October 2020 - GNSO-RPM-WG - lists.icann.org

RPMs PDP WG Consensus Call: 30 Oct - 08 Nov
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 9, 2020

Nov. 9, 2020

Dear WG members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, and as discussed during the WG meeting on Thursday, 29 October, this email is to notify you of the opening of the online Consensus Call on the Recommendations of the Phase 1 Final Report of the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs. For reference, please see the attached PDF of the Recommendations and contextual language. WG members who wish to familiarize themselves with the steps involved and the various levels of consensus applicable to GNSO PDP recommendations can refer to the recording of the 29 October meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-10-29+Review+of+all+R…> where the Consensus Call process was described. This Consensus Call opens today, Friday, 30 October 2020 for a 10-day period, closing on Sunday, 08 November 2020. Per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-g…>, WG members are requested to indicate via reply to this list whether they support, or do not support, the recommendations. If a WG member does not respond this will be taken as support. During this period there will be no WG meetings. Following the close of the Consensus Call, the WG Co-Chairs will meet on Tuesday, 10 November to review the responses from the WG members and determine the Consensus Designations for the Recommendations. The WG Co-Chairs will post the results of their determination to the WG email distribution list. Assuming there is no disagreement by the WG with the Consensus Designations that may require further review of the initial Designations by the Co-Chairs, staff will incorporate them into the Final Report. Per the Work Plan, the WG must submit the Final Report to the GNSO Council no later than Wednesday, 25 November 2020. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie

9 8

Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting on 29 October 2020
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 29, 2020

Oct. 29, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group meeting on 29 October 2020 at 17:00 UTC. Staff will post these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, Zoom chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-10-29+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie == Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Staff to send the consensus designation email to the WG on the email distribution list with a PDF of the Final Report Recommendations and contextual language to open the Consensus Call not later than Friday, 30 October for a period of 10 days. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review draft Final Report: Background Section – Edits by Kathy Kleiman and staff (pp. 11-12 and 19): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jw_B6xGwc-Du9dMbCGjsQnsq40NbZWgT5aC86nP… -- The WG accepts the edits; no further edits are suggested. Phase 1 Final PDP Recommendations (pp.28-29): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3CfBODC_T_7kY_rCVo_pTkiWUH0cFG… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3Cf…> Staff revised the contextual language of the TMCH Final Recommendation #1 -- Staff notes that for the completeness of the record – given no objection to Griffin’s suggested edits and the agreement by the WG during today’s meeting, Griffin’s edits have been incorporated in the final contextual language of the TMCH Final Recommendation #1. Next Steps: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HaCI2EkvIS9ejSGrS1YslCY9ZTOHvbxBc3pIdiU… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1HaCI2EkvIS9e…> Staff made minor edits to the content based on input received during the call yesterday. The updated content is as follows: “This Final Report will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration and potential approval. If approved by the GNSO Council, the Final Report will then be forwarded to the ICANN Board of Directors for its consideration and potential action in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws.” -- The WG accepts the edits; no further edits are suggested. Executive Summary (p.3): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R99_8v0BYmIRVhW27Xwz_BA1v-5ksHyifWUtiTf… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1R99_8v0BYmIR…> Revise the content under “conclusions and next steps” similar to that under “next steps”: “This Final Report will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration and, if approved, forwarded to the ICANN Board of Directors for consideration and potential action in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws.” -- The WG accepts the edits; no further edits are suggested. 3. Description of Consensus Call Process; see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-w…>, pages 8-10 -- Staff will send a request for consensus designation to the WG on the email distribution list by Friday, 30 October and ask for a response in 10 days by Sunday, 08 November. -- The Co-Chairs will meet to determine the consensus designations for the Recommendations and Implementation Guidance on 10 November. If necessary, the Co-Chairs may schedule a meeting on 12 November to discuss the consensus designations. -- The Co-Chairs may take into account whether a WG member is representing a group, constituency, or stakeholder group, or acting as an individual, when determining consensus designation. -- The Co-Chairs note that there has been broad support for the Recommendations and Implementation Guidance as the text was drafted and in the final review, so it is not expected that there should be significant opposition to or divergence on the Recommendations and Implementation Guidance. ACTION ITEM: Staff to send the consensus designation email to the WG on the email distribution list with a PDF of the Final Report Recommendations and contextual language to open the Consensus Call not later than Friday, 30 October for a period of 10 days.

1 0

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Thursday, 29 October 2020 at 17:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Oct. 29, 2020

Oct. 29, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Thursday, 29 October 2020 at 17:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/UwjQC> 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 For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Reminder: Updated Final Report Sections - Input by 29 Oct by 16:00 UTC
by Ariel Liang Oct. 29, 2020

Oct. 29, 2020

Thank you Griffin! For the completeness of the record – given no objection to Griffin’s suggested edits and the agreement by the WG during today’s meeting, Griffin’s edits have been incorporated in the final contextual language of the TMCH Final Recommendation #1. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel From: Griffin Barnett <Griffin(a)Winterfeldt.law> Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 12:51 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Reminder: Updated Final Report Sections - Input by 29 Oct by 16:00 UTC Hi all, I would suggest the further refinements below. “(1) mandatory RPMs should only be for trademarks, not marks or other source identifiers designations that do not function as trademarks, including Geographical Indications; (2) while such other designations can be entered into an additional/ancillary database maintained by the TMCH Validation Provider, they are not eligible for Sunrise and Claims; and (3) the ability for the TMCH Validation Provider and Registry Operators to offer additional/voluntary ancillary services to such other designations should be preserved (e.g., via an ancillary database). Otherwise, the updated text below looked fine to me. Best, Griffin ________________________________ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.winterfeldt.law/__;!!PtGJab4!tOaedGi…>[cid:image001.png@01D6ADFA.2F00D020]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.winterfeldt.law/__;!!PtGJab4!tOaedGi…>[winterfeldt.law]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.winterfeldt.law/__;!!PtGJab4!tOaedGi…> Griffin M. Barnett Associate Winterfeldt IP Group 1601 K Street NW, Ste 1050 Washington, DC 20006<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> griffin(a)winterfeldt.law<mailto:griffin@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 759 5836 From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 11:23 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Reminder: Updated Final Report Sections - Input by 29 Oct by 16:00 UTC Dear WG Members, This is a reminder that following yesterday’s call, staff have completed the action items by updating several google docs. If you have any further comment/input, please provide on list by 16:00 UTC on Thursday, 29 October. Please see details below. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel == Phase 1 Final PDP Recommendations (pp.28-29): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3CfBODC_T_7kY_rCVo_pTkiWUH0cFG… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3Cf…> Staff revised the contextual language of the TMCH Final Recommendation #1 based on input received during the call yesterday. The specific edits are as follows: * Last paragraph on p.28: Revised the three points after “During its deliberation, the Working Group coalesced around the following ideas” as follows: “(1) mandatory RPMs should only be for trademarks, not marks or other source identifiers that do not function as trademarks, including Geographical Indications; (2) while such other designations can be entered into an additional/ancillary database maintained by the TMCH Validation Provider, they are not eligible for Sunrise and Claims; and (3) the ability for the TMCH Validation Provider and Registry Operators to offer additional/voluntary ancillary services to such other designations should be preserved (e.g., via an ancillary database). * First paragraph on p.29: Revise the first sentence as follows: “The Working Group ultimately agreed that the policy principles contained in the recommendation text reflect those ideas, and frame the suggested amendments to the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) text in the Implementation Guidance.” Next Steps: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HaCI2EkvIS9ejSGrS1YslCY9ZTOHvbxBc3pIdiU… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1HaCI2EkvIS9e…> Staff made minor edits to the content based on input received during the call yesterday. The updated content is as follows: “This Final Report will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration and potential approval. If approved by the GNSO Council, the Final Report will then be forwarded to the ICANN Board of Directors for its consideration and potential action in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws.” Executive Summary (p.3): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R99_8v0BYmIRVhW27Xwz_BA1v-5ksHyifWUtiTf… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1R99_8v0BYmIR…> Revise the content under “conclusions and next steps” similar to that under “next steps”: “This Final Report will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration and, if approved, forwarded to the ICANN Board of Directors for consideration and potential action in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws.” Background (pp.11-12, 19): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jw_B6xGwc-Du9dMbCGjsQnsq40NbZWgT5aC86nP… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Jw_B6xGwc-Du…> Kathy Kleiman worked with staff and agreed on the further edits related to the WG’s deliberation on EPDP recommendations. The specific edits are as follows: * Last bullet on p.11: Removed “…and provided no objection to incorporating the staff-proposed approach in finalizing relevant recommendations relating to the URS and their contextual language” * Second paragraph on p.19: Removed “…and provided no objection to incorporating the staff-proposed approach in finalizing relevant recommendations relating to the URS” * Second paragraph on p.19: Added the following sentences “When finalizing its Phase 1 recommendations, the Working Group confirmed that its final recommendations are consistent with the EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations as well as the analysis in the Wave 1 Report. Specifically, the Working Group provided further notes regarding the consistency in the contextual language of the URS Final Recommendations #1, #2, #4, #5, #11.”

