December 2019 - GNSO-RPM-WG

Actions: RPM PDP WG Meeting 04 December 2019
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 4, 2019

Dec. 4, 2019

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 04 December 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/2019-12-04+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Page 10 (bottom of page): F. REMEDIES - 2. Duration of suspension period; 3. Review of implementation, POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST): ACTION: Staff to provide revised text for WG review. See: “The Providers Sub Team discovered issues with respect to implementing the outcomes of a URS proceeding (e.g. relief awarded following a URS decision, or where the parties settle the case prior to Determination and a transfer at the registrar level is required, or where a Complainant’s requests to extend a suspension.” Page 15 (top of the page): F. REMEDIES - 4. Other topics: ACTIONS: 1) Add a bullet: “What would need to be done to help resolve the issues you have encountered?” 2) Note in the table that the following text should be added as a footnote in the Initial Report and vet by GDD (done). Also, in the initial report provide the context for why this remedy is relevant to a URS suspension: “HSTS preloading is a function built into the browser whereby a global list of hosts enforce the use of HTTPS ONLY on their site. This removes the opportunity an attacker has to intercept and tamper with redirects over HTTP. The aforementioned remedy is to suspend the HSTS preloading function of a domain name.” Page 20 (bottom of the page): J. LANGUAGE ISSUES - 1. Language issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice of complaint, response, determination ACTION ITEM: Rewrite the text to avoid the use of the term “privacy shield”. See: “Such guidance should take into account the fact that domains subject to a URS complaint may have been registered via a privacy or proxy service.” Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: -- Zak Muscovitch joined the At-Large Advisory Committee as an individual member. -- Susan Payne was re-elected as IPC Secretary. 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] [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> (page 4) Page 10 (bottom of page): F. REMEDIES - 2. Duration of suspension period; 3. Review of implementation, POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST): ACTION: Staff to provide revised text for WG review. See: “The Providers Sub Team discovered issues with respect to implementing the outcomes of a URS proceeding (e.g. relief awarded following a URS decision, or where the parties settle the case prior to Determination and a transfer at the registrar level is required, or where a Complainant’s requests to extend a suspension.” Page 15 (top of the page): F. REMEDIES - 4. Other topics: ACTIONS: Add a bullet: “What would need to be done to help resolve the issues you have encountered?” Note in the table that the following text should be added as a footnote in the Initial Report and vet by GDD (done). Also, in the initial report provide the context for why this remedy is relevant to a URS suspension: “HSTS preloading is a function built into the browser whereby a global list of hosts enforce the use of HTTPS ONLY on their site. This removes the opportunity an attacker has to intercept and tamper with redirects over HTTP. The aforementioned remedy is to suspend the HSTS preloading function of a domain name.” Page 20 (bottom of the page): J. LANGUAGE ISSUES - 1. Language issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice of complaint, response, determination ACTION ITEM: Rewrite the text to avoid the use of the term “privacy shield”. See: “Such guidance should take into account the fact that domains subject to a URS complaint may have been registered via a privacy or proxy service.”

1 0

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Wednesday, 04 December 2019
by Julie Bisland Dec. 4, 2019

Dec. 4, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Wednesday, 04 December 2019 at 17:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/9ZIzBw> (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, Julie

1 0

Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] Re: UPDATE: Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 04 December at 17:00-18:30 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 3, 2019

Dec. 3, 2019

Dear Rebecca, There were no proposals for WG recommendation status for any of the individual proposals by the deadline of Sunday, 01 December. Kind regards, Julie From: "Tushnet, Rebecca" <rtushnet(a)law.harvard.edu> Date: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 10:13 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] UPDATE: Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 04 December at 17:00-18:30 UTC Did anyone propose WG recommendation status for any of these by the deadline? I don’t recall any coming through the list. The proposed procedures—with extremely limited discussion—are inappropriate for WG recommendations but seem fine for individual proposals. It would also be useful to distinguish between wide support for publication as an individual proposal and wide support for the substance. As previously noted, the survey and thus the order of consideration presupposes the former. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. On Dec 3, 2019, at 10:05 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> wrote: Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 04 December at 17:00-18:30 UTC. Note that the order of the proposals is updated. 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, re-checking the Sub Team proposal revisions, start on page 4 -- the section that starts: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST): URS Rules 3(b) should be amended in light of GDPR and the permissible filing of a “Doe Complaint” See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vF… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 3. Begin Discussion of Individual URS Proposals, see attached survey results slides and procedure below. The order of the proposal review is: 2, 23, 1, 8, 34, 35, 11, 18, 27, 20, 36, 32, 3, 30, 26, 7, 28, 19, 29, 5, 31, 21, 6, 33, 15, 22, 4, 14, 13, 17, 16. 4. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel 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. Based on this procedures, here is the order of the proposals: 2, 23, 1, 8, 34, 35, 11, 18, 27, 20, 36, 32, 3, 30, 26, 7, 28, 19, 29, 5, 31, 21, 6, 33, 15, 22, 4, 14, 13, 17, 16. * 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). _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

2 2

Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 04 December at 17:00-18:30 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 3, 2019

Dec. 3, 2019

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 04 December at 17:00-18:30 UTC. 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, re-checking the Sub Team proposal revisions, start on page 4 -- the section that starts: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST): URS Rules 3(b) should be amended in light of GDPR and the permissible filing of a “Doe Complaint” See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vF… 3. Begin Discussion of Individual URS Proposals, see attached survey results slides and procedure below. The order of the proposal review is: 23, 2, 8, 1, 35, 34, 18, 11, 20, 27, 32, 36, 30, 3, 7, 26, 19, 28, 5, 29, 21, 31, 33, 6, 22, 15, 14, 4, 17, 13, 16. 4. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel 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. Based on this procedures, here is the order of the proposals: 23, 2, 8, 1, 35, 34, 18, 11, 20, 27, 32, 36, 30, 3, 7, 26, 19, 28, 5, 29, 21, 31, 33, 6, 22, 15, 14, 4, 17, 13, 16. * 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).

4 5