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

FOR REVIEW: Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 26, 2018

Aug. 26, 2018

Dear All, Per the action items 1 and 2 below, please see the updated document, Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations. WG members are requested to review the document and send any comments, questions, or suggested changes to the WG list. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 4:20 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 22 August 2018 Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP WG call held on 22 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/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-08-22+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == ACTIONS: ACTION ITEM 1: Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations -- Edit the second bullet on page 4. Put a period after "initial report". Delete the rest of the text. ACTION ITEM 2: WG members to review the Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations and send any comments, questions, or suggested changes to the WG list. NOTES: 1. Review Agenda/SOIs: -- New EFF representative Mitch replacing Jeremy. 2. Discussion of Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations (see attached Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations): 1) Review of Proposals from URS Sub Teams: -- Contact Sub Teams if you have questions (Staff can provide names). 2) Logistical requirements for proposal submission from individual Working Group members: -- Send your proposals via the online survey form or the Word doc or they won't be in order. -- Deadline is 31 August for proposals. -- Question: If someone has already submitted a proposal they need to resubmit using the form? Answer: Yes, it is very doubtful that anyone has submitted a proposal in a form that we are going to be requiring. -- Question: Can we get a record of what we have sent and to whom do we send proposals if we use the Word form? Answer: SurveyMonkey will capture the submission that staff will send to the list and individuals as PDF. Send Word forms to Ariel Liang on staff at: ariel.liang(a)icann.org, -- Question: Can we extend the deadline to 05 or 12 September for submissions? Answer: We have a very tight timeline. We will keep it at the 31st but if there is a lot of push back we may consider pushing back to early the following week. 3) Content requirements for proposals: -- Question: Should the Sub Teams have to answer these questions for their own proposals? Or can the individuals have more time? Answer: The Sub Teams have been working over a long period of time and as a group have come up with draft recommendations, and these will need more discussion. They don't need the same level of detail. 4) Administrative review of proposals: -- Staff will review the proposals and identify those that don't meet the criteria. 5) Meeting Duration: 6) Presentation of Proposals: -- This is all happening over a pretty short time period. The time zone issue also can be significant, so it is better if the proponents can be on the call to present. If not, we should be able to designate an alternate. This proposal will be considered by the Co-Chairs. -- Might need to schedule more meetings. -- Concern that if many people wish to express their views and you only hear from one perspective then that could be an issue. -- Also doesn't seem to allow for engaging in a debate via email since the poll is initiated right after the call. -- Could allow less time for -- Before presentation, encourage WG members to propose questions for the proponents and post on mailing list -- Instead of 2 min response to questions, 3-4 min for proponents to respond would be more effective -- Each proposal needs to be under 30 min total for the presentation and discussion -- Want a diversity of people for presenting. Need to decide which proposals have significant support to go into the Initial Report. -- It would be ideal to have a diversity of SGs and Cs supporting a proposal -- support across the WG. -- The poll should be transparent with names attached. -- After the presentations, the proponent should be permitted to elaborate after the presentation via email, and start the poll a few days later. -- Concerns about "significant support" -- there should be a predetermined level and applies equally. -- All the URS Sub Team proposals should go through the same poll. -- The bias is towards inclusion. 7) Co-Chair's review of proposals: -- This is not the consensus call process. -- The point of the Initial Report is to get feedback from the community. -- Question: One of the problems we had in the IGO/INGO group was the perception where those leading the working group supported a matter silence was treated as tacit support, when those leading the working group were against a matter silence was treated a implicit objection. Could this happen here? -- Page 4: Second bullet point, that Sub Team recommendations will be included as a WG recommendation -- but individual member proposals are excluded by default. But Sub Team recommendations are reviewed by the plenary. -- Sub Team recommendations are already the result of work of WG members. -- Page 4: There is some non-parallel drafting in the second and third bullet points. Seems to suggest that these won't be treated equally. -- Sub Team recommendations in the end will have no advantage over individual recommendations in the Final Report. It is not the intent to give greater weight to Sub Team recommendations. ACTION ITEM: Edit the second bullet on page 4. Put a period after "initial report". Delete the rest of the text. Submission Form: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/URSProposal -- Urging the WG members to use the online form. -- Whether they are going to be in the Final Report as a consensus recommendations is a separate point. Whether a proposal is WG or individual will not determine what is in the Final Report. 3. Begin consideration of the sub team recommendations, under the proposed framework (see attached Super Consolidated URS Topics Table – with Findings, Issues, and Suggestions from all Three URS Sub Teams for Working Group Discussion) – postponed to the next meeting. 4. Next meeting: Asia Pacific Time for the last meeting of the month -- Wednesday, 29 August at 1200 UTC.

2 1

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 22 August 2018 at 17:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Aug. 23, 2018

Aug. 23, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC Chat attached to this email, and the MP3 & AC recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Wednesday, 22 August 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/wANpBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-22aug18-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p4g7yzu246f/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind Regards, Michelle DeSmyter

1 0

ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 22 August 2018
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 22, 2018

