December 2018 - GNSO-RPM-WG

ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018
by Ariel Liang Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

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

Draft FY20 Operating Plan and Budget Now Available for Your Feedback - ICANN CEO- Göran Marby
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 20, 2018

Dec. 20, 2018

https://www.icann.org/news/blog/draft-fy20-operating-plan-and-budget-now-av… Draft FY20 Operating Plan and Budget Now Available for Your Feedback As a not-for-profit organization working in the public interest, one of the ICANN organization's most important responsibilities is to develop an annual operating budget. We posted our Draft Operating Plan and Budget for Fiscal Year 2020<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2018-12-17-en>. Long-term financial planning and fiscal responsibility is necessary, and can only be achieved when the ICANN org, Board, and community work together to properly plan. In FY20, we continue to anticipate minimal growth in funding; it is forecasted at $140.1 million, up 2% from FY19. Expenses are budgeted below funding at $137.1 million. As a result of the budgeted increase of the Reserve Fund, the budgeted funding is slightly higher than last year. We've budgeted to contribute approximately $3 million (2 to 3% of the total budget) to the Reserve Fund, which will not have any negative impact to planned work. Annual allocation to the Reserve Fund will be the standard approach, at least until it is replenished to the minimum target level. This simply is the right thing to do. Constituency and fellowship travel support will remain at the same level as FY19, as will the ICANN org staff, which stands at approximately 400 people. To ensure the best support for the community's work, we have controls in place to hire or replace staff only when clearly required, but we still ensure the best support for the community's work after driving efficiency improvements. We've also brought the timeline for Public Comment forward to begin before the end of 2018. We've extended the comment period to 53 days to give you more time to review the documents. You will find five detailed documents, with content broken into six modules by topic: Contractual Compliance and Consumer Safeguards, Direct Policy Support, DNS Marketplace and Identifier Ecosystem, Technology and DNS Security, Engagement, and Reviews. The FY20 planning cycle is the final year of the current strategic plan, which makes it a transition year, as we are developing the 2021-2025 Strategic Plan in parallel. During FY20, we will use the new strategic plan to plan for FY21. You, the community, play an essential role in planning for the year ahead. We need and want your feedback and input. I look forward to productive discussions about this proposed Budget over the coming months before it's finalized in March 2019. Please take action! Share your comments here<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2018-12-17-en> during the Public Comment process. David A. Olive | Senior Vice President Policy Development Support ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006<x-apple-data-detectors://3>

1 0

FYI - EXTENDED - ACTION REQUESTED: Nominations/Volunteers for RPM Sunrise Sub Team Leader
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 19, 2018

Dec. 19, 2018

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, Per the action item from today’s Sunrise Sub Team meeting, staff is forwarding the message below for your reference. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 2:43 PM To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] EXTENDED - ACTION REQUESTED: Nominations/Volunteers for RPM Sunrise Sub Team Leader Dear all, Per the action item from today’s meeting, the period for volunteers and nominations has been extended. Please submit to the Sub Team list any volunteers or nominations to lead the Sunrise Sub Team by COB Friday, 21 December. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

FYI - EXTENSION - ACTION REQUESTED: Nominations/Volunteers for RPM Trademark Claims Sub Team Leader
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 19, 2018

Dec. 19, 2018

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, Per the action item from today’s Trademark Claims Sub Team meeting, staff is forwarding the message below for your reference. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Gnso-rpm-trademark <gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 2:43 PM To: "gnso-rpm-trademark(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-trademark(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] EXTENSION - ACTION REQUESTED: Nominations/Volunteers for RPM Trademark Claims Sub Team Leader Dear all, Per the action item from today’s meeting, the period for volunteers and nominations has been extended. Please submit to the Sub Team list any volunteers or nominations to lead the RPM Trademark Claims Sub Team by COB Friday, 21 December. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Multistakeholder Ethos Award 2019 - Nominations Open
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 17, 2018

