September 2018 - GNSO-RPM-WG

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

Feb. 11, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP WG call held on 08 August 2018 (17:00-18:30 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/uwNpBQ Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) == ACTION ITEMS: * Brian Beckham to send to the WG a WIPO FAQ with regard to “Doe Complaint”. * Renee Fossen to provide more information on HSTS-preloaded domain suspension issues in the written responses. * Staff to recirculate the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document * WG members to provide substantive comment and raise anything they believe is missing on the WG mailing list by COB Tue, 14 Aug. Co-Chairs will then discuss among themselves to determine further actions/process. * WG members to finish reviewing the rest of the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document, including page 24-35, during next week’s call. Later period to discuss larger policy issues. NOTES: Review Agenda/Statements of Interest * George Kirikos has become a member of the At-Large Community: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/George+Kirikos+SOI General Comment on the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table Document * The topics in the table were developed by the WG members and deliberated on by the WG & URS Sub Teams. Each Sub Team then did very substantial work on data collection and reviewing what came back. While the actual Sub Team recommendations and suggestions captured in this document are what is intended the WG should discuss - to see if it wishes to develop policy or operational recommendations - discussion over what should be on the actual list of topics should not be reopened unless the WG agrees to do so. We encourage all WG members to review all the previous reports from each Sub Team, and all the documents they worked on. They are linked in this Super Consolidated document (page 2). * The Super Consolidated document is a summary of findings and suggestions by the Sub Teams. The Table does not mean to limit/restrict recommendations from the WG members. If there is any issue overlapping with UDRP, can possibly be carried over to the phase II of the PDP. * Is it possible to add additional topics to the Super Consolidated Table? One WG member said that access to the Courts, for example, is a topic he raised, which isn't in the table. Statute of Limitations, whether URS should apply to legacy gTLDs as a consensus policy, are just a few of the topics not in the table. He brought it up in November 2017 (see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-November/002585.html ) and it was reflected in a later document. That's a critical issue for registrants. if they don't have access to the courts to challenge a URS decision, then it's a huge denial of their rights. * While the chart is not meant to foreclose further discussion, it is a good faith attempt at capturing the work of the sub teams. The purpose of today's, and likely the next few, calls was to make sure this was an accurate and comprehensive reflection of our discussions so far. That said, WG members should bear in mind that we are seeking consensus, so items which are unlikely to achieve that may not be appropriate to reflect as a recommendation, but could be included in public comments on the Initial Report. Also, before adding items to this chart, we will want to work with staff to see whether such topics was previously discussed, and if so, the level of agreement/consensus. In other words, it is not necessary final, but is equally an opportunity to reintroduce topics which have been discussed, but for which consensus is/was not possible. * Could we create a list of "missing issues" -- a list of issues raised in this call (and calls to follow); we can evaluate the nature and weight of these ideas later. * Regarding the Action Items highlighted in column 3 of the table, Providers ST will do a first pass of the responses from the Providers to the follow-up questions, and then discuss the issues that they identified and proposed suggestions with the full WG. Limited filing period (page 3) * One WG member believes that there should be limitation for filing period to bring URS Complaints, so the domain registered many years ago would not be subject to unfair treatment. He said a registrant who owns a domain for 20 years, for example, shouldn't have to be concerned about a policy that can take their domain down with very short time period to respond. * Other WG members said this was discussed, and did not achieve agreement. That would only even be an option if the trademark pre-dated. This is unlikely to be a situation in practice where a URS was brought because it would probably not be a "slam dunk" case after 20 years unless there had been a change of circumstances. * On the issue of delay and laches - as reported by the Docs Sub Team, the data did not provide any basis for which a policy recommendation should be made. The Providers and Practitioners Sub Teams also did not uncover any specific issues that came to either practitioners' or providers' attention. Administrative Review (page 3-4) * One WG member asked whether ICANN should bring Providers into contractual relationship in order to enforce the URS Rules & Procedures. Another member said it probably need to be ICANN’s legal department to enforce the rules & procedure. * URS Providers have MoU with ICANN. Whether it is ICANN’s compliance department or legal department to enforce the rules & procedures, it should not be controversial that Providers must abide by them. * An MOU could be legally enforceable, depending on the circumstances. 500-word Complaint limit (page 4-5) * On 500-word Complaint Limit - Practitioners' survey results were split (out of 12, 5 agree it's sufficient, 4 disagree); results included feedback from some that the word limit was too low: "arbitrary and often insufficient" and "should be slightly increased". * One member said he understands and generally agrees with the decision not to suggest an expansion of the word limit, he wonders if there aren't situations (multi- domain challenges, etc.) where a Complainant or Respondent might be given the opportunity to request an expansion. This point can be captured for decisional phase. * Another member suggested that perhaps providers can provide stats on the average word length of complaints, to see how close to the 500 words they are at present. (i.e. a table of distributions, e.g. 10% under 200 words, 20% between 201 and 300, etc.) Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec (page 5-6) * One member believes that 2-3 days might not be a good rule (e.g. weekends, time to research, etc.). Maybe 5 business days. * WIPO’s approach to “doe complaints” has been very helpful and provides some comfort that the lack of true registrant/registrant organization data masked due to GDPR will not result in a deficient complaint for an omitted respondent. * ACTION ITEM: Brian Beckham to send to the WG a WIPO FAQ with regard to “Doe Complaint”. * Forum is asking for amendment of the complaint in UDRP - under the rules that's not allowed in URS. SMD Files (page 6-7) * SMD files are used for limited purpose of demonstrating the use. * Recollection is that SMD files would be passed to the Examiners and relay the critical information related to the TM registration. That's why some people are surprised by the limited info SMD files would provide. * The SMD files contain some basic human-readable information, with the rest of the information coded. For example, the trademark itself is human-readable but the applicable Nice classification is coded. A SMD file is used by registries/registrars for validation, and as Greg noted, to demonstrate use. From the TMCH provider: http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/help/faq/which-information-does-smd-… * If the intent of the STI was that the SMD file would be a file summary, that got lost somewhere along the way, way before the SMD file was designed by the TMCH providers. * Rules 3(b)(v) Specify the trademark(s) or service mark(s) on which the complaint is based and the goods or services with which the mark is used including evidence of use –which can be a declaration and a specimen of current use in commerce - submitted directly or by including a relevant SMD (Signed Mark Data) from the Trademark Clearinghouse * It might be useful to look at the spec that they relied on. But the real question is how should the examiner get the relevant data about the Complainant’s mark. The SMD file is probably not the answer, if it was ever intended to be. * the Examiner is not required to second-guess the SMD file. Its existence is sufficient that the mark has had use validated by the TMCH. Other Topics (page 7-8) * These are policy proposals can be brought up when WG members are proposing changes to the URS policy itself. Charter asks us to address the question whether the URS should become a consensus policy applicable to legacy domains. Charter is not specific regarding whether such discussion should occur in phase I or phase II. This feedback illustrates that the ST didn't get to propose policy changes, it is for the WG to discuss and propose changes. * when we reference the STI and IRT reports, we need to keep in mind they only had about 1-2 months to complete their work and produce a report; they were not standard PDP working groups and had limited charters and mandates, which were set by the Board * This is feedback from one Provider, who may want to grow their business. Practitioners survey are from Complaints' side. Need to have a balanced solution when considering the input. * There were plenty of practitioners that represent registrants in the Subgroup, although their experience was largely with the UDRP. Duration of response period (Page 11) * One member believes that if the URS continues in its current form, it would affect valuable domain names. The ones the registrants that do want to defend them, 14 days are not sufficient. 20 days may be more appropriate. It should be based on the age of the domain name. If a domain is 3 months, it will have a shorter period to respond. If you own a domain name for 5-10 years, response period would be longer so less urgency. * Several other WG members disagree. The URS is supposed to be an expedited proceeding so increasing the length of time of a streamlined proceeding defeats the purpose. At most, there could be an additional 3 or 4 days extension period for cause. The point is that there are enough circumstances that give rise to the URS 'quick response' that we should NOT make assumptions into policy. It is an assumption that an "aged" domain would not require a fast response. In Mexico, we have not been able to file a domain name case due to Courts ignorance about the subject and also, because it could take years to be solved. We're spinning out fo control - extending the time to respond to URS cases just because a domain registration is not new defeats the purpose of fast action to take down an infringing domain once it's discovered. The URS is meant to address clear and convincing cases of infringement. A person registers a domain name for less than $50 and brand owner find out about at some point and then files an injunction in court for tens of thousands of dollars. Where is the balance. Examiners Guide (page 13) * The WIPO guidance for examiners took 1500 hours to develop. * The WIPO guidance is relevant to the URS, the elements are shown are the same and the differences include the burden of proof, word limit, etc. A lot of WIPO guidance goes to the shade of grey issues. URS is for clear black/white cases, so if there is a URS guidance it would likely be abbreviated. Duration of Suspension Period & Review of Implementation (page 21-23) * One WG member suggests to find out how much cost for registries & registrars to comply with the URS rules and procedures. Need to get data/feedback from the registries/registrars. * Other WG members are not sure "cost of implementation of URS" for Registries/Registrars is relevant to effectiveness of URS. We don't need to do a cost/benefit analysis (the costs & benefits aren't ICANN's), the providers, registrars, registries need to be asked if they are overburdened by the costs of compliance. * There is an action item to contact the registries/registrars about these issues. Timing TBD due to Sunrise & Claims survey launch. Other topics (page 23-24) * One WG member thinks the HSTS issue is not difficult to fix. The Providers need to improve their technical applicability to resolve the issue. Renee Fossen from Forum disagrees. * ACTION ITEM: Renee Fossen to provide more information on HSTS-preloaded domain suspension issues in the written responses. NEXT STEPS * ACTION ITEM: Staff to recirculate the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document and ask all WG members to provide substantive comment and raise anything they believe is missing on the WG mailing list by COB Tue, 14 Aug. Co-Chairs will then discuss among themselves to determine further actions/process. * ACTION ITEM: WG to finish reviewing the rest of the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document, including page 24-35. Later period to discuss larger policy issues.

