January 2020 - 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

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Wednesday, 29 January 2020
by Julie Bisland Jan. 29, 2020

Jan. 29, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Wednesday, 29 January 2020 at 18:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/_wSJBw>(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

Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 29 January 2019
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 29, 2020

Jan. 29, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 29 January 2019 at 18:00 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/2020-01-29+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Review Determinations re: URS Individual Proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110tgExAlgzrCbuiy0OiefXG2mKbo_SCLrU037zE…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> Proposals #18, #19, and #20: ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs to review the determination on these three proposals. Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: URS – Draft of Initial Report Text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZWow09gE6-YmZYcty81CT2Tujm-3vTZE7lHj2f… ACTION ITEM: WG members to review the Google document prior to the meeting on 05 February and will continue the discussion of recommendation #3 during the meeting. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Complete Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: Sunrise & Claims – Draft of Initial Report Text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-AUekmrPgnPge6-pt57EFqnQH4DY3R0OY_zmtT2… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> The WG addressed the revised document based on the action items from the meeting on 22 January as follows: ACTION ITEM: Sunrise Recommendation #5: Staff will confirm whether there is any basis for using the term “in general” such as a reference to specific questions/exceptions. -- The use of "in general" in this recommendation does not link to any specific example or question for community input. Staff believe that this phrase is used to reflect some WG member's belief that the current minimum period was insufficient -- e.g., one WG proposed an increase of the notification period based on the number of gTLDs scheduled to launch concurrently. This proposal did not receive wide support, and the WG did not put forward this proposal as a question for community input either. Therefore, staff suggested deleting "in general" in the recommendation itself, noting that the WG's deliberation on the aforementioned proposal has been captured in the "Context" section: "...To address this unintended consequence, one WG member proposed to increase the notification period, but the proposal did not receive wide support for inclusion in the Initial Report for public comment. " ACTION ITEM: Trademark Claims Recommendations #1 and #2: Combine Recommendations #1 and #2, but without rewriting. -- Staff has combined the recommendations but retained the original text. -- Little bit of overlap of the language, but clearly shows that they are linked. ACTION ITEM: Trademark Claims Recommendation #3 (now #2): Second bullet: Change to "The Claims Notice should include a link to a web page on the ICANN Org website containing translations of the Claims Notice in all six UN languages". -- Staff have made that change. No further comments from the WG. ACTION ITEM: Trademark Claims Recommendation #5 (now #4): Staff will check the full text to note whether there is a link between the use of “in general” and a specific example/question; in those cases we will retain the terminology, if not then staff will suggesting deleting “in general”. -- Suggest keeping this "in general" and added the note to provide context. -- Note: Some WG members asked for public comment on potential exemptions which would then not be subject to a Claims Period of any length, see Trademark Claims Question #2. ACTION ITEM: Trademark Claims Question #1: Add a footnote to define “manually hand-registered domains”. -- Staff switch the order of the questions #1 and #2 as it seemed more logical. -- Added note on #2: “Note: This question is related to Trademark Claims Recommendations #4 and #5. “ -- Added footnote on #2: “Manually hand-registered domains literally refer to the domains registered manually at a registrar by hand. In other words, it is the practice of registering a new domain name without the use of automated robots or automated computer systems that search for and register domain names; those domain names are purchased new and not on an after-market system. In the context of Trademark Claims Question #2, it refers to the domain name that is registered manually following the specific registry policy.” 3. Review Determinations re: URS Individual Proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110tgExAlgzrCbuiy0OiefXG2mKbo_SCLrU037zE…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> -- The section of the Initial Report on URS Individual Proposals will include a summary of deliberations and context and note where there are specific questions for comment. -- Include whether or not the commenters agree that the proposed action should be taken. Make it clear what we are asking the public to comment on. Proposals #18, #19, and #20: -- Concerns expressed about bias in decision-making on what proposals are published or not; criteria was never clear. -- The Co-Chairs did their best to size up support. -- Co-Chairs are mindful of the fact that the URS is a narrow remedy; doesn’t mean the proposal that couldn’t be addressed under UDRP in Phase 2. -- Grave concerns were expressed in the WG that these proposals were not feasible. -- If not consensus, tell us what the standard was: the sense of the WG is a standard, but it sounds an awful lot like a majority standard, which is wrong.  -- Consensus was not the standard, and many individual proposals that did not have majority support in the survey or among WG members are being put out for community comment. But not proposals that had virtually no support and significant opposition. -- Note that there is just one WG member in opposition to the decision not to publish. -- Other unworkable proposals also should be removed. -- Concerns about how the determination was made and the criteria used. ACTION: Co-Chairs to review the decision on these three proposals. 4. Begin Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: URS – Draft of Initial Report Text: URS Recommendation #1: -- re: “URS Procedure para 3.3: Given the rapid nature of this Procedure, and the intended low level of required fees, there will be no opportunity to correct inadequacies in the filing requirements.” Staff will check to see if this is the correct language. It was a cut and paste from the URS procedure. Start with Recommendation #3 at the next meeting.