1 0

Reminder: Updated Final Report Sections - Input by 29 Oct by 16:00 UTC
by Ariel Liang Oct. 28, 2020

Oct. 28, 2020

Dear WG Members, This is a reminder that following yesterday’s call, staff have completed the action items by updating several google docs. If you have any further comment/input, please provide on list by 16:00 UTC on Thursday, 29 October. Please see details below. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel == Phase 1 Final PDP Recommendations (pp.28-29): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3CfBODC_T_7kY_rCVo_pTkiWUH0cFG… Staff revised the contextual language of the TMCH Final Recommendation #1 based on input received during the call yesterday. The specific edits are as follows: * Last paragraph on p.28: Revised the three points after “During its deliberation, the Working Group coalesced around the following ideas” as follows: “(1) mandatory RPMs should only be for trademarks, not marks or other source identifiers that do not function as trademarks, including Geographical Indications; (2) while such other designations can be entered into an additional/ancillary database maintained by the TMCH Validation Provider, they are not eligible for Sunrise and Claims; and (3) the ability for the TMCH Validation Provider and Registry Operators to offer additional/voluntary ancillary services to such other designations should be preserved (e.g., via an ancillary database). * First paragraph on p.29: Revise the first sentence as follows: “The Working Group ultimately agreed that the policy principles contained in the recommendation text reflect those ideas, and frame the suggested amendments to the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) text in the Implementation Guidance.” Next Steps: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HaCI2EkvIS9ejSGrS1YslCY9ZTOHvbxBc3pIdiU… Staff made minor edits to the content based on input received during the call yesterday. The updated content is as follows: “This Final Report will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration and potential approval. If approved by the GNSO Council, the Final Report will then be forwarded to the ICANN Board of Directors for its consideration and potential action in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws.” Executive Summary (p.3): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R99_8v0BYmIRVhW27Xwz_BA1v-5ksHyifWUtiTf… Revise the content under “conclusions and next steps” similar to that under “next steps”: “This Final Report will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration and, if approved, forwarded to the ICANN Board of Directors for consideration and potential action in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws.” Background (pp.11-12, 19): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jw_B6xGwc-Du9dMbCGjsQnsq40NbZWgT5aC86nP… Kathy Kleiman worked with staff and agreed on the further edits related to the WG’s deliberation on EPDP recommendations. The specific edits are as follows: * Last bullet on p.11: Removed “…and provided no objection to incorporating the staff-proposed approach in finalizing relevant recommendations relating to the URS and their contextual language” * Second paragraph on p.19: Removed “…and provided no objection to incorporating the staff-proposed approach in finalizing relevant recommendations relating to the URS” * Second paragraph on p.19: Added the following sentences “When finalizing its Phase 1 recommendations, the Working Group confirmed that its final recommendations are consistent with the EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations as well as the analysis in the Wave 1 Report. Specifically, the Working Group provided further notes regarding the consistency in the contextual language of the URS Final Recommendations #1, #2, #4, #5, #11.”

2 1

Proposed Agenda for RPM PDP WG Meeting 29 October 2020 17:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 28, 2020

Oct. 28, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Thursday, 29 October at 17:00 UTC. Please note that the RPMs PDP WG has only 1 more regularly scheduled meeting on 29 October before the Consensus Call begins on the WG’s email distribution list. WG members are requested to review only the new highlighted text in the section of the draft Final Report in the agenda below. WG members should flag only factual errors, if any, in the revised Background section (text from Kathy Kleiman and staff) at pp. 11-12 and 19 of the Google Doc here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jw_B6xGwc-Du9dMbCGjsQnsq40NbZWgT5aC86nP… - heading=h.qy8hqkubxy8i<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jw_B6xGwc-Du9dMbCGjsQnsq40NbZWgT5aC86nP…> by 16:00 UTC, Thursday, 27 October. Note that once a section has been reviewed/discussed in a meeting, it is considered closed. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review draft Final Report – please review only the new highlighted revised Background section (text from Kathy Kleiman and staff) at pp. 11-12 and 19 of the Google Doc here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jw_B6xGwc-Du9dMbCGjsQnsq40NbZWgT5aC86nP… - heading=h.qy8hqkubxy8i<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jw_B6xGwc-Du9dMbCGjsQnsq40NbZWgT5aC86nP…> 3. Description of Consensus Call Process; see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-w…>, pages 8-10 4. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting on 27 October 2020
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 27, 2020

Oct. 27, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group meeting on 27 October 2020 at 13:00 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/2020-10-27+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie == Action Items: TMCH Recommendation Final Recommendation #1: ACTION ITEM: WG members to review the revised text captured by staff based on the WG’s discussion at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3CfBODC_T_7kY_rCVo_pTkiWUH0cFG…, page 28, and note factual errors/omissions, if any, on the list by Thursday, 29 October, 16:00 UTC. Cover Page and Next Steps: ACTION ITEM: Staff will check the consistency of the wording in the Cover Page and Next Steps text. WG members to review the revised Next Steps text captured by staff based on the WG’s discussion at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HaCI2EkvIS9ejSGrS1YslCY9ZTOHvbxBc3pIdiU…, and note factual errors/omissions, if any, on the list by Thursday, 29 October, 16:00 UTC. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: -- Greg Shatan: Member of the At-Large Advisory Committee. -- Stepping down from the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC). 2. TMCH Recommendation Final Recommendation #1: TMCH Validation Provider: -- This is the terminology used in the Initial and Final Report. It is the correct term as staff has confirmed with GDS. -- Staff recommends going with Validation Provider. Contextual Language: -- WG members, including Paul Tattersfield, Rebecca Tushnet, and Griffin Barnett, suggested further edits, which staff has captured in the revised text at the link below. ACTION ITEM: WG members to review the revised text captured by staff based on the WG’s discussion at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3CfBODC_T_7kY_rCVo_pTkiWUH0cFG…, page 28, and note factual errors/omissions, if any, on the list by Thursday, 29 October, 16:00 UTC. 3. Review draft Final Report – please review only the new highlighted text in the Google docs at the links below and in the following order: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1R99_8v0BYmIR…> Approach Taken by the Working Group [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1HJFo7JwmYH-M…> Annex G - Community Input [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1NkHqpcBY0RFy…> Annex E - Working Group Documents [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1eNSJ9UWv0iBJ…> -- The WG found no factual errors or corrections in these sections. COVER PAGE [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1CULo0JvPSHqt…> and Next Steps [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1HaCI2EkvIS9e…> -- WG members noted that the cover page says the report has been submitted and the next steps says it will be submitted - may want to coordinate those two. ACTION ITEM: Staff will check the consistency of the wording in the Cover Page and Next Steps text. WG members to review the revised Next Steps text captured by staff based on the WG’s discussion at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HaCI2EkvIS9ejSGrS1YslCY9ZTOHvbxBc3pIdiU…, and note factual errors/omissions, if any, on the list by Thursday, 29 October, 16:00 UTC. 4. AOB: URS Final Recommendations #3 and #4: -- Staff and WG members agree that the recommendations are consistent, and there were no new changes or language introduced by staff after the WG’s agreement.

