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

Re： Final Report of the Competition, Consumer Protection& Consumer Trust Review Team published; includes RPM-related recommendations
by socata Sept. 21, 2018

Sept. 21, 2018

Dear Mary, Thanks! Very helpful! Zhou Heng 原始邮件发件人:Mary Wongmary.wong(a)icann.org 收件人:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.orggnso-rpm-wg@icann.org 发送时间:2018年9月21日(周五) 08:01 主题:[gnso-rpm-wg] Final Report of the Competition, Consumer Protection Consumer Trust Review Team published; includes RPM-related recommendations Dear all, Following up on some early Working Group discussions about and with the Competition, Consumer Protection Consumer Trust (CCT) Review Team regarding their work touching on RPMs, you may be interested to read the Review Team’s Final Report which was published on 8 September 2018: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/zuck-to-chalaby-08sep1…. There is a brief summary of the RPM recommendations in the Executive Summary (on pages 10-12). The Review Team’s specific consensus recommendations that mention this PDP and the ongoing work – although you should note that there is a number of recommendations directed toward the GNSO more generally and ICANN Organization that may be relevant - are: #27 - “Since the Review Team’s initial draft recommendation, the PDP Review of All RPMs in All gTLDs Working Group started reviewing the URS in detail and, at the time of writing, their review is ongoing. Given this ongoing review, the Review Team recommends that the Working Group continue its review of the URS and also looks into the interoperability of the URS with the UDRP. The review team encountered a lack of data for complete analysis. The PDP Review of All RPMs appears to also be encountering this issue and this may well prevent it from drawing firm conclusions. If modifications are not easily identified, then the CCT Review Team recommends continued monitoring until more data is collected and made available for review at a later date”; and #28 – “A cost-benefit analysis and review of the TMCH and its scope should be carried out to provide quantifiable information on the costs and benefits associated with the present state of the TMCH services, and thus to allow for an effective policy review. Since the review team’s initial draft recommendation, the PDP Review of All RPMs in All gTLDs Working Group has started reviewing the TMCH in detail and ICANN has appointed Analysis Group to develop and conduct the survey(s) to assess the use and effectiveness of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims RPMs. Provided that the PDP Working Group has sufficient data from this survey or other surveys and is able to draw firm conclusions, the review team does not consider that an additional review is necessary. However, the CCT Review Team reiterates its recommendation for a cost-benefit analysis to be carried out if such analysis can enable objective conclusions to be drawn. Such cost-benefit analysis should include, but not necessarily be limited to, looking at cost-benefits of the TMCH for brand owners, registries, and registrars now and going forward, as well as examine the interplay of the TMCH with premium pricing.” The description of the various RPMs and the specific recommendations and rationale can be found on pages 124-140 of the Final Report. Best regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel Berry

1 0

Final Report of the Competition, Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust Review Team published; includes RPM-related recommendations
by Mary Wong Sept. 21, 2018

Sept. 21, 2018

Dear all, Following up on some early Working Group discussions about and with the Competition, Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust (CCT) Review Team regarding their work touching on RPMs, you may be interested to read the Review Team’s Final Report which was published on 8 September 2018: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/zuck-to-chalaby-08sep1…. There is a brief summary of the RPM recommendations in the Executive Summary (on pages 10-12). The Review Team’s specific consensus recommendations that mention this PDP and the ongoing work – although you should note that there is a number of recommendations directed toward the GNSO more generally and ICANN Organization that may be relevant - are: * #27 - “Since the Review Team’s initial draft recommendation, the PDP Review of All RPMs in All gTLDs Working Group started reviewing the URS in detail and, at the time of writing, their review is ongoing. Given this ongoing review, the Review Team recommends that the Working Group continue its review of the URS and also looks into the interoperability of the URS with the UDRP. The review team encountered a lack of data for complete analysis. The PDP Review of All RPMs appears to also be encountering this issue and this may well prevent it from drawing firm conclusions. If modifications are not easily identified, then the CCT Review Team recommends continued monitoring until more data is collected and made available for review at a later date”; and * #28 – “A cost-benefit analysis and review of the TMCH and its scope should be carried out to provide quantifiable information on the costs and benefits associated with the present state of the TMCH services, and thus to allow for an effective policy review. Since the review team’s initial draft recommendation, the PDP Review of All RPMs in All gTLDs Working Group has started reviewing the TMCH in detail and ICANN has appointed Analysis Group to develop and conduct the survey(s) to assess the use and effectiveness of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims RPMs. Provided that the PDP Working Group has sufficient data from this survey or other surveys and is able to draw firm conclusions, the review team does not consider that an additional review is necessary. However, the CCT Review Team reiterates its recommendation for a cost-benefit analysis to be carried out if such analysis can enable objective conclusions to be drawn. Such cost-benefit analysis should include, but not necessarily be limited to, looking at cost-benefits of the TMCH for brand owners, registries, and registrars now and going forward, as well as examine the interplay of the TMCH with premium pricing.” The description of the various RPMs and the specific recommendations and rationale can be found on pages 124-140 of the Final Report. Best regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry

1 0

Thoughts on my proposal re URS default reviews
by McAuley, David Sept. 18, 2018

Sept. 18, 2018

Dear members of the RPM PDP WG: Yesterday I presented a proposal<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-9.pd…> to this WG in my personal capacity that addressed the timing and number of examinations in those cases where a URS respondent 'defaulted.' Thanks again to the co-chairs for a well-designed process for submitting/weighing these proposals, and to staff for implementing the process so efficiently. Some asked during this presentation if I would be willing to tweak/adjust the proposal to better suit a request for public comment in light of the comments, both pro and con, being made as I spoke. My answer would be yes. However, prior to looking over the record and taking such steps I want to note to the WG that it seems advisable to wait until a similar proposal is aired, proposal #15<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-10.p…> from Brain Winterfeldt et al. It appears to be first up in the next teleconference. By considering these together, the co-chairs may have a better insight into whether they should be considered separately or combined. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Monday, 17 September 2018
by Nathalie Peregrine Sept. 18, 2018

Sept. 18, 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, 17 September 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/ZAKNBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-17sep18-en.mp3 <https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-17sep18-en.mp3%20 > AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p6h8q4u6txm/ 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, Andrea Glandon

1 0

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 17 Sept 2018
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 17, 2018

Sept. 17, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 17 September 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/2018-09-17+Review+of+all+R…. See also the proposals at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Proposals. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == Actions: ACTION ITEMS: Re: David McCauley’s proposal: 1) Staff to point to the data collected on the late responses. 2) David agreed to provide revisions based on the feedback. Notes: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates: No updates. 2. Discussion of Individual URS Proposals: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Proposals: Operational Fixes: 1. Kristine Dorrain: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-1.pd…. Discussion: -- The sentence in URS Paragraph 6 that Kristine pointed out (6.2) also bars the Registrant from changing the WHOIS information, and that could be a problem because a) the WHOIS information may legitimately change (e.g., a business registrant relocates its office or an individual registrant moves or gets a new phone number), and b) other obligations in ICANN contracts require registrants to keep their information current. Kristine agreed this was a known problem. Since it’s part of the same sentence, and Kristine agreed, I think it can go out for public comment too (or at least in our notes for review by Staff and Co-Chairs). -- Third parties could change it - hosting, persons who hacked the hosting account etc., and the Registrant cannot prevent that in all occasions. -- Is this procedure covered any place else? Then we could remove it. Otherwise it needs to be somewhere. Is the obligation on the registrar or registry. Kristine's responses: 1) To Kathy Kleiman Re: the prevention of WHOIS changes: There was a secondary review, and one of the things discussed was the challenge between a domain name registrar to maintain accurate WHOIS and if it is locked it is hard to maintain accurate WHOIS. If you do a lock that prevents the registrant from changing WHOIS information. 2) To Michael Graham: the lock really only affects transfer and WHOIS, it doesn't affect content. You cannot require the registry or registrar to lock content because they have no control over it. This concept is not covered elsewhere in the URS. There is no definition of "default period". It seems that the WG supports including the proposal in the Initial Report for public comment. 2. Maxim Alzoba: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-2.pd… Discussion: Support proposal to put this some place that makes more sense. It seems that the WG supports including the proposal in the Initial Report for public comment. 3. Zak Muscovitch: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-3.pd… Discussion: -- Would you be amenable to say that the EDDP applied instead? See: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registars/accreditation/eddp-en -- Support the change. Zak's Response to Kristine Dorrain: That seems like a potential solution (re: EDDP). It seems that the WG supports including the proposal in the Initial Report for public comment. 4. George Kirikos: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-4.pd… Discussion: -- For HTTPS there will be an issue of certificates, which ones to use? for example URS was lost. TLD redirected to 207.250.29.219 as ordered .. how to put certificates there, and what reasons to have it (when there is no right to use it)? -- We don't always get deletion and expiration date so that would be something additional to keep track of. -- The URS fees are very low; to the extent that providers do additional work and yet we don't want them to raise fees, we should note that the money will need to come from somewhere. -- Each proposal that has add-on effects can trigger resource implications for providers, and the URS is meant to be lightweight, with corresponding reduced fees; the more is added, the more we stray from the URS' intent -- With HTTPS there are some technical things to check with the technical community. It seems that the WG supports including the proposal in the Initial Report for public comment. Policy Proposals: 5. Claudio DiGangi: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-6.pd… Discussion: -- Support to include in Initial Report for public comment. Concerns that there could be hundreds of complainants in one dispute. Would the word limit be exceeded in the response? Would there need to be an operational fix with the word limit for Complainants and Respondents? -- In UDRP complainants are related through licensing. Are we talking about allowing a licensing arrangement, or about a joint Complaint within the word limit? -- If a respondent has to respond to multiple complaints without a common thread, not sure what the advantage is. How to keep it streamlined. -- Don't understand the benefits of the proposal., but support including it for public comment. -- May not be right for public comment. Question about whether this is what UDRP allows. -- This would be more efficient and a better use of resources. The idea is where you have a set of related acts you should be able to bring them into a single case. -- The point about efficiency is key - this proposal, despite some of the operational concerns noted, should actually improve overall efficiency, as it avoids having multiple complainants bringing multiple URS cases against the same individual respondent, requiring multiple different panelists, etc. -- Support putting it out for public comment. -- Could get at serial squatters. Agree that it should be put out for public comment. -- May be worth looking at. -- Don't think it should be put out for public comment because of the ambiguities. What the term "related registrants" means. Or what a licensee is. Could benefit from additional detail. -- This proposal leaves a bunch of unanswered questions. Could affect word limit as well as fees. -- Proposal says "unrelated Complainants" so not sure how you reach the question about licensees. Claudio's responses: -- Re UDRP -- will circulate some cases to the list that describe the standard in this type of situation. -- If registration abuse has a pattern by the registrant. It seems that WG members expressed both support for, and opposition to, including the proposal in the Initial Report for public comment. 6. David McAuley: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-9.pd… Discussion: -- Opposed to the proposal. Most registrants aren't monitoring for disputes. The time in URS respects the uncertainty of actual notice. The proposal seems to suggest that there is strategic defaulting, but don't think there is evidence of that. -- I think it is a very thoughtful proposal and in my personal capacity would support it. Similar to the INTA proposal. -- Oppose the proposal, although we can get comments on it. No evidence of this being needed. -- Absolutely would like to hear from the community on this issue. -- Oppose putting this up for public comment because this would give the impression that there is a problem to be fixed. -- Should look at this, but might need more fleshing out before we consider it for public comment. Lean towards wanting to put it out for public comment, but understand that the process should be efficient and having a one-year period doesn't seem efficient. -- If this replaces the de novo appeal procedure we need clarification. -- Deserves to be put out for comment, but needs to be cleaned up a bit. -- De Novo Review = examiner looks at the case on the merits if a response was filed within 6 months, even if there was already a Default Determination. Appeal = de novo look at the case if an appeal is filed within 14 days of a determination. -- Forum wrestled with these back in the day and ended up with stronger supplemental rules: http://www.adrforum.com/resources/URS/URS%20Supplemental%20Rules.pdf -- Don't see an identified problem. Responses from David: -- Open to doing some revisions based on the feedback. -- Re: whether there is a problem -- 12 months is stretching things. Maybe 90 days would be better. -- There were some decisions where a complainant made a complaint that was not responded to but then lost. -- It is possible that there could be 3 separate examiners taking a look. -- Re: changing the balance of the URS, that is a fair comment. Seems an anomaly, but would be good to hear from the public. -- Tend to agree that if is something that is a problem we should put it out there. It seemed that WG members expressed both support for, and opposition to, including the proposal in the Initial Report for public comment. David agreed to provide revisions based on the feedback. ACTION ITEMS: 1) Staff to point to the data collected on the late responses. 2) David agreed to provide revisions based on the feedback.