Aug. 22, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP WG call held on 22 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/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-08-22+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == ACTIONS: ACTION ITEM 1: Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations -- Edit the second bullet on page 4. Put a period after "initial report". Delete the rest of the text. ACTION ITEM 2: WG members to review the Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations and send any comments, questions, or suggested changes to the WG list. NOTES: 1. Review Agenda/SOIs: -- New EFF representative Mitch replacing Jeremy. 2. Discussion of Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations (see attached Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations): 1) Review of Proposals from URS Sub Teams: -- Contact Sub Teams if you have questions (Staff can provide names). 2) Logistical requirements for proposal submission from individual Working Group members: -- Send your proposals via the online survey form or the Word doc or they won't be in order. -- Deadline is 31 August for proposals. -- Question: If someone has already submitted a proposal they need to resubmit using the form? Answer: Yes, it is very doubtful that anyone has submitted a proposal in a form that we are going to be requiring. -- Question: Can we get a record of what we have sent and to whom do we send proposals if we use the Word form? Answer: SurveyMonkey will capture the submission that staff will send to the list and individuals as PDF. Send Word forms to Ariel Liang on staff at: ariel.liang(a)icann.org, -- Question: Can we extend the deadline to 05 or 12 September for submissions? Answer: We have a very tight timeline. We will keep it at the 31st but if there is a lot of push back we may consider pushing back to early the following week. 3) Content requirements for proposals: -- Question: Should the Sub Teams have to answer these questions for their own proposals? Or can the individuals have more time? Answer: The Sub Teams have been working over a long period of time and as a group have come up with draft recommendations, and these will need more discussion. They don't need the same level of detail. 4) Administrative review of proposals: -- Staff will review the proposals and identify those that don't meet the criteria. 5) Meeting Duration: 6) Presentation of Proposals: -- This is all happening over a pretty short time period. The time zone issue also can be significant, so it is better if the proponents can be on the call to present. If not, we should be able to designate an alternate. This proposal will be considered by the Co-Chairs. -- Might need to schedule more meetings. -- Concern that if many people wish to express their views and you only hear from one perspective then that could be an issue. -- Also doesn't seem to allow for engaging in a debate via email since the poll is initiated right after the call. -- Could allow less time for -- Before presentation, encourage WG members to propose questions for the proponents and post on mailing list -- Instead of 2 min response to questions, 3-4 min for proponents to respond would be more effective -- Each proposal needs to be under 30 min total for the presentation and discussion -- Want a diversity of people for presenting. Need to decide which proposals have significant support to go into the Initial Report. -- It would be ideal to have a diversity of SGs and Cs supporting a proposal -- support across the WG. -- The poll should be transparent with names attached. -- After the presentations, the proponent should be permitted to elaborate after the presentation via email, and start the poll a few days later. -- Concerns about "significant support" -- there should be a predetermined level and applies equally. -- All the URS Sub Team proposals should go through the same poll. -- The bias is towards inclusion. 7) Co-Chair's review of proposals: -- This is not the consensus call process. -- The point of the Initial Report is to get feedback from the community. -- Question: One of the problems we had in the IGO/INGO group was the perception where those leading the working group supported a matter silence was treated as tacit support, when those leading the working group were against a matter silence was treated a implicit objection. Could this happen here? -- Page 4: Second bullet point, that Sub Team recommendations will be included as a WG recommendation -- but individual member proposals are excluded by default. But Sub Team recommendations are reviewed by the plenary. -- Sub Team recommendations are already the result of work of WG members. -- Page 4: There is some non-parallel drafting in the second and third bullet points. Seems to suggest that these won't be treated equally. -- Sub Team recommendations in the end will have no advantage over individual recommendations in the Final Report. It is not the intent to give greater weight to Sub Team recommendations. ACTION ITEM: Edit the second bullet on page 4. Put a period after "initial report". Delete the rest of the text. Submission Form: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/URSProposal -- Urging the WG members to use the online form. -- Whether they are going to be in the Final Report as a consensus recommendations is a separate point. Whether a proposal is WG or individual will not determine what is in the Final Report. 3. Begin consideration of the sub team recommendations, under the proposed framework (see attached Super Consolidated URS Topics Table – with Findings, Issues, and Suggestions from all Three URS Sub Teams for Working Group Discussion) – postponed to the next meeting. 4. Next meeting: Asia Pacific Time for the last meeting of the month -- Wednesday, 29 August at 1200 UTC.

1 0

Eliminating the Disparate Treatment of Subteam vs. Individual Recommendations (was Re: Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations; Draft Agenda for 22 Aug Call)
by George Kirikos Aug. 22, 2018