20 45

URS / UDRP proposals -- data on registrar/registry compliance costs
by George Kirikos Oct. 17, 2018

Oct. 17, 2018

Hi folks, In support of an upcoming proposal regarding allowing cost recovery by registrars and registries of compliance costs associated with the handling of URS and UDRP disputes, I wanted to share the following data (which I will then reference in the actual proposal). (a) I reached out to Reg Levy of Tucows, Direct of Compliance for the world's 2nd largest registrar (and also a member of this PDP), regarding time spent handling UDRP and/or URS complaints and was told: "With regard to URS, that applies primarily to registries, so we don't have any cost for for those. For UDRPs, I haven't done an analysis of how long it would take one of my team members to process a UDRP complaint; generally, it simply includes intake, locking the domain, and then unlocking or forwarding the domain upon resolution. A normal UDRP would likely take around 15 minutes but there are some tough ones (I've spent more than an hour on a few with Paul talking through the issues and figuring out how we will proceed) so I'd call it an average of 30–35 minutes per claim." (she said I could share this response with the PDP) (b) GoDaddy's registration agreement suggest that they'll charge an administrative fee (albeit to the registrant) for such compliance costs: https://ca.godaddy.com/legal-agreements "GoDaddy also reserves the right to charge you reasonable “administrative” fees" for (i) tasks GoDaddy may perform outside the normal scope of its Services, (ii) additional time and/or costs GoDaddy may incur in providing its Services, and/or (iii) your noncompliance with this Agreement (as determined by GoDaddy in its sole and absolute discretion). Typical administrative or processing fee scenarios include, but are not limited to (i) customer service issues that require additional personal time or attention; (ii) UDRP actions(s) in connection with your domain name(s) and/or disputes that require accounting or legal services, whether performed by GoDaddy staff or by outside firms retained by GoDaddy; (iii) recouping any and all costs and fees, including the cost of Services, incurred by GoDaddy as the results of chargebacks or other payment disputes brought by you, your bank or Payment Method processor. These administrative fees or processing fees will be billed to the Payment Method you have on file with GoDaddy." and it has been $50 in the past: https://domaingang.com/domain-news/udrp-fee-reversed-godaddy-heres-done/ (c) Some URS and UDRP disputes involve multiple domains, increasing the complexity and thus the cost of compliance for registrars/registries on a variable per-domain name level, e.g. http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-1661.html involved 1,542 domains, all of which need to be put on a legal hold/lock, checked to determine that they involve the same registrant, etc. (d) if any other registrars and registries wish to share data publicly on typical compliance costs (e.g. time per dispute, etc.), that would be wonderful. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

