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

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 09 May 2018 at 1200 UTC
by Paul Keating June 18, 2018

June 18, 2018

Hi Mary, Given the extensive emails that were exchanged (all of which were in favor of his nomination) can we dispense with the 20-30 mins allocated to #2 (or at least streamline it? I would really like to focus on #4. So I suggest a revision to the order as follows: Draft Agenda: 1. Roll call and updates to Statements of Interest (1 minute) 2. Co-Chair Nomination: > 1. Q&A with Brian Beckham > 2. Discussion > 3. Decision on Co-Chair Nomination (10 minutes total) 3. Presentation of Research from Rebecca Tushnet (30-40 minutes) 4. discussion of URS Phase II proposal (tentative-if necessary/30 minutes) 5. Status of meetings for 16 and 23 May (1 minute) Paul Keating From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 3:41 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 09 May 2018 at 1200 UTC > Dear RPM PDP WG members, > > Per the WG Co-Chairs, here is the proposed agenda for the Working Group call > Wednesday, 09 May 2018, scheduled for 1700 UTC. Times are proposed as > estimates and may be adjusted. > > Staff notes that the GDD Summit and RightsCon conflict with the WG meeting on > the 16th, and the INTA meeting conflicts with the WG meeting the 23rd, so it > will be very helpful if WG members could indicate their availability for those > dates. > > Draft Agenda: > 1. Roll call and updates to Statements of Interest (1 minute) > 2. Co-Chair Nomination: >> 1. Q&A with Brian Beckham >> 2. Discussion >> 3. Decision on Co-Chair Nomination (20-29 minutes total) > 3. Continued discussion of URS Phase II proposal (tentative-if necessary/30 > minutes) > 4. Presentation of Research from Rebecca Tushnet (30 minutes) > 5. Status of meetings for 16 and 23 May (1 minute) > > Best regards, > Mary, Julie, Ariel and Berry > > > _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

10 16

Possible Technical Bug in URS implementations
by George Kirikos June 6, 2018

June 6, 2018

Hi folks, I believe I've uncovered a technical bug in the URS implementation. Does anyone here know the best method to report it? It might require a policy change (due to the ambiguity of the policy's requirements on providers) or updated documentation, as well as implementation changes by providers, in order to fix it. The bug isn't manifesting itself at the moment, but is almost certain to be visible to others in a short time. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

3 5

REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 30 May 2018 at 1200 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 4, 2018

June 4, 2018

Dear RPM PDP WG members, Per the WG Co-Chairs, here is the proposed agenda for the Working Group call Wednesday, 30 May 2018, scheduled for 1200 UTC – note the usual earlier time for the last meeting of the month. WG members are encouraged to review the data at the link below to prepare for the discussion on agenda item 2. Draft Agenda, 30 May 2018, 1200 UTC: Review agenda/SOIs; Discuss what quantitative data from Rebecca’s research can be used to address Documents Sub Team questions about the 250 “response received” and 58 “respondent prevailed” cases, See: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1dodxsqkauqp1vr/URS%20Case%20Review%20-%20Final.x…; ICANN62 Planning; AOB Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

4 6

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG 30 May 2018
by Julie Hedlund May 31, 2018

