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

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April
by Julie Hedlund April 24, 2018

April 24, 2018

Scott, Thank you for your comments. They are noted. With respect to the footnotes, superscripts appear as follows (highlighted in yellow): 1. Do you believe the current mechanisms for proving use in a URS case are adequate?[1] Footnote: “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;” Section 3(v). The Complaint, at: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/rules-28jun13-en.pdf; See also Section 1.2.6.1(a) and 8.1.2.1 at: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf 6. Do you believe the existing time frames for submitting filings in a URS proceeding are appropriate?[2] Footnote: These are: 14 days for a response (including a right to request 7 days extension), seeking de novo review (from default) for up to six months plus an option to request an additional 6 months, and filing an appeal for up to 14 days after default or a determination. See: The Procedure: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf and the Rules: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/rules-28jun13-en.pdf. Following the end of the deadline today for comments, staff will send to the WG a revised redlined document reflecting all of the comments and suggested edits, including the title and the introductory remarks provided previously by the Sub Team. Kind regards, Julie From: Scott Austin <SAustin(a)vlplawgroup.com> Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 2:16 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April Julie: I am reluctant to dive back in with any more changes, but several items I believe are worth mentioning on the redline I received today. The centered “title” of the document is really a heading intended for the first set of questions (which has no heading) and should be moved down to the left margin as an initial heading above the first question at a left justified location similar to the un numbered headings which follow (perhaps an A, B, C, outline format would be useful, but its in PDF so can’t insert.) There are footnote texts at the bottom of pages 5 and 6 but I could not find the superscript notes to which they relate. Does the document have a title or do these questions just appear after the introductory remarks and caveat we created previously? Perhaps we should see the entire document in final. Best regards, Scott Please click below to use my booking calendar to schedule: a 15-minute call a 30-minute call a 60-minute call [avvo.com] Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney | VLP Law Group LLP 101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 | SAustin(a)VLPLawGroup.com From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 12:15 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April Dear all, Further to the message below, this is a reminder to send in any comments or suggested edits not later than today, Tuesday, 24 April. Any further suggestions will be considered along with those received thus far from Brian Beckham and George Kirikos. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 7:27 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April Dear All, Please see the attached revised document “URS Practitioner Background Experience and Perspective” based on the comments and suggestions received during the RPM PDP WG meeting today, 18 April. Please review the document per the following action item highlighted below. The suggested edits are indicated by redline and strikethrough in the attached document. Questions for URS Practitioners: Staff will provide to the WG a redlined document with suggested revisions by 18 April (DONE-Attached) WG members are encouraged to provide any further comments/suggestions by COB Friday, 20 April, but not later than Tuesday, 24 April; Staff will provide to the WG a final redlined document before the meeting on Wednesday, 25 April. Please note: When the proposed questions are finalized, staff will proofread and correct typos, formatting errors, etc. before the questions are converted into a survey; WG members are encouraged to focus your comments/suggestions on the substance. Only the PDF version is provided to ensure the WG is commenting/suggesting edits to the content in one master document, so as to avoid any potential version confusion caused by Word file(s). Thank you for your time and review! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel This message contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes. [1] “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;” Section 3(v). The Complaint, at: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/rules-28jun13-en.pdf; See also Section 1.2.6.1(a) and 8.1.2.1 at: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf [2] These are: 14 days for a response (including a right to request 7 days extension), seeking de novo review (from default) for up to six months plus an option to request an additional 6 months, and filing an appeal for up to 14 days after default or a determination. See: The Procedure: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf and the Rules: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/rules-28jun13-en.pdf.

