July 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

Sunrise/Trademark Claims Sub Team Recommendations Endorsed by RPM PDP WG
by Ariel Liang July 24, 2019

July 24, 2019

Dear All, The RPM PDP WG completed its review of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Team recommendations during its meetings on 10, 17, and 24 July. Suggestions from WG members have been incorporated in the attached documents. In absence of any further comments/input, these Sub Team recommendations are regarded as being endorsed by the RPM PDP WG. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Wednesday, 24 July 2019 at 17:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland July 24, 2019

July 24, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Wednesday, 24 July 2019 at 17:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/062jBg> (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. Kind regards, Julie -- 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

REMINDER - Proposed Agenda & Materials re: 24 July RPM Working Group Meeting 17:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 22, 2019

July 22, 2019

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, please see the proposed agenda below for the Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 24 July at 1700 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Continued - Review and Discussion of Sunrise Sub Team Recommendations (see attached document): Q6, Q7, Q8 & Q12 (related), Q9, Q10, Q11, and Preamble Question (time permitting) 3. AOB Please note that if there are suggestions for minor clarifying edits to the TM Claims or Sunrise Sub Team’s answers to charter questions, recommendations, or questions for community input please send them to the list ASAP but not later than Tuesday, 23 July at 17:00 UTC with the specific text and the suggested edits clearly identified. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie on behalf of the WG Co-Chairs

1 0

Proposed Agenda & Materials re: 24 July RPM Working Group Meeting 17:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 18, 2019

July 18, 2019

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, please see the proposed agenda below for the Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 24 July at 1700 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Continued - Review and Discussion of Sunrise Sub Team Recommendations (see attached document): Q6, Q7, Q8 & Q12 (related), Q9, Q10, Q11, and Preamble Question (time permitting) 3. AOB Please note that if there are suggestions for minor clarifying edits to the TM Claims or Sunrise Sub Team’s answers to charter questions, recommendations, or questions for community input please send them to the list ASAP but not later than Tuesday, 23 July at 17:00 UTC with the specific text and the suggested edits clearly identified. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie on behalf of the WG Co-Chairs

1 0

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Wednesday, 17 July 2019 at 17:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland July 17, 2019

July 17, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Wednesday,17 July 2019 at 17:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/0qmjBg> (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. Kind regards, Julie -- 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

Apologies
by Greg Shatan July 17, 2019

July 17, 2019

Apologies for not being able to be on today’s call. Greg

1 0

REMINDER (with correct date): Proposed Agenda & Materials re: 17 July RPM Working Group Meeting 17:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 15, 2019

July 15, 2019

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, This is a reminder that if there are suggestions for minor clarifying edits to the TM Claims or Sunrise Sub Team’s answers to charter questions, recommendations, or questions for community input please send them to the list ASAP but not later than Tuesday, 16 July at 17:00 UTC with the specific text and the suggested edits clearly identified. Kind regards, Julie From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, July 12, 2019 at 12:49 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda & Materials re: 17 July RPM Working Group Meeting 17:00 UTC Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, please see the proposed agenda below for the Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 17 July at 1700 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Continued - Review and Discussion of TM Claims Sub Team Recommendations (see attached document): Q3 (Preliminary Recommendations and Questions for Community Input), Q4, & Q5, Proposals 1, 5, 6, 11, & 12. 3. Time Permitting - Review and Discussion of Sunrise Sub Team Recommendations (see attached document): Q1 4. AOB As a reminder, per the agreed-upon process for the WG’s consideration of the Sub Teams’ recommendations, the full WG is not expected to be recreating or relitigating the Sub Teams’ work. Clarifications and fine-tuning are in order, but unless there is very broad support for rejecting a Sub Team recommendation or reviving a proposal that failed to receive wide support the Sub Team decisions stand and will be reflected in the Initial Report. Please also note that if there are suggestions for minor clarifying edits to the TM Claims or Sunrise Sub Team’s answers to charter questions, recommendations, or questions for community input please send them to the list ASAP but not later than Tuesday, 14 July at 17:00 UTC with the specific text and the suggested edits clearly identified. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie on behalf of the WG Co-Chairs

1 0

REMINDER: Proposed Agenda & Materials re: 17 July RPM Working Group Meeting 17:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 15, 2019

July 15, 2019

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, This is a reminder that if there are suggestions for minor clarifying edits to the TM Claims or Sunrise Sub Team’s answers to charter questions, recommendations, or questions for community input please send them to the list ASAP but not later than Tuesday, 14 July at 17:00 UTC with the specific text and the suggested edits clearly identified. Kind regards, Julie From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, July 12, 2019 at 12:49 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda & Materials re: 17 July RPM Working Group Meeting 17:00 UTC Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, please see the proposed agenda below for the Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 17 July at 1700 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Continued - Review and Discussion of TM Claims Sub Team Recommendations (see attached document): Q3 (Preliminary Recommendations and Questions for Community Input), Q4, & Q5, Proposals 1, 5, 6, 11, & 12. 3. Time Permitting - Review and Discussion of Sunrise Sub Team Recommendations (see attached document): Q1 4. AOB As a reminder, per the agreed-upon process for the WG’s consideration of the Sub Teams’ recommendations, the full WG is not expected to be recreating or relitigating the Sub Teams’ work. Clarifications and fine-tuning are in order, but unless there is very broad support for rejecting a Sub Team recommendation or reviving a proposal that failed to receive wide support the Sub Team decisions stand and will be reflected in the Initial Report. Please also note that if there are suggestions for minor clarifying edits to the TM Claims or Sunrise Sub Team’s answers to charter questions, recommendations, or questions for community input please send them to the list ASAP but not later than Tuesday, 14 July at 17:00 UTC with the specific text and the suggested edits clearly identified. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie on behalf of the WG Co-Chairs

1 0

Proposed Agenda & Materials re: 10 July RPM Working Group Meeting 17:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 12, 2019

July 12, 2019

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, please see the proposed agenda below for the Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 10 July at 1700 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Brief Update on ICANN65 3. Review and Discussion of TM Claims Sub Team Recommendations (see attached document): Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, & Q5, Proposals 1, 5, 6, 11, & 12. 4. AOB Please note that per the attached work plan/timeline this is the first of four meetings in July for the WG to consider the TM Claims and Sunrise Sub Team recommendations. As you may recall, Martin Silva provided an update on the TM Claims recommendations at ICANN65 and those recommendations are unchanged in the attached document, which also was provided as the Sub Team’s report to the WG yesterday. As a reminder, per the agreed-upon process for the WG’s consideration of the Sub Teams’ recommendations, the full WG is not expected to be recreating or relitigating the Sub Teams’ work. Clarifications and fine-tuning are in order, but unless there is very broad support for rejecting a Sub Team recommendation or reviving a proposal that failed to receive wide support the Sub Team decisions stand and will be reflected in the Initial Report. Please also note that if there are suggestions for minor edits to the text of the TM Claims Sub Team’s recommendations in the attached document it would be very helpful if the text with edits indicated could be circulated to this list prior to the meeting this Wednesday. Moreover, to the extent that minor edits might be suggested on Wednesday’s call, WG members are requested to provide the text with edits indicated to this list within 48 hours of the end of Wednesday’s meeting. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie on behalf of the WG Co-Chairs

4 6