1 0

Meeting Invitation Webinar | EPDP - Phase 2 Proposed Recommendations on a Standardized System for Access and Disclosure | Thursday, 13 February 2020 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Jan. 29, 2020

Jan. 29, 2020

Dear all, Please find the details below for the EPDP - Phase 2 Proposed Recommendations on a Standardized System for Access and Disclosure Webinar. This webinar will provide an overview of the EPDP’s Phase 2 proposed recommendations for a Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD). This effort builds upon the EPDP’s Phase 1 work on enhancing Registration Data Services where, under certain circumstances, personal contact information is now redacted. The Phase 2 effort for developing the SSAD will allow for disclosure of this redacted contact information based on third-party legitimate interests, administration proceedings, and law enforcement needs, subject to applicable law and the rights of the data subject. The webinar will highlight each of the EPDP Team’s recommendations and will provide an opportunity for participants to ask questions and provide feedback on the Initial Report, which is currently out for public comment. The report can be found on the public comment proceedings section on https://www.icann.org/public-comments [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2…>, and the webinar materials will be posted on the EPDP’s wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/6g6JBw> following the webinar. Thursday, 13 February 2020 at 14:00 UTC for 60 minutes For other times: https://tinyurl.com/wsm7h3y [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_wsm7h3y&d=…> Join Zoom Meeting: https://icann.zoom.us/s/331729252 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.zoom.us_s_331729…> Meeting ID: 331 729 252 Password: 586730 One tap mobile +16699006833,,331729252# US (San Jose) +19294362866,,331729252# US (New York) Find your local number: https://icann.zoom.us/u/abQBVd1jHM [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.zoom.us_u_abQBVd…> Slides to assist you with Zoom: Welcome to Zoom: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/1sal3l5qf4csdukt0pk2c75ey3bte22z.pdf [icann.box.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.box.com_shared_s…> Zoom FAQ: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/d5rap0g6xphevhkdd3mhu2hy753l2m3s.pdf [icann.box.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.box.com_shared_s…> If Zoom disappears, see instructions:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/present…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_d…> A calendar invitation has equally been attachment for you to download to your calendar. Thank you in advance for reserving this time in your schedule. Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

Nomination Opens for ICANN Community Excellence Award
by Nathalie Peregrine Jan. 29, 2020

Jan. 29, 2020

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2020-01-27-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> ICANN Launches Dr. Tarek Kamel Award and Opens Nomination for ICANN Community Excellence Award LOS ANGELES - 27 January 2020 – Today, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) announced a new award, the Dr. Tarek Kamel Award for Capacity Building. This award recognizes ICANN community members for significant efforts in developing capacity in areas related to ICANN's mission. Dr. Tarek Kamel Award for Capacity Building The award is established in honor of the late Dr. Tarek Kamel, an Internet pioneer known for his contributions to global Internet governance. At the time of his passing, Kamel was ICANN's Senior Advisor to the President and Senior Vice President for Government and Intergovernmental Organization Engagement. This annual award will be presented to one individual during ICANN's Annual General Meeting, held in the fourth quarter each year. The ideal recipient will have: · Contributed significantly to national, regional, or global capacity-development programs related to ICANN's mission. · Developed capacity-building programs that positively influenced the multistakeholder and diversified participation at ICANN. Details about the award selection process will be available in May 2020. Nomination Opens for ICANN Community Excellence Award The Multistakeholder Ethos Award has been renamed the ICANN Community Excellence Award. ICANN is accepting nominations for this year's award, which will be presented at ICANN68 Kuala Lumpur in June 2020. The ICANN Community Excellence Award recognizes community members who have significantly invested in consensus-based solutions and have contributed substantively to the ICANN multistakeholder model. The ideal recipient(s) will have: · Participated in the ICANN community for a minimum of five years. · Served in multiple ICANN working groups or committees. · Collaborated significantly with more than one Supporting Organization (SO) or Advisory Committee (AC). Candidates will be evaluated by a panel of ICANN community members appointed by the SO/AC chairs using a merit-based point system, using three criteria: 1. Demonstrates an ability to work across community lines with both familiar and unfamiliar ICANN stakeholders with the aim of building consensus. 2. Facilitates dialogue and open discussion in a fair and collegial manner through the spirit of collaboration, showing empathy and demonstrating a sincere desire to engage with people from other backgrounds, cultures, and interests. 3. Demonstrates additional support for the ICANN multistakeholder model and its overall effectiveness through volunteer service via working groups or committees. Please submit nominations via this nomination form [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_forms_…>. Include detailed information outlining why the nominee meets the award criteria. Any additional information in support of nominations and questions about the award process may be submitted to excellenceaward2020(a)icann.org<mailto:excellenceaward2020@icann.org>. For more information, please consult the ICANN Community Wiki.<https://community.icann.org/x/YyOAAw>