Dec. 17, 2018

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-12-17-en Nomination Period Opens For ICANN Multistakeholder Ethos Award | Award Targeted for ICANN65 | Nominations Close 22 March 2019 Submit Nominations Via the Ethos Award Nomination Form<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/10p6ycAj9Cve9J5YcbT8eG_1aKMLPNkJtKQPga0_8PE…> ICANN is pleased to announce the opening of the nomination period for ICANN's Multistakeholder Ethos Award. Launched in 2014 at ICANN50 in London, the Multistakeholder Ethos Award recognizes ICANNparticipants who have deeply invested in consensus-based solutions, acknowledging the importance of ICANN's multistakeholder model of Internet governance, and contributed in a substantive way to the higher interests of ICANN's organization and its community. The ideal recipient(s) will have served in roles in multiple ICANN working groups or committees and collaborated with more than one Supporting Organization and/or Advisory Committee in a significant capacity. Candidates for the award will demonstrate at least five years of participation in the ICANN Community. Candidates will be evaluated by a panel of community members appointed by the Chairs of each Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees using a merit-based point system evaluated against three criteria: 1. Demonstrated ability to work across community lines with both familiar and unfamiliar ICANNStakeholders with the aim of consensus building and collaboration that substantiate ICANN's multistakeholder model; 2. Facilitator of dialogue and open discussion in a fair and collegial manner, through the spirit of collaboration as shown through empathy and demonstrating a sincere desire to engage with people from other backgrounds, cultures, and interests; and 3. Demonstrated additional devotional factors exhibited by time spent supporting ICANN's multistakeholder model and its overall effectiveness through volunteer service via working groups or committees. Please submit your nominations via this Nomination Form<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/10p6ycAj9Cve9J5YcbT8eG_1aKMLPNkJtKQPga0_8PE…> including detailed information outlining why the nominee meets the award criteria. Any additional information in support of nominations and/or questions about the award process may be submitted via email ethosaward2019(a)icann.org<mailto:ethosaward2019@icann.org>. Award recipient(s) will be announced in June 2019 at ICANN65 Marrakech. For more insights on the award program, please consult the ICANN Community Wiki.<https://community.icann.org/x/YyOAAw> Submit Nominations Via the Ethos Award Nomination Form<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/10p6ycAj9Cve9J5YcbT8eG_1aKMLPNkJtKQPga0_8PE…>

1 0

ICANN Offices closed from 21 December 2018 EOB to 2 January 2019
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 13, 2018

Dec. 13, 2018

Dear all, ICANN offices will be closed for the end of year break. GNSO staff support will therefore end on Friday 21st December 2018 EOB to resume on Wednesday 2nd January 2019. GNSO Staff would like to seize the opportunity to wish you all the merriest of holidays with your loved ones and the very best wishes for 2019! Kind regards, On behalf of the GNSO team Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

Sunrise and TMCH Claims Sub Teams
by Michael Graham (ELCA) Dec. 10, 2018

Dec. 10, 2018

Please sign me up for the Trademark Claims Sub Team. Michael R. [cid:image001.png@01D4906D.206482C0] Michael R. Graham Senior Counsel and Global Director, Intellectual Property, Expedia Group T +1 425 679 4330 | M +1 425 241 1459 333 108th Ave. NE | Bellevue | WA 98004 Email: migraham(a)expedia.com<mailto:migraham@expedia.com> [cid:image002.png@01D4906D.206482C0] From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Friday, December 07, 2018 7:14 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: Call for Volunteers: Sunrise and TMCH Claims Sub Teams Importance: High Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, As noted during today's meeting, according to the attached timeline for the completion of Phase One of the PDP, the Working Group (WG) will shortly proceed to develop recommendations relating to the Trademark Clearing House (TMCH), Sunrise, and Claims RPMs. This email is a request for WG members to volunteer to join the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams to assist with analyzing the results of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims surveys, and the previously collected data, with a view toward determining if and whether the data are helpful in answering the agreed questions based on refinements of the original charter questions for each of these RPMs (as in the attached two tables). In addition, as per the attached timeline the Sub Teams will assist in the review of individual proposals and in the development of preliminary recommendations. Please reply to this email on the list by TODAY Friday, 07 December and indicate which Sub Team(s) you would like to join. Note that to avoid running the Sub Team meetings at the same time, one Sub Team will meet on Wednesdays at 1300 UTC and the other at 1700 UTC, depending on member preferences. We may seek an alternate time if one can be found that doesn't conflict with other GNSO meetings: ____ Join the Sunrise Sub Team ____ Join the Trademark Claims Sub Team Please also let us know if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

1 0

Call for Volunteers: Sunrise and TMCH Claims Sub Teams
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 10, 2018