1 0

Agenda and Materials for 17 Sept Working Group Meeting 1700 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 14, 2018

Sept. 14, 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 Monday, 17 September at 1700 UTC for 90 minutes. Note that due to the Yom Kippur holiday the meeting that would have been held on Wednesday, 19 September has been rescheduled to Monday. Further to the message below and per Co-Chairs’ Proposed Procedure, for this next meeting, the Working Group will begin 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 Monday’s meeting. Kristine Dorrain: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-1.pd… Maxim Alzoba: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-2.pd… Zak Muscovitch: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-3.pd… George Kirikos: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-4.pd… Claudio DiGangi: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-6.pd… David McAuley: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-9.pd… 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… 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 Monday 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 From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 1:45 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Order and Schedule for Individual URS Proposal Presentations Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, As reported last week, the deadline for individual Working Group members to submit Proposals for URS policy and operational recommendations closed on COB 06 September. By the deadline, thirty-three (33) URS Proposals were submitted. In preparation for the Working Group meeting on Monday, 17 September, the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs, in coordination with staff, have reviewed the individual URS proposals and have grouped them by type as follows: Operational Fixes, Policy Recommendations, and Other. In addition, the proposals have been mapped to the topics in the Super Consolidated URS Topic Table. Per the attached Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations, the Co-Chair propose to schedule the presentations in the following order, organized by URS topic: Operational Fixes; Policy Recommendations; Other proposals. The order and schedule for individual URS proposal presentations is subject to the following procedures as described in the attached document: To the maximum extent possible, presentations will be rotated to ensure that the same Working Group member is not making more than two (2) proposals per meeting. 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. After the presentation: Shortly following the conclusion of the call (i.e. as soon as attendance, chat, and link to mp3 recording are available), staff shall post to the email list the final text and rationale of considered proposals. All Working Group members will be invited to comment on the proposals on the Working Group email list. In addition, per the attached procedures proponents will receive advance notice of the date on which their proposal is scheduled for presentation to ensure they will be available. Proponents will be permitted to request an alternate date if they have a conflict. Also, as requested, proponents will be able to designate an alternate to present on their behalf if they are unable to present at any of the available meetings. The Co-Chairs would like to re-emphasize that the Working Group faces a significant challenge in adhering to its current timeline and completing its URS work for the Initial Report before ICANN63. Consequently, the Co-Chairs also propose expediting the handling of the 33 proposals to keep to the Phase 1 timeline in the following manner: Deferring discussion of proposals designated by their proponent as Phase 2 items until we reach Phase 2, with an assurance they will be listed in the Initial Report as reserved for Phase 2 consideration, and that they will be brought up for discussion during Phase 2 in a manner consistent with any procedures for consideration of WG member proposals adopted for Phase 2. To be clear, the acceptance of any Phase II proposals submitted presently for preservation purposes does not foreclose the additional submission of future Phase II proposals by WG members when the WG is at that stage of its work. Any proponents who have designated their current URS proposals Phase 2 items will be contacted separately to confirm their agreement with this approach. Possibly holding two meetings per week to complete consideration of all items before ICANN63. The Co-Chairs appreciate the time that WG members are already making through their participation in WG meetings and will only utilize this option if it appears absolutely necessary. Please see the attached table of the order and schedule of Individual URS Proposals and on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ. Staff have reorganized the wiki page and renamed the document files to reflect the order of the individual URS proposal presentation. The tentative presentation date of each proposal is included, subject to change depending on actual progress. The proposals about topics that can be deferred to Phase 2 are colored in grey; no presentation date has been assigned to these proposals. You may view and download all URS proposals quickly by clicking the “Quick Download” tab. As noted previously, the Co-Chairs believe that these procedures will efficiently and fairly 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 September and October, beginning on Monday, 17 September. Finally, the Co-Chairs reiterate that the next Working Group meeting on 12 September is for the consideration of the URS Sub Team suggested draft policy recommendations. Working Group members who have submitted proposals similar to or on the same subject as a sub-team policy proposal are asked to hold any comments regarding their individual proposals until their scheduled presentations. The acceptance of a sub-team proposal will not preempt that of a related individual proposal; if such an individual proposal elicits adequate support, the co-chairs may suggest that it be combined with a related sub-team proposal or, if appropriate, both proposals may be included in the Initial Report for public comment. Best regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry On behalf of the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Sunrise & Trademark Claims Survey Launched
by Ariel Liang Sept. 14, 2018

