Proposal No. 30 - Mediation
by Steve Levy Oct. 2, 2018

Oct. 2, 2018

Hello George, I see that you’ve submitted a proposal that the URS and UDRP should implement a mandatory mediation step. Last year I investigated the issue of mediation with both Nominet and some of the URS/UDRP providers. I've attached a copy of my brief report and hope you’ll find it illuminating on this topic. Regards, Steve [cid:6F908F10-786B-4616-986F-BD98CFF78443] Steven M. Levy, Esq. Accent Law Group, Inc. 301 Fulton St. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19147 United States Phone: +1-215-327-9094 Email: slevy(a)AccentLawGroup.com<mailto:slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com<http://www.accentlawgroup.com/> <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/> ________________________________________ Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.

3 2

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] URS Language Proposals, revision/merger of previous proposals #24 & #25
by kathy＠kathykleiman.com Oct. 1, 2018

Oct. 1, 2018

Tx you George and Zak. Best, Kathy Sent from my Sprint phone. ----- Reply message ----- From: "George Kirikos" <icann(a)leap.com> To: "gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org>, "Ariel Liang" <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] URS Language Proposals, revision/merger of previous proposals #24 & #25 Date: Mon, Oct 1, 2018 11:21 AM Hi folks, As discussed on our last call, Zak Muscovitch and I have worked over the past few days to revise and merge our individual language-related proposals for the URS (currently numbered as #24 & #25). Attached as a PDF is the product of that effort. (we leave it to Staff as to how to number this merged proposal). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0