11 28

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 26 Sept 2018
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 27, 2018

Sept. 27, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 26 September 2018 (12:00-14:00 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/2018-09-26+Review+of+all+R…. See also the proposals at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Proposals. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: ACTION ITEM: Re: Response Fee Threshold: Staff will research how the 15 threshold was determined. ACTION ITEM: Staff will check to see if it is possible to find out how many different languages the registration agreements are in, but the data (if any) is likely limited to what is disclosed during the registrar accreditation process. Notes: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates: -- Is Phil Corwin’s affiliation up to date at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729950? Yes, it matches his SOI at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Philip+S+Corwin+SOI. 2. Discussion of Individual URS Proposals: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Proposals 1) Brian Winterfeldt’s team: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-10.p… Discussion: -- Opposed: This would extend time to appeal and respond. The evidence is the opposite of what is being claimed. -- Where does the 1 year come from? -- Troubling because there is no evidence of a problem. There doesn't seem to be evidence of harm. -- I don't think we have any evidence that there is a problem with receiving notice. We should focus on improving the notice of complaint. -- If we got rid of the opportunity of a registrant to submit a response after a default determination the registrant could appeal through the de novo appeal process, but that doesn't seem to be correct. The existing record would be the original complaint. So the proposal should just be the primary proposal that the time limit should be revisited. -- 2 points: (1) . Assuming the evidence shows all of the filings were within 30 days, I do not see a reason to change what is already there. There is no evidence that the current period has been abused in any way.. (2) . There are a great many ways that registrants may not receive notice. Assuming (as the evidence suggests) there is no abuse, why should we limit the time and potentially harm those non-abusing registrants who recieved notification late. Also, I agree with ZAK on the appeal issue. Response: -- The 1-year period is the 6 month period and the additional 6 months. -- About the appeal -- the appeal is on the existing record, so that is a good point. One possibility is to work with David McCauley on a combined revised proposal. Proposers may work with David McCauley on a combined revised proposal. 2) Brian Winterfeldt’s team:: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-11.p… Discussion: -- Not in favor. Losing past disputes is not the same as being accused of abuse. This would promote further defaults by raising the difficulty of responding. -- Does someone have to pay the response filing fee even if not successful? -- 3 sounds like a pretty low threshold in considering whether someone is a bad-faith actor. Might this incentivize bad behavior to lump cases together to get the discount? -- What is the evidence supporting this change? It appears that most abusive URS complaints are defaulted. So why penalize a registrant who wants to actually deend a URS? -- Gaming is another strawman argument. Sort of like a loser pays system. -- Possible refinement: That the threshold of 3 would be met by 3 registrations targeting the same trademark. -- The IRT report had mentioned a threshold of 25 and there was a request to lower that, but we will look into the deeper history. Responses: -- A lot of the issues can be addressed by noting that the response fee under the current rules is refundable to the prevailing parties. That would remain in place. -- The number 3 was a strawman that ties to the cases of a pattern of 3 constitutes a pattern of bad behavior. -- We will review all of the comments in the chat and consider refining the proposal. ACTION ITEM: Staff will research how the 15 threshold was determined. Proposers will review all of the comments and consider refining the proposal. 