Aug. 22, 2018

Hi folks, At the end of today's call, we were asked to put in writing some of the points that we'd expressed regarding the proposed process. Early on in this PDP, it had been decided that no deference was owed any of the work of the subteams. However, this proposed process suddenly changes the rules of the game, during the middle of the game, and gives advantages to proposals that have come out of the 3 subteams. We see that in several places in this document: (i) subteam proposals do not have to answer the various detailed questions that are required in the online form (or .doc), unlike those from individuals (ii) subteam proposals don't go through the "polls" on page 3 for support/oppose/defer (iii) subteam proposals are (second bullet point of point #7 on page 4) included in the Initial Report as being considered "Working Group Recommendations" (unless there's "significant opposition"), but it's impossible for proposals from individuals to become "Working Group Recommendations" in that initial report, regardless of the level of support or "significant opposition". Thus, those subteam proposals have an elevated status when reviewed by the public in any report. (iv) subteam proposals are included by default "unless there is substantial opposition", whereas individual working group member proposals are *excluded* by default, "unless there is substantial support". As Paul Tattersfield noted in today's Adobe Connect chat, that's treating "silence" differently. If this disparate treatment is not eliminated, this implies that working group members will in the future feel compelled to participate in every subteam, if there's an advantage to be gained by doing so (and there's a clear advantage being given in this proposed process). If everyone has to join the subteams, to avoid being disadvantaged, then that defeats the purpose of having subteams, i.e. keeping them small, etc., as they then become mirrors of the entire working group. Normally we're not supposed to do a "+1" or post simple "I agree", etc. posts, but if folks *agree* with the co-chairs' proposal (which has those differences), then they should vocalize that support. Similarly, if folks agree there's a problem, they should vocalize their support for treating all proposals equally, with a similar process regardless of where the proposal originated. Otherwise, we get back into the "How shall we interpret the silence?" issue. Lastly, as for the deadline (which apparently has moved to COB of August 31st now, i.e. Friday night), I would suggest it be moved to at least COB Tuesday September 4, 2018) -- I find it hard to believe that staff/co-chairs will spend the Labour Day weekend studying proposals submitted by Friday night. My preference would be that it be Sept 5 or 12, as stated earlier, given that we're apparently not going to get to the individual presentations until late September in any event, due to review of the subteam proposals first. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 12:10 PM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: > Hi again, > > 3. As a test, I tried making a submission on the online form. After > one clicks "Done", it simply thanks one for the submission, and > there's no record (for the submitter) of what they actually submitted. > If it's possible, it might be wise for the next page to display what > was actually submitted, so that the submitter can have an accurate and > independent record of their submission. [presumably having an email > input field, and emailing them the submission would be prone to abuse > by spammers, so that wouldn't be a wise approach] If this can't be > done, I'd appreciate a copy of the .DOC template. > > 4. Given the summer holidays, and the extensive answers required for > fields 3 through 8 of the form (which were not present in past > discussions regarding submissions), I think the current proposed > deadline of August 29, 2018 is insufficient. At least an extra week > until September 5, 2018 or even September 12, 2018 might be more > appropriate. Given that we'll be discussing the subteam > recommendations for a couple of weeks anyhow, this would not impact > the timeline of our work (i.e. individual recommendations can then be > handled immediately thereafter, once the extensive subteam proposals > are reviewed/debated on our weekly calls and on the mailing list). > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > http://www.leap.com/ > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:51 PM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: >> Hi folks,, >> >> At this time, I have 2 concerns with the Proposed Procedures for URS >> Policy and Operational Recommendations. >> >> 1. On page 3, the use of a poll is mentioned. In keeping with ICANN's >> transparency requirements, that poll should not be an anonymous poll. >> >> 2. On page 4, there's a double-standard in the default treatment of >> Sub Team Recommendations vs. Working Group member submissions, and >> that double-standard should be eliminated, as there was no deference >> to the work of the sub teams. >> >> In particular, Sub Team recommendations are included by default >> "unless there is substantial opposition". >> >> On the other hand, Working Group member submissions are *excluded* by >> default, unless there is substantial support. >> >> The standard for inclusion should be made identical for all proposals, >> regardless of where they originated. >> >> Also, the standard should be objectively stated *prior* to >> measurement, to ensure that a "substantial support" or "substantial >> opposition" (whichever uniform standard ultimately applies) is not >> determined in an ad hoc manner. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> George Kirikos >> 416-588-0269 >> http://www.leap.com/ >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> wrote: >>> Dear RPM PDP Working Group members >>> >>> >>> >>> On behalf of the Co-Chairs, the attached document is a proposal that the >>> Co-Chairs hope will facilitate the RPM PDP Working Group discussion and >>> development of URS policy and operational recommendations over the course of >>> the upcoming Working Group meetings in August and September, beginning with >>> our next meeting. >>> >>> >>> >>> The Working Group faces a significant challenge in adhering to its current >>> timeline and completing its URS work for the Initial Report by the end of >>> September. It is therefore imperative that the Working Group agrees on tight >>> procedures that provide a fair opportunity for all members to propose >>> operational and policy modifications to the URS. In addition, the procedures >>> should facilitate identification of those proposals that lack significant >>> support and thus may be deferred to the Initial Report for public comment, >>> or to Phase Two of the WG’s efforts because they are substantially >>> intertwined with UDRP issues. >>> >>> >>> >>> In addition to the proposal, please also review the online survey form for >>> WG members to submit proposals. Upon request, staff can also provide a .doc >>> version of the online survey form to WG members who have difficulty >>> accessing the online survey. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please review the proposal and come prepared to discuss them at the meeting >>> on Wednesday, 22 August, at 17:00 UTC. Here also is a draft agenda for your >>> review: >>> >>> >>> >>> Draft Working Group Agenda: >>> >>> >>> >>> Review Agenda/SOIs >>> Discussion of Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational >>> Recommendations (see attached Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and >>> Operational Recommendations) >>> Begin consideration of the sub team recommendations, under the proposed >>> framework (see attached Super Consolidated URS Topics Table – with Findings, >>> Issues, and Suggestions from all Three URS Sub Teams for Working Group >>> Discussion) >>> AOB >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry >>> >>> On behalf of the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>> gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

1 0

Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations; Draft Agenda for 22 Aug Call
by Ariel Liang Aug. 22, 2018

Aug. 22, 2018

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members On behalf of the Co-Chairs, the attached document is a proposal that the Co-Chairs hope will facilitate the RPM PDP Working Group discussion and development of URS policy and operational recommendations over the course of the upcoming Working Group meetings in August and September, beginning with our next meeting. The Working Group faces a significant challenge in adhering to its current timeline and completing its URS work for the Initial Report by the end of September. It is therefore imperative that the Working Group agrees on tight procedures that provide a fair opportunity for all members to propose operational and policy modifications to the URS. In addition, the procedures should facilitate identification of those proposals that lack significant support and thus may be deferred to the Initial Report for public comment, or to Phase Two of the WG’s efforts because they are substantially intertwined with UDRP issues. In addition to the proposal, please also review the online survey form<https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/URSProposal> for WG members to submit proposals. Upon request, staff can also provide a .doc version of the online survey form to WG members who have difficulty accessing the online survey. Please review the proposal and come prepared to discuss them at the meeting on Wednesday, 22 August, at 17:00 UTC. Here also is a draft agenda for your review: Draft Working Group Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/SOIs 2. Discussion of Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations (see attached Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations) 3. Begin consideration of the sub team recommendations, under the proposed framework (see attached Super Consolidated URS Topics Table – with Findings, Issues, and Suggestions from all Three URS Sub Teams for Working Group Discussion) 4. AOB Best, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry On behalf of the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs

3 3

Role of the SMD file in URS proceedings
by Colin O'Brien Aug. 17, 2018

Aug. 17, 2018

During the WG call on 15 August 2018 the following co-chairs addition to the Super Consolidated URS Table was noted: "There is an action item for staff (originally proposed by John McElwaine) to find out if decoding software is available that can read the coded portions of a SMD file, or if this is possible only using the specific key from the TMCH. Comments from Co-Chairs: "Do not think it is about the coding; but what is actually in the SMD file. It seems clear that the relevant info is simply not there: http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/help/faq/which-information-does-smd-… "Much subteam spent on how to pass the full TM information to Examiners -- and if not SMD - how else?" I believe this reflects a misunderstanding of the role and purpose of the SMD file in URS proceedings. As the URS Procedure states: 1.2.6.1. that the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark: (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed. a. Use can be shown by demonstrating that evidence of use - which can be a declaration and one specimen of current use in commerce - was submitted to, and validated by, the Trademark Clearinghouse) b. Proof of use may also be submitted directly with the URS Complaint. In other words, under the URS Procedure a complainant may choose to submit an SMD file as evidence that they have used the trademark on which they are relying - that evidence having previously been submitted-to and accepted by the TMCH in order for the SMD file to have been generated. The SMD file does not serve as evidence of the trademark itself (the mark, the Nice classifications, the goods and services covered, and so on), this must be separately demonstrated. This question of the purpose served by the SMD file appeared to be causing confusion to some working group members on the call. In an effort to shed further light, and hopefully put this matter to rest, I would like to confirm that the experience of my firm when filing URS complaints with the NAF matches the Procedure referred to above. In other words, the complaint is filed online via a web platform, which prompts you to upload certain documents, namely: a PDF of the trademark registration; a screenshot of the website (generally also as a PDF); and the SMD file to prove use of the mark, or alternative evidence of use. Examiners are therefore not relying on only the SMD file for the "full TM information." These requirements are fully explained by the NAF in its Complaint PowerPoint guide (available here: http://www.adrforum.com/URS) which I have attached. Please see page 14 of the guide. [cid:image004.jpg@01D43610.C7E72D20] The note added to the Super Consolidated URS Table therefore is a non-issue and it should be amended to reflect that this question has been dismissed. Colin Thomas Jefferson O'Brien [PartridgePartners_logo_final (002)] 321 North Clark Street, Suite 720 Chicago, Illinois 60654 312-634-9503 https://www.partridge.partners/ ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group status report on its Council-approved data collection exercise
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 16, 2018

Aug. 16, 2018

Dear RPM PDP WG Members, Please find attached the report sent to the GNSO Council this week from the RPM Review PDP Working Group Co-Chairs, summarizing where things stand with the extensive data collection effort that the Council approved in September 2017, for the Sunrise and Trademark Claims RPMs. This report summarizes the activities as of August 2018. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 15 August 2018
by Julie Bisland Aug. 15, 2018

Aug. 15, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC Chat attached to this email, and the MP3 & AC recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Wednesday, 15 August 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/vgNpBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-15aug81-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p30gvicpwgm/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind Regards, Michelle DeSmyter

1 0

ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 15 August 2018
by Ariel Liang Aug. 15, 2018