1 0

REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 29 January 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 27, 2020

Jan. 27, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, This is a reminder. Please find the proposed agenda and materials below for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 29 January 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC. Please note re: Deliberations of the Working Group: Sunrise & Claims, and URS – Draft of Initial Report Text: With respect to the deliberations on the URS recommendations and questions, this is similar in format to Sunrise and Trademark Claims in that the recommendations and questions have already been discussed by the WG. But in the case of the URS context language, that is based on the Super Consolidated Table that the Sub Teams presented to the WG, so while the language itself will be somewhat new, it should be familiar. As is the GNSO's practice, the document is being circulated for the purpose of ensuring that WG members are comfortable with the format and overall coverage of the recommendations and deliberations. Please remember that the Initial Report is meant to focus on specific recommendations/proposals, with brief, relevant, accompanying rationale, rather than be a comprehensive record of the WG's deliberations. WG members are reminded that comments in the Google docs should be limited only to error corrections or to note any clarifications that you believe are necessary. The documents will be open for comment until COB Tuesday, 28 January. After that time they will be closed to comment. While they are closed comments will not be visible, but they will be displayed during the WG meeting. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Complete Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: Sunrise & Claims – Draft of Initial Report Text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-AUekmrPgnPge6-pt57EFqnQH4DY3R0OY_zmtT2… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 3. Review Determinations re: URS Individual Proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110tgExAlgzrCbuiy0OiefXG2mKbo_SCLrU037zE… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 4. Begin Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: URS – Draft of Initial Report Text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZWow09gE6-YmZYcty81CT2Tujm-3vTZE7lHj2f… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 5. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 29 January 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 23, 2020

Jan. 23, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials below for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 29 January 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC. Please note re: Deliberations of the Working Group: Sunrise & Claims, and URS – Draft of Initial Report Text: With respect to the deliberations on the URS recommendations and questions, this is similar in format to Sunrise and Trademark Claims in that the recommendations and questions have already been discussed by the WG. But in the case of the URS context language, that is based on the Super Consolidated Table that the Sub Teams presented to the WG, so while the language itself will be somewhat new, it should be familiar. As is the GNSO's practice, the document is being circulated for the purpose of ensuring that WG members are comfortable with the format and overall coverage of the recommendations and deliberations. Please remember that the Initial Report is meant to focus on specific recommendations/proposals, with brief, relevant, accompanying rationale, rather than be a comprehensive record of the WG's deliberations. WG members are reminded that comments in the Google docs should be limited only to error corrections or to note any clarifications that you believe are necessary. The documents will be open for comment until COB Tuesday, 28 January. After that time they will be closed to comment. While they are closed comments will not be visible, but they will be displayed during the WG meeting. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Complete Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: Sunrise & Claims – Draft of Initial Report Text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-AUekmrPgnPge6-pt57EFqnQH4DY3R0OY_zmtT2… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 3. Review Determinations re: URS Individual Proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110tgExAlgzrCbuiy0OiefXG2mKbo_SCLrU037zE… 4. Begin Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: URS – Draft of Initial Report Text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZWow09gE6-YmZYcty81CT2Tujm-3vTZE7lHj2f… 5. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Wednesday, 22 January 2020
by Julie Bisland Jan. 23, 2020

Jan. 23, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Wednesday, 22 January 2020 at 18:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/9wSJBw>(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

Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 22 January 2019
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 22, 2020