May 31, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and brief notes captured by staff from the Working Group call held on 30 May 2018 (1200 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, WebEx chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-05-30+Sub+Team+for+Da…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items: Co-Chairs will consider how to proceed with the data from Prof. Tushnet and send a proposal to the WG. Co-Chairs and staff will develop programs for the ICANN62 sessions: Session 1: Wednesday, 27 June, 10:30-12:00 Session 2: Thursday, 28 June, 09:00-10:15, and Session 3: Thursday, 28 June, 10:30 to 12:00 Notes: 1. Discuss what quantitative data from Rebecca’s research can be used to address Documents Sub Team questions about the 250 “response received” and 58 “respondent prevailed” cases, Introduction -- Berry Cobb: -- The intent for today’s agenda was to understand what the WG’s or Sub Teams next steps are for Rebecca Tushnet’s research. Within the Documents Sub Team that began with the foundation document with the charter questions created an additional column on what types of data sets would help to answer those questions. -- When the Document Sub Team was wrapping up it work it was about the time Rebecca sent the result of her coding exercise. -- WG/Sub teams can review the data to see how it might answer the charter questions, how this data could be used – such as put back in the sub Teams – or considered by the full WG. -- Rebecca’s coding data set there were 4-5 potential areas where the data might help the Providers Sub Team answer some questions. -- As it relates to the agenda item, staff has already done some analysis (staff is still reviewing the results of the data) the responses we were able to look at those a little bit more in depth based on the coding exercise. Was the response in 14 days and if not in 14 days was there a response in 6 months and was there a request for an extension. -- In the 58 cases where the respondent prevailed just about half of them there was no response, which creates a smaller subset of cases we could review. That would be around the area as it relates to the standard of proof defenses in 5.7 and 5.8. -- As it relates to Rebecca’s research there is one particular part of that analysis that talks about the domain’s disposition. What happened to it after the determination had been made. Did the domain get suspended and what happened after it was suspended. The WHOIS data I had provided was not a current query. -- I have done a fresh query against WHOIS and got 1400 from automated and manually fetched other 400, but this new data set will tell us whether the name is registered or not. Then I have looked at whether the name is under suspension. Of those that aren’t suspended to categorize them as to whether they are under brand protection, DPML, or whether the original registrant is using the name. Cleaning up that data. -- Having done that exercise there are two things to note: As one example (preliminary results) I only found one instance where domain that the complainant prevailed, went through suspension, became available for registration, and the original registrant re-registered the name. In doing this I noted that there were duplicate domains that had two URS cases filed against them. Some of which where the case that was first filed was either withdrawn or the claim was denied and the trademark owner resubmitted the claim. Another primary use case where the trademark owner prevailed in the original case, the domain was deleted, then it was registered by a different registrant and a different URS case was filed against the same name. It looks like it might be another useful data set. -- Trying to confirm and validate some of the pivot table. -- The question is how to proceed with the use of this data set at the full WG or Sub Team level. Discussion: -- There were 827 URS cases filed to date. Out of those there were responses in about 250. In 58 half of those came in cases where there was no response. The 58 is a subset of all the cases. What conclusions from that high level data from that research could help to draw conclusions about the operation of the URS – the response time, objectiveness of the determinations, etc. So far as whether conclusions to be drawn by the full WG or by the Sub Team, we don’t have enough people on the call to draw that conclusion. -- In the questions from the Practitioners or Providers Sub Team could some of those be addressed by the data? Answer: Don’t think there were potential data sets where the data might be useful for the Practitioners, but there were 4 or 5 for the providers since there were some pretty detailed questions and they would need to review the cases to respond. In the 4-5 instances where this could be helpful the providers could try to use the data. -- Note that it will take time for some analysis to find the appropriate coding columns and create a pivot table. There are several summary tabs that may be able to answer those questions, but likely need some manual analysis such as via pivot tables, to aid the WG or the Sub Team. -- Noticed that there are other questions that we can answer with the data using the cases by respondent tab. See some non-English speaking countries. If we look at the default rate for non-English speaking countries that could help answer some of the language related questions, even the success rate when the do respond. -- While this data is interesting, how are we trying to