June 2019 - GNSO-RPM-WG - lists.icann.org

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

Feb. 11, 2020

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

20 45

MEETING ON NOW: RPM PDP WG Meetings TODAY, 27 June at ICANN65
by Julie Hedlund June 27, 2019

June 27, 2019

Dear all, We have reverted to the full WG meeting now. Best, Julie From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 10:20 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] NOTE CHANGE: RPM PDP WG Meetings TODAY, 27 June at ICANN65 Dear RPM PDP WG members, Please note that the PDP WG Chairs have agreed that the Sunrise Sub Team will continue its work into the full WG session that begins at 10:30 am local time in Marrakech. When the Sunrise Sub Team completes its work we will revert to the original agenda for the full WG meeting. Best, Julie From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 7:52 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: RPM PDP WG Meetings TODAY, 27 June at ICANN65 Dear RPM PDP WG members, As a reminder, please see below the schedule of the Sub Team and WG meetings TODAY at ICANN65, Thursday, 27 June 2019. Please see the links for remote participation via the Zoom room. The draft slides are attached. Best, Julie ICANN65 RPM PDP WG & Sub Team Meeting Schedule: Thursday, 27 June: Sunrise Sub Team: 08:30 - 10:15 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058271 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Full WG Meeting: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058272 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg

1 0

NOTE CHANGE: RPM PDP WG Meetings TODAY, 27 June at ICANN65
by Julie Hedlund June 27, 2019

June 27, 2019

Dear RPM PDP WG members, Please note that the PDP WG Chairs have agreed that the Sunrise Sub Team will continue its work into the full WG session that begins at 10:30 am local time in Marrakech. When the Sunrise Sub Team completes its work we will revert to the original agenda for the full WG meeting. Best, Julie From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 7:52 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: RPM PDP WG Meetings TODAY, 27 June at ICANN65 Dear RPM PDP WG members, As a reminder, please see below the schedule of the Sub Team and WG meetings TODAY at ICANN65, Thursday, 27 June 2019. Please see the links for remote participation via the Zoom room. The draft slides are attached. Best, Julie ICANN65 RPM PDP WG & Sub Team Meeting Schedule: Thursday, 27 June: Sunrise Sub Team: 08:30 - 10:15 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058271 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Full WG Meeting: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058272 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg

1 0

REMINDER: RPM PDP WG Meetings TODAY, 27 June at ICANN65
by Julie Hedlund June 27, 2019

June 27, 2019

Dear RPM PDP WG members, As a reminder, please see below the schedule of the Sub Team and WG meetings TODAY at ICANN65, Thursday, 27 June 2019. Please see the links for remote participation via the Zoom room. The draft slides are attached. Best, Julie ICANN65 RPM PDP WG & Sub Team Meeting Schedule: Thursday, 27 June: Sunrise Sub Team: 08:30 - 10:15 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058271 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Full WG Meeting: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058272 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg

1 0

**Updated* ICANN65: GNSO Sessions How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Julie Bisland June 21, 2019

June 21, 2019

Dear all, The one-stop wiki page for all your Remote Participation queries is now available. This wiki page covers remote participation details for all GNSO open and public meetings. In addition to this, ICANN Meetings’ Team has put together an updated ICANN meeting website which allows you to download all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. 2 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN65 Meeting Schedule [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/sYiGBg> Step 1 - Create a profile and your personalized ICANN65 schedule Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage and create a profile and login. Every session on the schedule can be selected and added to your individual schedule by clicking the Add box to the bottom right of each meeting, this adds it to your individual schedule which you can then email to yourself or add to your calendar. See next step. Step 2 - There are two ways to import your schedule into Outlook: once you’ve added all your chosen meetings to “My Schedule” go to Export. · Importing creates a one-time snapshot of your schedule and copies it into Outlook. If you subsequently make changes to your Pathable calendar, they will not be reflected in Outlook. · Subscribing creates a live feed of your schedule in Outlook. Outlook checks for changes every few hours and updates your calendar appropriately. Step 3 All sessions allowing remote participation will use Zoom rooms, which you can find on the ICANN65 Meeting Schedule [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> and on the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/sYiGBg>. There are three options to connect your audio: 1) Via VoIP, choose Computer Audio 2) Getting a dial out from Zoom to your phone, choose Call Me 3) Phoning into the audio bridge (access numbers and Meeting ID are provided for that option), choose Telephone Audio If you cannot log into the Zoom room, but wish to connect via telephone only, refer to the GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/sYiGBg> for access numbers and individual Meeting IDs. (Updated) To listen only, find your meeting on the schedule<https://65.schedule.icann.org/> and select the audio streaming option. Step 4 Please download the mobile app by searching for “ICANN65” in your app stores. Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew will be onsite in Marrakech to assist you directly. For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team -- Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 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