Sept. 14, 2018

Hello Kristine, Thank you very much for letting us know. Yes, please be so kind to forward the link (GDD informed us that they would facilitate the communication about the survey directly with RySG/RrSG, but please forward the link if the communication hasn’t taken place yet; Analysis Group did not code the survey based on individual recipient and the link is the same/public). FYI - GDD investigated the issue that Maxim reported. They sent the survey to a different contact of Maxim’s registry, hence he did not receive the survey. It is likely a similar issue happened for Amazon, but we will confirm with GDD. Thank you! Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) From: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink(a)amazon.com> Date: Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 2:43 PM To: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba(a)gmail.com>, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Sunrise & Trademark Claims Survey Launched Ariel, As far as I can tell, only Amazon’s registrar got a survey. We actually fit all four categories. I’m replying on the list because I felt it was helpful for the group to know that the survey distribution might not be working properly. May I simply forward the link to the RySG or will that “break” any coding for Analysis Group? Thanks, Kristine From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Maxim Alzoba Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 7:30 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Sunrise & Trademark Claims Survey Launched Dear Ariel, We have separate Primary contacts for each of 2 Registrars and another contact for 2 TLDs. (so 2 Registrar e-mail contacts and 1 TLD contact for 2 TLDs, so all of those 3 emails are different). Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On 11 Sep 2018, at 18:38, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Hello Maxim, GDD informed us that when they had the GSC send mass emails to both Registrars and Registries, they have them de-dup the list so that one person does not receive the same message numerous times. Yesterday, Analysis Group informed us that they have received close to a couple dozens of responses from Registries. Maxim – could you please confirm whether both of your Registry and Registrar use your email as the primary contact? If so, you would only get the announcement message once. If there are different emails used for your Registry and Registrar, we will ask GDD to investigate further. Please be so kind to let us know. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) From: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba(a)gmail.com<mailto:m.alzoba@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, September 10, 2018 at 11:54 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Sunrise & Trademark Claims Survey Launched Dear Ariel, For some reason it seems to be that we have received the survey as Registrars but not as Registries (there were no e-mails from GDD for our TLDs) and it is strange. Could you check with GDD Team? Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On 7 Sep 2018, at 03:59, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Dear RPM Working Group members, Staff are happy to report that the Sunrise & Trademark Claims survey has been launched today and is scheduled to run until Friday, 28 September 2018. * Registry Operator: http://icannregistryoperators.cloudssi.com/login.html [icannregistryoperators.cloudssi.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__icannregistryoperators.…> * Registrar: http://icannregistrar.cloudssi.com/login.html [icannregistrar.cloudssi.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__icannregistrar.cloudssi…> * Trademark Owner/Representative: http://icanntrademarkholders.cloudssi.com/login.html [icanntrademarkholders.cloudssi.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__icanntrademarkholders.c…> * Actual/Potential Registrant: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3964574.aspx?hSamp=1 [online.ssisurveys.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> The survey is being circulated according to the distribution plans jointly developed by the Data Sub Team, Analysis Group, and staff: https://community.icann.org/x/aQ9pBQ. In summary, the survey targeting actual/potential registrants would be promoted as widely as possible; the survey targeting registries, registrars, and trademark owners would be promoted using a targeted approach. According to the plans, the following activities were conducted today: * An announcement on GNSO website has been published: https://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06sep18-en.htm [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_anno…> * An ICANN.org [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__icann.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=F…> announcement has been published (it features the actual/potential registrant survey, but makes reference to the others): https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2018-09-06-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> * The GDD Team sent the survey announcement directly to their registry and registrar contacts, and circulated it with the CPH/RySG/RrSG. * The GNSO Secretariat Team, GSE Team, Analysis Group, and a few WG members (Brian Beckham, Lori Schulman, and Susan Payne) will help promote the survey inside and outside of ICANN. For instance, you should be able to see the survey announcement message being circulated on the mailing lists of various SOs/ACs/SGs/Cs shortly. External organizations would also be contacted to circulate the survey. * ICANN Comms Team will promote the survey on various social media channels tomorrow day time. Last, staff are sharing the Inception Report from Analysis Group. The Inception Report documents the work plan, proposed project schedule, survey targets, outreach plan, and final survey design and questions. Staff would like to thank the Data Sub Team members, especially Kristine Dorrain, Susan Payne, Michael Graham, and Rebecca Tushnet, who devoted tremendous amount of time and effort in developing and finalizing the survey in collaboration with Analysis Group. We also greatly appreciate the time and help from all the beta testers, who provided extensive and useful feedback! WG members are welcome to fill out the survey yourselves, if appropriate. Please also help promote the survey by sharing the web announcements, as well as social media posts from ICANN and GNSO’s channels. Analysis Group will monitor the response rates while the surveys are in the field. Again, big thanks to the members who have contributed to the Sunrise & Trademark Claims survey! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry

2 2

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Sunrise & Trademark Claims Survey Launched
by Ariel Liang Sept. 13, 2018

Sept. 13, 2018

Hello Maxim, GDD informed us that when they had the GSC send mass emails to both Registrars and Registries, they have them de-dup the list so that one person does not receive the same message numerous times. Yesterday, Analysis Group informed us that they have received close to a couple dozens of responses from Registries. Maxim – could you please confirm whether both of your Registry and Registrar use your email as the primary contact? If so, you would only get the announcement message once. If there are different emails used for your Registry and Registrar, we will ask GDD to investigate further. Please be so kind to let us know. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) From: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba(a)gmail.com> Date: Monday, September 10, 2018 at 11:54 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Sunrise & Trademark Claims Survey Launched Dear Ariel, For some reason it seems to be that we have received the survey as Registrars but not as Registries (there were no e-mails from GDD for our TLDs) and it is strange. Could you check with GDD Team? Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On 7 Sep 2018, at 03:59, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Dear RPM Working Group members, Staff are happy to report that the Sunrise & Trademark Claims survey has been launched today and is scheduled to run until Friday, 28 September 2018. * Registry Operator: http://icannregistryoperators.cloudssi.com/login.html [icannregistryoperators.cloudssi.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__icannregistryoperators.…> * Registrar: http://icannregistrar.cloudssi.com/login.html [icannregistrar.cloudssi.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__icannregistrar.cloudssi…> * Trademark Owner/Representative: http://icanntrademarkholders.cloudssi.com/login.html [icanntrademarkholders.cloudssi.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__icanntrademarkholders.c…> * Actual/Potential Registrant: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3964574.aspx?hSamp=1 [online.ssisurveys.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> The survey is being circulated according to the distribution plans jointly developed by the Data Sub Team, Analysis Group, and staff: https://community.icann.org/x/aQ9pBQ. In summary, the survey targeting actual/potential registrants would be promoted as widely as possible; the survey targeting registries, registrars, and trademark owners would be promoted using a targeted approach. According to the plans, the following activities were conducted today: * An announcement on GNSO website has been published: https://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06sep18-en.htm [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_anno…> * An ICANN.org [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__icann.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=F…> announcement has been published (it features the actual/potential registrant survey, but makes reference to the others): https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2018-09-06-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> * The GDD Team sent the survey announcement directly to their registry and registrar contacts, and circulated it with the CPH/RySG/RrSG. * The GNSO Secretariat Team, GSE Team, Analysis Group, and a few WG members (Brian Beckham, Lori Schulman, and Susan Payne) will help promote the survey inside and outside of ICANN. For instance, you should be able to see the survey announcement message being circulated on the mailing lists of various SOs/ACs/SGs/Cs shortly. External organizations would also be contacted to circulate the survey. * ICANN Comms Team will promote the survey on various social media channels tomorrow day time. Last, staff are sharing the Inception Report from Analysis Group. The Inception Report documents the work plan, proposed project schedule, survey targets, outreach plan, and final survey design and questions. Staff would like to thank the Data Sub Team members, especially Kristine Dorrain, Susan Payne, Michael Graham, and Rebecca Tushnet, who devoted tremendous amount of time and effort in developing and finalizing the survey in collaboration with Analysis Group. We also greatly appreciate the time and help from all the beta testers, who provided extensive and useful feedback! WG members are welcome to fill out the survey yourselves, if appropriate. Please also help promote the survey by sharing the web announcements, as well as social media posts from ICANN and GNSO’s channels. Analysis Group will monitor the response rates while the surveys are in the field. Again, big thanks to the members who have contributed to the Sunrise & Trademark Claims survey! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry

3 2

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 12 September 2018 at 17:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Sept. 12, 2018

Sept. 12, 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, 12 September 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YgKNBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-12sep18-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p82b8i69mtb/ 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 Meeting 12 Sept 2018
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 12, 2018

