September 2020 - GNSO-RPM-WG

Proposed Agenda for RPM PDP WG Meeting - Thursday, 01 October 17:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 30, 2020

Sept. 30, 2020

1 0

Proposed Amendment to Sunrise Rec 2 - Input by Friday 2 Oct
by Ariel Liang Sept. 30, 2020

Sept. 30, 2020

Dear WG members, Please find the proposed amendment to Sunrise Recommendation #2 in this google doc here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SmXWvS9M4TAtQ3gC3o4j9-jHaw3uIlWR_2D3lV2…. This amendment seeks to incorporate the extensive input provided by WG members during yesterday’s meeting; a separate google doc is created to facilitate your viewing. New/revised text is shown in redline. Please note that there is an alternative option to move the text highlighted in yellow into the “Context” section, if the WG determines this as a preferred approach. Please provide your input/suggestion on the mailing list by COB Friday, 2 October. The revised language, incorporating any further input from the WG, is scheduled to be finalized during the WG meeting on Tuesday, 6 October. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

ICANN69: GNSO Sessions - How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Julie Bisland Sept. 29, 2020

Sept. 29, 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<https://69.schedule.icann.org/> 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@01D6965B.0CB66A40] (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@01D6965B.0CB66A40] (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 * 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<https://69.schedule.icann.org/agenda#/?limit=20&sortByFields[0]=startsAt&so…>. PLEASE ENSURE YOU HAVE UPDATED YOUR ZOOM APP TO THE LATEST VERSION TO ACCESS ICANN69 SESSIONS. Please download the latest Zoom app<https://zoom.us/download> 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<https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201362193-Joining-a-Meeting>. 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 <https://69.schedule.icann.org/agenda#/?limit=20&sortByFields[0]=startsAt&so…> 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

Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 29 September 2020
by Ariel Liang Sept. 29, 2020

Sept. 29, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 29 September 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/x/xgG-C Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) == Action Item: * Staff to propose the revised implementation guidance language for Sunrise Rec 2 based on today’s WG discussion, noting that the WG don’t have agreement to include the small group proposal re challenge mechanism but that the WG could (potentially) capture that discussion as part of context. WG Suggested Edits: * The WG accepted adding the word “intentionally” in the recommendation language. * Suggested options for the introduction sentence proceeding the bullet points: * The following is a non-exhaustive list of Registry Operator conduct that was identified in public comments as potentially having the effect of intentionally circumventing…; * The following are examples of Registry Operator conduct that some commentators raised in their public comments as potentially having the effect of intentionally circumventing ... etc.; * Some primary forms of perceived Sunrise misuse expressed by trademark owners of Registry Operators' conduct include... Some communities in the WG and commenters shared...  * Sunrise abuse of the type intended to be prohibited under this Recommendation include:  * Questions were raised with regard to what type of conducts that fall into the category of Sunrise abuse. Some WG members believe…. * Revise the first bullet to “Withholding, reserving, or self-allocating trademark-corresponding domains…” for grammatical reasons.   * Strike the term “or discouraging” as it introduce uncertainty. * Include "the WG did not agree on these examples"; "the WG also received views that pricing practices were not within its jurisdiction"; "other views emphasized the risk of targeting pricing decisions on legitimate business models, including the practice of identifying reserved names"  * The working group further notes that the IMPLEMENTATION of this recommendation is not intended to...  * Include a mention of the third party challenge mechanism proposal in the contextual language, as part of the discussion record, noting it did not receive widespread support in the WG but significant opposition. The question about how one could raise a complaint regarding a perceived violation of this recommendation still remains open. Discussion Notes: * “Perceived” Sunrise abuse is not helpful. If we can’t agree then we should be clear about it. * Maxim noted the concerns regarding the lack of safeguard for GeoTLDs in the implementation guidance language. * If we don't identify legitimate business practices, the preamble is meaningless  * intents are not important at implementation phase, there are no safeguards  * Also isn't it a bit chicken and an egg. If the new implementation of the recommendation' created the ambiguity that is complained of – won’t that become 'ICANN policy' itself therefore the preamble is rendered useless? Part of the concern is around language that is a bit open and can be misused. The language has huge potential of being used for extortion of money from Registries. If we just give free floating "registries can do bad things" language then many different things could happen inconsistent with what we agreed on * That's my concern, especially without a counterbalancing list of "we don't mean …."  * I note that the objections to the .madrid ALP included that it would interfere with TMCH registrants (and people here might agree)  * It’s not a red herring because this proposal is to cover new ground which is plausibly in the area Maxim has raised * We do not have consensus, so it opinion of some members and objected by some other members  * . sucks - what percent of all TLDs is that? it is less then 0.1%  * Mention the examples are shared in the public comments by trademark interests. It is not just groups like IPC and BC that provided the examples. If we want to clarify the language to make clear that we are talking about abuse perpetrated by ROs we can do that. Make it clear the examples are not WG agreed * if claims are still active at the later than sunrise registration - the harm is minimal (TM owner is notified and able to act)  * Reserving a name to a police dept is obviously legitimate. Reservation is a dynamical process, not static. For example, ICANN changed red Cross required list of reserved names almost 2 months ago. * But Sunrise period is concrete period for each TLD so intentional reservation practices circumventing Sunrise is the only issue. * Need to clarify what discriminatory pricing means – it is extremely high premium pricing, followed by extremely low land rush/GA pricing. Premium pricing and pricing alone are not basis for complaints. Need to be careful about the picket fence. * Direct price regulation will lead to issues in anti-monopoly agencies around the globe. * Is pricing really irrelevant when the price is based primarily on the value of a trademark corresponding to a given generic word?  * Go back to public comment to extract similar set of opposing opinions. * I take the point that the ALP needs to work better in order to provide a legitimate means of getting certain domains to certain parties without running afoul of Sunrise requirements. I don't think we can resolve ALP issues in context language--I just think a richer picture would help.With ALP it would have been much easier if we could have said something along the lines “The working group recommends there should be a predictable process to timely evaluate and approve or reject an ALP request”. * common words; dictionary words seems fair wording to add to the new Context language. Per the empirical research of Barton Beebe & Jeanne Fromer: in the US and Europe, 75-90% of the 1000 most used dictionary words are registered trademarks (in English; preliminary results suggest similar but somewhat lower results in other EU languages).The non-registered most-used dictionary terms include: “despite,” “died,” “difficult,” “disease,” “killed,” “lack,” “loss,” “older,” “problem,” "violence” “least,” “perhaps,” “probably,” “trying,” “drug,” “religious,” “wants,” “husband,” “wife,” “married,” “male,” “woman,” “daughter,” “herself,” and “himself”. * Again, were those proposed additions in the public comment? If not, we are just relitigating here. If they were, who said them? So what is in here already is from public comment. What others are suggesting is just re-litigation of their old positions. * Our goal here is to provide general guidance to an IRT which, if the Rec receives consensus, will be tasked with drafting a specific RA provision that more precisely delineates what registry conduct may trigger an enforcement action  * It is these kinds of judgment calls that should militate in favor of a third-party dispute resolution procedure applicable to this provision.Akin to picdrp  * With our recommendation to allow joint filings under pddrp, why isn't it a sufficient 3rd party enforcement mechanism to take action against discriminatory sunrise circumvention that results in second level infringement? why is something more, new, and undefined required?  * There is a concern that if we provide general guidance it continue to fail to translate into productive outcomes from IRT & GDS. * The question about how one could raise a complaint regarding a perceived violation of this recommendation still remains open. There is no widespread agreement and significant opposition to the third party challenge mechanism proposed by the small team. * But context doesn’t need to capture consensus views? At the very least surely we can say that someone the WG supported a new third-party challenge mechanism as a means of enhancing compliance around this proposed new RA provision. * I have no objection in trying to get to agree the implementation guidance, but do not think it is appropriate to compile everyone's various opinions and claim it is implementation guidance.  * I think we should give one more shot for a refined version of implementation guidance based on staff attempt at further revision based on today’s discussion. I think we can reach something generally agreeable with a few key refinements.   * Some members don’t believe the small team proposal on third party challenge mechanisms is in any way related to the recommendation. Just include it as some members suggested and raised it as an idea to supplement Rec 2. * If this proposal is mentioned, all the other proposals eliminated by the WG should also be mentioned. * It’s not “unrelated” to ICANN Compliance…. it would be coordinated with Compliance in a similar way PICDRP and PDDRP are.It’s clearly related because it is a challenge mechanism for the prohibited activity under this recommendation. * I do not think it can appear as just some thought external challenge and some did not - it is a policy rec that deserves a consensus call and we cannot simply send it along with equal treatment to other ideas, there is enough opposition to it that that would not be right.   * I don't believe we need a new 3rd party challenge mechanism for aggrieved trademark owners to communicate to ICANN Compliance a belief that they should enforce the new RA provision  * Unlimited number of third parties challenging domain names in an unpredictable manner will cause consumer confusion and loss of confidence.   * On what basis do you assert that? PICDRP and PDDRP didn’t have that effect  * We can simply put a header on the Deliberations (Opinions section) that none of the below ideas got consensus. That seems fine and universal.  * Agree that the IRT needs some guidance and that examples are useful. So something needs to go into the contextual language - maybe allow suggestions back to the list by Friday, close out on final language on list by next Tuesday. If no consensus on final language, then the context will only link to the public comments?