RPM PDP WG Sunrise Sub Team Status Report 17 June 2018
by Julie Hedlund June 17, 2019

June 17, 2019

Dear members of the RPM PDP WG, On behalf of David McAuley and Greg Shatan, Co-Chairs of the Sunrise Sub Team, please see below the weekly progress report to the full RPM PDP WG. Greg acted as chair during the meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-06-12+Sub+Team+for+Su…> on Wednesday, 12 June. Overview: * By the end of ICANN65, the Sub Team aims to complete developing proposed answers and preliminary recommendations for a total of twelve (12) Agreed Sunrise Charter Questionsand reviewing a total of ten (10) Individual Proposals. * To date, the Sub Team has discussed all Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions and Individual Proposals. Discussions took place during meetings and via discussion threads on the mailing list. * In preparation for the report to the full WG, the Sub Team is reviewing the draft language for proposed answers, preliminary recommendations, and proposed questions for community input (if any). * Based on current progress, the Sub Team is projected to complete its work by the end of ICANN65. The Sub Team’s task is to develop proposed answers and preliminary recommendations with regard to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions, as well as review individual proposals and determine the level of support for inclusion in the Initial Report. * The Sub Team used discussion threads to facilitate their work in between meetings. To date, all discussion threads have been closed. 12 June Meeting: the Sub Team discussed proposed answers and preliminary recommendations for Q6. 25 and 27 June Meetings at ICANN65: the Sub Team aims to complete the discussion of answers and preliminary recommendations for all remaining Charter Questions and provide final input to the Charter Questions and individual proposals that the Sub Team has already reviewed. Documents Wiki: Find discussion threads, summary tables, and other working documents of the Sunrise Sub Team on https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg.

1 0

RPM PDP WG Trademark Claims Sub Team Status Report 17 June 2019
by Julie Hedlund June 17, 2019

June 17, 2019

Dear members of the RPM PDP WG, On behalf of Martin Silva and Roger Carney, Co-Chairs of the TM Claims Sub Team, please see below the weekly progress report to the full RPM PDP WG. Roger acted as chair during the meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-06-12+Sub+team+for+Tr…> on Wednesday, 12 June. Overview: * By the end of ICANN65, the Sub Team aims to complete discussing a total of five (5) Agreed TM Claims Charter Questions and reviewing a total of five (5) Individual Proposals. * To date, the Sub Team has discussed all Agreed TM Claims Charter Questions and Individual Proposals. Discussions took place during meetings and via discussion threads on the mailing list. * In preparation for the report to the full WG, the Sub Team is reviewing the draft language for proposed answers, preliminary recommendations, and proposed questions for community input, if any. * Based on current progress, the Sub Team is projected to complete its work by the end of ICANN65. The Sub Team’s task is to develop proposed answers and preliminary recommendations with regard to the Agreed TM Claims Charter Questions, as well as review individual proposals and determine the level of support for inclusion in the Initial Report. * The Sub Team used discussion threads to facilitate their work in between meetings. To date, all discussion threads have been closed. 12 June Meeting: the Sub Team continued discussion of the proposed answers and preliminary recommendations for Q4. 25 June Meeting at ICANN65: the Sub Team aims to complete discussion of the proposed answers and preliminary recommendations for all remaining Charter Questions and individual proposals, as well as provide final input on the Charter Questions and individual proposals that they have already reviewed. Documents Wiki: Find discussion threads, summary tables, and other working documents of the TM Claims Sub Team on https://community.icann.org/x/9YIWBg.

