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

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

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