use it? Make sure that we don’t jump to conclusions based on raw data. We don’t have things we are trying to prove or disprove. Worried about taking months to look at data without context. -- We do have a lot of comprehensive data. There are a certain number of withdrawals as well. We have a lot of questions and a lot of data. We need to see how we can use it. -- It seems that individual members have theories that they would like to prove using this data. We need to be careful with the inferences that we draw from the data and extrapolating. For example, whether the default rate for non-English speakers can tell us anything. We don’t know. -- We need to be very careful about only drawing conclusions that flow naturally from the data and not pull things out that aren’t clearly supported. -- Sub Teams could perhaps review the data and decide which of their questions might be addressed. -- Question: Noted that there are a series of language cases, but not sure what that meant. Also, in the summary tables there are references to default, default/final, and then final. Wonder how those distinctions were made. Are there only 15 cases where there was a final decision in the instance of a default. Or there 566 cases where no final decision was rendered. -- What staff observed: The one tab that related to the country is only from the registrants location and don’t think it has more detailed information. The only two providers where cases were in a language other than English were in MFSD and ADNDRC. Haven’t come across one case from FORUM that wasn’t in English. The same columns of data are similar from the original data set that staff scraped from the providers and that is how they are displayed on the providers site. They will provide two kinds of status at it relates to the cases. What is the ultimate outcome – either claim was denied, domain was suspended, case was withdrawn. Then you had the determination and anywhere were it lists default there was no response, no request for an extension, and it was a default outcome that resulted in the domain being suspended, and/or the claim denied. In cases where there is a final it meant there was a response to that case that could have happened in the 14 days or the 6-month period. There are a few that are default/final, and an additional column that highlights appeals. When you are looking at Prof. Tushnet’s sheet the determination is what staff had scraped from the providers’ web sites. -- Regarding the use of an appeal, is there a place where that type of case has been highlighted? Answer: The Documents Sub Team did an analysis that was part of the summary report that the Sub Team produced. There were 14 appeals that we analyze, compare the case to the appeal, understand the responses, but didn’t dive into the aspects of the elements to prove within those cases other than highlighting what it was and the ultimate determination. -- The appeals are highlighted in the research in column AP – either coded as not applicable, successful, or unsuccessful and column AQ will have a link the appeal. Phil reading from the chat: Agree with Jeff. I think just looking at data by itself does not help without a context. In particular, the data has some assumptions and coding built into it that may not be accurate . So if we are going to look at the data we need to consider Rebecca's underlying assumptions as well so we have a better sense of what the data might or might not show. 05/30/2018 07:32:30 AM from Mary Wong to All Participants: As Berry noted, it is for the WG to decide which parts of the data, and how, is relevant to the scope of its work. Rebecca's RA has done a lot of work, but it is entirely her research that she has kindly provided to us in full. That doesn't mean it is all directly relevant to the WG's work, so that's why some of it may be very useful from the data side but perhaps not all. 05/30/2018 07:34:02 AM from Mary Wong to All Participants: For example, some of it seems very relevant to the Documents Sub Team (which highlighted the Respondent Prevailed and Response Filed cases as the two other categories it considered may be helpful to look at). 05/30/2018 07:35:59 AM from Mary Wong to All Participants: The other two Sub Teams may wish to see if any of the data can supplement, as quantitative measures, responses received from the Providers and/or Practitioners - since, collectively, these three Sub Teams scoped out the URS more or less. -- Suggestion: We have very extensive research by Prof. Tushnet that is not a WG document that is submitted to the WG to consider whether it could help to answer our revised charter questions relating to the URS. Some of it will be relevant to the Sub Teams. Suggest that the Co-Chairs will discuss this about the best way to proceed, which may be to invite members from the three URS Sub Teams to engage with the Professor and report back to the WG by ICANN62 as to the relevance of the data with respect to the URS charter questions. We hope to have the answers back from the practitioners and providers surveys by then. Co-Chairs will consider this and come back to the WG with a proposal for how to proceed. 2. ICANN62 Planning: Three sessions: Session 1: Wednesday, 27 June, 10:30-12:00 Session 2: Thursday, 28 June, 09:00-10:15, and Session 3: Thursday, 28 June, 10:30 to 12:00 -- Staff will work with the Co-Chairs to develop programs for each of the sessions. -- One will be talking about procedural issues leading up the publication of our initial report.

