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

Update: Sunrise Rec 2 - Input by Thursday 8 Oct 16:00 UTC
by Ariel Liang Oct. 6, 2020

Oct. 6, 2020

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…. 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

2 1

Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 06 October 2020
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 6, 2020

Oct. 6, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 06 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/2020-10-06+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie == Action Items: Proposed amendment to Sunrise Recommendation #2: ACTION ITEM: Staff will revise the language to remove the example text from the Implementation Guidance, move the rest of the text to Context, and accept the suggested edits from David McCauley; staff will circulate the revised text to the list for review. Revised URS Recommendation #9 and Converted Individual Proposal #34: ACTION ITEM: Staff will revise the language of the combined Recommendation #9 and converted URS Individual Proposal #34 based on the WG discussion during the meeting on 06 October and circulate it to the WG list for review; staff also will consult with Renee Fossum from FORUM. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: -- Paul McGrady: New position; Policy Coordinator for the IPC. This is a volunteer position. 2. Proposed amendment to Sunrise Recommendation #2, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SmXWvS9M4TAtQ3gC3o4j9-jHaw3uIlWR_2D3lV2… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1SmXWvS9M4TAt…>; new/revised text is shown in redline. David McCauley: -- Support inserting “intentionally” into the recommendation. -- In Implementation Guidance: End with “ICANN policy and procedures”. Don’t include the examples. Not good practice to include examples. -- Move all of the rest of the text into the Context section. Discussion: -- Re: “Registry Operator’s legitimate business practices that are compliant with ICANN policies and procedures” insert “otherwise” before “compliant”. ACTION ITEM: Staff will revise the language to remove the example text from the Implementation Guidance, move the rest of the text to Context, and accept the suggested edits from David McCauley; staff will circulate the revised text to the list for review. 3. Revised URS Recommendation #9 and Converted Individual Proposal #34, 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…> -- In the context, the redlined language is from URS Recommendation #9 to combine the context with that for converted Individual Proposal #34. -- New paragraph under the Public Comment Review also include the content from URS Recommendation #9. Discussion: -- Questions about what is the “predominant language”. Individual Proposal #34 tries to be more specific. -- Recommendation #9 was a proposal for the IRT to develop guidance so it can be merged with the recommendation arising from Individual Proposal #34. -- Recommendation #9 would be guidance for examiners. -- The problem was that the language was always in English, so we are trying to gain more flexibility. -- Discussed whether to consider the country in which the new gTLD is based, but that wouldn’t necessarily indicate the language. -- For due process we want the registrant to have information about a claim filed against them and to be able to respond. From there how do we achieve that is the question. -- The registrar is listed in WHOIS…. From that you can locate their registration agreement and thus the language in which their registration agreement is written. There are potentially some registrars who may provide a registration agreement in more than 1 language but usually they identify which version controls so that would be the controlling language. -- The location of the registrar may be relevant, but we are introducing more confusion. -- In the UDRP the registration agreement should be the determining factor for the language. -- Many registrars are located in very unusual jurisdictions for business reasons, e.g. Bahamas, Grand Cayman, etc. not sure that should be relevant; again though, so long as these are all just identifying potential factors for an Examiner consider should they believe it necessary to deviate from the default (language of registration agreement) then I am not strongly opposed to enumerating these potential factors. -- Could the provider ascertain the language? How do they do that? That would be the simplest way to address the question. -- It seems that the WG is agreeing that it will be helpful to provide all involved (from registrants to Examiners) with a clear rule as a starting point, but with sufficient flexibility built-in to allow for an alternate language if the circumstances warrant. -- Make the recommendation high-level and leave for implementation how the provider best ascertain that language. -- Include bullets 4 and 5 from Recommendation #9. -- I would not leave it at "whether it is possible to ascertain" but say that somehow via implementation, the provider *is able* to ascertain. -- Check with Renee (for FORUM) on revised language. -- BTW, don't forget that aside from fake information, given P/P and GDPR we may never know the location of the registrant. -- Add back in the language from Griffin’s original proposal: “This potential guidance could also consider the relevance of other factors, such as the language requested by either party, the predominant language of the country or territory of the registrant, the language used by the registry and/or predominant language of the country of the registry, if different from that of the registration agreement, and the language used by the registrar and/or predominant language of the country of the registrar if different from the language of the registration agreement.” ACTION ITEM: Staff will revise the language of the combined Recommendation #9 and converted URS Individual Proposal #34 based on the WG discussion during the meeting on 06 October and circulate it to the WG list for review; staff also will consult with Renee Fossum from FORUM. 4. 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…> -- Deferred to the WG meeting on 08 October. 5. Converted Individual TMCH Proposals #1 and #6; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DA… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPc…> Converted Individual TMCH Proposal #1: -- Context and Public Comment Review text summarizes the WG discussion on TMCH Proposal #1. Discussion: -- WG didn’t define what “community volunteers” mean (didn’t specifically include “academics”). Include “volunteers from the wider community”? -- The WG accepts the language of the recommendation. Converted Individual TMCH Proposal #6: -- Context is from the WG discussion of Individual TMCH Proposal #6. -- Some WG members were unsure about including the two bullet points: 1) Consider the advisability of requiring that more than one provider be appointed; and 2) Review the work of the Implementation Advisory Group that was formed for the 2012 New gTLD Program to assist ICANN org with developing the specifications for and design of the Trademark Clearinghouse. Discussion: -- The WG accepts the language of the recommendation and agrees to include the two bullet points.

