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

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