November 2019 - GNSO-RPM-WG

ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018
by Ariel Liang 11 Feb '20

11 Feb '20

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

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 20 November 2019
by Julie Hedlund 20 Nov '19

20 Nov '19

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 20 November 2019 at 17:00 UTC. Staff will post these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, Zoom chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-11-20+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Pages 9-10: OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) – ACTION: Move the second paragraph to the top and also put the questions before the specifics (as they are more general). Page 11: F. REMEDIES - 4. Other topics (Providers ST) – ACTION: Provide a description/definition of the HSTS-preloaded domain suspension remedy. Page 11: G. APPEAL - 1. Appeals process POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST) -- ACTION: Add text in column 2 noting the consolidation with page 7. Page 12: G. APPEAL - 2. De novo review and H. POTENTIALLY OVERLAPPING PROCESS STEPS - 1. Potential overlap concerning duration of respondent appeal, review and extended reply periods along the URS process timeline POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST; see also Section H) -- ACTION: Revise column 2 to indicate that the WG will review after the URS individual proposals go out for public comment. No recommendation for the WG at this time. Delete the current text in column 2. Page 13: I. COST - 1. Cost allocation model (Providers ST) -- ACTION: Add that FORUM has never collected these fees. J. LANGUAGE ISSUES - 1. Language issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice of complaint, response, determination Page 14: OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) -- ACTION: Add the reference concerning consolidation with pages 8-10 to column 2. Page 15: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST) (middle of page) -- ACTION: Update column 2 to include the explanation that the WG agreed to withdraw this recommendation. Page 15: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST) (bottom of page) -- ACTION: Change from “guidance to assist examiners” to “guidance to assist URS providers”, but not sure we need the recommendation at all. Also, change to WG recommendation. Page 17: L. EDUCATION & TRAINING - 1. Responsibility for education and training of complainants, registrants, registry operators and registrars, POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST; see also Section H) -- ACTION: Change to “WG recommends” (as the WG has previously discussed). Page 18: M. URS PROVIDERS - 1. Evaluation of URS providers and their respective processes (including training of panelists) OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) -- ACTION: Include the reference to the consolidation with pages 8-10 in column 2. Review Revisions from the WG Discussions in Montreal: A. THE COMPLAINT - 6. Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec Page 1: OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) -- ACTION: Add in brackets/all caps that the language has been overcome by events and is better addressed section X/Y/Z below. Page 2: OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) -- ACTION: Insert bracketed text that this has been overcome by events and reference EPDP recommendation #23 as well as the recommendations on compliance. Page 2: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST) (bottom of page 2) -- ACTION: Start with this item on the next call on 04 December. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: -- Justine Chew: Now seated as a member of the ALAC. However, unless otherwise stated, my views in this WG are that of my own. 2. Working Group to complete discussions regarding the recommendations of the URS Sub Teams’ to go into the Initial Report, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vF… [docs.google.com]<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vF…> (top of page 9) F. REMEDIES - 2. Duration of suspension period; 3. Review of implementation Page 8: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST) -- Revised language agreed to at ICANN66. Pages 9-10: OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) -- Questions are broad. -- Include the context. Staff notes that we’ll include the deliberations in any case. The intention is to include the entire text of column 2 in the Initial Report. -- ACTIONS: Move the second paragraph to the top and also put the questions before the specifics (as they are more general). Page 11: F. REMEDIES - 4. Other topics (Providers ST) -- ACTION: Provide a description/definition of the HSTS-preloaded domain suspension remedy. Page 11: G. APPEAL - 1. Appeals process POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST) -- Consolidated with top of page 7, policy recommendation. -- ACTION: Add text in column 2 noting the consolidation with page 7. Page 12: G. APPEAL - 2. De novo review and H. POTENTIALLY OVERLAPPING PROCESS STEPS - 1. Potential overlap concerning duration of respondent appeal, review and extended reply periods along the URS process timeline POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST; see also Section H) -- The WG has not made a determination on Sub Team recommendations 1 and 2 so there is nothing to include in the Initial Report. -- With respect to adjusting the response times, what prompted it was that there was a redundancy in the appeals process. So for economy purposes make this into one appeal. Also, hope that proposal #36 will go out for public comment as a proposal to address the redundancy. -- ACTION: Revise column 2 to indicate that the WG will review after the URS individual proposals go out for public comment. No recommendation for the WG at this time. Delete the current text in column 2. Page 13: I. COST - 1. Cost allocation model (Providers ST) -- Acts as a deterrent against late responses. -- ACTION: Add that FORUM has never collected these fees. J. LANGUAGE ISSUES - 1. Language issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice of complaint, response, determination Page 14: OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) -- Consolidated with recommendation on pages 8-10. -- ACTION: Add the reference concerning consolidation with pages 8-10 to column 2. Page 15: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST) (middle of page): -- ACTION: Update column 2 to include the explanation that the WG agreed to withdraw this recommendation. Page 15: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST) (bottom of page): -- Revised the language to put it in the form of a recommendation and consolidated it with the action item at the top of page 16. -- By the time the examiner gets the case we’ve had to make a determination on the language based on the examiner we select. So it wouldn’t be guidance to the examiner, but to the provider. Per FORUM, this has not been an issue at all. -- ACTION: Change from “guidance to assist examiners” to “guidance to assist URS providers”, but not sure we need the recommendation at all. Also, change to WG recommendation. Page 16: K. ABUSE OF PROCESS - 1. Misuse of the process, including by trademark owners, registrants and “repeat offenders”; 2. Forum shopping; 3. Other documented abuses (Providers ST) -- WG agrees that these are appropriate questions to ask. Page 17: L. EDUCATION & TRAINING - 1. Responsibility for education and training of complainants, registrants, registry operators and registrars POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST) -- Consolidated the language and made it read as a recommendation. -- ACTION: Change to “WG recommends” (as the WG has previously discussed). Page 18: M. URS PROVIDERS - 1. Evaluation of URS providers and their respective processes (including training of panelists) OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) -- Consolidated with the recommendations on pages 8-10. -- ACTION: Include the reference to the consolidation with pages 8-10 in column 2. Review Revisions from the WG Discussions in Montreal: Page 1, A. THE COMPLAINT - 4. Administrative review OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) -- Noted that FORUM already checks this. Include the rationale when including in the Initial Report. A. THE COMPLAINT - 6. Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec Page 1: OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) -- Staff suggestion based on the WG discussion is to delete the recommendation, based on FORUM’s practice and EPDP recommendation #27. -- Why delete this if it doesn’t raise inconsistencies? -- FORUM is the only provide that auto-populates data. As we discussed in Montreal we are populating with anything that would need to be redacted for privacy purposes. -- We could keep language and simply make reference to the paragraph that deals with it comprehensively. -- ACTION: Add in brackets/all caps that the language has been overcome by events and is better addressed section X/Y/Z below. Page 2: OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) -- After review of the WG discussion the staff suggestion is to delete this recommendation. -- Overlaps with EPDP recommendation #23. -- ACTION: Insert bracketed text that this has been overcome by events and reference EPDP recommendation #23 as well as the recommendations on compliance. Page 2: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST) (bottom of page 2) -- Change to a WG recommendation. -- Delete the second sentence? -- This specific language was proposed by MFSD. -- ACTION: Start with this item on the next call on 04 December.