3 4

Recording, Attendance, & WebEx Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 30 May 2018 at 12:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon May 30, 2018

May 30, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and WebEx Chat attached to this email, and the MP3 recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Wednesday, 30 May 2018 at 12:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/ER0FBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-30may18-en.mp3 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> 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

Approval of Brian Beckham as RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chair
by Julie Hedlund May 28, 2018

May 28, 2018

Dear all, The GNSO Council at its meeting on 24 May approved Brian Beckham as a Co-Chair of the RPM PDP Working Group as follows: Consent Agenda Approval of the appointment of Brian Beckham as an additional co-chair for the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process Working Group, to join current co-chairs Phil Corwin and Kathy Kleiman, along with Council liaison Paul McGrady. Please also see the posting at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+24+May+2018. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

4 3

Analysis Group Selected to Develop & Conduct Sunrise & Claims Surveys
by Ariel Liang May 25, 2018

May 25, 2018

Dear RPM Working Group members, We wish to inform you that Analysis Group, Inc. has been contracted by ICANN Organization to develop and conduct the survey(s) to assess the use and effectiveness of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims RPMs that were approved by the GNSO Council in September 2017. Analysis Group is expected to finalize survey questions based on substantial guidance developed by the Data Sub Team relating to each of the relevant Charter questions noted in the Data Table<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-rpm-sunrise-tm-claims-appen…> published as part of the Request for Proposal (RFP) for this project. On Wednesday, 30 May, Analysis Group will meet with the Data Sub Team to ensure that it has a clear understanding of the guidance that the Sub Team developed to frame each of the surveys to be conducted and that was shared with the full Working Group before the RFP was issued. Additional working sessions between the Analysis Group and the Data Sub Team may be scheduled as needed. Analysis Group is expected to brief the RPM Working Group on the finalized questions for the survey(s), following its consultations with the Data Sub Team. The goal remains to launch the survey(s) in mid June, prior to the beginning of ICANN62, in accordance with the Working Group’s timeline for Phase One of this PDP. To fulfill the survey project, Analysis Group will be partnering with two of its independent subcontractors -- one is an external expert specializing in trademark law and policy; the other is a company specializing in administering surveys. For more information about Analysis Group and the independent subcontractors, please see the description and bios below. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry Description and Bios Analysis Group, Inc. is one of the largest economic consulting firms in North America, with offices in Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, Menlo Park, New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., and international offices in Montreal, Beijing, London, Paris, and Brussels. Since the company’s founding in 1981, Analysis Group has provided consulting services to non-governmental organizations, government agencies, corporations, and law firms thousands of cases. Its broad experience across a range of industries and practice areas, combined with their expertise in survey design, helps clients to operate more effectively and to respond to changing policy, industry, and economic climates. Analysis Group’s portfolio of relevant projects includes both consulting and litigation work involving survey design and implementation, trademark and intellectual property disputes across a wide range of industries, past work analyzing the TMCH, and technological aspects of the Internet. Analysis Group has extensive experience working with ICANN, as it has completed two prior independent reviews and is currently engaged in two additional independent reviews. In particular, Analysis Group: * Assessed the potential competitive impacts of ICANN’s new gTLD program on the marketplace for domain names; * Assessed the strengths and weaknesses of the TMCH; * Is assessing the strengths, weaknesses, and potential areas for improvement in ICANN’s current Nominating Committee; * Is assessing the strengths, weaknesses, and potential areas for improvement in ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Committee. David Franklyn (subcontractor) serves as the Director of the LLM Program in IP and Technology Law and the McCarthy Institute for IP and Technology Law at the University of San Francisco School of Law. He also teaches courses and publishes scholarly articles in patent, trademark, copyright, and international intellectual property (IP) law. He has designed, conducted, and analyzed trademark and other consumer perception surveys, counseled clients on USPTO matters, drafted license agreements, drafted settlement agreements, and has served as an expert witness in a wide variety of IP matters. Research Now SSI (subcontractor) is a leader in digital market research, with 40 locations in the Americas, Europe, and Asia specializing in providing data and survey solutions to more than 3,500 clients globally. Research Now SSI’s online panels, consisting of over 17 million panelists representing over 100 countries, allow Research Now SSI to reach target respondents of any population segment. Using their unrivaled global outreach, they are able to utilize local and cultural expertise in survey design to optimize responses and data quality.

2 1

Announcement: Pre-ICANN62 Policy Webinar
by Terri Agnew May 23, 2018

May 23, 2018

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-05-23-en Register Now: Pre-ICANN62 Policy Webinar - 12 June 2018 The Policy Development Support Team is pleased to announce two webinar sessions to assist with the community's preparations for the ICANN62 Policy Forum: Pre-ICANN62 Policy Webinar Tuesday, 12 June 2018 10:00 and 19:00 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) The webinar will run in English with simultaneous Spanish interpretation. The presentation materials will be translated into Spanish, and posted following the Webinar with the recordings of the sessions <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/presentations-2012-08-27-en> here. Please register via <https://goo.gl/vZw8kM> this form by 11 June 2018! In this 90-minute webinar, the Policy Development Support Team will summarize the key policy activities taking place across the ICANN community. The Team will also answer your questions about ongoing community policy and advisory work and discuss what to expect at the ICANN62Policy Forum. To ensure that your questions about policy activities are addressed during the session, the Policy Team invites you to submit your questions through the <https://goo.gl/forms/dVbmhQOT8sakSsmg2> registration form or by email to <mailto:policyinfo@icann.org> policyinfo(a)icann.org. To assist with your preparation for this webinar and for ICANN62, the "Pre-ICANN62 Policy Report" and "Generic Names Supporting Organization Policy Briefing: ICANN62 Edition" will be published by Tuesday, 5 June 2018. Please be sure to download and review these materials beforehand for helpful background on policy activities and topics that the Policy Development Support Team will cover during the webinar, such as: * The cross-community discussions that will take place at ICANN62: * Geographic Names at the Top-Level (Work Track 5) * Update from the Registration Directory Service-WHOIS2 Review Team * General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Compliance, Access to WHOIS and Accreditation * The expected Initial Report from the New generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Auction Proceeds Cross Community Working Group * Presentation of the Final CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 Recommendations * The various policy development processes underway in the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and the Address Supporting Organization (ASO): * Retirement of Country Code Top-Level Domains * Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs * Next steps in relation to Registration Directory Services policy work * Curative Rights Protections for International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations * New gTLD Subsequent Procedures * Regional Internet Registry policy development activities * Advisory Committee activities within the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) and Security & Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC): * Organizational Review of the At-Large community: Next steps, implementation, and ALACsessions during ICANN62 * GDPR and Key Signing Key (KSK) Rollover discussions * At-Large discussion on new gTLDs and Work Tracks 1-5 * Regional At-Large Organization (RALO) Policy Hot Topics * GAC discussions on .amazon, IGO protections and 2-character codes at the second level * Board-GAC GDPR consultations * RSSAC statement on the distinction between RSSAC and Root-Ops (RSSAC033) * SSAC work concerning name collisions * Other topics of note: * Organizational Review of the ASO * ccNSO sessions on disaster and recovery and business continuity, ccNSO members meeting sessions, and Tech Day. * GAC onboarding initiatives * Report from the RSSAC May 2018 Workshop (RSSAC034) To complement this Pre-ICANN62 Policy Webinar, the GNSO Policy Development Support Team will host, with the Council leadership and Policy Development Process (PDP) working group chairs, a GNSOpolicy-focused webinar on Monday, 18 June 2018 at 21:00 UTC for 90 minutes. This webinar is intended to serve as a replacement for the previously-offered GNSO PDP updates provided during the GNSO weekend sessions and will assist the community in preparing for GNSO policy-related discussions at ICANN62. If you would like to participate in the GNSO Policy Webinar, please register <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Z5ENBC3wa2IOvAeYr27-pGU0lJIEeZCmgZkpAo2l0S 0/edit> here. The Policy Development Support Team looks forward to helping the ICANN community prepare for ICANN62!