2 2

Proposal to Shift URS review to Phase II
by John McElwaine April 21, 2018

April 21, 2018

Dear RPM Working Group: In our meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico, I raised the issue of moving the work set forth in this Working Group's charter relating to the URS to Phase II. The Chairs asked that I put something in writing detailing the specific recommendation and reasoning, which I present below and have also attached hereto in a Word document for your review and consideration. Kind regards, John Proposal to Shift URS from Phase I to Phase II: 1. On 15 December 2011, the GNSO Council requested that eighteen (18) months after the launch of the New gTLD Program ICANN staff prepare and publish an Issue Report on the state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to the UDRP and URS. The Council subsequently agreed to extend the timeline for a report by a further six (6) months. 2. On 9 October 2015, a Preliminary Issues Report was published discussing the scope of this potential PDP and outlining three possible options for moving forward. The third option ultimately was elected at that time: The "third option would be to conduct a policy review of all the RPMs in two phases, with the initial phase being a review only of the RPMs developed for the New gTLD Program. . . . The second, subsequent phase of work would be a review of the UDRP, based on the concerns specific to its scope that were raised in the 2011 GNSO Issue Report and any additional relevant topics derived from the first phase of work concerning the RPMs developed for the New gTLD Program." 3. On 15 March 2016, the two phase approach was approved in the Charter for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group ("RPM Working Group"). Phase One was to focus on a review of all the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program, and Phase Two will focus on a review of the UDRP. 4. The Objective & Goals in the PDP's Charter were to examine (i) the RPMs effectiveness, (ii) whether the RPMs collectively fulfil their purposes, and (iii) whether additional policy specific recommendations are needed, including to clarify and unify the policy goals. RPM Working Group Charter, at p. 3. The Objectives & Goals in the PDP's Charter were broadly defined: "In addition to an assessment of the effectiveness of each RPM, the PDP Working Group is expected to consider, at the appropriate stage of its work, the overarching issue as to whether or not all the RPMs collectively fulfill the purposes for which they were created, or whether additional policy recommendations are needed, including to clarify and unify the policy goals. If such additional policy recommendations are needed, the Working Group is expected to develop recommendations to address the specific issues identified. The Working Group is also directed to bear in mind that a fundamental underlying intention of conducting a review of all RPMs in all gTLDs is to create a framework for consistent and uniform reviews of these mechanisms in the future." 5. However, the RPM Working Group Charter also contains a lengthy attachment entitled "LIST OF POTENTIAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS PDP" This "list was derived from various community suggestions in different forums, they are not listed in any particular order of importance nor has staff attempted to analyze the merits, relevance or significance of each issue". This list contains topics that are out of scope when compared with the Objectives and Goals, including: 1. Are generic dictionary words being adequately protected so that they are available for all to use as allowed under their national laws and international treaties? E.g. sun, window 2. Should monetary damages be awarded? 3. Are last names and geographic places adequately protected so that they are available for all to use as allowed under their national laws, e.g, Smith, McDonald, Capitol Hill Cafe, Old Town Deli? 4. Should injunctive relief be available? 5. Now that Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is a regular finding of UDRP panels, indicating that domain name registrants are being abused by complaints brought against them in the UDRP process, what penalties and sanctions should be imposed on Complainants found to be reverse domain name hijackers? How can those penalties and sanctions be aligned so as to be fair, as compared to the loss of a domain name taken from a registrant found to be a "cybersquatter"? 6. Issues from this list and other new out of scope issues, complaints and modifications are causing the work of the RPM Working Group to slow and are polarizing the members; thus, harming the ability to achieve consensus in the Working Group. As recommend by the PDP breakout group and discussed by the Community in attendance at the Sunday gNSO Working Session in San Juan, it would be particularly useful if working group charters would: 1. Define clearly what success for the proposed working group "should look like". (K. Kleiman reporting on breakout session, Transcript ICANN61 San Juan GNSO Working Session Part 2 Sunday, 11 March 2018 at 10:30 AS ("Transcript") at p. 5). 2. Define topics or issues that must be addressed, may be addressed and may not be addressed. (Transcript at p. 4). 3. Have "more defined issues, [be] more bounded, more limited." (Transcript at p. 5). 4. Have a narrower scope and be broken up into separate projects. (Transcript at p. 5). 