3) George Kirikos: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-24.p… Discussion: -- Question: Does his proposal include who would pay for the translation? -- The translation would add time to the examiners side, so how will that be addressed? -- Question: Under the UDRP there is a process that despite the registration language being other than English that English should be the language of the case. Can this be included? -- Question to staff: Registration agreement between the registrar and registrant how many different languages those agreements may be in among ICANN-accredited registrars. Mary Wong: @Phil, we can check with our GDD colleagues but the information (if any) may be limited to what is disclosed during the registrar accreditation process. Response: -- The complainant would be responsible for providing the complaint in the language of the registrant. -- Amenable to follow the UDRP rules. -- Not sure we can get data on the languages of the agreements between registrars and registrants. ACTION ITEM: Staff will check to see if it is possible to find out how many different languages the registration agreements are in, but the data (if any) is likely limited to what is disclosed during the registrar accreditation process. 4) Zak Muscovitch: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-25.p… Discussion: -- How do you handle the issue where a country has multiple official languages? -- What about a domain name registered defensively in language but couldn't defend it in that language? -- Very limited evidence for this proposal, which speaks to following the UDRP precedent having the translation being at the request of the respondent since we don't know in advance what their language is. -- Support combining similar proposals. -- The issue of translation can cross a lot of areas. Question: If we were to consider this option we would want to think about what are the languages where this would have the most impact. How do we allocate costs to keep it fair. How to allocate languages to not overburden the system? Response: -- This proposal seems to be more sensitive to where people are and the languages they speak. -- In terms of the cost: There isn't any cost of translation since the complaint must be brought in the language of the registration agreement; should be less cost. 5) Brian Winterfeldt’s team: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-15.p… Discussion: -- Should be deferred to Phase Two. A different version of loser pays. -- Also there are issues of identity theft. -- Any proposal of black-listing registrants is highly problematic. -- Shouldn't this be up to complainants? This is a somewhat one-sided proposal. -- Proposal are unworkable, so it would be helpful if they are reworked. Response: -- There are challenges concerning how to apply enhanced penalties, but it is workable. We don't have to work out the implementation details. 6) Brian Winterfeldt’s team: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-16.p… Discussion: -- Oppose the proposals. A way to transform the URS into UDRP through a right of first refusal. -- Is it your intent to flesh out what are the additional remedies, or are you asking for the TM community to suggest additional remedies? -- Addresses the under use of the URS in a transformative fashion. Does call into question how both programs are intended to work together. -- Support for the idea for a negotiated transfer of a suspended domain name. -- If the URS allowed a right of first refusal, what would happen in the case of halifax.com? The proposal would contemplate preventing a good faith use of the name. Response: -- What about legitimate TM owners? They typically negotiate with each other, but it is a good question. -- We are not saying the suspension period should be eliminated. Next Steps: -- Presumption of inclusion of all proposals in the Initial Report. Need to get feedback on these divergent proposals and how we can reach a compromise. -- A lot of these proposals are interconnected. -- Put the issues on the table now. Seems like any Phase Two proposals will need to be in Phase One, but more efficient to defer the topics to Phase Two. -- In the proposals the proposers should consider implementation. 3: AOB: Phase One vs. Phase Two Topics: -- Not necessary to only suggest for Phase One or Two so topics may generate different discussion or results in each case. -- Don't want to tell any member of the WG that they can't present something now but have to wait until UDRP. -- Some issues are unique to the URS, and other topics that can straddle URS and UDRP. -- Key thing -- deferred proposals are assured of being addressed in full in Phase Two. Those who want their considered now bear the risk that comments on their proposals now may weigh against them in Phase Two. -- These are two different proceedings and now is the opportunity to look at the operational fixes and policy recommendations that are fairly tailored to the URS. -- Anyone has the opportunity to recategorize their proposals by COB Friday, 28 Sept. -- The PDP Charter contemplates the possibility that Phase One findings may emerge that are relevant to Phase Two discussions - and these should (if known at the appropriate stage) be noted in the Phase One report. The Charter also allows the WG to review its Phase One report if relevant to Phase Two.