1 0

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Tuesday, 06 October 2020 at 13:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Oct. 6, 2020

Oct. 6, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Tuesday, 06 October 2020 at 13:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/TQjQC> 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, Terri

1 0

ACTION ITEM: Questions re: Converted Individual Proposal #34/URS Rec #9
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 6, 2020

Oct. 6, 2020

Dear All, Per the action item from the WG meeting on 01 October (see the notes and actions below), please see the following questions relating to Converted Individual Proposal #34 and URS Recommendation #9 and provide your input not later than 16:00 UTC on Monday, 05 October. For reference see the following documents: -- For Converted Individual Proposal #34, see page 7 at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DA…. -- For URS Recommendation #9, see page 14 at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMP… Questions for review: 1. Whether these separate recommendations are in conflict or complementary. 2. if these separate recommendations are in conflict should the Implementation Guidance from the new recommendation be incorporated into recommendation #9. 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 recommendation #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.

8 14

ICANN69 GNSO Policy Briefing Available for Download
by Julie Bisland Oct. 6, 2020

Oct. 6, 2020

Dear All, On behalf of the GNSO Team, I am happy to report that the GNSO Policy Briefing for ICANN69 is now available for download at https://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/go.icann.org/gnsobriefing__;!!PtGJab4!qy…>. Happy reading! Best Regards, Julie -- 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