Aug. 15, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP WG call held on 15 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/vgNpBQ. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) == ACTION ITEMS: * Staff to circulate the documents that explain the scope, role and use of a SMD file, published as part of the TMCH documentation. * Staff to recirculate the presentation staff prepared for the ICANN62 Panama session where the WG discussed the typical approach regarding the Initial Report, per Co-Chairs’ requests. * Co-Chairs and staff to develop a framework to evaluate and capture the proposals, providing fair and uniform treatment of all proposals. Take into consideration the placement of general proposals/submissions that are not clarifications/corrections to the ST proposals. * WG members to submit input/missing topics/proposals by Tuesday, 28 Aug. WG members should draw as much as possible from the data gathered by the STs. * WG members to focus on the proposed suggestions in Column 3 in the Super Consolidated Table in next week's call. NOTES: Review Agenda/Statements of Interest * David McAuley updated his SOI Appeals process (page 24) * One WG member suggested this item should cover the availability of court proceedings, making sure the registrants have the ability to access the court with regard to the determination De novo review (page 24-25) * Respondents who default get three potential examinations. Default doesn't mean the Respondents lose automatically. Respondents that respond can get one examination and one appeal. The recommendation needs to be more substantive than what it is stated now in the table. Need to clean up some confusion between URS rules 6 and 12. * One WG member believes that Practitioners' survey was unrepresentative (titled towards pro-complainant practitioners). 13 of the 14 survey respondents were those representing complainants. * Some Practitioners ST members disagreed. Respondent were involved in the design of the survey and there was opportunity to get involved. Several ST members participated in domain advocacy groups - every opportunity has been offered to both camps to respond. There is data for those who chose to respond. * A Co-Chair stated that the Practitioners survey was not an open survey; only one Registrant attorney qualified for it. The practitioners survey respondents were limited to those participating in URS cases. * In regard to availability of statutory law providing de novo judicial review of URS decision, one WG stated that while ICANN has no ability to ensure that there is such law in the nation in which a registrant resides, registrant can always assure such availability by utilizing a registrar located in a national jurisdiction with such a law. For example, any registrant regardless of location can utilize a US-based registrar and thereby gain ability to file a judicial appeal under ACPA as a US court would be one of "mutual jurisdiction" under UDRP/URS policy. * One WG responded that ICANN shouldn't be making policy that causes the problem in the first place. If it's causing the problem now, due to that role reversal, then it should either eliminate the problem, or make URS/UDRP opt-in. Cost allocation model (page 26) * One WG member supports the loser pay model for fairness. Language Issues (page 27-29) * Has there been any additional inquiry in regard to the "possible language issue" cases noted? Staff is looking at the cases highlighted in Rebecca's research. Completed review of all the 29 De Novo review cases and could not discern what the specific issue may have been from the face of the record, since for those cases, all but one response was filed in English. * In the Practitioners survey, a respondent commented that some Chinese registrars have issues implementing URS decisions. Some education/training may need to be developed for them to understand their role in the URS. * There were issues with the published languages being used. Abuse of Process (page 29-30) * There is a provision in the URS rules that addresses the abuse by the TM owner. It is somewhat unbalanced that there is no sanction on registrants that may be serial cyber squatters. Education & Training (page 30-31) * A couple of WG members suggested considering education & training in languages other than English. It is not a big burden and would change the global operation of the process. * Regarding the "draft recommendation", the actual work of designing the guide would be in the implementation period, if the recommendation has received consensus support. Evaluation of URS providers and their respective processes (including training of panelists) (page 31-32) * One WG member stated that GDPR could have an impact on the CV issue, although seeking examiner consent to show seems reasonable * One WG member disagreed. Examiners are willingly doing their job and publishing their CVs is a requirement. Having access to the background of the Examiners is crucial. Conflict of interest (page 33-34) * In some countries (e.g. Argentina), top lawyers are also arbiters in WIPO. It is a practical matter. It is not instantly known who has done what cases. * Panelist previously representing a URS party would be a conflict of interest issue. It would be a problem if a panelist and a URS party work in the same firm. Nevertheless, the analysis of this matter needs to be done in a neutral/pointed manner. * It is a good reason to have access to the CVs in order to assist in identifying if there is a conflict, as opposed to there being a fundamental conflict of sometimes wearing different hats. Alternative Processes (page 34) * One WG member raised two possible issues: 1) mediation step in the process; 2) possible integration with the UDRP, having one process instead of two. * Other WG members disagreed. Mediation is antithetical to the basis for URS - clear violation & quick action. Mediation would fundamentally change the rationale of the URS. URS is meant to be quick. Putting the mediation step would not help the expediency. We aren't re-creating the courts here. This is supposed to be a fast way of taking down clearly-infringing domains. * The WG member proposed the mediation step argued back: 1 month process, versus 2 months for UDRP. Contrast that with a Notice of Dispute (even shorter than a URS complaint, thus lightweight), followed by branching to various processes that are heavier depending on response/non-response. By having a notice of dispute, though, it would be happening before Complainants contemplated escalating to a URS in the first place. There are only 200 or so URS disputes per year. * A Co-Chair stated that creating a summary procedure of the UDRP needs to be in order before we get to phase II. We should deal with the URS as a complementary procedure of the UDRP. Some URS issues may be intertwined with the UDRP questions and can be deferred. Additional Sub Team Notes * SMD is only supposed to show that TMCH has validated the use of specimen. It is not supposed to provide any data. It is a checkbox, token. It is not intended to convey vital statics of the trademark. It is a proxy/indication that the use specimen has been valided by the TMCH. * This is what is in the SMD file: http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/help/faq/which-information-does-smd-…. There are documents that explain the scope, role and use of a SMD file, published as part of the TMCH documentation. * URS Rule related to the SMD file: URS Rule 1.2.6.1. .that the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark: (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.a. Use can be shown by demonstrating that evidence of use – which can be a declaration and one specimen of current use in commerce– was submitted to, and validated by, the Trademark Clearinghouse)b. Proof of use may also be submitted directly with the URS Complaint. and... * Some WG members believe that there's conflicting opinions on this - so at least we should be examining the role of the SMD file. * ACTION ITEM: Staff to circulate the documents that explain the scope, role and use of a SMD file, published as part of the TMCH documentation. Next Steps * Rebecca Tushnet’s comment is to suggest a different placement of the ST suggestion within the table. * What STs recommended does not limit WG's recommendations. Additional proposals can be put forward, but with some discretion. Think twice if a proposal is extremely controversial. It is not an invitation for complete “free-for-all”. * While there's a substantial amount of detail in each of the Sub Teams' reports, it may be helpful for WG members who have not been following the Sub Team reports closely to review those documents as you develop suggestions and potential recommendations to be proposed to the full WG for its consideration. Staff has included links to all three Sub Teams' reports at the top of this document, which were presented two weeks ago. * WG members should feel free to go through the transcripts/recordings of the ST meetings, and reach out to the STs, to understand why certain proposal made the cut. * “Missing topics" are not referring to additions to Column 1, which are the WG's agreed URS topics for review. * Once WG members review the Sub Team reports, conclusions and recommendations, consider whether there is a proposal or solution that addresses the Column 1 topic but has not been considered or addressed by the available data. * ACTION ITEM: WG members to submit input/missing topics/proposals by Tuesday, 28 Aug. WG members should draw as much as possible from the data gathered by the STs. * ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs and staff to develop a framework to evaluate and capture the proposals, providing fair and uniform treatment of all proposals. Take into consideration the placement of general proposals/submissions that are not clarifications/corrections to the ST proposals. * We are not suspending our meetings until Aug 28. As we are accepting proposals, we do have proposals that are on the table in the third column in the Super Consolidated Table. * ACTION ITEM: WG members to focus on the proposed suggestions in Column 3 in the Super Consolidated Table in next week's call. * One WG member stated that during the public comment period, the public deserves to know all the topics, including the ones that didn't receive consensus. If some topics are deferred to Phase II, a specific list of these topics needs to be generated. He further argued that that’s how it's been done in other PDPs. Minority Statements don't take place until the very end. i.e. how can the public comment on issues that aren't in the draft report? e.g. Jeremy had proposed elimination of Sunrise. That shouldn't be excluded from the initial report. * Other WG members disagreed. In terms of the initial report, we should not include every idea. It is time to present the well thought out ideas that achieved consensus. The Charter says that the Initial Report reflects the consensus by the WG at its time of publication. SubPro's initial report is a bit different but it is an exception. If there is anything that didn't make the cut by the group, it would be a minority statement. In particular, a proposal with very limited support and very significant opposition should not be included. Proposals that have support are valid for discussions not the hobby horses of certain members who keep bringing up the same things after they have been considered and rejected. If it's one person's opinion, that is a minority statement, not a discussed/supported/rejected point for inclusion. Formal consensus calls typically don't occur for Initial Reports but any recs that seem to have general agreement or consensus are published for comment as such. * In ICANN62, we discuss the best way to bring together the initial report and there seems to be an agreement on that. It would be useful to see whether staff could put together the initial report, being inclusive but not going around in circles/having endless conversations. * ACTION ITEM: Staff to recirculate the presentation staff prepared for the ICANN62 Panama session where the WG discussed the typical approach regarding the Initial Report, per Co-Chairs’ requests. Timeline to Phase 1 Completion * Reference the slide. Very best-case scenario, with likelihood for slippage.