1 0

ICANN65: GNSO Sessions How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Julie Bisland June 11, 2019

June 11, 2019

Dear all, The one-stop wiki page for all your Remote Participation queries is now available. This wiki page covers remote participation details for all GNSO open and public meetings. In addition to this, ICANN Meetings’ Team has put together an updated ICANN meeting website which allows you to download all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. 2 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN65 Meeting Schedule<https://65.schedule.icann.org/> GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/sYiGBg> Step 1 - Create a profile and your personalized ICANN65 schedule Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage and create a profile and login. Every session on the schedule can be selected and added to your individual schedule by clicking the Add box to the bottom right of each meeting, this adds it to your individual schedule which you can then email to yourself or add to your calendar. See next step. Step 2 - There are two ways to import your schedule into Outlook: once you’ve added all your chosen meetings to “My Schedule” go to Export. · Importing creates a one-time snapshot of your schedule and copies it into Outlook. If you subsequently make changes to your Pathable calendar, they will not be reflected in Outlook. · Subscribing creates a live feed of your schedule in Outlook. Outlook checks for changes every few hours and updates your calendar appropriately. Step 3 All sessions allowing remote participation will use Zoom rooms, which you can find on the ICANN65 Meeting Schedule<https://65.schedule.icann.org/> and on the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/sYiGBg>. There are three options to connect your audio: 1) Via VoIP, choose Computer Audio 2) Getting a dial out from Zoom to your phone, choose Call Me 3) Phoning into the audio bridge (access numbers and Meeting ID are provided for that option), choose Telephone Audio If you cannot log into the Zoom room, but wish to connect via telephone only, to dial into the audio refer to the GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/sYiGBg> for access numbers and individual Meeting IDs. Step 4 Please download the mobile app by searching for “ICANN65” in your app stores. Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew will be onsite in Marrakech to assist you directly. For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team -- Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 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<https://features.icann.org/calendar> -- Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 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<https://features.icann.org/calendar>

1 0

RPM PDP WG Sunrise Sub Team Status Report 10 June 2018
by Julie Hedlund June 10, 2019

June 10, 2019

Dear members of the RPM PDP WG, On behalf of David McAuley and Greg Shatan, Co-Chairs of the Sunrise Sub Team, please see below the weekly progress report to the full RPM PDP WG. David acted as chair during the meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-05-29+Sub+Team+for+Su…> on Wednesday, 05 June. Overview: * By ICANN65, the Sub Team aims to complete developing proposed answers and preliminary recommendations for a total of twelve (12) Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions and reviewing a total of ten (10) Individual Proposals. * To date, the Sub Team has discussed all Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions and Individual Proposals, with plans to complete discussions during the meeting on 12 June. Discussions took place during meetings and via discussion threads on the mailing list. * In preparation for the report to the full WG, the Sub Team is reviewing the draft language for proposed answers, preliminary recommendations, and proposed questions for community input (if any). * Based on current progress, the Sub Team is projected to complete its work by not later than ICANN65, with a goal to finish earlier. The Sub Team’s task is to develop proposed answers and preliminary recommendations with regard to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions, as well as review individual proposals and determine the level of support for inclusion in the Initial Report. * The Sub Team used discussion threads to facilitate their work in between meetings. To date, all discussion threads have been closed. 05 June Meeting: the Sub Team discussed proposed answers and preliminary recommendations and concluded the review of related individual proposals: * Q3 & Proposals #10 and #11 * Q4 * Q5(a) * Q6 & Proposals #2 and #4 12 June Meeting: the Sub Team aims to complete the discussion of answers and preliminary recommendations related to the following agreed charter questions (as many as feasible): * Q6 * Q7 * Q8 * Q9 * Q10 * Q11 * Q12 * Preamble Q * Q5(b) Documents Wiki: Find discussion threads, summary tables, and other working documents of the Sunrise Sub Team on https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg.

1 0

Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Message regarding specific recommendations from the CCT Review Team
by Mary Wong June 10, 2019