1 0

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Tuesday, 27 October 2020 at 13:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon Oct. 27, 2020

Oct. 27, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Tuesday, 27 October 2020 at 13:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/UQjQC> 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 <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Andrea

1 0

Edits and updates
by Kathy Kleiman Oct. 26, 2020

Oct. 26, 2020

Hi All, Attached please find my proposed edits to the Background section of our report. We had a little more interaction with the EPDP report than noted -- and went past the summary wave table to the actual EPDP recommendations to determine that there was no conflict between them and our WG recommendations. I've proposed revisions to the background text to show this process with the steps involved. As a WG, we certainly did our due diligence on this important task! Best and have a good weekend,Kathy

8 9

REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPM PDP WG Meeting 27 October 2020 13:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 26, 2020

Oct. 26, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, This is a reminder to please find the proposed agenda in the email below for the WG meeting on Tuesday, 27 October at 13:00 UTC. Please note that the RPMs PDP WG has only 2 more regularly scheduled meetings on 27 and 29 October before the Consensus Call begins on the WG’s email distribution list. WG members are requested to review only the new highlighted text in the sections of the draft Final Report in the order as they appear on the agenda below. WG members should flag only factual errors, if any, in these new sections by TODAY 16:00 UTC, Monday, 26 October. Note that once a section has been reviewed/discussed in a meeting, it is considered closed. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, October 19, 2020 at 11:14 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM PDP WG Meeting 27 October 2020 13:00 UTC Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Tuesday, 27 October at 13:00 UTC. Please note that the RPMs PDP WG has only 2 more regularly scheduled meetings on 27 and 29 October before the Consensus Call begins on the WG’s email distribution list. WG members are requested to review only the new highlighted text in the sections of the draft Final Report in the order as they appear on the agenda below. WG members should flag only factual errors, if any, in these new sections by 16:00 UTC, Monday, 26 October. Note that once a section has been reviewed/discussed in a meeting, it is considered closed. Proposed Agenda (also posted on the wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-10-27+Review+of+all+R…>): 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review draft Final Report – please review only the new highlighted text in the Google docs at the links below and in the following order: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1R99_8v0BYmIR…> Approach Taken by the Working Group [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1HJFo7JwmYH-M…> Annex G - Community Input [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1NkHqpcBY0RFy…> Annex E - Working Group Documents [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1eNSJ9UWv0iBJ…> COVER PAGE [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1CULo0JvPSHqt…> Next Steps [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1HaCI2EkvIS9e…> 1. Time Permitting (scheduled for 29 October): Description of Consensus Call Process; see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-w…>, pages 8-10 2. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Proposed Agenda for RPM PDP WG Meeting 27 October 2020 13:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 22, 2020

Oct. 22, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Tuesday, 27 October at 13:00 UTC. Please note that the RPMs PDP WG has only 2 more regularly scheduled meetings on 27 and 29 October before the Consensus Call begins on the WG’s email distribution list. WG members are requested to review only the new highlighted text in the sections of the draft Final Report in the order as they appear on the agenda below. WG members should flag only factual errors, if any, in these new sections by 16:00 UTC, Monday, 26 October. Note that once a section has been reviewed/discussed in a meeting, it is considered closed. Proposed Agenda (also posted on the wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-10-27+Review+of+all+R…>): 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review draft Final Report – please review only the new highlighted text in the Google docs at the links below and in the following order: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1R99_8v0BYmIR…> Approach Taken by the Working Group [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1HJFo7JwmYH-M…> Annex G - Community Input [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1NkHqpcBY0RFy…> Annex E - Working Group Documents [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1eNSJ9UWv0iBJ…> COVER PAGE [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1CULo0JvPSHqt…> Next Steps [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1HaCI2EkvIS9e…> 1. Time Permitting (scheduled for 29 October): Description of Consensus Call Process; see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-24oct19-en.pdf>, pages 8-10 2. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

2 1

REMINDER: Review Updated Final Report Sections - Input by 23 Oct
by Ariel Liang Oct. 22, 2020

Oct. 22, 2020

Dear WG members, This is a reminder for reviewing the updates on the following google docs (please see below). If you have any further input, please share on list no later than Friday, 23 Oct COB. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:34 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Review Updated Final Report Sections - Input by 23 Oct Dear WG members, Thank you for your participation and input during today’s RPM sessions. Staff have completed today’s action items; please review the updated content in the following google docs: * Phase 1 Final PDP Recommendations: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3CfBODC_T_7kY_rCVo_pTkiWUH0cFG…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3CfBODC_T_7kY_rCVo_pTkiWUH0cFG…> * pp.6-10: Inserted the URS recommendation (converted from URS Proposal #34) regarding the language of proceeding and its contextual language. * pp.10-11: Updated the URS recommendation regarding the translation of the Notice of Complaint to maintain consistency with the recommendation regarding the language of proceeding. * pp.26-29: Inserted the TMCH recommendation regarding geographical indicators and its contextual language approved by the WG. * Annex: Charter Questions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hmF5eKnuwjv-Sk4cWfTkM_omKpr0kLH2SSUjAnk…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hmF5eKnuwjv-Sk4cWfTkM_omKpr0kLH2SSUjAnk…> * pp.18-21: Inserted the WG-approved text related to the ALP under Sunrise Q8(a), which concerns the review of ALP. * pp.28-29: Rearranged the sentences related to the GPML (same updates have been incorporated in the “Background<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jw_B6xGwc-Du9dMbCGjsQnsq40NbZWgT5aC86nP…>” – p.11 and “Additional Marketplace RPMs<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kf-on75LuwwjI-qfvx5YwX5q5ztauB3ivGD3rIn…>” sections) If you have any further comments/suggestions, please share on list no later than Friday, 23 October COB. These above items will be considered closed after the deadline. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

4 3

Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: REMINDER: Review Updated Final Report Sections - Input by 23 Oct
by Ariel Liang Oct. 21, 2020

Oct. 21, 2020

Hello Brian, Thank you for providing these suggested edits. I have incorporated them as redline on this Google Doc (pp. 7-8): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3CfBODC_T_7kY_rCVo_pTkiWUH0cFG… If no objection from other members in the WG, we will accept these edits by COB Friday, 23 October. Best Regards, Ariel From: BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int> Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 3:24 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: Review Updated Final Report Sections - Input by 23 Oct Thanks Ariel, Regarding the new proposal #3 on language, given that the goal was due process in attempting notice of the case, and given that the script of the TLD could be at least potentially applicable in ascertaining the case language, but whereas “language used by the registry and/or predominant language of the country/territory of the registry” (as it is currently stated in the 4th bullet) may in reality have zero bearing on the case (e.g., imagine a hypothetical Korean-scripted TLD managed by a Registry based in Ireland for corporate purposes), I thought the intent was to combine the 4th and 6th bullets to something like: * the language/script used in the domain name (including the TLD), in particular if it is an Internationalized Domain Name. I am not sure if the highlighting will show up on the mailing list, so to be clear, I have suggested adding “…(including the TLD), in particular…” because (a) in the WG call, we spoke about the potential relevance of the TLD in lieu of the location of the registry – see point above, and (b) even if the TLD is not an IDN, this fact can be relevant (i.e., the fact that a 2LD and/or TLD is in English could be as relevant to the language issue as if it is in another non-English script). I also think the word “severe” in the 2nd para of the context overstates the case, and I do not believe there was agreement as to this qualifier (and certainly not if the Provider will send a translated Notice of Complaint document), so would propose deleting it. Thanks for considering this in light of the prior WG conversations! PS, I have tried to review the call and transcript, but the referred to link did not work for me: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-10-13+Review+of+all+R…. Brian From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:56 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: Review Updated Final Report Sections - Input by 23 Oct Dear WG members, This is a reminder for reviewing the updates on the following google docs (please see below). If you have any further input, please share on list no later than Friday, 23 Oct COB. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:34 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Review Updated Final Report Sections - Input by 23 Oct Dear WG members, Thank you for your participation and input during today’s RPM sessions. Staff have completed today’s action items; please review the updated content in the following google docs: * Phase 1 Final PDP Recommendations: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3CfBODC_T_7kY_rCVo_pTkiWUH0cFG… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3Cf…> * pp.6-10: Inserted the URS recommendation (converted from URS Proposal #34) regarding the language of proceeding and its contextual language. * pp.10-11: Updated the URS recommendation regarding the translation of the Notice of Complaint to maintain consistency with the recommendation regarding the language of proceeding. * pp.26-29: Inserted the TMCH recommendation regarding geographical indications and its contextual language approved by the WG. * Annex: Charter Questions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hmF5eKnuwjv-Sk4cWfTkM_omKpr0kLH2SSUjAnk… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1hmF5eKnuwjv-…> * pp.18-21: Inserted the WG-approved text related to the ALP under Sunrise Q8(a), which concerns the review of ALP. * pp.28-29: Rearranged the sentences related to the GPML (same updates have been incorporated in the “Background [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Jw_B6xGwc-Du…>” – p.11 and “Additional Marketplace RPMs [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Kf-on75Luwwj…>” sections) If you have any further comments/suggestions, please share on list no later than Friday, 23 October COB. These above items will be considered closed after the deadline. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.