1 0

URS Missing Topics and Further Thoughts
by George Kirikos Aug. 15, 2018

Aug. 15, 2018

Hi folks, In response to Wednesday's email: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-August/003209.html where WG members were "requested to provide substantive comment and raise anything they believe is missing" here are my thoughts. The single most important point below is item #9, as I raised on the conference call last Wednesday, namely the issue of external court proceedings. For reference, the Initial Consolidated URS Topics Table is at: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79432641/URS%20Docs_ICANN6… 1) Page 3 (of Initial Consolidated URS Topics): Do the RPMs adequately address issues of registrant protection (such as freedom of expression and fair use)? This issue appears to have been skipped entirely in the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table (perhaps not surprisingly, given that registrants weren't canvassed, and practioners' survey was dominated by those representing complainants). This needs to be addressed, including overall Due Process (i.e. the "such as" above are merely examples, but not a complete list of the issues for registrants) 2) Complaint, A.3 (Limited Filing Period). The topic of a "statute of limitations" fits into this topic, and needs to be addressed by the working group. These limitation periods exist under national laws, and complainants should not have rights in the URS that exceed those they would have under national laws. A 2 year limitation period should be adopted (2 years after creation date) for the URS (that would match Ontario's jurisdiction, for example, where I reside. 3) Response, C.1 (Duration of response period). Disagree with draft recommendation that "No additional policy work required". When you mainly hear from complainants, providers and those representing complainants, that's the kind of skewed result that happens. Registrants need sufficient time to respond, and 14 days is inadequate (as evidenced by the high number of defaults, which is also interrelated with the issue of the language issue, e.g. a Chinese registrant receiving an English notice and/or complaint!). This also relates to point #2 above -- all the "time limits" are applied unequally on respondents, and never to complainants. There needs to be a better balance. While pro-complainant side might be opposed to this, as it would reduce "rapidity" or URS, it's already a relatively slow mechanism (i.e. the fastest way to suspend a site is to complaint to a registrar or ISP/hosting provider, and also use blocking mechanisms such as Google's Safebrowsing initiative, see: https://safebrowsing.google.com/ ) Depending on how the statute of limitations policy outcome, the policy could also allow for a longer response time based on the age of a domain (measured from creation date). There is no urgency for a dispute regarding a 10-year old domain (and if there was, TM holders still have the alternative to go to court and seek an injunction). 4) Standard of Proof, D.1. Disagree with the "finding" that "RPM is being used for 'clear case of abuse' as it was intended", given that the practioners surveyed were mainly those representing complainants. We know that decisions in favour of complainants are being made even when the domain name hasn't been *used* in bad faith (i.e. hasn't been used at all), for common terms (e.g. acronyms, dictionary words, surnames, etc.). e.g. see BCG.app decision http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1785973D.htm Panelists are finding "passive holding" abuse, when they shouldn't be (i.e. when there are multiple potential uses for a domain). OpenCorporates.com, for example, shows many potential legitimater users of "BCG" that are unrelated to Boston Consulting Group. Similarly, AcronymFinder.com shows multiple matches unrelated to Boston Consulting Group. 5) Defenses, E.2. Unreasonable delay in filing a complaint (i.e. laches). Laches is a somewhat *separate* issue from Statute of limitations (discussed in point #2 above). With statute of limitations, if you've delayed, regardless of whether it's "reasonable" or not, you lose the right to use the procedure. A respondent need only point to the calendar itself, rather than provide an argument as to whether it's "fair" or not. Under "laches", a respondent would have to do more work, e.g. saying that circumstances have change, evidence is no longer available, etc. "Statute of Limitations" is a much cleaner implementation, reducing the potential abuse of "no laches" discretion by panelists/providers (who are in the business of making money from complaints, unlike courts). With statute of limitations, there is no discretion (you snooze, you lose!). 6) Defenses, E.2: Issues 3/4/7 (minimal standards, whether they've been met, policing existing rules) don't seem to have any recommendations. At a minimum, there needs to be a way to remove bad panelists, to hold them accountable. Particularly since the Complainant picks the provider -- forum shopping can arise, if many "bad" panelists are at a single provider ("bad" = biased towards complainants, in that case). There needs to be an oversight of the providers themselves by either ICANN, or a complaints organization/community appointed and empowered by ICANN (perhaps made up of a representative panel from the community, including registrants), to be able to decertify panelists/providers. It should not be "accredit and forget it". 7) Remedies, F.1. Proposed suggestion was left blank, but would be opposed to a transfer option, right of first refusal, or affecting the drop catching system (i.e. deletion cycle of domains). What I would support would be a mediation system that would allow for a transfer (as part of a negotiations) at an early stage, before time/money is spent on panelists adjudicating a dispute. This would save everyone time/money, as shown in the Nominet case. We need to look at restructuring the "flow chart" for exactly how the URS (and later the UDRP) proceeds, to really try to encourage these kinds of outcomes. It would take too long to describe it here, but there should be very early "Notice of Disputes" (in a succinct form, saving money for complainants), that could then allow for quick mediation, followed by longer complaints if those fail or if the registrant doesn't respond, with appropriate appeals mechanisms too). Potentially, there could be integration with the UDRP itself into a single policy. 8) Remedies, F.4. HSTS - as I noted on the call, this isn't a registry issue; the providers simply need to have HTTPS suspension pages, to complement the HTTP suspension pages. This is trivial to implement by providers. If they can't do it, they can outsource it to those with the technical capabilities (I know I could do it, if I had to, using the widely used tools that are available for HTTPS versions of sites). 