5. Having a charter drafting team that "that are experts, and that might mean a legal expert, but we should also have people that have experience, practical experience." (S. DelBianco reporting on breakout session, Transcript at p. 5). 7. The Trademark Clearinghouse, Sunrise and Trademark Claims Notices are RPMs relating to the registration process of domain names in the new gTLDs. The URS is more akin to the UDRP, and like the UDRP is a mandatory dispute resolution proceeding to recover a domain name that has been clearly registered in bad faith. Since the URS is intended to be complementary of the UDRP and will have similar issues it would be more efficient to address these RPMs in a more cohesive manner. 8. With respect to the URS and UDRP, The European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, and the European Commission have enacted a new data privacy regulation in 2016 entitled the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) that will likely adversely impact the ability of the URS and UDRP to function as these policies are currently implemented. The new regulation is scheduled to take effect on May 25, 2018. Among other ways, GDRP may adversely impact the URS and the UDRP by: 1. Procedure for UDRP/URS: 1. Possibility that Providers cannot serve the UDRP/URS Complaint if an email address cannot be obtained. 2. Possibility that the Language of the URS proceeding cannot be determined. 2. Procedure for URS: 1. Possibility that the URS provider cannot translate the notice of URS complaint into the predominant language used in the Registrant's country or territory. 2. Possibility that URS complainants cannot know the language of a possible response. 3. Possibility that URS complainants do not know whether the URS complaint was translated into the correct language(s) and that proceedings were administered correctly. 3. UDRP Element 2 / URS: 1. Cannot argue that the registrant is not commonly known by the Domain Name at issue. 2. Cannot determine if the registrant has been authorized by the Trademark holder. 3. Cannot determine if the registrant is an authorized reseller of the Trademark holder's product. 4. Cannot determine on what date the domain name was "registered" by the current domain name holder if it was transferred to this current domain name holder. (requires being able to see the WhoIs history). This could prevent baseless claims from being filed. 4. UDRP Element 3: 1. Cannot determine if registrant has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registrations. Rule 4(b)(ii). 2. Cannot determine if registrant has been found to engage other unlawful actions, such as malware, phishing or scams. 3. Cannot determine if the registrant is in a particular geographic region to be better assess the possibility of legitimate co-existence (thus possibly even foregoing the filing of a case, and response, in the first place). 4. Cannot determine if the registrant is technically a "competitor" that has registered the Domain Name for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant. Rule 4(b)(iii). 9. Due to GDPR compliance issues, ICANN org is considering substantial changes to WhoIs, and has published an Interim Model for GDPR Compliance, e.g. "The CookBook" which proposes to significantly limit the public display of WhoIs data after May 25, 2018." see: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdpr-compliance-interim-model-0…. Aggressive current timelines for tiered access to WhoIs data that might provide some fix for the above issues is December 2018. There is no question that GDPR will require policy consideration relating to the URS and UDRP that cannot be predicted and analyzed at this time. Recommendation: 1. The RPM Working Group finishes its already well-advanced work and issues an Initial Report on the PDDRP, Trademark Clearinghouse, Sunrise, and Trademark Claims Notices for public comment. 2. After comments have been analyzed for those elements, that the RPM Working Group finishes its work and issues its Final Report on the PDDRP, Trademark Clearinghouse, Sunrise, and Trademark Claims Notices. 3. The RPM Working Group issues a request through its Appointed Working Group Liaison to the GNSO Council to amend the RPM Working Group Charter as follows: 1. shift the work related to the URS to Phase II and, if necessary, pause starting Phase II until after the permanent impacts of GDPR on the URS and UDRP are known; 2. provide clear guidance to the WG on the issues that (i) must be addressed, (ii) may be addressed, and (iii) may not be addressed; 3. provide clear guidance on the scope of the review of the URS and UDRP. Although a separate issue from this proposal, it is also recommended that Phase II Working Group has one chairperson with appropriate neutrality and experience in PDP consensus building and parliamentary procedures. Assistance to the chair can be provided by utilizing vice-chairs and well-structured sub-teams. [http://www.nelsonmullins.com/img/ecard-logo.png] JOHN C. MCELWAINE PARTNER john.mcelwaine(a)nelsonmullins.com<mailto:john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com> LIBERTY CENTER | SUITE 600 151 MEETING STREET | CHARLESTON, SC 29401 T 843.534.4302 F 843.722.8700 101 CONSTITUTION AVENUE, NW | SUITE 900 WASHINGTON, D.C., 20001 T 202.689.2939 F 202.689.2862 NELSONMULLINS.COM<http://www.nelsonmullins.com> VCARD<http://www.nelsonmullins.com/people/john-mcelwaine/vcard> VIEW BIO<http://www.nelsonmullins.com/people/john-mcelwaine> Confidentiality Notice This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and delete all copies of this message.