1 0

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Wednesday 20 November 2019
by Terri Agnew 20 Nov '19

20 Nov '19

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Wednesday, 20 November 2019 at 17:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/8ZIzBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw>. Thank you. With kind regards, Terri

1 0

Post-ICANN66 Policy Report Now Available
by Nathalie Peregrine 20 Nov '19

20 Nov '19

Dear all, The Post-ICANN66 Policy Report is now available. Please click here to access it: https://go.icann.org/post66 [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.icann.org_post66&d=…>. Kind regards, Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> See All SO and AC events on the ICANN Global calendar [features.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__features.icann.org_cal…>

1 0

Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 20 November at 17:00-18:30 UTC
by Julie Hedlund 19 Nov '19

19 Nov '19

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 20 November at 17:00-18:30 UTC. Please note that staff is in the process of updating the recommendations in the table linked below based on the discussions of the WG in Montreal. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Working Group to complete discussions regarding the recommendations of the URS Sub Teams’ to go into the Initial Report, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vF… (start at the middle of page 8/top of page 9) 3. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Next Steps re: URS Individual Proposals and Upcoming Meetings
by Paul Keating 15 Nov '19

15 Nov '19

No worries. We will get there. 😎 Sent from my iPhone > On 15 Nov 2019, at 23:52, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com> wrote: >

1 0

Next Steps re: URS Individual Proposals and Upcoming Meetings
by Julie Hedlund 15 Nov '19

15 Nov '19

Dear Working Group members, We write to follow up about next steps concerning the thirty-one (31) individual proposals that we as a Working Group received, and initially and very briefly reviewed late last year, on the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS). We thank everyone who took the time to fill out the survey that was conducted recently, and that had been intended to allow the Working Group co-chairs to “take the temperature” of the membership as to which proposals ought to be included in the Phase One Initial Report for public comments and which might reach the level of a Working Group recommendation. Following the Working Group’s discussion of the survey outcomes at our last ICANN66 session in Montreal, the co-chairs met with the incoming and outgoing GNSO Council liaisons to try to determine a path forward. We have collectively developed the following proposal for handling the individual URS proposals and the URS Sub Teams’ recommendations, which we believe builds on the initial survey results and our discussions to date. 20 November 2019: Working Group meeting to complete discussions regarding the recommendations of the URS Sub Teams’ to go into the Initial Report. 4, 11 & 18 December 2019 (Note: no meeting on 27 November due to travel associated with the US Thanksgiving holiday the following day): Working Group meetings to review the individual URS proposals to determine which of them fall into the following categories: * Include in the Initial Report as Working Group recommendations (see below for proposed methodology); * Include in the Initial Report, not as Working Group recommendations, but as individual proposals for which the Working Group is seeking community input; or * Do not include in the Initial Report, even as individual proposals, due to inadequate support. 1. Procedure to determine whether an individual proposal has sufficiently wide support to become a Working Group recommendation at this stage: * All Working Group members are requested to review the survey results as well as the individual proposals prior to our December meetings (see https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-11-03+ICANN66+Montrea…) * If a member believes that a specific proposal merits inclusion in the Initial Report as a Working Group recommendation, that member will have a short time to make substantive, evidence-based arguments in favor of that position on a Working Group call – preferably provided to the full Working Group in writing in advance of the allotted call. Members wishing to propose that an individual URS proposal becomes a Working Group recommendation must inform the Working Group leadership team and ICANN support staff by Sunday, December 1, to allow for advance notice and planning. 1. Procedure for handling individual proposals at each of the December meetings: * The proposals will be reviewed in the following order - begin with a proposal that received the highest level of support for inclusion in the Initial Report, followed by a proposal that received the lowest level of support for inclusion, then a proposal that received the next-highest level of support for inclusion, followed by one that received the next-lowest level of support, and so forth, until all proposals have been reviewed. * For each proposal, where a Working Group member had indicated (by the December 1 deadline) that he/she wished to argue in favor of including the proposal as an actual Working Group recommendation, that member will be given no more than 3 minutes to make his/her case, with questions and answers (limited to 2 minutes per question or answer and two inputs per member). * Members are kindly requested not to rehash arguments/discussions and to keep their remarks, questions and answers very brief. * Subject to a determination by the Chairs, proposals with wide support and virtually no opposition will be considered as recommendations by the WG. * Proposals with wide support and limited opposition will be published for comment in the Initial Report as individual URS Proposals. * Proposals with virtually no support and significant opposition will not be published in the Initial Report. * Following the Working Group’s review of all individual URS proposals, and in accordance with role ascribed to Working Group chair(s) under the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, the Working Group leadership team will determine whether there is sufficient support from other Working Group members: (i) to “convert” any individual proposal (where one was so argued) to an initial recommendation for purposes of the Initial Report; (ii) to include specific individual proposals in the Initial Report as proposals only; and (iii) to exclude the remaining individual proposals from the Initial Report (although these will all be referenced in the report, with links provided to the actual text of the proposals and the Working Group’s deliberations). We believe that this approach is an efficient way to proceed and will provide Working Group members with an opportunity to seek support for those (likely, few) individual proposals that they believe should be included in the Initial Report as a Working Group recommendation. At the same time, this approach also takes into account the survey results by placing the onus on members to make the case for specific proposals and by allowing consideration of members’ general preferences (as expressed in the survey) in coming to a decision as to how to handle the individual proposals. Thank you. We look forward to closing out the URS review and to maintaining our timeline as best we can (and as reported to the GNSO Council) for production of the Initial report. Best regards, Kathy, Brian & Phil (Working Group Co-Chairs) Paul (GNSO Council liaison till 6 November 2019) John (GNSO Council liaison from 6 November 2019)

