September 2018 - GNSO-RPM-WG

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