1 0

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Tuesday, 29 September 2020 at 13:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon Sept. 29, 2020

Sept. 29, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Tuesday, 29 September 2020 at 13:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/xgG-C> 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

Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] DEADLINE COB 25 Sept - ACTION ITEM: Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language:
by Kathy Kleiman Sept. 29, 2020

Sept. 29, 2020

Paul, we did talk and disagreed about processes awhile back. I've gone back and can see the basis for your confusion. There was an IPC group (with all members selected by the IPC) which met to come up with a set of new RPMs for New gTLDs - and went by the acronym of "IRT" with a different meaning. This IPC-group then presented its result to the GNSO and ICANN at the Sydney meeting, and there was great concern over its proposals presented to the Board (including the first joint ALAC-NCSG resolution). The Board asked the GNSO to create an expedited policy group to decide which additional RPMs met the approval of the full GNSO -- and on request of the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council created a STI (Special Trademarks Issues Review Team) which met with a pre-determined balance of representation from all GNSO Stakeholder Groups, as well as At-Large and other ACs. Very expedited timeframes. The Chair of the STI was David Maher of RySG and longtime General Counsel of the Public Interest Registry (implementation review teams, as you know, are run by ICANN Staff.). The STI - we (as we both remember) - reported back in only a few months to the GNSO Council. Our STI Report was reviewed and adopted by the GNSO Council and later the ICANN Board. Our policy recommendations then went to a traditional "IRT," for working through the details of the policy recommendations (including URS and TMCH) that we had made together. I include the framing paragraphs of the STI report below and the link -- and absolutely submit that overlapping acronyms make our lives difficult! Overall, the URS, TMCH and UDRP all pass the criteria for being GNSO-approved policies. And I must return to my concern that at least part of your proposal gives policy-making powers to a future "implementation review team" which is not the way we do things. Best, Kathy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STI Report - "Background and Approach Taken On 12 October 2009, the ICANN Board sent a letter1to the GNSO requesting its review of the policy implications of certain trademark protection mechanisms proposed for the New gTLD Program, as described in the Draft Applicant Guidebook and accompanying memoranda. Specifically, the Board Letter requested that the GNSO provide input on whether it approves the proposed staff model,or, in the alternative, the GNSO could propose an alternative that is equivalent or more effective and implementable. In response, the GNSO adopted a resolution creating the Special Trademarks Issues review team (STI) on 28 October 20092which included representatives from each Stakeholder Group, At-Large, Nominating Committee Appointees, and the GAC(identified on Annex 3), to analyze the specific rights protection mechanisms that have been proposed for inclusion into the Draft Applicant Guidebook." Page 2, https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_8000/sti-wt-recommenda… Links: ------ [1] https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm

2 1

DEADLINE COB 25 Sept - ACTION ITEM: Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language:
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 25, 2020

Sept. 25, 2020

Dear all, Per the WG Co-Chairs, please note the deadline for this action: Please send comments if any to this list not later than COB Friday, 25 September. Note also that the WG discussion of Sunrise Recommendation #2 and the original Implementation Guidance language will be on the agenda for the WG meeting on Tuesday, 29 September, to be followed by a separate discussion of the Sub Team 2 suggested Implementation Guidance language. As a reminder, here is a link to Sunrise Recommendation #2 and the original Implementation Guidance language: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW…. Also as a reminder, here is the proposed Implementation Guidance language for Sunrise Recommendation #2 from Small Team 2: Suggestion Language from Small Team 2: “Implementation Guidance to Sunrise Recommendation 2: The IRT should explore the possibility of a third party challenge mechanism as one of the possible means, among others (for example, direct enforcement by ICANN Compliance) to implement this Recommendation to enforce the implementation of this recommended new RA provision. Any such third party challenge mechanism should include appropriate safeguards for registries.” 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: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 4:09 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER - ACTION ITEM: Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language: Dear All, Please see the action item below and post any comments to this list ASAP. 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, September 17, 2020 at 5:07 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ACTION ITEM: Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language: Dear All, Please see the action item below from the WG meeting on 17 September: Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language: ACTION ITEM: Discuss WG suggested revisions to the Recommendation and Implementation Guidance along with the suggested language from Small Team 2. Please see the suggested revisions to Sunrise Recommendation #2 in the Google document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAq…>. Please also review the following Suggested Language from Small Team: Suggestion Language from Small Team 2: “Implementation Guidance to Sunrise Recommendation 2: The IRT should explore the possibility of a third party challenge mechanism as one of the possible means, among others (for example, direct enforcement by ICANN Compliance) to implement this Recommendation to enforce the implementation of this recommended new RA provision. Any such third party challenge mechanism should include appropriate safeguards for registries.” Please post any comments or questions for discussion to this list ASAP. 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, September 17, 2020 at 2:49 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 17 September 2020 Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 17 September 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/2020-09-17+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language: ACTION ITEM: Discuss WG suggested revisions to the Recommendation and Implementation Guidance along with the suggested language from Small Team 2. Suggested Language from Small Team 1 on ALP relating to Sunrise Questions #3 and #4: ACTION ITEM: Staff will check with GDS to see if this recommendation is feasible. URS Final Recommendation (was #1): ACTION ITEM: Minor change in the contextual language – change from “the Working Group affirms” to “the Working Group further notes”. New URS Final Recommendation: ACTION ITEM: Remove the quoted text from Purpose 6-PA5 and move it to a footnote for reference. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language; see: Suggested Language from Small Team 2<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2020-September/004503.html> andhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQ… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAq…> -- Concerns raised by Maxim Alzoba about the two examples that they are too broad. -- Further to my point, as was noted earlier, this is a high-level policy recommendation; the IRT will be tasked with implementing this recommendation and our guidance should be sufficient to allow the IRT to craft an appropriately tailored RA amendment and (hopefully a challenge mechanism with appropriate safeguards built in so as to not inhibit legitimate registry activities -- I agree (I think) with Jason insofar as implementing this recommendation may necessitate a third party challenge mechanism akin to the PDDRP or pICDRP so aggrieved TM owners can challenge a registry activity and there can be a ruling as to whether the activity is legitimate or not. -- Concerns about misinterpretation if we are not clear. -- Perhaps we can just add a third bullet that says, “registry activities that have a bona fide legitimate basis or rationale are explicitly not intended to be inhibited by this provision”. -- As a staff suggestion for your consideration — perhaps we can include something to this effect: “The Working Group notes that this recommendation is not intended to preclude or restrict Registry operator’s legitimate business practice and pricing practice that are compliant with ICANN policies and procedures.”? -- Add to bullet point 1 (slightly revised)-- adding: "without countervailing rationale and/or reasonable activity by registries, including handling of dictionary terms.” -- Suggest addition to the Recommendation: “The Working Group recommends that the Registry Agreement for future new gTLDs include a provision stating that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of [intentionally] circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise rights protection mechanism.” Text in brackets. -- Don’t think adding “intentionally” in the rec helps us because it doesn’t really address Maxim’s concern, because reserving a name intentionally as part of an ALP or something is still intentional. ACTION ITEM: Discuss suggested language from Small Team 1 on the list. Suggestion Language from Small Team 2: “Implementation Guidance to Sunrise Recommendation 2: The IRT should explore the possibility of a third party challenge mechanism as one of the possible means, among others (for example, direct enforcement by ICANN Compliance) to implement this Recommendation to enforce the implementation of this recommended new RA provision. Any such third party challenge mechanism should include appropriate safeguards for registries.” -- Why would the proposed additional implementation guidance language be a beneficial addition to the existing implementation guidance? Answer: Takes some of the burden off of Compliance. -- Does the phrase “explore the possibility of a third party challenge mechanism” encompass and authorize the IRT’s adoption and implementation of such a mechanism if it is found to be possible? Answer: To amend the language to “explore and if possible implement”. -- Would the challenge mechanism be operative against ICANN, a registry alleged to have circumvented a RPM, or both? Answer: It would be against the registry that is alleged to have circumvented it. There already is a way to challenge staff and Board actions. -- This would not be a mechanism as a way for ICANN Org Compliance to enforce – this would be a separate mechanism? Answer: Correct. Discussion: -- Opposed to this language. Sunrise Rec #2 itself is still vague. -- Registries agree by contract to comply, but IRTs cannot develop consensus policies or revise contract terms – so this is out of scope. -- This is putting one vagueness on top of another. -- What authority does an IRT have to do these types of things. -- Didn't an IRT create the URS, PDDRP, PICDRP, to name a few? -- Sunrise Rec #2 seems to beg for a third-party challenge mechanism. -- 1. Clause could include a clause to include a challenge mechanism. 2. IRTs do this sort of thing all the time (e.g. the AGB and all of the challenge mechanisms with it). -- Idea is that there would be an independent panel that an aggrieved party could go to – so not relying on ICANN Compliance and could be an independent review. -- Why isn't a complaint to ICANN compliance sufficient here? I agree with David that it's especially problematic to move from "vague standard applied by single decisionmaker" to "vague standard applied by various possible decisionmakers" -- Would this be a time-sensitive mechanism? -- Because in response to the complaints over the years on sunrise circumvention, ICANN has consistently said they could do nothing about it. -- Circumvention itself is not defined, so cannot be enforced. -- ICANN compliance would need to have a role, in a similar way it does in a PICDRP for instance; an independent panel would actually perform the substantive review and ICANN compliance would implement a panel finding, for example. -- If Rec 2 is "start doing something about it" then why isn't ICANN compliance the appropriate place? -- URS and PDDRP are not Consensus Policy either. They were created during implementation of the 2007 GNSO PDP on New gTLDs. -- Divergence in the WG on this suggested text. ACTION ITEM: Discuss the suggested language on the list. 3. Suggested Language from Small Team 1 on ALP relating to Sunrise Questions #3 and #4; see: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2020-September/004505.html “The Working Group recommends guidance to the Implementation Review Team that the Approved Launch Program (ALP) Application Review Guidelines be reviewed and clarified in order to address feedback obtained by the working group regarding the length of time and complexity of process involved in seeking to obtain approval for an ALP, and in particular recommends that the IRT consider the following: 1. Where ICANN can not make a determination regarding an ALP application it will notify the Registry Operator to that effect within 45 days stating explicit reasons for needing more time and further, provide a decision date projection plan within a time period not to exceed another 30 days. There should be a reasonable expectation that all negotiations should be completed within a 7 month period. 2. Where ICANN determines to decline an ALP application or make a request for further information ICANN will include a full explanation of the aspects of the ALP application ICANN deems to be acceptable and the aspects ICANN deems to be unacceptable.” Discussion: -- The reference to an ALP being adopted is in the TMCH procedures if approved it is outside of or in contravention of Sunrise. This is directly related to the operation of the Sunrise. -- TMCH RPMs Requirements document that is incorporated by reference into the AGB and the RA (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/rpm-requirements…) 4.5 deals with Launch Programs, specifically 4.5.2: Registry Operator MAY, prior to the start date of its Sunrise Period, apply to ICANN for approval to conduct a registration program not otherwise permitted by these TMCH Requirements. Such a registration program application could, for example, provide for authorization to implement programs set forth in Registry Operator’s application for the TLD, which, if set forth in reasonable detail in the application for the TLD, will carry a presumption of being approved, unless ICANN reasonably determines that such requested registration program could contribute to consumer confusion or the infringement of intellectual property rights. If Registry Operator seeks ICANN’s approval of a program under this Section 4.5.2, and such requested registration program is substantially similar to a...” ACTION ITEM: Staff will check with GDS to see if this recommendation is feasible. 4. URS Final Recommendations; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMP… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk9…> a. URS Final Recommendation (was #1): -- Recommendation language stays as is. -- Contextual language – inserted text to reflect the WG’s agreement to include the EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation #27 Wave 1 Report. ACTION ITEM: Minor change in the contextual language – change from “the Working Group affirms” to “the Working Group further notes”. b. New URS Final Recommendation: -- This is based on URS Question 1. -- It is a new recommendation based on responses received in the public comment. -- The context comes from the WG discussion of URS Question 1. -- The public comment review is based on the discussion of URS Question 1 and suggestion for a recommendation. Discussion: -- Questions about the contextual language. Concern that the reference to Purpose 6-PA5 is somehow binding. -- Staff noted that it is not binding and there was no change to the new recommendation resulting from the WG’s review of the ICANN org’s EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation #27 Wave 1 Report. ACTION ITEM: Remove the quoted text from Purpose 6-PA5 and move it to a footnote for reference.