9) Appeal, G.1. The topic of external court proceedings (from the Initial Consolidated URS Topics Table) was missed completely, perhaps inadvertently because it slipped onto a separate page from the other points of G.1 (i.e. the question differentiated between internal mechanisms and external ones). The "Super Consolidated" document skips the external mechanisms completely. As I noted when I first brought the issue to the RPM PDP mailing list in November 2017: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-November/002585.html and as David Maher followed up on CircleID: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20180103_the_udrp_and_judicial_review/ this is a critical issue for registrants (and applies to both URS/UDRP). Conceivably it could be addressed in a Stage 2 along with the UDRP, but it must be *knowingly* deferred to that stage, i.e. it can't be considered a topic that we've "solved" in this stage 1. [we might want to create a list of topics that we are *knowingly* shifting to stage 2] Some had suggested that ICANN can't "create a cause of action". That misses the point of this issue completely. ICANN shouldn't have written a policy in the first place that had this flaw, which *assumed* that registrants would be able to have heard in court in court on the merits de novo. The root cause of this issue is the "role reversal" that takes place. A domain registrant defends a URS/UDRP as a respondent. But, if the registrant wants to take an adverse decision to court, then they'd become the *complainant*. Had the URS/UDRP never existed, the TM holder would always be the complainant (and have a cause of action, e.g. TM infringement, cybersquatting, etc.), and the registrant would be the defendant (and have defenses). But, when the roles are switched unnaturally (because the URS/UDRP came first), the registrant may not have a "cause of action" to bring the court case, thus breaking the implicit bargain underlying the URS/UDRP that these complement existing laws, and didn't exist to replace those mechanisms. The obvious solution is to restore the TM holder to their natural role as "complainant" in the courts, and have the registrant be the defendant in the courts (i.e. eliminate the role reversal). There are examples from other systems we can adopt. For example in the case of the DMCA and YouTube, I noted that role reversal doesn't happen: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-January/002669.html i.e. content creator makes a counter-notification, and says: ""I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is located, and will accept service of process from the claimant." (can adapt this to the domain case, to say registrant will consent to a case filed in their own jurisdiction or that of the registrar) One could adopt the solution from the IGO PDP, namely to vitiate the URS decision in the event there's no cause of action for a registrant. But, there's actually an even better solution (which came too late to be considered by that PDP), see the discussion of "Option #7" I started at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001226.html In British Columbia, Canada, they have a "Civil Resolution Tribunal" to steer small claims court cases and condo disputes to an online tribunal. A key part of their process, which we can follow, is their "Notice of Objection": https://civilresolutionbc.ca/how-the-crt-works/how-the-process-ends/#what-i= f-i-dont-agree-with-the-decision "If you disagree with the CRT's final decision on a small claims matter, including a default decision, you can pay a fee and file a Notice of Objection with the CRT. The Notice of Objection must be filed within 28 days after a party receives a CRT decision. The CRT cannot issue an order in a small claims dispute until the deadline for filing a Notice of Objection expires. If a Notice of Objection is filed, the CRT decision is not enforceable. If any party wants to continue any of the claims that were included in the dispute, that party must file a Notice of CRT Claim in the BC Provincial Court. The CRT will provide a Certificate of Completion to all the parties. The Certificate of Completion must be included with the Notice of CRT Claim, or the Provincial Court registry will not accept it. Here are some things about the Notice of CRT Claim process that you should know: It's like an appeal and you will get a new process with the BC Provincial Court, including a settlement conference or pre-trial conference and a trial The Small Claims Rules specify which Provincial Court registry the Notice of CRT Claim must be filed in Once filed, the filing party must serve the Notice of CRT Claim on the other parties The Provincial Court may order a party to pay a deposit for some or all of the amount of the CRT decision If the person who filed the Notice of Objection does not have a better outcome in the BC Provincial Court than in the CRT's decision, the BC Provincial Court may order that party to pay a penalty to the other party" So, in the domain context, a URS (or UDRP) registrant who doesn't like the outcome can pay a fee and file a Notice of Objection. To prevent gaming, the size of that fee should be comparable to what it would cost the registrant in court fees to file a court case (which can then be refunded once they've filed a statement of defense). The fee acts a sort of security or performance bond, that they will indeed defend the matter in court. That bond can be forfeited to the TM holder/complainant, in the event the registrant defaults on their promise to show up and defend in court. This completely solves the role reversal at the root cause of the problem, as it's the TM holder who will always be filing the court case as plaintiff, just as they would had the URS/UDRP not existed. And it further reduces gaming, because the court could take into account the URS outcome when assessing costs (see above, where it says "If the person who filed the Notice of Objection does not have a better outcome in the BC Provincial Court than in the CRT's decision, the BC Provincial Court may order that party to pay a penalty to the other party.") 10. G.2. De novo review: Practitioners survey results are obviously one-sided about removing de novo review, given the fact that there was only 1 practitioner who had represented registrants. I cannot overemphasize the lack of statistical validity of that survey (it was both (1) an unrepresentative and (2) small sample). A balanced survey that had those representing registrants with equal weight would not have yield such silly results. I challenge anyone who thinks the size of the survey was valid to use the margin of error calculator at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/margin-of-error-calculator/ and send us the results (along with your inputs). Even with a (unrealistically low) population size of 34, 95% confidence level, and sample size of 14, we're talking about a +/- 20% margin of error! That's huge. [someone had suggested that 14/34 = 41% response rate to the survey was good --- obviously that informal comment doesn't match the formal statistical results from that calculator as to true error margins] 11. Cost Allocation Model, G1. Unlike some who have a registrants's perspective on these issues, I am 100% in favour of a loser pays system, provided it's carefully constructed to ensure that it will reduce frivolous complaints (and penalize obvious cybersquatters). I think some on the registrant side of the issue might believe the system is too tilted in favour of complainants at this time to permit it to be fairly implemented, which is a valid concern. Nonetheless, I think we should explore this more deeply. I think everyone would agree that we want to root out bad actors on *both sides* of the disputes (i.e. bad complainants, who bring complaints that are frivolous, as well as cybersquatters). There needs to be effective recourse to the courts too, as systems of checks/balances though (see point #9 above), in the event that these "costs" awards get misapplied by providers/panelists. We shouldn't summarily dismiss this topic. Conceivably, the cost allocation need not fall only upon the registrants themselves, but instead on bad registrars/registry operators, where high levels of abuse seem to be tolerated. e.g. see Spamhaus TLD abuse (for spam, but there's likely a correlation to TM abuse too): https://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/tlds/ When more than 50% of some domains "seen" are "bad domains", that's an obvious registry issue. I could envision some sort of refundable security bond/pool by registrars/registries, which is not refunded if there's excessive amount of cybersquatting originating from their registrar/registry. 