1 0

Review Updated Final Report Sections - Input by 23 Oct
by Ariel Liang Oct. 13, 2020

Oct. 13, 2020

Dear WG members, Thank you for your participation and input during today’s RPM sessions. Staff have completed today’s action items; please review the updated content in the following google docs: * Phase 1 Final PDP Recommendations: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3CfBODC_T_7kY_rCVo_pTkiWUH0cFG… * pp.6-10: Inserted the URS recommendation (converted from URS Proposal #34) regarding the language of proceeding and its contextual language. * pp.10-11: Updated the URS recommendation regarding the translation of the Notice of Complaint to maintain consistency with the recommendation regarding the language of proceeding. * pp.26-29: Inserted the TMCH recommendation regarding geographical indicators and its contextual language approved by the WG. * Annex: Charter Questions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hmF5eKnuwjv-Sk4cWfTkM_omKpr0kLH2SSUjAnk… * pp.18-21: Inserted the WG-approved text related to the ALP under Sunrise Q8(a), which concerns the review of ALP. * pp.28-29: Rearranged the sentences related to the GPML (same updates have been incorporated in the “Background<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jw_B6xGwc-Du9dMbCGjsQnsq40NbZWgT5aC86nP…>” – p.11 and “Additional Marketplace RPMs<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kf-on75LuwwjI-qfvx5YwX5q5ztauB3ivGD3rIn…>” sections) If you have any further comments/suggestions, please share on list no later than Friday, 23 October COB. These above items will be considered closed after the deadline. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG ICANN69 Working Sessions 13 October 2020
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 13, 2020