5 4

Proposed Agenda for RPM PDP WG Meeting - Tuesday, 29 September 13:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 25, 2020

Sept. 25, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the updated proposed agenda for the full WG meeting on Tuesday, 29 September at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. WG discussion of Sunrise Recommendation #2 and the original Implementation Guidance language, to be followed by a separate discussion of the Sub Team 2 suggested Implementation Guidance language; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAq…>. 3. 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…> 4. 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…> 5. 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…> 6. 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…> 7. Individual Proposals Converted into Recommendations (time permitting), beginning with URS Recommendations; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DA… 8. AOB Proposed Co-Chair rotation for chairing the meeting: Brian Beckham. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

REMINDER - ACTION ITEM: Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language:
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 25, 2020

Sept. 25, 2020

Dear All, Please see the action item below and post any comments to this list ASAP. 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, September 17, 2020 at 5:07 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ACTION ITEM: Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language: Dear All, Please see the action item below from the WG meeting on 17 September: Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language: ACTION ITEM: Discuss WG suggested revisions to the Recommendation and Implementation Guidance along with the suggested language from Small Team 2. Please see the suggested revisions to Sunrise Recommendation #2 in the Google document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAq…>. Please also review the following Suggested Language from Small Team: Suggestion Language from Small Team 2: “Implementation Guidance to Sunrise Recommendation 2: The IRT should explore the possibility of a third party challenge mechanism as one of the possible means, among others (for example, direct enforcement by ICANN Compliance) to implement this Recommendation to enforce the implementation of this recommended new RA provision. Any such third party challenge mechanism should include appropriate safeguards for registries.” Please post any comments or questions for discussion to this list ASAP. 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, September 17, 2020 at 2:49 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 17 September 2020 Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 17 September 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/2020-09-17+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language: ACTION ITEM: Discuss WG suggested revisions to the Recommendation and Implementation Guidance along with the suggested language from Small Team 2. Suggested Language from Small Team 1 on ALP relating to Sunrise Questions #3 and #4: ACTION ITEM: Staff will check with GDS to see if this recommendation is feasible. URS Final Recommendation (was #1): ACTION ITEM: Minor change in the contextual language – change from “the Working Group affirms” to “the Working Group further notes”. New URS Final Recommendation: ACTION ITEM: Remove the quoted text from Purpose 6-PA5 and move it to a footnote for reference. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language; see: Suggested Language from Small Team 2<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2020-September/004503.html> andhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQ… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAq…> -- Concerns raised by Maxim Alzoba about the two examples that they are too broad. -- Further to my point, as was noted earlier, this is a high-level policy recommendation; the IRT will be tasked with implementing this recommendation and our guidance should be sufficient to allow the IRT to craft an appropriately tailored RA amendment and (hopefully a challenge mechanism with appropriate safeguards built in so as to not inhibit legitimate registry activities -- I agree (I think) with Jason insofar as implementing this recommendation may necessitate a third party challenge mechanism akin to the PDDRP or pICDRP so aggrieved TM owners can challenge a registry activity and there can be a ruling as to whether the activity is legitimate or not. -- Concerns about misinterpretation if we are not clear. -- Perhaps we can just add a third bullet that says, “registry activities that have a bona fide legitimate basis or rationale are explicitly not intended to be inhibited by this provision”. -- As a staff suggestion for your consideration — perhaps we can include something to this effect: “The Working Group notes that this recommendation is not intended to preclude or restrict Registry operator’s legitimate business practice and pricing practice that are compliant with ICANN policies and procedures.”? -- Add to bullet point 1 (slightly revised)-- adding: "without countervailing rationale and/or reasonable activity by registries, including handling of dictionary terms.” -- Suggest addition to the Recommendation: “The Working Group recommends that the Registry Agreement for future new gTLDs include a provision stating that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of [intentionally] circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise rights protection mechanism.” Text in brackets. -- Don’t think adding “intentionally” in the rec helps us because it doesn’t really address Maxim’s concern, because reserving a name intentionally as part of an ALP or something is still intentional. ACTION ITEM: Discuss suggested language from Small Team 1 on the list. Suggestion Language from Small Team 2: “Implementation Guidance to Sunrise Recommendation 2: The IRT should explore the possibility of a third party challenge mechanism as one of the possible means, among others (for example, direct enforcement by ICANN Compliance) to implement this Recommendation to enforce the implementation of this recommended new RA provision. Any such third party challenge mechanism should include appropriate safeguards for registries.” -- Why would the proposed additional implementation guidance language be a beneficial addition to the existing implementation guidance? Answer: Takes some of the burden off of Compliance. -- Does the phrase “explore the possibility of a third party challenge mechanism” encompass and authorize the IRT’s adoption and implementation of such a mechanism if it is found to be possible? Answer: To amend the language to “explore and if possible implement”. -- Would the challenge mechanism be operative against ICANN, a registry alleged to have circumvented a RPM, or both? Answer: It would be against the registry that is alleged to have circumvented it. There already is a way to challenge staff and Board actions. -- This would not be a mechanism as a way for ICANN Org Compliance to enforce – this would be a separate mechanism? Answer: Correct. Discussion: -- Opposed to this language. Sunrise Rec #2 itself is still vague. -- Registries agree by contract to comply, but IRTs cannot develop consensus policies or revise contract terms – so this is out of scope. -- This is putting one vagueness on top of another. -- What authority does an IRT have to do these types of things. -- Didn't an IRT create the URS, PDDRP, PICDRP, to name a few? -- Sunrise Rec #2 seems to beg for a third-party challenge mechanism. -- 1. Clause could include a clause to include a challenge mechanism. 2. IRTs do this sort of thing all the time (e.g. the AGB and all of the challenge mechanisms with it). -- Idea is that there would be an independent panel that an aggrieved party could go to – so not relying on ICANN Compliance and could be an independent review. -- Why isn't a complaint to ICANN compliance sufficient here? I agree with David that it's especially problematic to move from "vague standard applied by single decisionmaker" to "vague standard applied by various possible decisionmakers" -- Would this be a time-sensitive mechanism? -- Because in response to the complaints over the years on sunrise circumvention, ICANN has consistently said they could do nothing about it. -- Circumvention itself is not defined, so cannot be enforced. -- ICANN compliance would need to have a role, in a similar way it does in a PICDRP for instance; an independent panel would actually perform the substantive review and ICANN compliance would implement a panel finding, for example. -- If Rec 2 is "start doing something about it" then why isn't ICANN compliance the appropriate place? -- URS and PDDRP are not Consensus Policy either. They were created during implementation of the 2007 GNSO PDP on New gTLDs. -- Divergence in the WG on this suggested text. ACTION ITEM: Discuss the suggested language on the list. 3. Suggested Language from Small Team 1 on ALP relating to Sunrise Questions #3 and #4; see: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2020-September/004505.html “The Working Group recommends guidance to the Implementation Review Team that the Approved Launch Program (ALP) Application Review Guidelines be reviewed and clarified in order to address feedback obtained by the working group regarding the length of time and complexity of process involved in seeking to obtain approval for an ALP, and in particular recommends that the IRT consider the following: 1. Where ICANN can not make a determination regarding an ALP application it will notify the Registry Operator to that effect within 45 days stating explicit reasons for needing more time and further, provide a decision date projection plan within a time period not to exceed another 30 days. There should be a reasonable expectation that all negotiations should be completed within a 7 month period. 2. Where ICANN determines to decline an ALP application or make a request for further information ICANN will include a full explanation of the aspects of the ALP application ICANN deems to be acceptable and the aspects ICANN deems to be unacceptable.” Discussion: -- The reference to an ALP being adopted is in the TMCH procedures if approved it is outside of or in contravention of Sunrise. This is directly related to the operation of the Sunrise. -- TMCH RPMs Requirements document that is incorporated by reference into the AGB and the RA (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/rpm-requirements…) 4.5 deals with Launch Programs, specifically 4.5.2: Registry Operator MAY, prior to the start date of its Sunrise Period, apply to ICANN for approval to conduct a registration program not otherwise permitted by these TMCH Requirements. Such a registration program application could, for example, provide for authorization to implement programs set forth in Registry Operator’s application for the TLD, which, if set forth in reasonable detail in the application for the TLD, will carry a presumption of being approved, unless ICANN reasonably determines that such requested registration program could contribute to consumer confusion or the infringement of intellectual property rights. If Registry Operator seeks ICANN’s approval of a program under this Section 4.5.2, and such requested registration program is substantially similar to a...” ACTION ITEM: Staff will check with GDS to see if this recommendation is feasible. 4. URS Final Recommendations; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMP… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk9…> a. URS Final Recommendation (was #1): -- Recommendation language stays as is. -- Contextual language – inserted text to reflect the WG’s agreement to include the EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation #27 Wave 1 Report. ACTION ITEM: Minor change in the contextual language – change from “the Working Group affirms” to “the Working Group further notes”. b. New URS Final Recommendation: -- This is based on URS Question 1. -- It is a new recommendation based on responses received in the public comment. -- The context comes from the WG discussion of URS Question 1. -- The public comment review is based on the discussion of URS Question 1 and suggestion for a recommendation. Discussion: -- Questions about the contextual language. Concern that the reference to Purpose 6-PA5 is somehow binding. -- Staff noted that it is not binding and there was no change to the new recommendation resulting from the WG’s review of the ICANN org’s EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation #27 Wave 1 Report. ACTION ITEM: Remove the quoted text from Purpose 6-PA5 and move it to a footnote for reference.