4 5

Phase 1 vs Phase 2 proposals/topics (was Re: UPDATE: Agenda and Materials for 26 Sept Working Group Meeting 1200 UTC)
by George Kirikos Sept. 26, 2018

Sept. 26, 2018

Hi folks, I notice that 2 of the proposals scheduled for today's call (#15 and #22, additional penalties for repeat offenders + loser pays) were ones I identified on September 11, 2018 as being more appropriate for Phase 2 discussions, see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003315.html and the ensuing thread. On our last call, Phil Corwin stated: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcrip… "And then those of you who saw on the list last week, George Kirikos raised a question regarding the distinction between Phase 1 and Phase 2 proposals and the chairs are going to put out a statement on that in the next day or two that can be discussed on the list before the next meeting. But we haven't had a chance to put that out yet but the few proposals that George identified that he thought would be more properly addressed in Phase 2 also were not called up, although I think the first one would have been Number 14, which would not have been reached today anyway. But we’re going to have a statement out on that in the next few days." (page 2) However, no such statement has been put out by the co-chairs since that last call. Since we only have 2 minutes to respond to each proposal during today's call, I'd like to reiterate my objection to having these proposals be presented at this time, unless it's agreed in advance that these same topics are going to be completely barred from consideration in relation to the UDRP. It's clear to me that these same topics are intended to be raised again for the UDRP (indeed, the rationale for proposal #22 "loser pays" explicitly references the UDRP). They shouldn't get two bites at the apple, so to speak. One of the main justifications for splitting the work into Phase 1 and Phase 2 was to avoid duplication, and having these proposals presented and considered now makes a mockery of that. Should the proposals above be allowed to proceed to the presentation stage now, despite their relevance to the UDRP and Phase 2, then various counterbalancing proposals to protect registrants' rights and due process that I submitted and explicitly labelled as being more suitable for Phase 2 (since they apply to both the URS and UDRP) should be given equal time in Phase 1 presentations to be considered with and alongside the above proposals. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, > > > > On behalf of the Co-Chairs, please see the draft agenda below for the > Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 26 September at 1200 UTC (NOTE ROTATING > TIME) for 120 minutes. > > > > Per Co-Chairs’ Proposed Procedure, for this next meeting, the Working Group > will continue discussion of the Individual URS Proposals. According to the > timeline published on the wiki and as described in the message below, the > order of the presentation is as follows. WG members are requested to review > the presentations prior to Wednesday’s meeting. Staff would like to provide > you a heads-up that the order of presentations tomorrow would be slightly > adjusted as follows: > > > > Brian Winterfeldt’s team: > https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-10.p… > Brian Winterfeldt’s team: > https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-11.p… > George Kirikos: > https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-24.p… > Zak Muscovitch: > https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-25.p… > Brian Winterfeldt’s team: > https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-15.p… > Brian Winterfeldt’s team: > https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-16.p… > Brian Winterfeldt’s team: > https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-22.p… > > > > Per the procedure, please also note the following time requirements for the > presentations: > > > > When a proposal is up for discussion, its proponent will be accorded a > maximum of five (5) minutes to orally present the proposal, rationale, and > supporting evidence. > The floor will then be open to other Working Group members to comment on the > proposal for a maximum of two (2) minutes each, with total discussion > limited to twenty (20) minutes. However, if there is exceptionally high > interest in a topic, the Co-Chairs would have discretion to increase the > discussion time. > At the end of twenty (20) minutes, or when there are no more commenters in > queue, the proponent will have up to four (4) minutes to respond and/or > propose a modification of the proposal based upon the discussion. > > > > Depending on the actual progress during the Wednesday meeting, if a proposal > cannot be presented due to time limitation, the presentation should be > deferred to a future meeting. > > > > Draft Agenda: > > Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates > Discussion of Individual URS Proposals (See: wiki) > AOB > > > > Best, > > Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie > > On Behalf of the RPM PDP WG Co-Chairs > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