22 34

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Consolidated Questions to URS Providers - Please Comment by Friday, 20 April
by Ariel Liang April 21, 2018

April 21, 2018

Hello everyone, Thank you all for reviewing the proposed questions to URS Providers, and thanks to those who have provided comments and suggestions. Staff have consolidated the comments/suggestions and sent the redlined document to the Providers Sub Team to review and consider incorporation. Staff will share Sub Team’s feedback/input before the WG meeting on Wed, 25 April. Thank you, and have a great weekend! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: "Fossen, Renee" <rfossen(a)adrforum.com> Date: Friday, April 20, 2018 at 11:56 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Consolidated Questions to URS Providers - Please Comment by Friday, 20 April Please see my responses to the Provider questions below. Please note that there are additional questions that seek data and information that are not readily available and will require query development before an answer is able to be provided. As the Provider with the most determinations, it will take Forum a considerable amount of time to answer the questions as drafted. The Complaint * Question 4 – requires the Provider to review decisions and potentially, party submissions to draw its own inferences as to what led the examiner to make a determination. The Response * Question 1 – The second question in Question 1 requires the review decisions and potentially party submissions. It may also require the Provider to draw its own inferences as to what led the examiner to make the determination. * Question 4 – Provider will not be able to answer this question as written as to what the Examiner considered unless it was for some reason it was included in a determination, which it likely would not. * Question 14 – requires the review decisions and responses in addition to requiring Forum to determine what an Examiner found persuasive. * Question 15 – requires the review decisions and party submissions. With respect to domain investors this may or may not be clear from the submissions. Unlikely Providers have retained such information separately. Language * Question 4 – requires the Provider to review decisions and potentially responses and in some instances may call for Provider to make certain assumptions. Default * Question 3 – requires the Provider to review decisions and speak to the thought process of Examiners. Examiner Determination * Questions 3, 6, & 8 – requires the Provider to review decisions and in some instances requests that the Provider speak to the thought process of Examiners. Remedies * Question 4 – Is the question seeking an opinion from the Providers? * Question 5 – The Providers did not create the requirements, so would not be able to speak to any perceived inconsistency. Renee Fossen Director of Arbitration Forum 6465 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 480 Minneapolis, MN 55405 Phone 952.516.6456 E-mail rfossen(a)adrforum.com<mailto:rfossen@adrforum.com> www.adrforum.com From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 2:58 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Consolidated Questions to URS Providers - Please Comment by Friday, 20 April Dear All, Staff are recirculating the two documents developed by the Providers Sub Team: 1. Consolidated questions to URS Providers 2. Responses to proposed questions (for referencing responses already received to questions excluded from the “consolidated questions to URS Providers” document) Please be so kind to provide your comments/suggestions to the “consolidated questions” document directly on the mailing list by COB Friday, 20 April. Kindly note: * When the proposed questions are finalized, staff will proofread and correct typos, formatting errors, etc. before the questions are sent to the Providers; WG members are encouraged to focus your comments/suggestions on the substance. * Only the PDF version is provided to ensure the WG is commenting/suggesting edits to the content in one master document, so as to avoid any potential version confusion caused by Word file(s). Thank you for your time and review! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel

1 0

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG 18 April 2018
by Julie Hedlund April 20, 2018