Proposed Amendment to Sunrise Rec 2
by McAuley, David Oct. 2, 2020

Oct. 2, 2020

Thank you, Mary, Julie, and Ariel. I am having some email issues and have been unable to reply to your email - thus doing this reply as a new message but on the same subject. I have the following comments on the current draft text of Sunrise Final Recommendation 2: First, I support the Recommendation with the word 'intentionally' inserted before 'circumventing'. It is important that registries only be subject to enforcement action for intentional circumvention of an RPM. Second, in the Implementation Guidance, I support the initial sentence only to this extent: The Working Group agrees that this recommendation and its implementation are not intended to preclude or restrict a Registry Operator's legitimate business practices that are compliant with ICANN policies and procedures. I do not support the suggested extension of that sentence that reads: , such as the Approved Launch Program (ALP) as well as the reservation of domain names as required in Specification 5 of the base Registry Agreement applicable to the 2012 New gTLD Program round. The problem with selectively listing approved conduct is that listing some but not all examples of "legitimate business practices" creates an implication that those that are unlisted may be illegitimate. We would have to list all possible "legitimate" practices to avoid that problem; not only would that be an impossibly long list, but undoubtedly we could miss some. As the WG has not agreed on any definitive list of "legitimate" registry business practices, it is best to remain silent and leave further development to the IRT. Third, following that brief implementation guidance I support placing all of the remaining language (starting with "To assist" and ending with "'picket fence"") in the Context section and do not support it as Implementation Guidance. This language carries no more weight as Implementation Guidance than the language presently listed below Context and deserves no elevated status. My position therefore is in support of the "Alternative option" proposed in brackets. The fact that this language is merely narrative context is supported by some of the language it contains, specifically, "the Working Group tried to reach agreement over some possible types of specific Registry conduct that could have the effect of intentionally circumventing trademark owners' use of the Sunrise Period...the Working Group noted that several public comments to the Initial Report had raised the following examples as non-exhaustive illustrations of such conduct...However other Working Group members expressed concerns about or objected to listing these examples". This language makes clear that the WG was unable to agree on any definitive Implementation Guidance for the IRT beyond the agreement that the Recommendation should not be enforced against "legitimate business practices". Further supporting this position is this language in the Public Comment review section, "the Working Group did not agree on the specific form of implementation guidance or examples [of registry conduct] for inclusion". That said, in placing the remainder of the language into the Context section, I recommend that we tweak the second bullet item (beginning 'Discriminatory pricing practices ...') to make it more precise. Where it now says: "discriminatory pricing practices" could include extremely high pricing of trademark-corresponding domains during the Sunrise Period In both bullets I suggest changing 'trademark-corresponding' to 'Trademark-Clearinghouse-recorded-corresponding'; this change reflects the fact that all trademarks are not eligible for Sunrise registration, only those that are recorded in the TMCH after being validated as meeting its qualitative eligibility standards.. In the second bullet I suggest the word 'landrush' be capitalized; this is consistent with the capitalization of Sunrise Period and General Availability in the same sentence. Fourth, in the first paragraph following the non-exhaustive list of resources I suggest changing the first sentence from this: The Working Group also discussed the question of the appropriate enforcement mechanism for addressing such conduct by a Registry Operator. To this: The Working Group also discussed the question of whether there should be an additional enforcement mechanism, apart from action taken by ICANN Compliance on its own or at the request of an outside party, for addressing such conduct by a Registry Operator. That change would reflect the fact that new RA provision being recommended is enforceable, as are all provisions of contracts between ICANN and Contracted Parties. I also suggest that the last sentence in that paragraph be changed from this: As such, the Working Group did not reach agreement on the question of an enforcement mechanism. To this: As such, the Working Group did not reach agreement on the question of an additional enforcement mechanism to supplement ICANN Compliance. Finally, in the Public Comment Review paragraph, I recommend that these words in the first sentence: '...the Working Group agreed that it should develop ...' should be changed to: '... the Working Group agreed that it should try to develop ...' This change reflects the fact that the Working Group was unable to agree on additional Implementation Guidance beyond making clear that a Registry's "legitimate business practices" should not be targeted for enforcement. I appreciate your attention to these suggestions, as well as that of WG members. Thank you and best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154

1 0

Proposed Agenda for RPM PDP WG Meeting - Thursday, 06 October 13:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 1, 2020

Oct. 1, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda for the full WG meeting on Thursday, 06 October at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Proposed amendment to Sunrise Recommendation #2, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SmXWvS9M4TAtQ3gC3o4j9-jHaw3uIlWR_2D3lV2… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1SmXWvS9M4TAt…>; new/revised text is shown in redline. 3. Revised URS Recommendation #9 and Converted Individual Proposal #34, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DA… [docs.google.com]<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DA…> 4. 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…> 5. Converted Individual TMCH Proposals #1 and #6; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DA… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPc…> 6. AOB Proposed Co-Chair rotation for chairing the meeting: Kathy Kleiman. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 01 October 2020
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 1, 2020

Oct. 1, 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]<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DA…> 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.

1 0

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Thursday, 01 October 2020 at 17:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon Oct. 1, 2020

Oct. 1, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Thursday, 01 October 2020 at 17:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/SwjQC> 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