Oct. 13, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group ICANN69 Working Sessions held on 13 October 2020 at 12:00 and 14:00 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/2020-10-13+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie == Action Items: Revised URS Recommendation #9 and Converted Individual Proposal #34<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Re1gmf1qbfl969fILQYQjhvGQdH2fBr500-V0o-…> ACTION ITEM: Staff will revise the language of the recommendation arising from converted URS Individual Proposal per the WG discussion and the related recommendation relating to language concerning the notice of complaint. Annex B – Charter Questions<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hmF5eKnuwjv-Sk4cWfTkM_omKpr0kLH2SSUjAnk…> and Additional Marketplace RPMs<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kf-on75LuwwjI-qfvx5YwX5q5ztauB3ivGD3rIn…>: Re: “In reviewing the public comment, the Working Group noted that several commenters expressed the desire for the Globally Protected Mark List (GPML) as an additional measure. However, the Working Group agreed that it has not collected sufficient data to develop a meaningful answer to that question, and agreed not to develop any recommendation with regard to additional mandatory RPMs equivalent to GPML.” ACTION ITEM: Staff to work with Co-Chairs on revised language to better show how the WG addressed the question; and make the same update in the Additional Marketplace RPMs. Background [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Jw_B6xGwc-Du…> - Re: EPDP Recommendation #27 and the Wave 1 Report, pages 18-19: ACTION ITEM: Kathy Kleiman to suggest revised text and post to the WG email distribution list. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Structure of the Final Report 3. Review draft Final Report – please review only the new highlighted text in the Google docs at the links below and in the following order: Introduction to Final Recommendations [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3Cf…>: Unresolved recommendation text --- see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Re1gmf1qbfl969fILQYQjhvGQdH2fBr500-V0o-… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Re1gmf1qbfl9…> a. Revised URS Recommendation #9 and Converted Individual Proposal #34 – pages 1-6 Discussion: -- Question re: "If a translation is ordered . . . " Should we insert "by the URS Examiner" after "ordered" to be clear? -- How do we reconcile point (a) in this draft recommendation with the fact that providers do not presently query the registrar for the language of the registration agreement? It seems clear that this draft recommendation was based on a presupposition that this (RA language) would be known. (That is, the "to be potentially converted" proposal 34)  -- It’s not a choice between the two because one integrates the other. -- Providers can only guess taking into account some facts. -- At minimum, the text on screen at "Such guidance should... will..." needs to be a "may" (instead of "should" and "will"). -- Note from the context in Rec 9: “The language in the location of the privacy or proxy service may be different from the language of the Respondent.” -- Two different approaches: 1) changing the rules 2) providing additional guidance for examiners. -- FORUM: Need to have up front before we get a response from the registrant we need to know the language to translate the notice into. The other issue with respect to not knowing what language to use before the respondent responds we may not have an examiner who speaks the language to take the case. We are seeking the identity of the registrant, but they don’t have the language of the registration agreement. Re: ordering a translation – that will add time to the process. Need to have language on who will order that. It will require costs and time. System is highly automated so this would be a significant change. -- Question re: "If a translation is ordered . . . " in #34 -- Should we insert "by the URS Examiner" after "ordered" to be clear? @Renee -- Thanks for clarification who/how this would be ordered. -- FORUM: Recommendation #9 is what we are doing now. Recommendation from Individual Proposal #34 would add some complexities. -- I guess the question comes down to whether it’s easier to determine predominant language or whether it is easier to determine the language of a registration agreement And which one of those is better for the parties. I would think language of registration agreement is more definitive and makes URS consistent with UDRP. -- And to your question Griffin, the language of the RA is far easier to determine vs guessing what language someone registering a domain name sitting somewhere in the world using some service somewhere, speaks... -- For that last reason Renee noted, registration agreement language is better - takes away the need to make a subjective call. -- Ultimately this is left to a string of guess versus clarity. The former is where we are when we are looking at a proxy service, the latter is when we can discern the language. It is the registrar who would know the language because it manages the contract with the registrant. -- Also noting the notice of complaint issue, we should change that to English and language of registration agreement as well for consistency. -- If a registrant has entered into a contract consisting of language in Language X, it seems fair to provide them URS notice in Language X. -- Question to WIPO: Brian, do you experience difficulties getting the answer to the "language of the registration agreement" question? Answer: It is rare; sometimes we don’t hear from the registrant at all. When we have difficulty it is pretty rare. Most registrars have standard processing. It’s usually not a matter of being unable to identify the language, but because the contact information isn’t up to date. -- Can we know in advance what language a registration will be in for any given registrar? Or do some registrars use different languages for different registrants? If the former, I wonder if we can propose a web page where all registrars’ registration agreements / language is posted which providers can simply reference to make this determination without needing to confirm with every registrar in every case. -- When in doubt, language of agreement should hold. That said, guidance is that, correct? Guidance and not a requirement.  -- The RA language makes sense, the place of residence/registration not so much so. (Says a native EN speaker living in a country with the official languages FR/NL/DE). -- Not just the way WIPO does things, would also presumably be the way Forum and ADNDRC do things for the UDRP. -- There are some reference to WIPO processes, but WIPO is not a URS provider but a UDRP provider. We have the concept of the rules and the guidance. We are talking about the rules we are talking about the URS rules. When we talk about guidance we shift away from the provider we are talking more about the substance. -- But if a matter is locked at the Registry level, a registrar feels they don't have an obligation to provide the information. -- Just bc they “feel” something is not relevant, the URS technical requirements already require registrars to engage if certain info cannot be obtained from the registry. -- And if we make it clear in the rules that registrars have this obligation then they have it. -- Yes - the RA language makes sense, the place of residence/registration not so much so. (Says a native EN speaker living in a country with the official languages FR/NL/DE). -- It feels like we are coalescing around a small adjustment to the process in the interests of clarity and due process. -- It seems like we are coalescing around Individual Proposal #34. Suggest that if anyone in the WG has any concerns or is favoring Rec #9 it would be good to hear why. -- I understand there may be some burden but URS providers already do much of this process for the UDRP side so they know how to do it. -- Also to note that I do believe if we go this route we should also amend the other rec on notice of complaint to make it consistent. -- Seems that if the provider is to reach out to the registry, it seems feasible that the provider could be reaching out to the registrar to ask about the identity of the registrant and the language of the registration agreement. -- Note that we definitely want URS providers involved in IRT to make sure we get the implementation of this right. -- From FORUM: We would need to let the expectation be known that we have to reach out to the registrar. We already have to reach out to the registry. Would be outreach steps unless we could get the registry to get the information from the registrar. -- If Provider reaches out to registrar and registry simultaneously from the outset to get necessary info and seek registry lock I don’t see how that would introduce delay except in cases where either party is going to fail to respond timely anyway Renee- why not just do both Rr and Ry outreach simultaneously? (If we adopt this approach) . -- Is there a reason why you have to get the registrant contact info from the Ry? Couldn't you go straight to the Rr for this at same time as asking for the language? -- If we change this to the language of the registration agreement FORUM is okay with that. It’s not that complicated but it can be. -- This proposal would also change URS procedure #9 and the provider wouldn’t have to translate into the predominant language. -- Would also get rid of 4.2: Language of Proceedings: The URS Procedure Paragraph 4.2 specifies the languages in which the Notice of Complaint shall be transmitted. (a) The Complaint shall be submitted in English. (b) The Response may be provided in English, or in one of the languages used for the Notice of Complaint. 10 (c) The Examiner appointed shall be fluent in English and in the language of the Response and will determine in which language to issue its Determination, in its sole discretion. (d) In the absence of a Response, the language of the Determination shall be English. (e) The Provider is not responsible for translating any documents other than the Notice of Complaint. -- Could say that if the provider reaches out to the registrar but doesn’t receive a response that the default language will be English. -- All of this is subject to the examiner to determine otherwise re language. -- To take all of the stuff about privacy proxie, etc. that gets taken out of the section that deals with the provider and the notice. If we know the language of the registration agreement then all of the other stuff is no longer relevant. -- For the Implementation Guidance for examiners we could keep that. -- If we go down this path, we’ll need to look at other provisions that deal with language. -- Perhaps staff can flag those other language related recs and insert some revisions to make consistent with this approach. -- Current language on language of complaint: “The Working Group recommends that it be mandatory for URS Providers to comply with URS Procedure para 4.2 and para 4.3 and transmit the Notice of Complaint to the Respondent, with an accompanying translation in the predominant language used in the Registrant’s country or territory, via email, fax, and postal mail.” -- Not talking about translating the complaint. The notice of the complaint. -- Note that in future data should be collected on whether the registrant understands the language of the notice of complaint. ACTION ITEM: Staff will revise the language of the recommendation arising from converted URS Individual Proposal per the WG discussion and the related recommendation relating to language concerning the notice of complaint. b. New Draft WG Discussion Language on ALP – pages 6-7 Discussion: -- Speaking about limited input from Registry Operators - the numbers of GEO applicants were extremely limited (and CORE had a large part of that). -- This final para language seems ok to me and suggests appropriate flexibility while urging timeliness etc. -- Regardless, "will" should be changed to "should". -- Change to “The WG expects that...will be published”. -- Comment that if this is a defined term / existing document, that we use the official title: "published process documentation and review guidelines". -- Do you really need / want to limit it to "GEO TLDs" in the final sentence? -- If the IRT takes it up as a work item, it could add a small measure of predictability to a process that has absolutely none right now. Including it seems harmless. No consensus call needed since it is not a Recommendation. -- The WG accepts the text to be included in the Final Report. c. New Contextual Language About GIs in TMCH – pages 9-10 Discussion: -- The term should be geographical indications (not indicators). -- Suggestion: "entered into the TMCH" is a hot button. "entered into a database maintained by the TMCH operator" avoids that. -- Go one step further and refer to "an additional database" or "ancillary database”. -- Staff will check as to whether it is “TMCH operator” or “TMCH provider”. -- The WG accepts the text as modified to be included in the Final Report. Annex B – Charter Questions [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1hmF5eKnuwjv-…> -- This is not new text in that the WG has seen it in the WG discussion in the public comment analysis summary. Discussion: -- Re: “In reviewing the public comment, the Working Group noted that several commenters expressed the desire for the Globally Protected Mark List (GPML) as an additional measure. However, the Working Group agreed that it has not collected sufficient data to develop a meaningful answer to that question, and agreed not to develop any recommendation with regard to additional mandatory RPMs equivalent to GPML.” -- Question: Why is this included in the Final Report? Answer: The WG was asked another question related to the protected marks list: “How, and to what extent, does use of Protected Marks Lists (e.g. blocking services) affect the utilization of other RPMs, especially Sunrise registrations?” ACTION ITEM: Staff to work with Co-Chairs on revised language to better show how the WG addressed the question. Make the same update in the Additional Marketplace RPMs. Additional Marketplace RPMs [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Kf-on75Luwwj…> See action item above. Background [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Jw_B6xGwc-Du…> Re: EPDP Recommendation #27 and the Wave 1 Report, pages 18-19: ACTION ITEM: Kathy Kleiman to suggest revised text and post to the WG email distribution list.

1 0

REMINDER Re: Proposed Agenda for RPM PDP WG ICANN69 Working Sessions 13 October 2020
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 12, 2020

Oct. 12, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, As a reminder, please find the proposed agenda for the WG ICANN69 Working Sessions on Tuesday, 13 October at 14:00 and 16:00 CEST. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, October 9, 2020 at 1:06 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Proposed Agenda for RPM PDP WG ICANN69 Working Sessions 13 October 2020 Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda for the WG ICANN69 Working Sessions on Tuesday, 13 October: Working Session 1 of 2 at 14:00 CEST/12:00 UTC for 90 minutes -- See: https://69.schedule.icann.org/meetings/67RDfnMj87SiNNyjk Working Session 2 of 2 at 16:00 CEST/14:00 UTC for 60 minutes -- See: https://69.schedule.icann.org/meetings/fAsJ6DHYbh9h63g7d Note that participation links will be published 24 hours prior to the session start. Preparation for the Working Sessions: WG members are requested to review only the new highlighted text in the sections of the draft Final Report in the order as they appear on the agenda below. WG members should flag only factual errors, if any, in these new sections by 16:00 UTC, Monday, 12 October. Note that once a section has been reviewed/discussed in a meeting, it is considered closed. Note also that staff may make some minor edits prior to the ICANN69 sessions and if so any new text or edits will be highlighted. Proposed Agenda (also posted on the wiki<https://community.icann.org/x/HAebC>): 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Structure of the Final Report 3. Review draft Final Report – please review only the new highlighted text in the Google docs at the links below and in the following order: Introduction to Final Recommendations<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3CfBODC_T_7kY_rCVo_pTkiWUH0cFG…>: Unresolved recommendation text --- see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Re1gmf1qbfl969fILQYQjhvGQdH2fBr500-V0o-… a. Revised URS Recommendation #9 and Converted Individual Proposal #34 – pages 1-6 b. New Draft WG Discussion Language on ALP – pages 6-7 c. New Contextual Language About GIs in TMCH – pages 9-10 Annex B – Charter Questions<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hmF5eKnuwjv-Sk4cWfTkM_omKpr0kLH2SSUjAnk…> Additional Marketplace RPMs<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kf-on75LuwwjI-qfvx5YwX5q5ztauB3ivGD3rIn…> Background<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jw_B6xGwc-Du9dMbCGjsQnsq40NbZWgT5aC86nP…> EXECUTIVE SUMMARY<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R99_8v0BYmIRVhW27Xwz_BA1v-5ksHyifWUtiTf…> Approach Taken by the Working Group<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HJFo7JwmYH-McI1-clrVuZWRaKiflGsDnR0xqBv…> Annex G - Community Input<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NkHqpcBY0RFy_Y7bFeSCVI0N4pWYhJzqFLwQKvQ…> Annex E - Working Group Documents<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eNSJ9UWv0iBJ7eyJYFWKxdA8lN8575q-LLstyWS…> COVER PAGE<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CULo0JvPSHqtkBGtczrjfuCNtTzV9xEaVCz3Cif…> Next Steps<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HaCI2EkvIS9ejSGrS1YslCY9ZTOHvbxBc3pIdiU…> 1. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Proposed Agenda for RPM PDP WG ICANN69 Working Sessions 13 October 2020
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 9, 2020