April 20, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and brief notes captured by staff from the Working Group call held on 18 April 2018 (1700 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 transcript or recording. The recording, transcript, Adobe Connect chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items: Questions for URS Practitioners: Staff will provide to the WG a redlined document with suggested revisions by 18 April; WG members are encouraged to provide any further comments/suggestions by COB Friday, 20 April, but not later than Tuesday, 24 April; Staff will provide to the WG a final redlined document before the meeting on Wednesday, 25 April. Questions for Providers: Staff will recirculate the documents for review on 18 April; WG members will provide comments/suggestions by COB Friday, 20 April; Staff will produce a redlined document for the Sub Team to review by Monday, 23 April; Sub Team will provide input/feedback on the new suggestions/edits by Tuesday, 24 April; Staff will provide to the WG a final redlined document before the meeting on Wednesday, 25 April. Report from the Documents Sub Team: Staff will recirculate the report on 18 April; WG members will review and provide comments on the list. Notes: 1. Sub Team from Practitioners: -- Moving forward on the questions for practitioners and providers does not affect the discussion concerning whether to move URS to Phase 1. -- Discussion of the final form of the questions will extend to the next call. -- Long process to get here: We presented an interim report in Puerto Rico. Decided in the Sub Team that we would do a smaller group of volunteers to get the questions in good working order. -- Goal was to make this a document that was manageable for the party that is receiving the questions to encourage them to respond. Need to balance that with ensuring we covered topics. -- Everyone was very satisfied with what the Sub Team put together. General Questions: Question 3: Overall, leaving aside the result of the proceeding, how was your experience with the process of a URS proceeding? -- Collect information on which provider you used. Indicate if you are the complainant or the respondent. -- It should also capture which provider was used for that proceeding/appeal, as the experience might differ across providers. -- We will track who is responding; staff would be able to determine if it is coming from complainant/rep or respondent/rep.) Procedural Issues: Question 4: Are you aware of any issues the Respondent may have had regarding the receipt of the notice of the proceeding? -- the complainant wouldn’t necessary know. Maybe "were there any issues" could be written as "any difficulties" -- That was asked to the providers in the other PDF, but it's more suitable for registrants/URS lawyers. Question 5: When involved as Respondent or its representative in a URS proceeding did you experience any issues with receiving notice of the proceeding? -- Instead of “you” change to “respondent”. -- May be important to include a caveat that this wouldn’t include any delay from the respondent delaying in sending to his representative. Question 6: Have you filed or been involved in an appeal of a URS decision? -- Add: “If so why?” Question 7: If yes to question 6, from the choices below how would you characterize your experience with the appeal process after a URS proceeding? -- Collect information on which provider you used. Indicate if you are the complainant or the respondent. -- It should also capture which provider was used for that proceeding/appeal, as the experience might differ across providers. -- We will track who is responding; staff would be able to determine if it is coming from complainant/rep or respondent/rep.) Substantive Issues: Question 3: Do you believe that the URS is being used for the types of cases for which it was intended, namely, clear cases of abuse? -- Question was not intended to deal with whether the panel has handled it appropriately. Practical Issues: Question 1: Do you believe the current mechanisms for proving use in a URS case are adequate? -- Include a link to the current mechanisms for proving use. Question 3: Do you believe the filing fee for a URS is appropriate? -- Add a text box: “Please suggest what you think is an appropriate filing fee.” Question 6: Do you believe the existing time frames for submitting filings in a URS proceeding are appropriate? -- Include a link to the existing time frames. Other: Question 1: If you chose not to file a URS in a particular matter, what was the reason? Please choose from the following options: -- Isn't the question limited to scope to circumstances when the URS is not chosen? -- Allow in each section to provide additional comments/general comments. Could add a text box to collect general thoughts on URS, although not sure how we could organize/use these responses. Can we add a question about the general applicability of the URS, e.g. should be extended to all gTLDs?"? What is the benefit of asking the practitioners this question? This is something the WG will consider. -- We could ask, in the “If the URS was available in all gTLDs, would you use it? Why or why not?” -- Look into whether that feature of the mechanism – whether there is value to change it from the practitioners’ perspective. -- Do we want to go into this now? Trying to get practitioners’ feedback on using URS. May not be able to get a useful response to that question. General Discussion: Does not ask how many cases they brought in terms of cybersquatting. How many were diverted to the URS? What is the primary dispute mechanism? What a practitioner decided to do with their clients trademarks and how have they proceeded. -- We do get into whether or not you chose the RPM, but tried to avoid getting into attorney-client issues. That is a sensitive issue. -- That is really an issue if you look at people who have filed UDRP. This is meant to go to URS practitioners. -- If we are going into what they have done in terms of court filings then it is a skewed area since you don’t have everyone saying what they have done or not done. -- It’s a good concept but no way to make a connection except for on a case-by-case basis. -- Not appropriate. This survey is for URS practitioners not all practitioners -- e.g. those who only filed UDRPs or court cases. 2. Next Steps: -- The Practitioners Sub Team can continue to work with staff to develop the survey, Forum has volunteered to help us reach the practitioners – who and how to reach people. Need to be cognizant not to reveal who are the respondents. -- Practitioners Questions: Hold open changes to the questions until next week’s call. -- Providers Questions: Review the questions and get it to the WG list by COB Friday, 20 April so it can be considered by the Sub Team members on the list and then staff will provide an amended document next week. -- Documents Sub Team: Has a few questions to refer to the Providers Sub Team that may already have been considered. -- Want to get Questions to practitioners and providers by the first week of May so that we can have results back in late May or early June so we can have informed discussions in Panama City. 3. Co-Chair: -- Brian Beckham has indicated his interested and is preparing a statement of qualifications. -- Time pressure with Council because the GNSO Council will need to approve in May.