Jan. 22, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 22 January 2019 at 18:00 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/2020-01-22+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Structure of the Initial Report: ACTION ITEM: Change the order to put the Overview of Proposals (Non-Recommendations) after the Deliberations of the Working Group. Deliberations of the Working Group: Sunrise & Claims – Draft of Initial Report Text: ACTION ITEM: General -- 1) Leave the document open for comments in case of clarifications or error corrections; 2) David McCauley has noted that he has identified some typos in the Sunrise & Claims document. He will comment on them in the Google document. ACTION ITEM: Sunrise Recommendation #5: Staff will confirm whether there is any basis for using the term “in general” such as a reference to specific questions/exceptions. ACTION ITEM: Trademark Claims Recommendations #1 and #2: Combine Recommendations #1 and #2, but without rewriting. ACTION ITEM: Trademark Claims Recommendation #3: Second bullet: Change to "The Claims Notice should include a link to a web page on the ICANN Org website containing translations of the Claims Notice in all six UN languages". ACTION ITEM: Trademark Claims Recommendation #5: Staff will check the full text to note whether there is a link between the use of “in general” and a specific example/question; in those cases we will retain the terminology, if not then staff will suggesting deleting “in general”. ACTION ITEM: Trademark Claims Question #1: Add a footnote to define “manually hand-registered domains”. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Begin Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: Sunrise & Claims – Draft of Initial Report Text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-AUekmrPgnPge6-pt57EFqnQH4DY3R0OY_zmtT2… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> a. Structure of the Initial Report: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZPGl3lL_Gec22LkFY5E4Qw4S-q-yIcfzfUzR9nY… 1 Executive Summary 2 Overview of Recommendations and Questions for Community Input 3 Overview of Proposals (Non-Recommendations) 3.1 TMCH Proposals 3.1 URS Proposals 4 Deliberations of the Working Group 4.1 Deliberations of TM-PDDRP 4.2 Deliberations of Additional Marketplace RPMs 4.3 Deliberations of Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sunrise 4.4 Deliberations of TMCH Structure and Scope 4.5 Deliberations of URS Dispute Resolution Procedure 5 Conclusion and Next Steps 6 Background 7 Approach Taken by the Working Group 8 Annex A - PDP Working Group Charter 9 Annex B - Charter Questions and Answers 10 Annex C - Working Group Documents 11 Annex D - Working Group Membership and Attendance 12 Annex E - Community Input -- ACTION ITEM: Change the order to put the Overview of Proposals (Non-Recommendations) after the Deliberations of the Working Group. b. Deliberations of the Working Group: Sunrise & Claims – Draft of Initial Report Text Sunrise Recommendation #5: – why do we have “in general”? -- Implies incorrectly that there will be some exceptions. Carryover from “generally”. ACTION ITEM: Put in brackets the suggestion to delete “in general”. Staff will confirm whether there is any basis for that language. Trademark Claims Recommendations #1 and #2: -- Should these recommendations be combined? -- Rec #1 seems like a preamble to #2. -- If we merge we shouldn’t rewrite. ACTION ITEM: Combine Recommendations #1 and #2, but without rewriting. Trademark Claims Recommendations #3: -- Why do we include the text “where feasible”? -- Perhaps we included it as a hedge against whether it is cost-prohibitive. But shouldn’t be an issue to get the link, even if the languages aren’t there. -- Add “should” before “include”. ACTION ITEM: Second bullet: Change to "The Claims Notice should include a link to a web page on the ICANN Org website containing translations of the Claims Notice in all six UN languages". Trademark Claims Recommendation #5: -- Use of “in general” refers to the related Trademark Claims Question #1. -- Instead of “in general” include the reference to Question #1. -- Since we are asking these questions about possible exceptions to the current requirement re Claims Period - we should specify that in the Recommendation rather than just using the vague "in general" language Same goes for the other Recommendation(s) for which we obliquely acknowledge these issues using "in general" language. -- Suggest keeping the wording as it. ACTION ITEM: Staff will check the full text to note whether there is a link between the use of “in general” and a specific example/question; in those cases we will retain the terminology, if not then staff will suggesting deleting “in general”. Trademark Claims Recommendation #6: -- Related to Recommendation #5. Should these be combined? -- I think in this case, there are some nuances to 5 and 6 that support leaving them separate... one talks about maintaining mandatory Claims and the other talks about uniformity for all gTLD types. Sunrise Question #4: -- 4a: This part seems duplicative as Sunrise Question #3d similarly asks for suggested path to improvement. Does the WG want to keep this part? -- Suggest keeping it the way it is – reference it in both sections. Trademark Claims Question #1: ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote to define “manually hand-registered domains”.

1 0

REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 22 January 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 21, 2020

Jan. 21, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 22 January 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC. Please note re: Deliberations of the Working Group: Sunrise & Claims – Draft of Initial Report Text: The language of the recommendations has previously been agreed to by the Sub Teams and the WG. The context of the deliberations is largely based on the answers to charter questions, which have been also agreed on by the Sub Teams and the WG. As is the GNSO's practice, the document is being circulated for the purpose of ensuring that WG members are comfortable with the format and overall coverage of the recommendations and deliberations. Please remember that the Initial Report is meant to focus on specific recommendations/proposals, with brief, relevant, accompanying rationale, rather than be a comprehensive record of the WG's deliberations. WG members are reminded that comments in the Google Doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-AUekmrPgnPge6-pt57EFqnQH4DY3R0OY_zmtT2…> should be limited only to error corrections or to note any clarifications that you believe are necessary. The document will be open for comment until COB TODAY Tuesday, 21 January. After that time it will be closed to comment. While it is closed comments will not be visible, but they will be displayed during the WG meeting and the document will be re-opened for comment after the meeting. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Begin Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: Sunrise & Claims – Draft of Initial Report Text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-AUekmrPgnPge6-pt57EFqnQH4DY3R0OY_zmtT2… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 3. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0