4 6

Scheduling meeting times
by Mary Wong Sept. 26, 2018

Sept. 26, 2018

Dear all, The Working Group co-chairs periodically review the group’s meeting times with staff. You may recall that this group previously held its fourth rotating meeting at a different time (viz. 0300 UTC) which, while making it much easier for APAC-based participants as it meant that one out of every four Working Group calls would take place during working hours in that region, also made it extremely difficult for EMEA-based members to participate. The current rotating time of 1200 UTC was a compromise of sorts, as it falls within EMEA working hours without being overly late (relatively speaking) for APAC – although please note that, in contrast to the previous rotating time of 0300 UTC, 1200 UTC actually means the call takes place after working hours in APAC (e.g. 8 p.m. in Singapore/HK and 10 p.m. in parts of Australia). In either case, the Working Group’s regular meeting time of 1700 UTC makes attending three out of four meetings very difficult for APAC-based members (1700 UTC time is 5 a.m. in Singapore/HK and 7 a.m. in Melbourne). As the GNSO’s rules are designed to facilitate broad and diverse representation and participation, all PDP Working Groups (with the current exception of the new Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification relating to WHOIS data) use a rotating meeting schedule, with actual times determined by the circumstances of each group and set by that group’s leadership team. This is in accordance with the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which prescribe that “scheduling tools should follow the preference of the majority and accommodate those that are in different time zones. Alternating meeting times should be considered as an option if the same members of the WG are always ‘inconvenienced’ by a standing meeting time.” Staff will work with Kathy, Brian and Phil to see if the current rotating time should be changed, but for now we thought this background information may be helpful. Thanks and cheers Mary, Julie & Ariel From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Nahitchevansky, Georges" <ghn(a)kilpatricktownsend.com> Date: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 11:34 To: George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com>, Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org>, gnso-SECS <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday 26 September 2018 Agree with George K that if APAC attendance is light for these calls that we should consider whether or not to have calls in this time slot at this point of our process I hate to think that a number of working group members miss these calls at this juncture because we are sticking to a time slot to accommodate folks that end up not attending. From: icann(a)leap.com Sent: September 26, 2018 11:19 AM To: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org; gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday 26 September 2018 [resending, as I sent the prior email from an unsubscribed email address] The attendance record is not accurate. e.g. my name (George Kirikos) is missing. Also, Georges Nahitchevansky's first name is missing the 's'. There might be other errors beyond that. Also, it seems participation from Asia-Pacific based members was quite light on this call (which was supposed to be APAC-friendly), if the (revised) attendance was accurate. Perhaps a different time slot needs to be considered? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ [leap.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFAg&…> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> wrote: > 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 Monday, 26 September 2018 at 12:00 UTC. > Attendance and recording of the call is also posted on agenda wiki page: > https://community.icann.org/x/ZgKNBQ > > MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-26sep18-en.mp3 [audio.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> > > > > AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8ed3wvepp7/ > > > > > > 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…> > [gnso.icann.org] > > > > ** 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] > > > > Thank you. > > Kind Regards, > > Nathalie > > > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

1 0

With updated attendance: Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday 26 September 2018
by Nathalie Peregrine Sept. 26, 2018

Sept. 26, 2018

Resending with updated attendance, thank you George Kirikos for catching the errors and apologies. From: Gnso-secs <gnso-secs-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 5:07 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-secs] Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday 26 September 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 Monday, 26 September 2018 at 12:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/ZgKNBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-26sep18-en.mp3 [audio.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8ed3wvepp7/<https://participate.icann.org/p8ed3wvepp7/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=b53cd1dec1e5ee76…> 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, Nathalie

1 0

Revised proposals, timeline/deadline?
by George Kirikos Sept. 26, 2018

Sept. 26, 2018

Hi folks, As per today's call, when should we alll submit merged/revised proposals (e.g. the language proposals by Zak and myself)? Will those be presented again at some point, or .... ? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

2 1

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday 26 September 2018
by Nathalie Peregrine Sept. 26, 2018