Dec. 10, 2018

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, As noted during today’s meeting, according to the attached timeline for the completion of Phase One of the PDP, the Working Group (WG) will shortly proceed to develop recommendations relating to the Trademark Clearing House (TMCH), Sunrise, and Claims RPMs. This email is a request for WG members to volunteer to join the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams to assist with analyzing the results of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims surveys, and the previously collected data, with a view toward determining if and whether the data are helpful in answering the agreed questions based on refinements of the original charter questions for each of these RPMs (as in the attached two tables). In addition, as per the attached timeline the Sub Teams will assist in the review of individual proposals and in the development of preliminary recommendations. Please reply to this email on the list by Friday, 07 December and indicate which Sub Team(s) you would like to join. Note that to avoid running the Sub Team meetings at the same time, one Sub Team will meet on Wednesdays at 1300 UTC and the other at 1700 UTC, depending on member preferences. We may seek an alternate time if one can be found that doesn’t conflict with other GNSO meetings: ____ Join the Sunrise Sub Team ____ Join the Trademark Claims Sub Team Please also let us know if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

6 5

Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes
by Cyntia King Dec. 10, 2018

Dec. 10, 2018

Hi All, I agree we need to have a process in place that everyone understands ahead of time. Naturally any process could be amended, if needed, by approval of the WG. To reiterate & refine my suggestions on the call yesterday: * Small, representative sub-teams (Cue discussion of what is small” & “representative”) * Weekly emails of staff notes to full WG (WG then able to provide input back to sub-team) * Sub-teams prepare a draft report & email to WG * When appropriate, call for proposals to WG * Sub-teams discuss proposals w/ interested parties * Develop report w/ proposals, including majority& minority positions * Present reports to full WG * Sub-team members give short (3-min?) overview of majority/minority positions * WG afforded short Q&A of sub-team members * WG polled to determine which items have consensus (Items w/out clear consensus could be referred back to the sub-team for further consideration) * Final report compiled, approved by full WG (noting areas of significant dissent) I look forward to your thoughts. Cyntia King O: +1 816.633.7647 C: +1 818.209.6088 From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Nahitchevansky, Georges Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 10:23 AM To: Jason Schaeffer <jason(a)esqwire.com>; Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas(a)gmail.com>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 December 2018 I agree that smaller subteams are better for getting the work done efficiently. That being said, my one concern is what we witnessed the last go around with subteam recommendations and work product. The work was done and then others attacked the work saying it was not representative of the working group, should be given little to no weight and should be treated the same as any proposal or comment made by anyone in the working group at the 11th hour. If we are going to have subteams, then we should have some up front guidance as to how the work will be treated and the rules of the game. From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Jason Schaeffer Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 10:51 AM To: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas(a)gmail.com <mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com> >; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> > Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 December 2018 Hi All, I agree. I don’t believe that we concluded yesterday’s call with a decision to run sub teams at different times. Many good points were raised regarding the value of using sub teams. Per the proposed schedule, we need to move quickly and effectively – there’s much ground to cover. Thus, having those dedicated to doing extra work and participating in smaller groups that are delegated with a task is critical to this WG’s success. Being a sub-team chair I can say with certainty that the ability of the sub team to work efficiently and effectively depends, in part, on the size of the sub-team. It’s not intended to be a replication of the WG. Running parallel sub teams is also much more efficient. I’m also concerned that 13:00 UTC is problematic for PST and others. Jason From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael Karanicolas Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 6:04 PM To: Julie Hedlund Cc: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 December 2018 Hi all, Thanks as always to staff for writing this up. Just with regard to the subgroups and timing, I didn't chime in on the call because I don't feel strongly either way, but thinking about it in retrospect, and about my experiences on the URS, I wonder if the smaller size of the subgroups is a feature of the system, since it makes discussions less unwieldy to have 10 or 15 participants, rather than 30 or 40. Obviously, it's problematic to take any measures to restrict participation, but having the calls occur at the same time is sort of a softer method of achieving a smaller group for discussions, particularly if people who are interested are free to float back and forth between the two. Just a thought, since I don't know that that angle was raised - that the inability to participate in both groups at the same time as being a feature of the system. Best, Michael On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:48 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> > wrote: Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 05 December 2018 (17:00-18:30 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/2018-12-05+Review+of+all+R…. See also the attached referenced documents. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: 1. Staff to send out a Call for Volunteers for the Sunrise and Claims Sub Teams 2. Staff to schedule Sub Team calls Notes: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates: None. 2. Discuss Proposed Sub Team Approach, Scope of Work, and Call for Volunteers -- see attached documents: 1) Draft RPM Timeline August 2018-September 2019 – updated 03 December 2018 by ICANN staff (Phase 1): Discussion: -- Concerns: 1) Simultaneous meetings -- prevents participation in both Sub Teams. Could schedule on alternate dates or could use early time slot. 2) opening individual proposals on the 2nd and close on 23 January -- complete analysis of the data first? -- There will be updates to the full WG, which would help the individuals to prepare their proposals. -- Concerned that if we can only participate in one sub team could that encourage those who aren't participating to make individual proposals. -- Support sub teams meeting in parallel, but not at the same time. -- The Sub Teams could meet at 1300 and 1700 UTC on Wednesdays, if there is enough participation. -- Could also use a Friday time and report back on Monday. -- Seems pointless to start on Phase 2 in the middle; could we take a break? It may be overcome by events. -- UDRP discussion could be organizational. -- Seem to be deviating from the URS in that the sub teams can go through the individual proposals. Concerns about whether sub teams can block individual proposals. -- Quick note on Sub-teams -- the idea is to: (1) break the work into tracks that can run concurrently so as to move forward more quickly, and (2) to apply expertise to specific topics. This shouldn't preclude people from being on multiple teams and, with weekly reporting to the group, should give sub-teams the authority to make recommendations. -- We had already considered a lot of TMCH issues before moving into URS, so we are asking people to get their proposals on the table early, not that they couldn't wait. -- Can we move the submission period for the individual proposals to be later? Per staff the timing of the submission of the individual proposals can be later. -- We can also allocate some time in the full WG when the sub teams report back and have the individual present the proposal and sub team chair. -- If the individual proposals wait until after the sub teams have presented their results then it might add time to the timeline -- although this approach does not have to be decided at this point. -- Have pros and cons presentations from the sub teams. 2) Status of TMCH and Related RPM Discussions 3) Table of Final Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions and Data Collected 4) Table of Final Agreed Trademark Claims Charter Questions and Data Collected -- Add page numbers (although note that the PDF is for viewing only; the working document will be Google Doc or Google Sheets). -- Does the data include the outreach that the PDP WG did to all the SOs/ACs -- that was done in late 2016? Answer: We received one or two responses, which were not data specific. We do have them on the record and when the sub teams develop recommendations they will be reminded of all relevant input. Can add as a placeholder at the end of the document. -- On articles and blogs -- will the WG be collecting the data? Staff began the exercise, but since the WG was considering the need for data collection, which because the surveys were very extensive, it may be that the survey data may address those requests. We were hoping to get further guidance since it is a lot of work and we are not sure how much it is useful. 5) TMCH Sunrise and Trademark Claims Survey Results Tool -- Add the link to the Google spreadsheet in the table. -- Staff can assist Sub Teams with questions. _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _____ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. _____ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com

2 1

REMINDER: Call for Volunteers: Sunrise and TMCH Claims Sub Teams
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 8, 2018

Dec. 8, 2018

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, As noted during today’s meeting, according to the attached timeline for the completion of Phase One of the PDP, the Working Group (WG) will shortly proceed to develop recommendations relating to the Trademark Clearing House (TMCH), Sunrise, and Claims RPMs. This email is a request for WG members to volunteer to join the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams to assist with analyzing the results of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims surveys, and the previously collected data, with a view toward determining if and whether the data are helpful in answering the agreed questions based on refinements of the original charter questions for each of these RPMs (as in the attached two tables). In addition, as per the attached timeline the Sub Teams will assist in the review of individual proposals and in the development of preliminary recommendations. Please reply to this email on the list by TODAY Friday, 07 December and indicate which Sub Team(s) you would like to join. Note that to avoid running the Sub Team meetings at the same time, one Sub Team will meet on Wednesdays at 1300 UTC and the other at 1700 UTC, depending on member preferences. We may seek an alternate time if one can be found that doesn’t conflict with other GNSO meetings: ____ Join the Sunrise Sub Team ____ Join the Trademark Claims Sub Team Please also let us know if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

5 4