2 1

Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 24 September 2020
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 25, 2020

Sept. 25, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 24 September 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/2020-09-24+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: ALP Recommendation ACTION ITEM: Small Team to revise the proposal by COB Monday, 28 September for WG discussion on Thursday, 01 October. URS Final Recommendations – URS Recommendation #3 ACTION ITEM: Remove the two bullet points and put in a generic contextual language that the WG has reviewed the Wave 1 report and that the recommendation is not contradicting the Wave 1 recommendations; report at the next WG meeting. URS Recommendation #2: ACTION ITEM: Move the paragraph from URS Recommendation #3. Remove the bullet point and put in the generic language identified for #3. Report at the next WG meeting. New URS Recommendation: ACTION ITEM: Remove this as a recommendation and put the text and context into the background of the Final Report. URS Recommendation #7: ACTION ITEM: Delete the word “uniform” from “uniform set of basic guidance” and change the word “and” to “are” in “and each of the three URS elements listed in the original language of the Determination are addressed in the Determination.” URS Recommendation #8: ACTION ITEM: Staff to review the language of the URS and suggest revised text; review during the next meeting. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Update on ALP Recommendation – Inquiry with GDS staff Background: -- Most ALPs were rejected because they were circumventing the RPMs. -- Some were taken into account for the QLP. Re: the Proposal: -- 45 days plus 7 days limitation on top of the 7 months is unclear. -- Doesn’t take into consideration time for a public comment period related to ALP applications and doesn’t allow time for back and forth between ALP applicant and ICANN org. Answering questions and receiving responses from registry operators. -- Current proposal didn’t include a reset option; without this ICANN would have to reject if they can’t get clarification within the set time frame. -- Any time period should consider these factors. -- Where ICANN determines to decline and makes a request for further information: ICANN org would need to analyze the plan and would require extensive effort and not sure what issues this is trying to solve. Summary: 1) not easily implementable due to lack of clarity of the timeline; not enough time for back and forth; 2) doesn’t seem to resolve the issues with the ALP. Discussion: ACTION ITEM: Small Team to revise the proposal by COB Monday, 28 September for WG discussion on Thursday, 01 October. 3. URS Final Recommendations – Revised URS Recommendation #4; 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…> -- Staff has revised the contextual language based on the WG’s discussion at the meeting on Tuesday, 22 September. -- Added “current” before “compliance”. -- Put in new text “The Working Group agreed that ICANN org has the obligation to enforce compliance of URS Providers” in response to Jeff Neuman’s comments. -- Add the text in brackets, “Furthermore, the Working Group noted that its recommendation does not specifically require ICANN Compliance to enforce compliance against URS Providers; [ome other relevant ICANN org department(s) may be responsible for enforcing compliance against Providers (e.g., Procurement, Legal).]” -- Add a sentence at the end in response to comments from Maxim Alzoba: “However, the Working Group noted that the IRT is not asked to review all previous URS compliance cases as part of the implementation for this recommendation.” -- WG accepts the revised contextual language. 4. URS Final Recommendations, 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…> a. URS Recommendation #3, page 10: Discussion: -- Conflicts with recommendation. We want them to get the information and pass it along. -- Suggest moving the context language that is highlighted to Recommendation #2. ACTION ITEM: Remove the two bullet points and put in a generic contextual language that the WG has reviewed the Wave 1 report and that the recommendation is not contradicting the Wave 1 recommendations; report at the next WG meeting. b. URS Recommendation #2: Discussion: -- Recommendation is to continue the current process. Suggestion to delete and summarize text as in the action item is consistent with the recommendation. ACTION ITEM: Move the paragraph from URS Recommendation #3. Remove the bullet point and put in the generic language identified for #3. Report at the next WG meeting. c. New URS Recommendation: Discussion: -- Question: Do we need to specify what terminology needs to be updated? -- Question: Do we need to make a recommendation on this? -- Not sure this needs to be a recommendation. -- Staff suggestion: This could be put into the background section of the report. ACTION ITEM: Remove this as a recommendation and put the text and context into the background of the Final Report. d. URS Recommendation #5: -- Recommendation language slightly changed based on public comments. -- Context is the same. -- Public Comment Review explains the change to the recommendation. -- WG accepts the revised recommendation without changes. e. URS Recommendation #7: -- WG agreed to add the following language to the recommendation: “specifically and at a minimum, that the relevant facts are spelt out and each of the three URS elements listed in the original language of the Determination and addressed in the Determination.” -- Is the intent of the recommendation is asking providers to work together to develop guidance or whether such guidance can be provided individually. Who should enforce the compliance? There is a recommendation separately on that. Discussion: -- WG didn’t clarify what it meant by “uniform”. Different providers can do it as they wish. They can get together if they wish, but they need to provide a baseline. -- Take out “uniform”? -- Change to “are addressed.” -- Make it clear that the IRT wouldn’t go against the notion of allowing providers’ discretion. IRT should make sure the providers are providing basic guidance. ACTION ITEM: Delete the word “uniform” from “uniform set of basic guidance” and change the word “and” to “are” in “and each of the three URS elements listed in the original language of the Determination are addressed in the Determination.” f. URS Recommendation #9: -- New text in green reflects the agreed-upon language from the WG deliberations on the public comments. -- This is Implementation Guidance for the IRT. -- The WG agrees with the new text. g. URS Recommendation #8: -- The contextual language changed in that text around a related URS question was removed as there was nothing conclusive on the question based on public comment. Moved the paragraph to the section on public comment review. Discussion: Re: “In addition, the Working Group agrees that a domain name suspension can be extended for one year as set out in the URS Rules and Procedure, but ownership of the domain name must not be transferred during this period to the winning Complainant or another Registrar.” -- On the new language, shouldn’t it be that ownership of the domain name must not be transferred during this period to the winning complainant or another registrar? Otherwise we are saying that it should never be transferred. -- After “the Working Group agrees that a domain name suspension can be extended for one year” add “as set out in the URS Rules and Procedure”. -- Is it actually the case that once the domain is on suspension that it couldn't be transferred if the claimant and the and the registration came to an agreement? If it isn’t correct that they can, then we seem to be changing things. -- If this language is referring to transfer during the extension suspension period that would be after there's been a decision and if the parties negotiate a settlement, which includes a domain transfer before any decision is rendered, that would end the URS action and wouldn't conflict with the rules. -- We’ve raised the issue of involuntary transfer by court order and that isn’t something we’ve discussed. We should come back to this item on the next call. -- Worried that we are starting to veer into substantive discussion on new issues. -- We should be clarifying language not raising new issues. ACTION ITEM: Staff to review the language of the URS and suggest revised text; review during the next meeting.