4 7

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meetings at ICANN66 -- 02 & 03 November 2019
by Julie Hedlund 06 Nov '19

06 Nov '19

Dear All, Please see the attached action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group meetings at ICANN66 on 02 and 03 November 2019. Staff has posted these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript, which are posted as noted below: Wiki -- Actions and Notes: 02 November 2019: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-11-02+ICANN66+Montrea… 03 November 2019: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-11-03+ICANN66+Montrea… Meeting Pages (Zoom Room, Audio, and Transcripts): Session 1 – 02 November 2019: https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1116883 Session 2 – 02 November 2019: https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1116884 Session 3 – 03 November 2019: https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1116888 Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: ICANN66 RPM PDP WG Meeting Schedule
by Ariel Liang 03 Nov '19

03 Nov '19

Dear WG Members, Following up on Julie’s message, please see the draft slide deck that provides a high-level overview of the URS individual proposal survey results. A total of 27 RPM members have responded to the survey. Please see more detail in the slide deck. Staff also have the raw survey data and can share that following the presentation of the survey results after tomorrow’s session. Thank you, Ariel From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 8:54 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: ICANN66 RPM PDP WG Meeting Schedule Dear WG members, This is a reminder. Please see below the schedule of ICANN66 RPM PDP WG meetings with the links to the meeting pages. There are three scheduled sessions. The proposed agenda and materials are available at the links to the wiki below (see WG Meeting Wiki with Proposed Agenda and Materials). Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie ICANN66 RPM PDP WG Meeting Schedule: Full Schedule: https://66.schedule.icann.org [66.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__66.schedule.icann.org&…> Floor Maps: https://66.schedule.icann.org/floor_maps/ [66.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__66.schedule.icann.org_…> Saturday, 02 November 2019: WG Meeting Sessions 1 & 2: 15:15-16:45 [66.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__66.schedule.icann.org_…> and 17:00-18:30 [66.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__66.schedule.icann.org_…> -- Room 511A: https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1116883 [66.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__66.schedule.icann.org_…> and https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1116884 [66.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__66.schedule.icann.org_…> WG Meeting Session 1 & 2 Wiki with Proposed Agenda and Materials<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-11-02+ICANN66+Montrea…> Sunday, 03 November 2019: WG Meeting Session 3: 17:00-18:30 [66.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__66.schedule.icann.org_…> – Room 511A: https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1116888 [66.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__66.schedule.icann.org_…> WG Meeting Session 3 Wiki with Proposed Agenda and Materials<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-11-03+ICANN66+Montrea…>

4 5

REMINDER: ICANN66 RPM PDP WG Meeting Schedule
by Julie Hedlund 02 Nov '19

02 Nov '19

1 0