Oct. 9, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda for the WG ICANN69 Working Sessions on Tuesday, 13 October: Working Session 1 of 2 at 14:00 CEST/12:00 UTC for 90 minutes -- See: https://69.schedule.icann.org/meetings/67RDfnMj87SiNNyjk Working Session 2 of 2 at 16:00 CEST/14:00 UTC for 60 minutes -- See: https://69.schedule.icann.org/meetings/fAsJ6DHYbh9h63g7d Note that participation links will be published 24 hours prior to the session start. Preparation for the Working Sessions: WG members are requested to review only the new highlighted text in the sections of the draft Final Report in the order as they appear on the agenda below. WG members should flag only factual errors, if any, in these new sections by 16:00 UTC, Monday, 12 October. Note that once a section has been reviewed/discussed in a meeting, it is considered closed. Note also that staff may make some minor edits prior to the ICANN69 sessions and if so any new text or edits will be highlighted. Proposed Agenda (also posted on the wiki<https://community.icann.org/x/HAebC>): 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Structure of the Final Report 3. Review draft Final Report – please review only the new highlighted text in the Google docs at the links below and in the following order: Introduction to Final Recommendations<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3CfBODC_T_7kY_rCVo_pTkiWUH0cFG…>: Unresolved recommendation text --- see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Re1gmf1qbfl969fILQYQjhvGQdH2fBr500-V0o-… a. Revised URS Recommendation #9 and Converted Individual Proposal #34 – pages 1-6 b. New Draft WG Discussion Language on ALP – pages 6-7 c. New Contextual Language About GIs in TMCH – pages 9-10 Annex B – Charter Questions<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hmF5eKnuwjv-Sk4cWfTkM_omKpr0kLH2SSUjAnk…> Additional Marketplace RPMs<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kf-on75LuwwjI-qfvx5YwX5q5ztauB3ivGD3rIn…> Background<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jw_B6xGwc-Du9dMbCGjsQnsq40NbZWgT5aC86nP…> EXECUTIVE SUMMARY<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R99_8v0BYmIRVhW27Xwz_BA1v-5ksHyifWUtiTf…> Approach Taken by the Working Group<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HJFo7JwmYH-McI1-clrVuZWRaKiflGsDnR0xqBv…> Annex G - Community Input<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NkHqpcBY0RFy_Y7bFeSCVI0N4pWYhJzqFLwQKvQ…> Annex E - Working Group Documents<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eNSJ9UWv0iBJ7eyJYFWKxdA8lN8575q-LLstyWS…> COVER PAGE<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CULo0JvPSHqtkBGtczrjfuCNtTzV9xEaVCz3Cif…> Next Steps<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HaCI2EkvIS9ejSGrS1YslCY9ZTOHvbxBc3pIdiU…> 1. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Update: Sunrise Rec 2 - Input by Thursday 8 Oct 16:00 UTC
by Ariel Liang Oct. 8, 2020

Oct. 8, 2020

Dear WG members, Thanks very much, Griffin, for the suggested clarifying edits to the contextual language of this Sunrise recommendation. Since no additional input were received by today’s deadline at 16:00 UTC and no objection noted by any other WG member to Griffin’s suggested edits, staff will adopt them in the contextual language of this recommendation. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel From: Griffin Barnett <Griffin(a)Winterfeldt.law> Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 3:02 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Update: Sunrise Rec 2 - Input by Thursday 8 Oct 16:00 UTC Hi all, Staff - thanks for this updated text. I would suggest the following further revisions to the second proposed context paragraph, which I intend as clarifying edits rather than to materially alter the substance: To assist the IRT which that will be formed to implement recommendations adopted by the Board from this PDP, the Working Group tried to reach agreement over on some possible types of specific Registry conduct that could have the effect of intentionally circumventing trademark owners’ use of the Sunrise Period within the meaning of the Registry Agreement provision envisioned in this Recommendation, so as to trigger enforcement action by the contractual compliance department of ICANN org should the Registry Agreement contain a prohibition on such conduct. As part of its discussion, the Working Group noted that several public comments to the Initial Report had raised the following examples as non-exhaustive illustrations of such conduct (some of which had also been raised by Working Group members): * Withholding or self-allocating domains names that correspond to trademarks recorded in the TMCH with the intent of circumventing the use of the Sunrise Period by trademark owners; * Discriminatory pricing practices clearly designed to leverage effectively prevent the need for reasonable ability of trademark owners to obtain defensive Sunrise registrations by trademark owners for their marks recorded in the TMCH. In this context, “discriminatory pricing practices” could include extremely high pricing during the Sunrise Period of the domains names that correspond to trademarks recorded in the TMCH followed by significantly lower prices for the same domain names during Landrush or General Availability, such as to evidence an intent to targeting trademark owners either specifically, or as a general class of registrants, for the purpose of inhibiting access to Sunrise registrations. The other edits in the Context section read well to me. Ultimately, I would have preferred that the above text be included as Implementation Guidance to the Recommendation itself rather as mere context, but in the spirit of compromise and noting the concerns others have raised on this matter, can accept its relocation to Context. Hope the suggested revisions are nonetheless helpful. Best regards, Griffin ________________________________ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.winterfeldt.law/__;!!PtGJab4!tM_hUz4…>[cid:image001.png@01D69D82.50209430]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.winterfeldt.law/__;!!PtGJab4!tM_hUz4…>[winterfeldt.law]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.winterfeldt.law/__;!!PtGJab4!tM_hUz4…> Griffin M. Barnett Associate Winterfeldt IP Group 1601 K Street NW, Ste 1050 Washington, DC 20006<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> griffin(a)winterfeldt.law<mailto:griffin@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 759 5836 From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 1:27 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Update: Sunrise Rec 2 - Input by Thursday 8 Oct 16:00 UTC Dear WG members, Please find the updated version of Sunrise Recommendation #2 in this google doc here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SmXWvS9M4TAtQ3gC3o4j9-jHaw3uIlWR_2D3lV2… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1SmXWvS9M4TAt…>. This update seeks to incorporate the input provided by WG members on the mailing list and during today’s meeting. Please note that amendments already agreed by the WG today have been accepted. The current redline edits specifically reflect the following: * Move the great majority of the Implementation Guidance text into the “context” section (shown in redline). * Universal change to replace the term “trademark-corresponding domains” with “domains that correspond to trademarks recorded in the TMCH”. * Clarification of the WG discussion about the question regarding whether any *additional* enforcement mechanism to supplement enforcement actions taken by ICANN Compliance (see redline edits in the final paragraph under “Context”). * Other editorial changes suggested by David McAuley on list last Friday. Please provide your input/suggestion on the mailing list by 16:00 UTC on Thursday, 8 October. The updated language, incorporating any further input from the WG, is expected to be finalized on the coming Thursday. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel

4 3

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Thursday, 08 October 2020 at 17:30 UTC
by Andrea Glandon Oct. 8, 2020