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 30 May 2018 at 1200 UTC
by Paul Keating May 22, 2018

May 22, 2018

I am sorry but I have a client meeting conflicting with this call. I will not be able to attend. From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 3:59 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 30 May 2018 at 1200 UTC > Dear RPM PDP WG members, > > Per the WG Co-Chairs, here is the proposed agenda for the Working Group call > Wednesday, 30 May 2018, scheduled for 1200 UTC note the usual earlier time > for the last meeting of the month. > > WG members are encouraged to review the data at the link below to prepare for > the discussion on agenda item 2. > > Draft Agenda, 30 May 2018, 1200 UTC: > > 1. Review agenda/SOIs; > 2. Discuss what quantitative data from Rebecca¹s research can be used to > address Documents Sub Team questions about the 250 ³response received² and 58 > ³respondent prevailed² cases, See: > https://www.dropbox.com/s/1dodxsqkauqp1vr/URS%20Case%20Review%20-%20Final.x… > ?dl=0 > <https://www.dropbox.com/s/1dodxsqkauqp1vr/URS%20Case%20Review%20-%20Final.x… > x?dl=0> ; > 3. ICANN62 Planning; > 4. AOB > > Best, > Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie > > > _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

2 1

FOR INFORMATION: ICANN Board adopts Temporary Specification for GDPR compliance with specific details about UDRP & URS
by Mary Wong May 18, 2018

May 18, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Please be informed that, earlier today, the ICANN Board adopted a Temporary Specification for GDPR compliance, pursuant to the procedure under ICANN’s Registry Agreements and Registrar Accreditation Agreement. The Board’s action today thus initiates a policy development process to consider the development and adoption of a consensus policy based on the issues outlined within the Temporary Specification – as you may know, the GNSO Council has already begun discussing how this effort can be conducted within the maximum one-year time frame allowed for a Temporary Specification (renewable by the Board at 90-day intervals for up to a year). Perhaps of greatest interest to this Working Group, and particularly in view of our co-chairs’ recent letter to the GNSO Council concerning GDPR implications for the UDRP and URS, the Temporary Specification includes Annexes D and E, to deal respectively with URS and UDRP issues. These annexes relate to the continued provision of Registration Data by registry operators and registrars to the dispute resolution providers, and also specify that: “Complainant’s complaint will not be deemed defective for failure to provide the name of the Respondent (Registered Name Holder) and all other relevant contact information required by [the UDRP & URS Rules] if such contact information of the Respondent is not available in registration data publicly available in RDDS or not otherwise known to Complainant. In such an event, Complainant may file a “Doe” complaint and the Provider shall provide the relevant contact details of the Registered Name Holder after being presented with a “Doe” complaint.” You can find the full text of the Board resolution and a link to the full Temporary Specification here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-05-17-en. In addition, ICANN organization has prepared and published an Advisory Statement for the Temporary Specification here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/advisory-statement-gtld-registr…. Thanks and cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry

2 1