1 0

REMINDER: DEADLINE COB 25 Sept - ACTION ITEM: Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language:
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 25, 2020

Sept. 25, 2020

Dear all, As a reminder, please see the action below and send comments if any to this list not later than COB Friday, 25 September. 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: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 at 11:57 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] DEADLINE COB 25 Sept - ACTION ITEM: Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language: Dear all, Per the WG Co-Chairs, please note the deadline for this action: Please send comments if any to this list not later than COB Friday, 25 September. Note also that the WG discussion of Sunrise Recommendation #2 and the original Implementation Guidance language will be on the agenda for the WG meeting on Tuesday, 29 September, to be followed by a separate discussion of the Sub Team 2 suggested Implementation Guidance language. As a reminder, here is a link to Sunrise Recommendation #2 and the original Implementation Guidance language: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAq…>. Also as a reminder, here is the proposed Implementation Guidance language for Sunrise Recommendation #2 from Small Team 2: Suggestion Language from Small Team 2: “Implementation Guidance to Sunrise Recommendation 2: The IRT should explore the possibility of a third party challenge mechanism as one of the possible means, among others (for example, direct enforcement by ICANN Compliance) to implement this Recommendation to enforce the implementation of this recommended new RA provision. Any such third party challenge mechanism should include appropriate safeguards for registries.” 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: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 4:09 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER - ACTION ITEM: Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language: Dear All, Please see the action item below and post any comments to this list ASAP. 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, September 17, 2020 at 5:07 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ACTION ITEM: Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language: Dear All, Please see the action item below from the WG meeting on 17 September: Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language: ACTION ITEM: Discuss WG suggested revisions to the Recommendation and Implementation Guidance along with the suggested language from Small Team 2. Please see the suggested revisions to Sunrise Recommendation #2 in the Google document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAq…>. Please also review the following Suggested Language from Small Team: Suggestion Language from Small Team 2: “Implementation Guidance to Sunrise Recommendation 2: The IRT should explore the possibility of a third party challenge mechanism as one of the possible means, among others (for example, direct enforcement by ICANN Compliance) to implement this Recommendation to enforce the implementation of this recommended new RA provision. Any such third party challenge mechanism should include appropriate safeguards for registries.” Please post any comments or questions for discussion to this list ASAP. 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, September 17, 2020 at 2:49 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 17 September 2020 Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 17 September 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/2020-09-17+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language: ACTION ITEM: Discuss WG suggested revisions to the Recommendation and Implementation Guidance along with the suggested language from Small Team 2. Suggested Language from Small Team 1 on ALP relating to Sunrise Questions #3 and #4: ACTION ITEM: Staff will check with GDS to see if this recommendation is feasible. URS Final Recommendation (was #1): ACTION ITEM: Minor change in the contextual language – change from “the Working Group affirms” to “the Working Group further notes”. New URS Final Recommendation: ACTION ITEM: Remove the quoted text from Purpose 6-PA5 and move it to a footnote for reference. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language; see: Suggested Language from Small Team 2<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2020-September/004503.html> andhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQ… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAq…> -- Concerns raised by Maxim Alzoba about the two examples that they are too broad. -- Further to my point, as was noted earlier, this is a high-level policy recommendation; the IRT will be tasked with implementing this recommendation and our guidance should be sufficient to allow the IRT to craft an appropriately tailored RA amendment and (hopefully a challenge mechanism with appropriate safeguards built in so as to not inhibit legitimate registry activities -- I agree (I think) with Jason insofar as implementing this recommendation may necessitate a third party challenge mechanism akin to the PDDRP or pICDRP so aggrieved TM owners can challenge a registry activity and there can be a ruling as to whether the activity is legitimate or not. -- Concerns about misinterpretation if we are not clear. -- Perhaps we can just add a third bullet that says, “registry activities that have a bona fide legitimate basis or rationale are explicitly not intended to be inhibited by this provision”. -- As a staff suggestion for your consideration — perhaps we can include something to this effect: “The Working Group notes that this recommendation is not intended to preclude or restrict Registry operator’s legitimate business practice and pricing practice that are compliant with ICANN policies and procedures.”? -- Add to bullet point 1 (slightly revised)-- adding: "without countervailing rationale and/or reasonable activity by registries, including handling of dictionary terms.” -- Suggest addition to the Recommendation: “The Working Group recommends that the Registry Agreement for future new gTLDs include a provision stating that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of [intentionally] circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise rights protection mechanism.” Text in brackets. -- Don’t think adding “intentionally” in the rec helps us because it doesn’t really address Maxim’s concern, because reserving a name intentionally as part of an ALP or something is still intentional. ACTION ITEM: Discuss suggested language from Small Team 1 on the list. Suggestion Language from Small Team 2: “Implementation Guidance to Sunrise Recommendation 2: The IRT should explore the possibility of a third party challenge mechanism as one of the possible means, among others (for example, direct enforcement by ICANN Compliance) to implement this Recommendation to enforce the implementation of this recommended new RA provision. Any such third party challenge mechanism should include appropriate safeguards for registries.” -- Why would the proposed additional implementation guidance language be a beneficial addition to the existing implementation guidance? Answer: Takes some of the burden off of Compliance. -- Does the phrase “explore the possibility of a third party challenge mechanism” encompass and authorize the IRT’s adoption and implementation of such a mechanism if it is found to be possible? Answer: To amend the language to “explore and if possible implement”. -- Would the challenge mechanism be operative against ICANN, a registry alleged to have circumvented a RPM, or both? Answer: It would be against the registry that is alleged to have circumvented it. There already is a way to challenge staff and Board actions. -- This would not be a mechanism as a way for ICANN Org Compliance to enforce – this would be a separate mechanism? Answer: Correct. Discussion: -- Opposed to this language. Sunrise Rec #2 itself is still vague. -- Registries agree by contract to comply, but IRTs cannot develop consensus policies or revise contract terms – so this is out of scope. -- This is putting one vagueness on top of another. -- What authority does an IRT have to do these types of things. -- Didn't an IRT create the URS, PDDRP, PICDRP, to name a few? -- Sunrise Rec #2 seems to beg for a third-party challenge mechanism. -- 1. Clause could include a clause to include a challenge mechanism. 2. IRTs do this sort of thing all the time (e.g. the AGB and all of the challenge mechanisms with it). -- Idea is that there would be an independent panel that an aggrieved party could go to – so not relying on ICANN Compliance and could be an independent review. -- Why isn't a complaint to ICANN compliance sufficient here? I agree with David that it's especially problematic to move from "vague standard applied by single decisionmaker" to "vague standard applied by various possible decisionmakers" -- Would this be a time-sensitive mechanism? -- Because in response to the complaints over the years on sunrise circumvention, ICANN has consistently said they could do nothing about it. -- Circumvention itself is not defined, so cannot be enforced. -- ICANN compliance would need to have a role, in a similar way it does in a PICDRP for instance; an independent panel would actually perform the substantive review and ICANN compliance would implement a panel finding, for example. -- If Rec 2 is "start doing something about it" then why isn't ICANN compliance the appropriate place? -- URS and PDDRP are not Consensus Policy either. They were created during implementation of the 2007 GNSO PDP on New gTLDs. -- Divergence in the WG on this suggested text. ACTION ITEM: Discuss the suggested language on the list. 3. Suggested Language from Small Team 1 on ALP relating to Sunrise Questions #3 and #4; see: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2020-September/004505.html “The Working Group recommends guidance to the Implementation Review Team that the Approved Launch Program (ALP) Application Review Guidelines be reviewed and clarified in order to address feedback obtained by the working group regarding the length of time and complexity of process involved in seeking to obtain approval for an ALP, and in particular recommends that the IRT consider the following: 1. Where ICANN can not make a determination regarding an ALP application it will notify the Registry Operator to that effect within 45 days stating explicit reasons for needing more time and further, provide a decision date projection plan within a time period not to exceed another 30 days. There should be a reasonable expectation that all negotiations should be completed within a 7 month period. 2. Where ICANN determines to decline an ALP application or make a request for further information ICANN will include a full explanation of the aspects of the ALP application ICANN deems to be acceptable and the aspects ICANN deems to be unacceptable.” Discussion: -- The reference to an ALP being adopted is in the TMCH procedures if approved it is outside of or in contravention of Sunrise. This is directly related to the operation of the Sunrise. -- TMCH RPMs Requirements document that is incorporated by reference into the AGB and the RA (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/rpm-requirements…) 4.5 deals with Launch Programs, specifically 4.5.2: Registry Operator MAY, prior to the start date of its Sunrise Period, apply to ICANN for approval to conduct a registration program not otherwise permitted by these TMCH Requirements. Such a registration program application could, for example, provide for authorization to implement programs set forth in Registry Operator’s application for the TLD, which, if set forth in reasonable detail in the application for the TLD, will carry a presumption of being approved, unless ICANN reasonably determines that such requested registration program could contribute to consumer confusion or the infringement of intellectual property rights. If Registry Operator seeks ICANN’s approval of a program under this Section 4.5.2, and such requested registration program is substantially similar to a...” ACTION ITEM: Staff will check with GDS to see if this recommendation is feasible. 4. URS Final Recommendations; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMP… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk9…> a. URS Final Recommendation (was #1): -- Recommendation language stays as is. -- Contextual language – inserted text to reflect the WG’s agreement to include the EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation #27 Wave 1 Report. ACTION ITEM: Minor change in the contextual language – change from “the Working Group affirms” to “the Working Group further notes”. b. New URS Final Recommendation: -- This is based on URS Question 1. -- It is a new recommendation based on responses received in the public comment. -- The context comes from the WG discussion of URS Question 1. -- The public comment review is based on the discussion of URS Question 1 and suggestion for a recommendation. Discussion: -- Questions about the contextual language. Concern that the reference to Purpose 6-PA5 is somehow binding. -- Staff noted that it is not binding and there was no change to the new recommendation resulting from the WG’s review of the ICANN org’s EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation #27 Wave 1 Report. ACTION ITEM: Remove the quoted text from Purpose 6-PA5 and move it to a footnote for reference.