Oct. 8, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Thursday, 08 October 2020 at 17:30 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/TwjQC> 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 <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Andrea

1 0

Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 08 October 2020
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 8, 2020

Oct. 8, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 08 October 2020 at 17:30 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/2020-10-08+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie == Action Items: Revised URS Recommendation #9 and Converted Individual Proposal #34: ACTION ITEM: Put the recommendation out to the WG with a reference to Recommendation #9 and ask for comments. Put it on the agenda for the first ICANN69 session. Proposed Small Team 1 Recommendation for ALP: ACTION ITEM: Staff will draft language for the Final Report noting the comments on first-round applicants concerning problems, to be included in WG discussion relating to Sunrise for the WG to review. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Revised Converted Individual URS Proposal #28, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DA… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPc…> Revised versions that received support: * Option A: The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall publish an effective Examiner Conflict of Interest (COI) policy that the Provider reasonably enforces against any Examiners who violate such policy. * Option B: The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have a published and effective Conflict of Interest (COI) policy that the Provider reasonably enforces against any Examiners who violate such policy. Discussion: -- Suggest deleting “that the Provider reasonably enforces against any Examiners who violate such policy.” -- Others noted that that statement was meant to be explicit. -- I agree that it’s implied without the added part that the policy is enforceable, but the latter part is intended to confirm that it is the Provider specifically who would enforce (as opposed to ICANN or something else). -- WG agrees to adopt Option A. 3. Revised URS Recommendation #9 and Converted Individual Proposal #34, -- TBD Re: Response from Renee Fossum/FORUM; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DA… [docs.google.com] [docs.google.com]<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DA…> Question from staff re: “If a translation is ordered, as long as the original submission meets the word limits in the original language, the translation of the original submission may nominally exceed the prescribed word limit; for the avoidance of doubt, the translation may not introduce new facts or arguments which may be contained in the Language of Proceeding submission.” -- Not sure if “may” is the appropriate word, or if it should be “should” or “must”. Discussion: -- Strike the 4th and 5th bullets -- again, these languages are likely to have nothing to do with the registrant / registration agreement (e.g., if someone from China registers a ".com" DN, they may very well use a Chinese RA, and the location of Verisign is not helpful, and only risks adding confusion); put another way, the URS itself and the Recommendation Kathy is speaking about risk confusing the parties and panel and harming due process. -- This would be a new requirement. If the providers had to identify the language of the registration agreement that would add time. -- If the complainant identifies the language of proceeding in its submission would the panelist not be able to rely on that, subject to its discretion to find that another language should be used? -- If the Provider needs to verify the language with the Registrar, then so be it, frankly doesn’t seem like a problem since they would be verifying registrant identity details anyway. -- Seems that #34 is inconsistent #9. -- It seems easier for a provider to determine/verify the language of the registration agreement in a given case versus having to figure out what the proper “predominant language” is. -- Modify #9 to include the further details about how to request the language of the proceeding. -- The language used by the registry and registry – worried that introducing those entities could undermine what we are trying to achieve. Risks adding confusion. Need to make it clear that these are additional factors that the examiners can consider. -- Suggest to strike all of the language pertaining to registrar, registry, and privacy/proxy services. -- This recommendation seems to adopt a hard and fast rule, versus Implementation Guidance. -- Suggestion to delete all of the recommendation language in Individual Proposal #34 and keep the Implementation Guidance. ACTION ITEM: Put the recommendation out to the WG with a reference to Recommendation #9 and ask for comments. Put it on the agenda for the first ICANN69 session. 4. Proposed Small Team 1 Recommendation for ALP – Proposed Text: “The working group recommends there should be a transparent and predictable process to timely evaluate, approve and reject ALP applications. Applications, outcomes and process measures should be published.” See also related documentation: -- Approved Launch Program Process & Forms: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/launch-applicat… [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-cl…> (details about this additional voluntary program that was developed during the implementation/AGB phase for ROs, hence the ALP is not a policy) -- Application Review Guidelines: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/launch-applicat… [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-cl…> (ICANN uses these guidelines to review RO applications for conducting an ALP) Discussion: -- Noted that there is not context or Implementation Guidance for this recommendation. -- Asked whether this could be included in the Final Report text, but not as a recommendation, in the WG discussion. ACTION ITEM: Staff will draft language for the Final Report noting the comments on first-round applicants concerning problems, to be included in WG discussion relating to Sunrise for the WG to review.

1 0

Renee's Comments: URS Recommendation on the Language of Proceeding
by Ariel Liang Oct. 7, 2020

Oct. 7, 2020

Dear All, Per action item from Tuesday’s meeting, staff checked with Renee Fossen with regard to the draft URS recommendation concerning the Language of Proceeding, which was converted from URS Individual Proposal #34 absorbing URS Recommendation #9 (see Rec 9 on pp.14-15 here<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMP…>). The updated language of the draft recommendation under discussion can be found on pp.7-9 of the Google Doc here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DA… Please see below Renee’s input/comments. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel == Comments regarding #34 We do not seek registration agreement information from a Registrar in URS proceedings. In the context of URS proceedings, other than fulfilling obligations per URS Procedure 4.4, Forum coordinators do not have contact with Registrars unless absolutely necessary to obtain registrant data unavailable from the Registry for whatever reason. In those rare instances we have found that about 50% of the time, we get some push back on the request because it does not relate to a UDRP. When we are forced to contact a Registrar for information it typically adds days to the process. Comments regarding #9 (and #34) FORUM researches what the predominant language is in Respondent’s physical location based on the registration information provided by the Registry by visiting various websites that curate information regarding languages by country/territory. In some geographic locations, the percentage split between predominate languages is negligible. Although this is not at all a huge problem, it may be helpful for Providers to have some guidance perhaps in the form of a list of ICANN sanctioned websites to review for the most accurate language data, a table of researched and approved languages for countries with multiple languages, and/or guidance on what an acceptable percentage is to make a language predominant. When the domain subject to a URS Complaint has been registered via a privacy or proxy service, FORUM provides the notice in English and the predominant language of the country or territory where the Proxy Service is located (very often Spanish). Rarely is a privacy shield lifted in a URS proceeding, making it impossible to determine the language likely spoken by the registrant.

1 0

Proposed Agenda for RPM PDP WG Meeting - Thursday, 08 October 17:30 UTC (NOTE LATER START TIME)
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 7, 2020

Oct. 7, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda for the full WG meeting on Thursday, 08 October at 17:30 UTC for 60 minutes – NOTE LATER START TIME AND SHORTER DURATION: Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Revised Converted Individual URS Proposal #28, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DA… 3. Revised URS Recommendation #9 and Converted Individual Proposal #34, -- TBD Re: Response from Renee Fossum/FORUM; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DA… [docs.google.com] [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPc…> 4. Proposed Small Team 1 Recommendation for ALP – Proposed Text: “The working group recommends there should be a transparent and predictable process to timely evaluate, approve and reject ALP applications. Applications, outcomes and process measures should be published.” See also related documentation: * Approved Launch Program Process & Forms: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/launch-applicat… [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-cl…> (details about this additional voluntary program that was developed during the implementation/AGB phase for ROs, hence the ALP is not a policy) * Application Review Guidelines: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/launch-applicat… [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-cl…> (ICANN uses these guidelines to review RO applications for conducting an ALP) 5. AOB Proposed Co-Chair rotation for chairing the meeting: Phil Corwin. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Please share: ICANN69 Policy Outlook Report is now available
by Terri Agnew Oct. 7, 2020

Oct. 7, 2020

Dear all, The ICANN69 Policy Outlook Report (formerly known as the Pre-ICANN69 Policy Report) is now available: http://go.icann.org/outlook69 [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/go.icann.org/outlook69__;!!PtGJab4!svNgH6…>. IMPORTANT NOTE: Participation links will be posted 24-hours prior to the session start times for security purposes. Meeting registration is now required to view the full meeting schedule. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

REMINDER TO REGISTER! / ICANN69: GNSO Sessions - How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Julie Bisland Oct. 7, 2020