12. J.1. Language. There's a huge "English" predisposition or even bias in this PDP (my own language is English, for the record). Sites like nTLDstats.com show how a large proportion of new gTLD registrants/registrars are from countries where English is not the dominant language (e.g. China). We have to do a lot better on this, to ensure that registrants are not disadvantaged by receiving notices and/or complaints that they simply can't understand. 13. N.1. We should continue to talk about mediation, and also possible integration as a single (multi-step) process in the UDRP itself. 14. Seems to have disappeared from our radar, but we appeared to have general agreement on standardized XML formats for decisions. This should be somewhere in our initial report (perhaps defer to stage 2, to consider with UDRP too?). For example, https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcrip… page 21: George Kirikos: Yes. Long ago I proposed that UDRP or URS decisions be available in XML format, like a machine-readable format, for the ease of academic research. I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about how much this kind of research costs you in terms of time and money and manual entry of data, et cetera and how much time and money you would have saved had the decisions, et cetera been available through machine-readable format? Thank you. Kathy Kleiman: And Rebecca, briefly too if you could. Rebecca Tushnet:I’m going to let (Alex) - yes. I'm going to - because she is - so it is her work and her labor that is at issue here and so, (Alex), do you have any thoughts? (Alex Noonan): So XML would have been incredible. Berry did a great job pulling a lot of these fields for us so some of them were easily scrapeable, but there are some that are important that weren't. So it took a lot of time to paste in the representative information. The country information, that kind of stuff is interesting. Like I would have expected a lot of these to be coming from China but as a matter of fact a lot of them were coming from the United States. That kind of stuff was valuable but really hard to get. On average it took me approximately six minutes to code each one of these and because the decisions are so short, a good bit of that was copying and pasting of stuff. That actually wasn't academic work. So I think in the end it was like - it was a substantive effort but XML would have been incredible and made it so much easier." And before that in January 2018: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcrip… pp.22-23 George Kirikos: George Kirikos for the transcript. Yes. I've been advocating exactly that for, you know, at least a decade now with regards to the (EDRP) and of the data - applies to the URS. The community can come up with the standard XML format for publication of decisions that would have all the relevant fields and the providers would be expected to publish in that format. So, it's not hard but it needs to be the policy requirement in order get them in line. Thanks. J. Scott Evans: Okay. I am seeing general agreement with that. So, if we could note that in our notes that it appears that the recommendation - one of the recommendations that we'd feel like we should make at the end of this process is with regards to at least at this stage, the URS that there should be standardized reports developed and that each provider should have to provide in a standardized format so that as George pointed out, we're getting the same information from everyone and that makes it easy for researchers to look at the data and make sure we're getting the same data. Okay. George is making the point in the chat that he's not just talking about a standardized report, he's also talking about how the decisions are formatted and he sees them in an XML format because that would make it easier to actually work with the data. https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-January/002700.html (AC chat PDF, starting at the bottom of page 3, going to page 5) I don't know how this "disappeared", but I'm not the one "holding the pen" in this PDP. 15. It's not clear if this is the right time for us to put forth recommendations yet, but I would call for elimination of the URS, as its benefits to a very narrow group simply don't exceed its costs (on registrants, registry operators, and registrars). I can expand on this later, but did want to put this on the record (I assume we'll have ample time to make formal proposals like this, same as when Jeremy for example proposed elimination of Sunrise). Briefly, when new gTLDs were being considered, some folks predicted huge waves of cybersquatting, which required new RPMs as a countermeasure. Like many folks making predictions about new gTLDs, their predictions were completely wrong. Since those predictions were wrong, the policy outcomes of the past that were based on those incorrect predictions should be undone. We've probably spent more money (in terms of the opportunity cost associated with reviewing the URS, adding up both paid ICANN staff and also unpaid volunteer time from the community) than the total benefits from this procedure. The complaints themselves are dominated by the world's richest companies, who can certainly afford to either use the UDRP or the courts instead. In terms of "costs", there are real compliance costs for registrants, registrars, and registries who are subject to these policies. As a prospective registrant, I have to take into account the applicability of a burdensome RPM when considering whether to purchase a new gTLD domain, and weigh that against other alternatives. I think part of the lower than expected demand for new gTLDs can be explained by these excess regulatory burdens, and registrars/registries would see higher volumes of registrations for their products if these burdens were removed. Registrars/registries would also see lower costs, as there would simply be less red tape. I would suggest alternative approaches that would have a greater **deterrent** effect on bad actors, to replace the URS procedure. e.g. as a responsible registrant, I would have no problems posting a security bond or providing some other "signal" (e.g. public WHOIS, verified WHOIS, certification of some form, etc.), perhaps based on volume of registrations (those with 100+ domains, etc.). Bad actors (serial cybersquatters, etc.) would have much more difficulty providing that kind of "signal". One could even allow folks to explicitly opt-out of various RPMs, based on their providing these signals (i.e. they'd still be subject to court action, but could lower their compliance costs by providing suitable signals that they're not a bad actor). Some "reputation" based scheme could be developed, that could allocate higher costs to higher-risk actors, just like insurance and other systems of risk management do. One need only look at the SpamHaus stats I posted above, and see that URS has no impact on the huge amounts of actual abuse that occurs in these TLDs. A more effective alternative approach that will target high volume abusers is really required to replace this ineffective policy. As I said before, we all want to root out the bad actors. Let's find the right way to do it, and look beyond the ineffective solutions of the past. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

2 2