1 0

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Thursday, 24 September 2020 at 17:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon Sept. 24, 2020

Sept. 24, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Thursday, 24 September 2020 at 17:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/0QG-C> 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

CLOSED Re: Final draft language about GIs in TMCH - 14 September 2020
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 23, 2020

Sept. 23, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Staff notes that as of the deadline of Monday, 21 September no questions or comments were received on the draft language. Thus, this item is closed and staff will incorporate the final text into the set of final recommendations for the formal consensus call. 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, September 17, 2020 at 4:49 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER Re: Final draft language about GIs in TMCH - 14 September 2020 Dear Working Group members, As a reminder please see the attached document and the action item below. Please review the draft language and post any questions or comments you may have to this mailing list by Monday, 21 September following which staff will incorporate the final text into the set of final recommendations for the formal consensus call. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, September 14, 2020 at 3:25 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Final draft language about GIs in TMCH - 14 September 2020 Dear Working Group members, An action item from the Working Group meeting of 6 August was for staff to work with Rebecca and Paul Tattersfield to refine draft text for an agreed recommendation concerning the scope of marks to be accepted into the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). The text was to include clarifications as to the continued availability of ancillary services for other signs (such as geographical indications) that would, however, not be eligible for the mandatory RPMs (Sunrise and Trademark Claims). With thanks to Rebecca and Paul for their redrafts and explanations, please find attached the proposed final text for this recommendation. Given the extensive discussion that this topic has gone through at the Working Group level, please review the draft language and post any questions or comments you may have to this mailing list by Monday, 21 September following which staff will incorporate the final text into the set of final recommendations for the formal consensus call. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie

1 0

Proposed Agenda for RPM PDP WG Meeting - Thursday, 24 September 17:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 23, 2020

Sept. 23, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the updated proposed agenda for the full WG meeting on Thursday, 24 September at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Update on ALP Recommendation – Inquiry with GDS staff 3. URS Final Recommendations – Revised URS Recommendation #4; 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…> 4. URS Final Recommendations – URS Recommendation #3, page 10; 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…> 5. Overarching Data Collection Recommendation (final wording pending input from ICANN org operational team); see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yg6XP1USJFK7Ko5eQFD5EGNC4gwWM-vh07MGSqJ… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Yg6XP1USJFK7…> 6. AOB Proposed Co-Chair rotation for chairing the meeting: Phil Corwin Scheduled for Tuesday, 29 September: WG discussion of Sunrise Recommendation #2 and the original Implementation Guidance language, to be followed by a separate discussion of the Sub Team 2 suggested Implementation Guidance language. As a reminder, here is a link to Sunrise Recommendation #2 and the original Implementation Guidance language:https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3f… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAq…>. Also as a reminder, here is the proposed Implementation Guidance language for Sunrise Recommendation #2 from Small Team 2: Suggestion Language from Small Team 2: “Implementation Guidance to Sunrise Recommendation 2: The IRT should explore the possibility of a third party challenge mechanism as one of the possible means, among others (for example, direct enforcement by ICANN Compliance) to implement this Recommendation to enforce the implementation of this recommended new RA provision. Any such third party challenge mechanism should include appropriate safeguards for registries.” Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Tuesday, 22 September 2020 at 13:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 22, 2020

Sept. 22, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Tuesday, 22 September 2020 at 13:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/wQG-C> 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, Julie

1 0

Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 22 September 2020
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 22, 2020

Sept. 22, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 22 September 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/2020-09-22+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Overarching Data Collection Recommendation: ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote to explain what are the abuse labels. ACTION ITEM: Staff to revise the recommendation based on the WG discussion. URS Recommendation #4: ACTION ITEM: Add in the context that the recommendation is not asking IRT to review previous URS cases related to compliance matters. ACTION ITEM: Add text in brackets: “ICANN org’s public comment confirmed that enforcing compliance against Providers falls outside the scope of its [current] Compliance process.” Also clarify that the point of the recommendation is that ICANN org doesn’t have a way to enforce compliance. Add clarifying language on who can enforce MOUs with providers. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Overarching Data Collection Recommendation (final wording pending input from ICANN org operational team); see:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yg6XP1USJFK7Ko5eQFD5EGNC4gwWM-vh07M… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Yg6XP1USJFK7…> Background: -- Although there was some data for the WG to review, it was determined that it would be helpful to make a recommendation about collecting data. -- The CCT-RT also recommended a number of data collection efforts that ICANN should engage in, that cover more than just RPMs. -- Taking those two points together the staff has prepared draft text for the WG to review. -- This is an overarching recommendation covering all of the RPMs, but not decided where it will appear in the report. Discussion: -- Re: “In light of the recommendations from the Competition, Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust (CCT) Review Team, the Working Group recommends that questions aimed at soliciting concrete and specific data relating to trademark owners’/agents’ and registrants’ experiences with the Sunrise and Trademark Claims RPMs in subsequent new gTLD rounds be included in the following data collection work, as appropriate:” Question: What do we mean by “as appropriate”. Answer: As of yet we don’t know what the implementation will be for the final CCT-RT recommendations. -- On the last 4 bullet points: Example Rec #11 – not directed at RPMs. Maybe that shouldn’t be included. And #26, which is geared towards collection of costs required to protect trademarks – get the view of the team on timeframes. Helpful to get more detail. -- Seems like we are making recommendation relating to CCT-RT recommendations that none of us have looked at. -- Staff erred on the side of being inclusive, to phrase the recommendation in such a way that if you wanted to drop one or more bullet points, or drop the recommendation on CCT-RT, you could do that without affecting the initial recommendation. -- The recommendation is that the WG would like RPMs to be included in future data collection work, but we don’t want to be specific on how that would be done. -- Consider removing Rec #8. Maybe it is a SubPro Rec? -- This is a follow-up action that staff had to produce a data collection recommendation. -- CCT-RT recommendations: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-final-recs-08sep18-en.pdf -- Separate out the CCT-RT recommendation. -- Should add data collected relating to trademark claims notices. Claims notice could be addressed in the Rec #11 survey. -- CCT Rec 11: “Conduct periodic end-user consumer surveys. Future review teams should work with survey experts to conceive more behavioral measures of consumer trust that gather both objective and subjective data with a goal toward generating more concrete and actionable information.” -- The CCT completed its work in Sept 2018 and the Board decided to adopt some of its recommendations, referred others to various constituent bodies (e.g. GNSO) and deferred action on the remainder. -- Need to be as specific as possible on the exact data we are seeking. -- Timing: Made sense for the WG to consider this after reviewing all other recommendations. -- This is not an individual proposal, it is a staff action based on a WG request. -- On trademark claims notices—surveys; if you are going to get pings from TMCH that data as the Analysis Group found is relatively inaccurate because it doesn’t show the actual number of claims sent. The only group from whom you can get data on the number of notices actually sent is the registrars: There is no way to compel registrars to do that. And that would be an entirely new recommendation that would need at a minimum a review by registrars and/or public comment. -- On Trademark Claims, not sure how meaningful data would be collected -- registrars don't know identity of the potential registrant who terminates registration after receiving Claims Notice, or why they did. -- Only way I could see of collecting the TM notices data would be to mandate all registrars to present a survey as part of the registration flow if someone receives a notice then does not complete the purchase… if this is technologically possible. -- Most registrars did not submit claims notices until the domain names were in a specific shopping cart. Therefore, I believe the registrars would know their identity. Whether they store that information or not is an entirely different question. -- On the CCT-RT recommendations – say that these could be brought to the attention of the appropriate groups. -- On Recs #26 and #28 – the appropriate group is the RPMs PDP WG. -- Registrars don’t know if there is a claims notice, so we query the registry every time there is a claims notice. -- Data related to Trademark Claims notices - Registry relies on the certification from the registrar who presented the notices; registry never knows if/when an actual notice goes out or the registrant has received the notice - Registry goes to TMCH to get the notice and provides an ID to the registrar. They don't need to ping the TMCH every single time as they can cache it. - Registrar would know those registrants who accepted the notice and purchased the domain. - Obtaining the data/survey related to why a registrant abandons the registration after seeing the notice would add a specific obligation to registrars. ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote to explain what are the abuse labels. ACTION ITEM: Staff to revise the recommendation based on the WG discussion. 3. URS Final Recommendations – start at page 5, URS Recommendation #4; 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…> a. URS Recommendation #4: Discussion: -- Context: New language reflects the WG deliberation on public comments. -- Giving a lot to the IRT to do. -- IRT needs to find out how ICANN org does enforce this. ACTION ITEM: Add in the context that the recommendation is not asking IRT to review previous URS cases related to compliance matters. ACTION ITEM: Add text in brackets: “ICANN org’s public comment confirmed that enforcing compliance against Providers falls outside the scope of its [current] Compliance process.” Also clarify that the point of the recommendation is that ICANN org doesn’t have a way to enforce compliance. Add clarifying language on who can enforce MOUs with providers. b. URS Recommendation #6: Discussion: -- Question: Wondering if this portion of the new language is redundant: "1) reaching out to the broader multistakeholder community, including Providers/experts, to assist ICANN org and the IRT to develop those educational materials”, Since the recommendation already states "developed with help from URS Providers, Practitioners, Panelists, as well as researchers/academics who study URS decisions closely". Answer: This is what the WG agreed to include, it arose directly from the public comments. Okay to leave as is. -- Question: Do we want the IRT to develop the educational materials? Answer: This is what the WG recommended. -- WG agrees to the recommendation as it is worded. c. URS Recommendation #10: Discussion: -- Additional details in the context were included from the public comments, based on the WG’s deliberation. -- WG agrees to the recommendation and context as it is worded. d. URS Recommendation #3: Discussion: -- Context reflects the WG’s discussion of the EPDP Wave 1 Report. -- Language suggests there is no obligation to send the notice – need to clarify that what we mean is that the notice should be sent when the contact info is disclosed. -- Add the intent of the recommendation -- it is not sufficient just to send the notice to the publicly available information with the aim of achieving actual notice. -- Could remove the bullet points, but the above paragraph also would have to be altered. -- Continue this discussion on the next call.