June 10, 2019

Working Group members may also be interested in the following CCT-RT recommendations that were directed at, and passed through by the Board to, the GNSO Council: Recommendation #27: “Since the review team’s initial draft recommendation, the PDP “Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs (RPM WG)” has started reviewing the Uniform Rapid Suspension system in detail and this is currently ongoing. Given this ongoing review, the CCT Review Team recommends that the RPM WG continues its review of the URS and also looks into the interoperability of the URS with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Given the current timeline, it would appear that the appropriate time to do so will be when the UDRP review is carried out by the PDP WG and at this time consideration be given to how it should interoperate with the UDRP. The review team has encountered a lack of data for complete analysis in many respects. The RPM PDP WG appears to also be encountering this issue and this may well prevent it drawing firm conclusions. If modifications are not easily identified, then the review team recommends continued monitoring until more data is collected and made available for a review at a later date.” Recommendation #28: “A cost-benefit analysis and review of the Trademark Clearinghouse (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.40 Since our initial draft recommendation, the RPM PDP 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 RPM PDP has sufficient data from this survey or other surveys and is able to draw firm conclusions, the CCT 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 to brand owners, cost to registries, and cost to registrars of operating with the TMCH now and going forward and look at the interplay with premium pricing.” More generally, and possibly apropos of the challenges and data collection in our PDP, the CCT-RT’s Recommendation #1 was that ICANN Organization should “formalize and promote ongoing data collection”. In addition, a number of recommendations were also passed through to the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group. The full set of recommendations, and an indication of which were adopted by the Board and which passed through to various working groups and stakeholder groups, can be found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scor…. Cheers Mary From: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin(a)verisign.com> Date: Monday, June 10, 2019 at 21:03 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Message regarding specific recommendations from the CCT Review Team So number 9 is this: “The ICANN community should consider whether the costs related to defensive registration for the small number of brands registering a large number of domains can be reduced.” Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 2:48 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-RPM-WG] Message regarding specific recommendations from the CCT Review Team Dear RPM Working Group members, Please see below for a message from Larisa Gurnick, Vice-President of ICANN org’s Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) department. It concerns several recommendations pertaining to RPMs which the ICANN Board has passed through to our Working Group, as it also did with several other recommendations directed toward other GNSO working groups, the GNSO Council and a number of other stakeholder groups. Kathy, Brian, Phil and everyone – please let Julie, Ariel and me know if you’d like to discuss or have questions for Larisa. Thank you! Dear Members of the RPM WG, The purpose of this note is to highlight the Board resolution passed on 1 March 2019 - see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> - that calls for a set of Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) Final Recommendations to be passed through to community groups. As articulated in the Board resolution, “recognizing that the Board has the obligation and responsibility to balance the work of ICANN in order to preserve the ability for ICANN org to serve its Mission and the public interest, the Board decided on three categories of action”: * Accepting recommendations, subject to costing and implementation considerations; * Placing recommendations (in whole or in part) in "Pending" status, directing ICANN org to perform specific actions to enable the Board to take further actions; * Passing recommendations (in whole or in part) to community groups the CCT-RT identified for their consideration. The Board noted fourteen such recommendations (9, 10, 12, 16, 19, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35). We invite you to refer to pages 1-4 of the scorecard https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scor… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> which compile pass-through recommendations, including the groups they are addressed to. Accordingly, ICANN org wishes to notify you of the recommendation the ICANN Board resolved to pass through to you, in whole or in part, for your consideration: * Recommendation 9. Note: this recommendation was also passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, as suggested by the CCT-RT. We would like to highlight the following language of the Board resolution: “in passing these recommendations through, the Board is neither accepting, nor rejecting the recommendations. […] Passing recommendations through to community groups is not a directive that the groups identified should formally address any of the issues within those recommendations. It is within the purview of each group to identify whether work will be taken on and the topics that the group will address.” As indicated in the resolution, the Board encourages community groups to be “mindful of any interdependencies with ongoing work and discussions”. Additionally, the Board suggests “to the referenced community groups that the CCT-RT's proposed priority levels be taken into account as the groups decide whether, how and when to address the CCT-RT recommendations that are being passed through […]”. Additionally, we would like to flag the Board suggestion that for transparency purposes, “it would be helpful to have records or reporting made available to the ICANN community on how the community group considered the items coming out of the CCT-RT. The Board encourages any level of reporting that the groups are able to provide as the ICANN org and Board track action on the CCT-RT's recommendations”. Please consider providing updates on your progress in addressing (as appropriate) this recommendation, to be included with ICANN org’s reporting. Background The Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) released its Final Report on 8 September 2018 – see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-final-08sep18-en.pdf [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…>. The CCT-RT Final Report contains 35 recommendations and is the culmination of nearly three years of work, reviewing how the expansion of top-level domain names impacted competition, consumer trust and choice. For more information on the CCT Review and Specific Reviews, please read https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#article4.6 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>. The ICANN Board took action on each of the 35 recommendations produced by the CCT-RT - see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> - on 1 March 2019 and was informed by public comment input received on the Final report (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-final-recs-2018-10-08-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2…>). The Board’s decisions on each recommendation is documented in the scorecard published at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scor… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…>. A blog post on the Board action can be found at https://www.icann.org/news/blog/board-action-on-competition-consumer-trust-… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…> for more context. We thank you for your collaboration in considering the CCT-RT output. Please let us know whether you have any questions. Thank you. Best regards Larisa Gurnick Vice-President, Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives, ICANN

1 0