5 5

ADOBE CONNECT – WHAT NEXT? - ICANN Blog By Ash Rangan
by Nathalie Peregrine April 20, 2018

April 20, 2018

Dear all: Please take a look at this blog on Adobe Connect. And note the request: Before we make these changes, we want to hear from you. What do you think? Please submit your thoughts on this contemplated move before May 2nd here: RP-tool(a)icann.org<mailto:RP-tool@icann.org> Best regards, David https://www.icann.org/news/blog/adobe-connect-what-next[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…> ADOBE CONNECT – WHAT NEXT? As you know, the ICANN organization took down its Adobe Connect service midway through the ICANN61 meeting in response to reported issues[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…> with this service. Concurrently, we began to conduct our own forensic analysis of the reported incident and began working with our Adobe cloud service provider, CoSo Cloud LLC, and through them with Adobe to learn more. Shortly thereafter, we rolled out instances of Zoom and WebEx for the community to support remote participation (RP) and collaboration. Here's where we are now: The Forensics Investigation With respect to our forensics work, we received application logfiles from CoSo Cloud, going back for a period of one year. ICANN Engineering and Security teams have examined these application log files and the results of our investigation clearly show "fingerprints of incursion" by the researcher who reported the issue. We were unable to find any other indication that anyone else either identified or exploited this issue. Thanks to the person who found the bug again. Working closely with CoSo Cloud, we were able to recreate the reported issue, and understand the conditions required to trigger it. This information has been communicated to Adobe, and Adobe is working on a software fix to address the root cause of the issue. We have also been working with CoSo on options to re-enable Adobe Connect in the shorter term. We have determined there are two viable paths to accomplish this goal. They are: 1. Deploy a hardened configuration to eliminate "man-in-the-middle" exploitations by encrypting relevant traffic, or 2. Implement a programmatic fix from CoSo Cloud to substantially reduce the window during which the issue can be exploited. With respect to the first option, we attempted to hack the hardened configuration in a test environment last week, and were not able to do so over the course of 7 hours. Separately, CoSo Cloud and Adobe conducted similar tests and confirmed that this configuration is protected from exploitation of the issue. Community Feedback and Next Steps For the last three weeks, we have been gathering limited feedback regarding users' experiences with WebEx and Zoom. So far, we have input from about 200 people, including ICANN org meeting organizers and the ICANN community. Our analysis of this feedback indicates a desire to revert back to an Adobe Connect, providing the security of the service is ensured. Accordingly, we would like to propose the following plan to the broader community for consideration: 1. We would like to restore Adobe Connect services with both the new hardened configuration and the programmatic fix discussed above. Our intent would be to restore service by 3 May. This would allow us to use Adobe Connect during several upcoming events including the Board Workshop, the GDD Industry Summit, and ICANN62. 2. Once Adobe releases a new version of the software with a fix for this issue from their perspective, and provides assurance the update has been adequately tested, we will move toward that release of Adobe Connect in a prudent manner, with the help of CoSo Cloud. We believe that this approach will ensure the security of our content, and of our community interactions, while also enabling our community to use the collaboration tools of their choice. Before we make these changes, we want to hear from you. What do you think? Please submit your thoughts on this contemplated move before May 2nd here: RP-tool(a)icann.org<mailto:RP-tool@icann.org> Meanwhile, we will continue to offer WebEx and Zoom for RP and collaboration purposes. We will also continue to follow industry developments, including the research ALAC is doing on the RP and collaboration space, to ensure we are using secure and cost-effective tools that are appropriate for our needs. I look forward to your comments! David A. Olive Senior Vice President Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0

Consolidated Questions to URS Providers - Please Comment by Friday, 20 April
by Ariel Liang April 20, 2018