Sept. 12, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 12 September 2018 (17:00-19:00 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/2018-09-12+Review+of+all+R…. See also the attached referenced document. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == ACTION ITEMS: A. THE COMPLAINT – 6. Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec Page 5-6: ACTION ITEM: Change the language to "data required to advance the complaint" or similar (Lori Schulman’s suggestion). B. NOTICE – 1. Receipt by Registrant Notice (feedback from Complainant & Respondent) Page 10: ACTION ITEM: Change to "via the online form [if available]..." J. LANGUAGE ISSUES -- 1. Language issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice of complaint, response, determination Page 34: ACTION ITEM: 1st Bullet Point: Documents Sub Team should reconsider the recommendation in light of Maxim's earlier feedback. NOTES: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates: -- Kathy Kleiman joined as a visiting scholar at Princeton. 2. Discussion of URS Draft Policy Recommendations (see attached Super Consolidated URS Topics Table): A. THE COMPLAINT – 6. Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec Page 5-6: -- Technical recommendation for GDPR and also outreach re Doe Complaints -- But the Provider may not be receiving the "full registration data" from the Registrars and thus may not be "disclosing" the "full registration data" to the Complainant. Full WHOIS registration data includes *phone number* which is not a piece of data needed by Providers or Complainants. This something we should address, maybe with just a little modification. -- This also should be a phase 2 topic to be considered in Phase 2 on UDRP as it covers both systems. Suggest deferring to Phase 2. -- Disagree: Have an issue with URS. The Temp Spec doesn't address this. We can have the same suggestions in both phases. Each phase addresses different mechanisms and each mechanism can have similar recommendation. Also support the argument about timeliness of issue. -- Agree that can have the same suggestions in both phases. Also, if we don’t put such (obvious) options out to public comment, I think it’s pretty sure that some of said public will comment on them, albeit questioning why the WG hasn’t considered them. ACTION ITEM: change to "relevant registration data" or "data required to advance the complaint" since providers may not be getting "full registration data". -- Because of the urgency there is not harm, and since we are on URS, to have a recommendation that relates to URS -- and shouldn't wait until a Phase 2 Initial Report. Could be superseded by the Temp Spec though. The WG Agrees to move the recommendations into the Initial Report with background, as well as the suggestion to defer to Phase 2. B. NOTICE – 1. Receipt by Registrant Notice (feedback from Complainant & Respondent) Page 10: -- Another technical recommendation tied to implementation and enforcement of GDPR. Suggest putting it out for public comment. -- EDPDP Team may also have recommendations relating to this issue. -- Not urgent and could wait until Phase 2 and not all registries have implemented the online form. ACTION ITEM: Change to "via the online form [if available]..." The WG agrees to move the recommendations into the Initial Report with background, as well as the suggestion to defer to Phase 2. E. DEFENSES -- 1. Scope of Defenses and 2. Unreasonable delay in filing a complaint (i.e. laches) Page 19: -- Suggest moving this to Phase 2 as it also relates to UDRP. -- Support getting public comment on these two recs on page 19. -- Put out these draft policy recommendations as they exists and ask for comment. -- Could also include for public comment the suggestion to address these in Phase 2. -- Uniform guidance could be developed by ICANN. The WG agrees to move the recommendations into the Initial Report with background, as well as the suggestion to defer to Phase 2. F. REMEDIES – 1. Scope of remedies. Page 23: The WG agrees to use this as a placeholder/umbrella for other recommendations that are related. 2. Duration of Suspension Period and 3. Review of Implementation Pages 26-27: -- Registrars issues with renewals -- Need to have accounts in the bank with the same currency with the payer. Maybe not be able to accept certain payments. Should be some other way of registering the same name through some other registrar. Need this feedback in public comment. -- If there are recommendations about obligations for registrars this could affect contracts, so must be considered whether it is in scope. The WG agrees to include in the Initial Report with a question about the option to use another registrar. G. APPEAL – 1. Appeals process Page 30: The WG agrees to include in the Initial Report. 2. De novo review Pages 30-31: The WG agrees to include as an umbrella topic, but will need to address the details, or call out this as a separate category in the Initial Report (perhaps not a recommendation, but a question); wait until the WG goes through the individual proposals. H. POTENTIALLY OVERLAPPING PROCESS STEPS -- 1. Potential overlap concerning duration of respondent appeal, review and extended reply periods along the URS process timeline Page 31-32: The WG agrees to include as an umbrella topic, but will need to address the details, or call out this as a separate category in the Initial Report (perhaps not a recommendation, but a question); wait until we go through the individual proposals. J. LANGUAGE ISSUES -- 1. Language issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice of complaint, response, determination Page 34: ACTION ITEM: 1st Bullet Point: Documents Sub Team should reconsider the recommendation in light of Maxim's earlier feedback. 2nd Bullet Point: The WG agrees to include in the Initial Report. L. EDUCATION & TRAINING -- 1. Responsibility for education and training of complainants, registrants, registry operators and registrars Pages 38-39: The WG agrees to include the recommendations in the Initial Report. Include a question about who should compile the FAQ and where it should be hosted/published.