Oct. 7, 2020

Dear all, All ICANN69 GNSO sessions have been listed for your reference on the ICANN69 GNSO wiki page. For all access information and Zoom details however, please refer to the ICANN69 schedule on the meeting website. Registration is compulsory to access the meeting schedule. Access information will not be circulated via mailing lists. The ICANN meeting website, which ICANN Meetings’ Team has put together, allows you to download all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. HOW TO DOWNLOAD ICANN69 SESSION INFORMATION TO YOUR CALENDARS: Step 1 - Create a profile and your personalized ICANN69 schedule Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage [69.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/69.schedule.icann.org/__;!!PtGJab4!snuev…> and create a profile and login. Every session on the Full Agenda can be selected and added to your individual schedule by clicking the [cid:image001.png@01D69C7B.7DCE9790] (blue ‘ + ’ box) in the upper right corner of each meeting. This adds it to your individual schedule, My Agenda, which you can then add to your calendar. See next step. Step 2 - To import your schedule into your calendar: once you’ve added all your chosen meetings to your schedule, click on [cid:image002.png@01D69C7B.7DCE9790] (View My Agenda) * Click the down arrow next to Export * Select Export My Agenda (ics) Open the exported meetings .ics and add to your chosen calendar (click on “Other Calendar” if the feature is not working properly) * For Microsoft Outlook, right-click on the exported meetings .ics file and choose Show in Folder Right-click on the file, and select Open with Microsoft Outlook. Save & Close. Note: Your Agenda can only be exported from the desktop app; the ICANN69 phone app does not offer this feature Step 3 - All remote participation sessions will use Zoom rooms. You can find the Zoom room links for public meetings on the ICANN69 Meeting Schedule [69.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/69.schedule.icann.org/agenda*/?limit=20&…>. PLEASE ENSURE YOU HAVE UPDATED YOUR ZOOM APP TO THE LATEST VERSION TO ACCESS ICANN69 SESSIONS. Please download the latest Zoom app [zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/zoom.us/download__;!!PtGJab4!snuevgpCUoC…> on your participation device (mobile or desktop computer). Need to learn or brush-up on using Zoom? Check out the Joining a Zoom Meeting Tutorial [support.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201362…>. Step 4 - Download the mobile app by searching for “ICANN Meetings” in your app stores. There are three options to connect your audio: 1) Via VoIP, choose Computer Audio (from a smartphone choose Call using Internet Audio) 2) Getting a dial out from Zoom to your phone, choose Call Me (from a smartphone choose Call My Phone) 3) Phoning into the audio bridge (access numbers and Meeting ID are provided for that option), choose Telephone Audio (from a smartphone choose Dial in) 3 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN69 Meeting Schedule [69.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/69.schedule.icann.org/agenda*/?limit=20&…> GNSO ICANN69 Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/NwGNC> GNSO Session agendas<https://community.icann.org/x/CwGNC> 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) 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…>

1 0

ACTION ITEM: Review Options for Revised Text for Converted Individual URS Proposal #28
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 6, 2020

Oct. 6, 2020

Dear All, Per the action item from the WG meeting on 01 October (see actions and notes below), please review the following four options for recommendation text to replace the original for Converted Individual URS Proposal #28. For reference see page 5 the Google doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DA…. Please indicate your preference not later than 16:00 UTC on Monday, 05 October, to be discussed at the WG meeting on Tuesday, 06 October at 13:00 UTC. Option 1: The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have an effective and published Conflict of Interest (COI) policy that the Provider enforces against any Examiners who violates such policy. Option 2: The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have an enforceable and published Examiner Conflict of Interest (COI) policy. Option 3: The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have a published Examiner Conflict of Interest (COI) policy. Option 4: The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have a published Conflict of Interest (COI) policy that the Provider may reasonably enforce against any Examiner who violates such policy. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 3:45 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 01 October 2020 Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 01 October 2020 at 17:00 UTC. Staff will post these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, Zoom chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-10-01+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie == Action Items: URS Final Recommendations – Revised URS Recommendation #3 ACTION ITEM: Change “Working Group believes” to “Working Group is unaware of any contradiction” in the context. Overarching Data Collection Recommendation ACTION ITEM: Change text to “over the preceding period of [not less than every 12 months]. URS Rec # (was Individual Proposal #28): ACTION ITEM: Put the four options for revised text out for review by the WG on the email distribution list and discuss during a future meeting. URS Rec # (was Individual Proposal #34): ACTION ITEM: Staff to send a separate email that will have links to both of the recommendations and will ask WG members to weigh in on 1) whether these separate recommendations are in conflict or complementary and 2) if they are in conflict should the Implementation Guidance from the new recommendation be incorporated into rec #9. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. URS Final Recommendations – Revised URS Recommendation #3; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMP… [docs.google.com] [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk9…> ACTION ITEM: Change “Working Group believes” to “Working Group is unaware of any contradiction” in the context. 3. URS Final Recommendations – Revised URS Recommendation #2, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMP… [docs.google.com] [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk9…> -- The WG agrees to the revised language. 4. URS Final Recommendations – Revised URS Recommendation #8, continued from last meeting, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMP… [docs.google.com] [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk9…> New suggested text from staff: “In addition, the Working Group agrees that as set out in the URS Rules and Procedure, a domain name suspension can be extended for one additional year, and the WHOIS for the domain name shall continue to display all of the information of the original Registrant and reflect that the domain name will not be able to be transferred, deleted, or modified for the life of the registration.” -- The WG agrees to the revised language. 5. Overarching Data Collection Recommendation; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yg6XP1USJFK7Ko5eQFD5EGNC4gwWM-vh07MGSqJ… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Yg6XP1USJFK7…> ACTION ITEM: Change text to “over the preceding period of [not less than every 12 months]. 6. Individual Proposals Converted into Recommendations, beginning with URS Recommendations; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DA… [docs.google.com] [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPc…> URS Rec # (was Individual Proposal #1): -- The WG agrees to the recommendation and accompanying sections. URS Rec # (was Individual Proposal #2): -- The WG agrees to the recommendation and accompanying sections. URS Rec # (was Individual Proposals #26 and #27): -- The WG agrees to the recommendation and accompanying sections. URS Rec # (was Individual Proposal #28): Discussion: -- Some support for “effective, enforceable, and published”. -- Some questions about what “enforceable” means and who would enforce. -- WIPO has a declaration of independence and impartiality. Published on the web site. Covers the same ground as conflict of interest. -- Seems obvious that it is enforceable by the provider, but make that clear. Several WG members agree. -- “enforceable by the provider against examiners” and delete “binds”. -- Need to note that you are enforcing against any examiner that violates the policy. -- What is the concern we are looking to address? -- “Each URS Provider shall have an enforceable published examiner Conflict of Interest policy.” -- Others disagree on using the term “enforceable”. -- Take out “enforceable” and just say “published”. Revised Text Options for the WG to consider: Option 1: The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have an effective and published Conflict of Interest (COI) policy that the Provider enforces against any Examiners who violates such policy. Option 2: The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have an enforceable and published Examiner Conflict of Interest (COI) policy. Option 3: The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have a published Examiner Conflict of Interest (COI) policy. Option 4: The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have a published Conflict of Interest (COI) policy that the Provider may reasonably enforce against any Examiner who violates such policy. ACTION ITEM: Put the four options for revised text out for review by the WG on the email distribution list and discuss during a future meeting. URS Rec # (was Individual Proposal #34): -- Note that the recommendation may conflict URS Rec #9. -- Could be that they complement each other – could bring to Rec #9 the bullet points on Implementation Guidance from the new URS rec, and strike the recommendation. -- Useful guide for panelists, but shouldn’t be mandatory. -- No reason to have the conflicting individual proposal recommendation. -- Consider adding the IG to Rec #9. -- Concerns about dropping this new recommendation; these aren’t duplicative. -- Can we make the complementary? ACTION ITEM: Staff to send a separate email that will have links to both of the recommendations and will ask WG members to weigh in on 1) whether these separate recommendations are in conflict or complementary and 2) if they are in conflict should the Implementation Guidance from the new recommendation be incorporated into rec #9.

9 10