1 0

Proposed Agenda for RPM PDP WG Meeting - Tuesday, 22 September 13:00 UTC
by Ariel Liang Sept. 18, 2020

Sept. 18, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the updated proposed agenda for the full WG meeting on Tuesday, 22 September at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Overarching Data Collection Recommendation (final wording pending input from ICANN org operational team); see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yg6XP1USJFK7Ko5eQFD5EGNC4gwWM-vh07MGSqJ… 3. URS Final Recommendations – start at page 5, URS Recommendation #4; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMP… [docs.google.com]<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMP…> 4. AOB Proposed Co-Chair rotation for chairing the meeting: Kathy Kleiman Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

ACTION ITEM: Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language:
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 17, 2020

Sept. 17, 2020

Dear All, Please see the action item below from the WG meeting on 17 September: Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language: ACTION ITEM: Discuss WG suggested revisions to the Recommendation and Implementation Guidance along with the suggested language from Small Team 2. Please see the suggested revisions to Sunrise Recommendation #2 in the Google document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW…. Please also review the following Suggested Language from Small Team: Suggestion Language from Small Team 2: “Implementation Guidance to Sunrise Recommendation 2: The IRT should explore the possibility of a third party challenge mechanism as one of the possible means, among others (for example, direct enforcement by ICANN Compliance) to implement this Recommendation to enforce the implementation of this recommended new RA provision. Any such third party challenge mechanism should include appropriate safeguards for registries.” Please post any comments or questions for discussion to this list ASAP. 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, September 17, 2020 at 2:49 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 17 September 2020 Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 17 September 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/2020-09-17+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language: ACTION ITEM: Discuss WG suggested revisions to the Recommendation and Implementation Guidance along with the suggested language from Small Team 2. Suggested Language from Small Team 1 on ALP relating to Sunrise Questions #3 and #4: ACTION ITEM: Staff will check with GDS to see if this recommendation is feasible. URS Final Recommendation (was #1): ACTION ITEM: Minor change in the contextual language – change from “the Working Group affirms” to “the Working Group further notes”. New URS Final Recommendation: ACTION ITEM: Remove the quoted text from Purpose 6-PA5 and move it to a footnote for reference. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language; see: Suggested Language from Small Team 2<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2020-September/004503.html> andhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQ… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAq…> -- Concerns raised by Maxim Alzoba about the two examples that they are too broad. -- Further to my point, as was noted earlier, this is a high-level policy recommendation; the IRT will be tasked with implementing this recommendation and our guidance should be sufficient to allow the IRT to craft an appropriately tailored RA amendment and (hopefully a challenge mechanism with appropriate safeguards built in so as to not inhibit legitimate registry activities -- I agree (I think) with Jason insofar as implementing this recommendation may necessitate a third party challenge mechanism akin to the PDDRP or pICDRP so aggrieved TM owners can challenge a registry activity and there can be a ruling as to whether the activity is legitimate or not. -- Concerns about misinterpretation if we are not clear. -- Perhaps we can just add a third bullet that says, “registry activities that have a bona fide legitimate basis or rationale are explicitly not intended to be inhibited by this provision”. -- As a staff suggestion for your consideration — perhaps we can include something to this effect: “The Working Group notes that this recommendation is not intended to preclude or restrict Registry operator’s legitimate business practice and pricing practice that are compliant with ICANN policies and procedures.”? -- Add to bullet point 1 (slightly revised)-- adding: "without countervailing rationale and/or reasonable activity by registries, including handling of dictionary terms.” -- Suggest addition to the Recommendation: “The Working Group recommends that the Registry Agreement for future new gTLDs include a provision stating that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of [intentionally] circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise rights protection mechanism.” Text in brackets. -- Don’t think adding “intentionally” in the rec helps us because it doesn’t really address Maxim’s concern, because reserving a name intentionally as part of an ALP or something is still intentional. ACTION ITEM: Discuss suggested language from Small Team 1 on the list. Suggestion Language from Small Team 2: “Implementation Guidance to Sunrise Recommendation 2: The IRT should explore the possibility of a third party challenge mechanism as one of the possible means, among others (for example, direct enforcement by ICANN Compliance) to implement this Recommendation to enforce the implementation of this recommended new RA provision. Any such third party challenge mechanism should include appropriate safeguards for registries.” -- Why would the proposed additional implementation guidance language be a beneficial addition to the existing implementation guidance? Answer: Takes some of the burden off of Compliance. -- Does the phrase “explore the possibility of a third party challenge mechanism” encompass and authorize the IRT’s adoption and implementation of such a mechanism if it is found to be possible? Answer: To amend the language to “explore and if possible implement”. -- Would the challenge mechanism be operative against ICANN, a registry alleged to have circumvented a RPM, or both? Answer: It would be against the registry that is alleged to have circumvented it. There already is a way to challenge staff and Board actions. -- This would not be a mechanism as a way for ICANN Org Compliance to enforce – this would be a separate mechanism? Answer: Correct. Discussion: -- Opposed to this language. Sunrise Rec #2 itself is still vague. -- Registries agree by contract to comply, but IRTs cannot develop consensus policies or revise contract terms – so this is out of scope. -- This is putting one vagueness on top of another. -- What authority does an IRT have to do these types of things. -- Didn't an IRT create the URS, PDDRP, PICDRP, to name a few? -- Sunrise Rec #2 seems to beg for a third-party challenge mechanism. -- 1. Clause could include a clause to include a challenge mechanism. 2. IRTs do this sort of thing all the time (e.g. the AGB and all of the challenge mechanisms with it). -- Idea is that there would be an independent panel that an aggrieved party could go to – so not relying on ICANN Compliance and could be an independent review. -- Why isn't a complaint to ICANN compliance sufficient here? I agree with David that it's especially problematic to move from "vague standard applied by single decisionmaker" to "vague standard applied by various possible decisionmakers" -- Would this be a time-sensitive mechanism? -- Because in response to the complaints over the years on sunrise circumvention, ICANN has consistently said they could do nothing about it. -- Circumvention itself is not defined, so cannot be enforced. -- ICANN compliance would need to have a role, in a similar way it does in a PICDRP for instance; an independent panel would actually perform the substantive review and ICANN compliance would implement a panel finding, for example. -- If Rec 2 is "start doing something about it" then why isn't ICANN compliance the appropriate place? -- URS and PDDRP are not Consensus Policy either. They were created during implementation of the 2007 GNSO PDP on New gTLDs. -- Divergence in the WG on this suggested text. ACTION ITEM: Discuss the suggested language on the list. 3. Suggested Language from Small Team 1 on ALP relating to Sunrise Questions #3 and #4; see: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2020-September/004505.html “The Working Group recommends guidance to the Implementation Review Team that the Approved Launch Program (ALP) Application Review Guidelines be reviewed and clarified in order to address feedback obtained by the working group regarding the length of time and complexity of process involved in seeking to obtain approval for an ALP, and in particular recommends that the IRT consider the following: 1. Where ICANN can not make a determination regarding an ALP application it will notify the Registry Operator to that effect within 45 days stating explicit reasons for needing more time and further, provide a decision date projection plan within a time period not to exceed another 30 days. There should be a reasonable expectation that all negotiations should be completed within a 7 month period. 2. Where ICANN determines to decline an ALP application or make a request for further information ICANN will include a full explanation of the aspects of the ALP application ICANN deems to be acceptable and the aspects ICANN deems to be unacceptable.” Discussion: -- The reference to an ALP being adopted is in the TMCH procedures if approved it is outside of or in contravention of Sunrise. This is directly related to the operation of the Sunrise. -- TMCH RPMs Requirements document that is incorporated by reference into the AGB and the RA (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/rpm-requirements…) 4.5 deals with Launch Programs, specifically 4.5.2: Registry Operator MAY, prior to the start date of its Sunrise Period, apply to ICANN for approval to conduct a registration program not otherwise permitted by these TMCH Requirements. Such a registration program application could, for example, provide for authorization to implement programs set forth in Registry Operator’s application for the TLD, which, if set forth in reasonable detail in the application for the TLD, will carry a presumption of being approved, unless ICANN reasonably determines that such requested registration program could contribute to consumer confusion or the infringement of intellectual property rights. If Registry Operator seeks ICANN’s approval of a program under this Section 4.5.2, and such requested registration program is substantially similar to a...” ACTION ITEM: Staff will check with GDS to see if this recommendation is feasible. 4. URS Final Recommendations; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMP… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk9…> a. URS Final Recommendation (was #1): -- Recommendation language stays as is. -- Contextual language – inserted text to reflect the WG’s agreement to include the EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation #27 Wave 1 Report. ACTION ITEM: Minor change in the contextual language – change from “the Working Group affirms” to “the Working Group further notes”. b. New URS Final Recommendation: -- This is based on URS Question 1. -- It is a new recommendation based on responses received in the public comment. -- The context comes from the WG discussion of URS Question 1. -- The public comment review is based on the discussion of URS Question 1 and suggestion for a recommendation. Discussion: -- Questions about the contextual language. Concern that the reference to Purpose 6-PA5 is somehow binding. -- Staff noted that it is not binding and there was no change to the new recommendation resulting from the WG’s review of the ICANN org’s EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation #27 Wave 1 Report. ACTION ITEM: Remove the quoted text from Purpose 6-PA5 and move it to a footnote for reference.