1 0

Order and Schedule for Individual URS Proposal Presentations
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 11, 2018

Sept. 11, 2018

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, As reported last week, the deadline for individual Working Group members to submit Proposals for URS policy and operational recommendations closed on COB 06 September. By the deadline, thirty-three (33) URS Proposals were submitted. In preparation for the Working Group meeting on Monday, 17 September, the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs, in coordination with staff, have reviewed the individual URS proposals and have grouped them by type as follows: Operational Fixes, Policy Recommendations, and Other. In addition, the proposals have been mapped to the topics in the Super Consolidated URS Topic Table. Per the attached Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations, the Co-Chair propose to schedule the presentations in the following order, organized by URS topic: Operational Fixes; Policy Recommendations; Other proposals. The order and schedule for individual URS proposal presentations is subject to the following procedures as described in the attached document: To the maximum extent possible, presentations will be rotated to ensure that the same Working Group member is not making more than two (2) proposals per meeting. 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. After the presentation: Shortly following the conclusion of the call (i.e. as soon as attendance, chat, and link to mp3 recording are available), staff shall post to the email list the final text and rationale of considered proposals. All Working Group members will be invited to comment on the proposals on the Working Group email list. In addition, per the attached procedures proponents will receive advance notice of the date on which their proposal is scheduled for presentation to ensure they will be available. Proponents will be permitted to request an alternate date if they have a conflict. Also, as requested, proponents will be able to designate an alternate to present on their behalf if they are unable to present at any of the available meetings. The Co-Chairs would like to re-emphasize that the Working Group faces a significant challenge in adhering to its current timeline and completing its URS work for the Initial Report before ICANN63. Consequently, the Co-Chairs also propose expediting the handling of the 33 proposals to keep to the Phase 1 timeline in the following manner: Deferring discussion of proposals designated by their proponent as Phase 2 items until we reach Phase 2, with an assurance they will be listed in the Initial Report as reserved for Phase 2 consideration, and that they will be brought up for discussion during Phase 2 in a manner consistent with any procedures for consideration of WG member proposals adopted for Phase 2. To be clear, the acceptance of any Phase II proposals submitted presently for preservation purposes does not foreclose the additional submission of future Phase II proposals by WG members when the WG is at that stage of its work. Any proponents who have designated their current URS proposals Phase 2 items will be contacted separately to confirm their agreement with this approach. Possibly holding two meetings per week to complete consideration of all items before ICANN63. The Co-Chairs appreciate the time that WG members are already making through their participation in WG meetings and will only utilize this option if it appears absolutely necessary. Please see the attached table of the order and schedule of Individual URS Proposals and on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ. Staff have reorganized the wiki page and renamed the document files to reflect the order of the individual URS proposal presentation. The tentative presentation date of each proposal is included, subject to change depending on actual progress. The proposals about topics that can be deferred to Phase 2 are colored in grey; no presentation date has been assigned to these proposals. You may view and download all URS proposals quickly by clicking the “Quick Download” tab. As noted previously, the Co-Chairs believe that these procedures will efficiently and fairly 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 September and October, beginning on Monday, 17 September. Finally, the Co-Chairs reiterate that the next Working Group meeting on 12 September is for the consideration of the URS Sub Team suggested draft policy recommendations. Working Group members who have submitted proposals similar to or on the same subject as a sub-team policy proposal are asked to hold any comments regarding their individual proposals until their scheduled presentations. The acceptance of a sub-team proposal will not preempt that of a related individual proposal; if such an individual proposal elicits adequate support, the co-chairs may suggest that it be combined with a related sub-team proposal or, if appropriate, both proposals may be included in the Initial Report for public comment. Best regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry On behalf of the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs

3 5

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] URS / UDRP proposals -- data on registrar/registry compliance costs
by Maxim Alzoba Sept. 11, 2018

Sept. 11, 2018

Hello Jonathan, I am resending it (was not processed by gnso-rpm-wg@ list). I think lifetime lock (if at all) should be limited to the lifetime of the TM registration, to avoid dumping of some strings for no reason (when there is no TM holder to protect, what is the reason for locking?) Also, all registrations terms are limited to the time of Registry contract with ICANN (10 years), so at the best it can be 10 years, and not a single day more. So either we do not use this idea, or we will have to create mechanism of removing such lifetime-10years-lock, preferably using the current system (for example, TM database to which URS complainant of that time referred to , does not have the entry no more, so the party seeking for the registration can start a process, might be even with the same price of filing via the same URS provider, or it's successor). p.s: any kind of such lock can be overridden by a simple village court in the same jurisdiction as the particular registry is based. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) > On 5 Sep 2018, at 20:59, Jonathan Frost <jonathan(a)get.club <mailto:jonathan@get.club>> wrote: > > For instance, there is ambiguity about what action a registry should take when a domain which is already the subject of a URS judgement & lifetime lock receives a UDPR judgement that requires unlock & transfer. The URS rules don't account for this situation, and by their letter, require that the domain not be unlocked. However, the registries are also required to comply with consensus policies (such as UDRP). > > Jonathan > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 1:47 PM Doug Isenberg <Doug(a)giga.law <mailto:Doug@giga.law>> wrote: > What are some of the “ambiguities in complying with the rules”? > > > > Doug > > > > > > From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jonathan Frost > Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 1:15 PM > To: icann(a)leap.com <mailto:icann@leap.com> > Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] URS / UDRP proposals -- data on registrar/registry compliance costs > > > > I agree that Registries and Registrars need to be able to recover the cost of administering the URS/UDRPs, as part of the filing fee. > > > > The costs that the Registries/Registrars bear actually goes beyond what Reg has said. There are situations where we have to go to outside counsel or even ICANN to resolve ambiguities in complying with the rules. Additionally, the 24 hour action requirement on locking a domain that has received a URS complaint actually increases the resources that have to be dedicated, beyond the actual number of minutes per complaint, because compliance personal has to allocate/reserve a certain time per day to perform the tasks, even if no complaint is received that day. > > > > Just like the arbitration administrators charge a cost recovery fee for administration as part of the filing fee, it's just common since that the Registries/Registrars would too. > > > > Jonathan Frost > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>_______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