Sept. 26, 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 Monday, 26 September 2018 at 12:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/ZgKNBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-26sep18-en.mp3 <https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-26sep18-en.mp3%20 > AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8ed3wvepp7/<https://participate.icann.org/p8ed3wvepp7/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=b53cd1dec1e5ee76…> 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, Nathalie

4 3

UPDATE: Agenda and Materials for 26 Sept Working Group Meeting 1200 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 25, 2018

Sept. 25, 2018

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, On behalf of the Co-Chairs, please see the draft agenda below for the Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 26 September at 1200 UTC (NOTE ROTATING TIME) for 120 minutes. Per Co-Chairs’ Proposed Procedure, for this next meeting, the Working Group will continue discussion of the Individual URS Proposals. According to the timeline published on the wiki and as described in the message below, the order of the presentation is as follows. WG members are requested to review the presentations prior to Wednesday’s meeting. Staff would like to provide you a heads-up that the order of presentations tomorrow would be slightly adjusted as follows: Brian Winterfeldt’s team: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-10.p… Brian Winterfeldt’s team: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-11.p… George Kirikos: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-24.p… Zak Muscovitch: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-25.p… Brian Winterfeldt’s team: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-15.p… Brian Winterfeldt’s team: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-16.p… Brian Winterfeldt’s team: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-22.p… Per the procedure, please also note the following time requirements for the presentations: When a proposal is up for discussion, its proponent will be accorded a maximum of five (5) minutes to orally present the proposal, rationale, and supporting evidence. The floor will then be open to other Working Group members to comment on the proposal for a maximum of two (2) minutes each, with total discussion limited to twenty (20) minutes. However, if there is exceptionally high interest in a topic, the Co-Chairs would have discretion to increase the discussion time. At the end of twenty (20) minutes, or when there are no more commenters in queue, the proponent will have up to four (4) minutes to respond and/or propose a modification of the proposal based upon the discussion. Depending on the actual progress during the Wednesday meeting, if a proposal cannot be presented due to time limitation, the presentation should be deferred to a future meeting. Draft Agenda: Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates Discussion of Individual URS Proposals (See: wiki) AOB Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie On Behalf of the RPM PDP WG Co-Chairs

1 0

Agenda and Materials for 26 Sept Working Group Meeting 1200 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 21, 2018

Sept. 21, 2018

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, On behalf of the Co-Chairs, please see the draft agenda below for the Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 26 September at 1200 UTC (NOTE APAC EARLIER TIME) for 120 minutes. Per Co-Chairs’ Proposed Procedure, for this next meeting, the Working Group will continue discussion of the Individual URS Proposals. According to the timeline published on the wiki and as described in the message below, the order of the presentation is as follows. WG members are requested to review the presentations prior to Wednesday’s meeting. Brian Winterfeldt’s team: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-10.p… Brian Winterfeldt’s team: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-11.p… Brian Winterfeldt’s team: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-15.p… Brian Winterfeldt’s team: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-16.p… Brian Winterfeldt’s team: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-22.p… George Kirikos: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-24.p… Zak Muscovitch: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-25.p… Per the procedure, please also note the following time requirements for the presentations: When a proposal is up for discussion, its proponent will be accorded a maximum of five (5) minutes to orally present the proposal, rationale, and supporting evidence. The floor will then be open to other Working Group members to comment on the proposal for a maximum of two (2) minutes each, with total discussion limited to twenty (20) minutes. However, if there is exceptionally high interest in a topic, the Co-Chairs would have discretion to increase the discussion time. At the end of twenty (20) minutes, or when there are no more commenters in queue, the proponent will have up to four (4) minutes to respond and/or propose a modification of the proposal based upon the discussion. Depending on the actual progress during the Wednesday meeting, if a proposal cannot be presented due to time limitation, the presentation should be deferred to a future meeting. Draft Agenda: Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates Discussion of Individual URS Proposals (See: wiki) AOB Have a nice weekend! Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie On Behalf of the RPM PDP WG Co-Chairs

1 0