April 20, 2018

Dear All, Staff are recirculating the two documents developed by the Providers Sub Team: 1. Consolidated questions to URS Providers 2. Responses to proposed questions (for referencing responses already received to questions excluded from the “consolidated questions to URS Providers” document) Please be so kind to provide your comments/suggestions to the “consolidated questions” document directly on the mailing list by COB Friday, 20 April. Kindly note: * When the proposed questions are finalized, staff will proofread and correct typos, formatting errors, etc. before the questions are sent to the Providers; WG members are encouraged to focus your comments/suggestions on the substance. * Only the PDF version is provided to ensure the WG is commenting/suggesting edits to the content in one master document, so as to avoid any potential version confusion caused by Word file(s). Thank you for your time and review! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel

4 3

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April
by Julie Hedlund April 20, 2018

April 20, 2018

Hi Brian, Thanks so much for your comments. We hope you have a great weekend too! Best, Julie From: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int> Date: Friday, April 20, 2018 at 3:34 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April Hi Julie, all, Just a few minor comments from me: - for Procedural Issues Q7 and 9, we were going to add (as is in the preceding section Q3) something like “…and leaving aside the result of the proceeding” - for Practical Issues Q6, it would be useful to list out the different timelines for a response and the various appeals options, rather than a reference to the Rules - those are: 14 days for a response (including a right to request 7 days extension), seeking de novo review (from default) for up to six months plus an option to request an additional 6 months, and filing an appeal for up to 14 days after default or a determination Thanks and have a great weekend! Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 1:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April Dear All, Please see the attached revised document “URS Practitioner Background Experience and Perspective” based on the comments and suggestions received during the RPM PDP WG meeting today, 18 April. Please review the document per the following action item highlighted below. The suggested edits are indicated by redline and strikethrough in the attached document. Questions for URS Practitioners: Staff will provide to the WG a redlined document with suggested revisions by 18 April (DONE-Attached) WG members are encouraged to provide any further comments/suggestions by COB Friday, 20 April, but not later than Tuesday, 24 April; Staff will provide to the WG a final redlined document before the meeting on Wednesday, 25 April. Please note: When the proposed questions are finalized, staff will proofread and correct typos, formatting errors, etc. before the questions are converted into a survey; WG members are encouraged to focus your comments/suggestions on the substance. Only the PDF version is provided to ensure the WG is commenting/suggesting edits to the content in one master document, so as to avoid any potential version confusion caused by Word file(s). Thank you for your time and review! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel [wipo.int] Powering change: Women in innovation and creativity World Intellectual Property Day 2018 April 26 wipo.int/ipday[wipo.int] #worldipday World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.

1 0

FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April
by Julie Hedlund April 20, 2018

April 20, 2018

Dear All, Please see the attached revised document “URS Practitioner Background Experience and Perspective” based on the comments and suggestions received during the RPM PDP WG meeting today, 18 April. Please review the document per the following action item highlighted below. The suggested edits are indicated by redline and strikethrough in the attached document. Questions for URS Practitioners: Staff will provide to the WG a redlined document with suggested revisions by 18 April (DONE-Attached) WG members are encouraged to provide any further comments/suggestions by COB Friday, 20 April, but not later than Tuesday, 24 April; Staff will provide to the WG a final redlined document before the meeting on Wednesday, 25 April. Please note: When the proposed questions are finalized, staff will proofread and correct typos, formatting errors, etc. before the questions are converted into a survey; WG members are encouraged to focus your comments/suggestions on the substance. Only the PDF version is provided to ensure the WG is commenting/suggesting edits to the content in one master document, so as to avoid any potential version confusion caused by Word file(s). Thank you for your time and review! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel

3 3

Remove, unsubscribe
by Denise Michel April 19, 2018

April 19, 2018

Please remove me from this group and unsubscribe me from this email list. Thanks Denise Michel Domain Name System Strategy & Management Facebook, Inc. denisemichel(a)fb.com<mailto:denisemichel@fb.com>

1 0

Attendance Sheet Reformatted--Recordings, Attendance, & Webex Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 18 April 2018
by Andrea Glandon April 18, 2018

April 18, 2018

Please find attached a reformatted attendance sheet. Kind Regards, Andrea Glandon From: Gnso-secs <gnso-secs-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 17:40 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-secs] Recordings, Attendance, & Webex Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 18 April 2018 Dear all, Please find the attendance and Webex Chat transcript attached to this email, and the MP3 recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Wednesday, 18 April 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance and recordings of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/5AMFBQ[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-18apr18-en.mp3<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__emails.samanage.com_wf_…> 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_…> Kind Regards, Andrea Glandon

1 0