7 17

Sunrise & Trademark Claims Survey Launched
by Ariel Liang Sept. 11, 2018

Sept. 11, 2018

Dear RPM Working Group members, Staff are happy to report that the Sunrise & Trademark Claims survey has been launched today and is scheduled to run until Friday, 28 September 2018. * Registry Operator: http://icannregistryoperators.cloudssi.com/login.html * Registrar: http://icannregistrar.cloudssi.com/login.html * Trademark Owner/Representative: http://icanntrademarkholders.cloudssi.com/login.html * Actual/Potential Registrant: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3964574.aspx?hSamp=1 The survey is being circulated according to the distribution plans jointly developed by the Data Sub Team, Analysis Group, and staff: https://community.icann.org/x/aQ9pBQ. In summary, the survey targeting actual/potential registrants would be promoted as widely as possible; the survey targeting registries, registrars, and trademark owners would be promoted using a targeted approach. According to the plans, the following activities were conducted today: * An announcement on GNSO website has been published: https://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06sep18-en.htm * An ICANN.org announcement has been published (it features the actual/potential registrant survey, but makes reference to the others): https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2018-09-06-en * The GDD Team sent the survey announcement directly to their registry and registrar contacts, and circulated it with the CPH/RySG/RrSG. * The GNSO Secretariat Team, GSE Team, Analysis Group, and a few WG members (Brian Beckham, Lori Schulman, and Susan Payne) will help promote the survey inside and outside of ICANN. For instance, you should be able to see the survey announcement message being circulated on the mailing lists of various SOs/ACs/SGs/Cs shortly. External organizations would also be contacted to circulate the survey. * ICANN Comms Team will promote the survey on various social media channels tomorrow day time. Last, staff are sharing the Inception Report from Analysis Group. The Inception Report documents the work plan, proposed project schedule, survey targets, outreach plan, and final survey design and questions. Staff would like to thank the Data Sub Team members, especially Kristine Dorrain, Susan Payne, Michael Graham, and Rebecca Tushnet, who devoted tremendous amount of time and effort in developing and finalizing the survey in collaboration with Analysis Group. We also greatly appreciate the time and help from all the beta testers, who provided extensive and useful feedback! WG members are welcome to fill out the survey yourselves, if appropriate. Please also help promote the survey by sharing the web announcements, as well as social media posts from ICANN and GNSO’s channels. Analysis Group will monitor the response rates while the surveys are in the field. Again, big thanks to the members who have contributed to the Sunrise & Trademark Claims survey! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry

2 1

Second internet court set up in Beijing
by George Kirikos Sept. 10, 2018

Sept. 10, 2018

Hi folks, I read an interesting story in the Chinese media today: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201809/10/WS5b95b8e4a31033b4f46550e9.html "China opened a second internet court on Sunday to address the rising disputes and problems caused by its ever-growing reliance on cyberspace. The Beijing Internet Court, situated in a Fengtai district technology zone in the southwest of the capital, will mainly handle internet and intellectual property rights cases, such as disputes involving online loans, online shopping contracts and online copyright issues, the Supreme People's Court wrote in an online judicial interpretation. The IP rulings of the district-level court, which has 38 judges, can be appealed at the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, and its other cases at the Beijing No 4 Intermediate People's Court. .... Liu Shuhan, a judge at the court, said one of its key features is that litigants can handle their lawsuits entirely online－they are not required to go to the court in person at any point from the case filing to the hearing." I think this reinforces the call to eliminate the URS and/or the UDRP (one of the proposals I submitted last week was for the elimination of the URS), given that the court alternative appears to be fast, convenient, and inexpensive (at least for Chinese parties; for the URS, that was a significant fraction of disputes). As more and more jurisdictions modernize their court systems to include online offerings like this, the justification for creating alternatives to the courts decreases. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

Agenda and Materials for 12 Sept Working Group Meeting 1700 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 7, 2018

Sept. 7, 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, 12 September at 1700 UTC for 120 minutes. For this next meeting, the Working Group will discuss the URS Sub Teams’ suggested draft policy recommendations as detailed in the attached Super Consolidated URS Topics Table (highlighted in green). Please note that the discussion of individual URS proposals will begin with the meeting on 17 September (replacing the regular meeting on 19 September). Early next week staff will send on behalf of the Co-Chairs the order and schedule of the individual proposal presentations. Working Group members who have submitted proposals similar to or on the same subject as a sub-team policy proposal are asked to hold any comments regarding their individual proposals until their scheduled presentations. The acceptance of a sub-team proposal will not preempt that of a related individual proposal; if such an individual proposal elicits adequate support, the co-chairs may suggest that it be combined with a related sub-team proposal or, if appropriate, both proposals may be included in the Initial Report for public comment. Draft Agenda: Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates Discussion of URS Draft Policy Recommendations (see attached Super Consolidated URS Topics Table) AOB Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie On Behalf of the RPM PDP WG Co-Chairs

1 0