1 0

REMINDER Re: Final draft language about GIs in TMCH - 14 September 2020
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 17, 2020

Sept. 17, 2020

Dear Working Group members, As a reminder please see the attached document and the action item below. Please review the draft language and post any questions or comments you may have to this mailing list by Monday, 21 September following which staff will incorporate the final text into the set of final recommendations for the formal consensus call. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, September 14, 2020 at 3:25 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Final draft language about GIs in TMCH - 14 September 2020 Dear Working Group members, An action item from the Working Group meeting of 6 August was for staff to work with Rebecca and Paul Tattersfield to refine draft text for an agreed recommendation concerning the scope of marks to be accepted into the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). The text was to include clarifications as to the continued availability of ancillary services for other signs (such as geographical indications) that would, however, not be eligible for the mandatory RPMs (Sunrise and Trademark Claims). With thanks to Rebecca and Paul for their redrafts and explanations, please find attached the proposed final text for this recommendation. Given the extensive discussion that this topic has gone through at the Working Group level, please review the draft language and post any questions or comments you may have to this mailing list by Monday, 21 September following which staff will incorporate the final text into the set of final recommendations for the formal consensus call. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie

1 0

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

Sept. 17, 2020

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

Sept. 17, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 17 September 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/2020-09-17+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language: ACTION ITEM: Discuss WG suggested revisions to the Recommendation and Implementation Guidance along with the suggested language from Small Team 2. Suggested Language from Small Team 1 on ALP relating to Sunrise Questions #3 and #4: ACTION ITEM: Staff will check with GDS to see if this recommendation is feasible. URS Final Recommendation (was #1): ACTION ITEM: Minor change in the contextual language – change from “the Working Group affirms” to “the Working Group further notes”. New URS Final Recommendation: ACTION ITEM: Remove the quoted text from Purpose 6-PA5 and move it to a footnote for reference. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language; see: Suggested Language from Small Team 2<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2020-September/004503.html> andhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQ… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAq…> -- Concerns raised by Maxim Alzoba about the two examples that they are too broad. -- Further to my point, as was noted earlier, this is a high-level policy recommendation; the IRT will be tasked with implementing this recommendation and our guidance should be sufficient to allow the IRT to craft an appropriately tailored RA amendment and (hopefully a challenge mechanism with appropriate safeguards built in so as to not inhibit legitimate registry activities -- I agree (I think) with Jason insofar as implementing this recommendation may necessitate a third party challenge mechanism akin to the PDDRP or pICDRP so aggrieved TM owners can challenge a registry activity and there can be a ruling as to whether the activity is legitimate or not. -- Concerns about misinterpretation if we are not clear. -- Perhaps we can just add a third bullet that says, “registry activities that have a bona fide legitimate basis or rationale are explicitly not intended to be inhibited by this provision”. -- As a staff suggestion for your consideration — perhaps we can include something to this effect: “The Working Group notes that this recommendation is not intended to preclude or restrict Registry operator’s legitimate business practice and pricing practice that are compliant with ICANN policies and procedures.”? -- Add to bullet point 1 (slightly revised)-- adding: "without countervailing rationale and/or reasonable activity by registries, including handling of dictionary terms.” -- Suggest addition to the Recommendation: “The Working Group recommends that the Registry Agreement for future new gTLDs include a provision stating that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of [intentionally] circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise rights protection mechanism.” Text in brackets. -- Don’t think adding “intentionally” in the rec helps us because it doesn’t really address Maxim’s concern, because reserving a name intentionally as part of an ALP or something is still intentional. ACTION ITEM: Discuss suggested language from Small Team 1 on the list. Suggestion Language from Small Team 2: “Implementation Guidance to Sunrise Recommendation 2: The IRT should explore the possibility of a third party challenge mechanism as one of the possible means, among others (for example, direct enforcement by ICANN Compliance) to implement this Recommendation to enforce the implementation of this recommended new RA provision. Any such third party challenge mechanism should include appropriate safeguards for registries.” -- Why would the proposed additional implementation guidance language be a beneficial addition to the existing implementation guidance? Answer: Takes some of the burden off of Compliance. -- Does the phrase “explore the possibility of a third party challenge mechanism” encompass and authorize the IRT’s adoption and implementation of such a mechanism if it is found to be possible? Answer: To amend the language to “explore and if possible implement”. -- Would the challenge mechanism be operative against ICANN, a registry alleged to have circumvented a RPM, or both? Answer: It would be against the registry that is alleged to have circumvented it. There already is a way to challenge staff and Board actions. -- This would not be a mechanism as a way for ICANN Org Compliance to enforce – this would be a separate mechanism? Answer: Correct. Discussion: -- Opposed to this language. Sunrise Rec #2 itself is still vague. -- Registries agree by contract to comply, but IRTs cannot develop consensus policies or revise contract terms – so this is out of scope. -- This is putting one vagueness on top of another. -- What authority does an IRT have to do these types of things. -- Didn't an IRT create the URS, PDDRP, PICDRP, to name a few? -- Sunrise Rec #2 seems to beg for a third-party challenge mechanism. -- 1. Clause could include a clause to include a challenge mechanism. 2. IRTs do this sort of thing all the time (e.g. the AGB and all of the challenge mechanisms with it). -- Idea is that there would be an independent panel that an aggrieved party could go to – so not relying on ICANN Compliance and could be an independent review. -- Why isn't a complaint to ICANN compliance sufficient here? I agree with David that it's especially problematic to move from "vague standard applied by single decisionmaker" to "vague standard applied by various possible decisionmakers" -- Would this be a time-sensitive mechanism? -- Because in response to the complaints over the years on sunrise circumvention, ICANN has consistently said they could do nothing about it. -- Circumvention itself is not defined, so cannot be enforced. -- ICANN compliance would need to have a role, in a similar way it does in a PICDRP for instance; an independent panel would actually perform the substantive review and ICANN compliance would implement a panel finding, for example. -- If Rec 2 is "start doing something about it" then why isn't ICANN compliance the appropriate place? -- URS and PDDRP are not Consensus Policy either. They were created during implementation of the 2007 GNSO PDP on New gTLDs. -- Divergence in the WG on this suggested text. ACTION ITEM: Discuss the suggested language on the list. 3. Suggested Language from Small Team 1 on ALP relating to Sunrise Questions #3 and #4; see: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2020-September/004505.html “The Working Group recommends guidance to the Implementation Review Team that the Approved Launch Program (ALP) Application Review Guidelines be reviewed and clarified in order to address feedback obtained by the working group regarding the length of time and complexity of process involved in seeking to obtain approval for an ALP, and in particular recommends that the IRT consider the following: 1. Where ICANN can not make a determination regarding an ALP application it will notify the Registry Operator to that effect within 45 days stating explicit reasons for needing more time and further, provide a decision date projection plan within a time period not to exceed another 30 days. There should be a reasonable expectation that all negotiations should be completed within a 7 month period. 2. Where ICANN determines to decline an ALP application or make a request for further information ICANN will include a full explanation of the aspects of the ALP application ICANN deems to be acceptable and the aspects ICANN deems to be unacceptable.” Discussion: -- The reference to an ALP being adopted is in the TMCH procedures if approved it is outside of or in contravention of Sunrise. This is directly related to the operation of the Sunrise. -- TMCH RPMs Requirements document that is incorporated by reference into the AGB and the RA (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/rpm-requirements…) 4.5 deals with Launch Programs, specifically 4.5.2: Registry Operator MAY, prior to the start date of its Sunrise Period, apply to ICANN for approval to conduct a registration program not otherwise permitted by these TMCH Requirements. Such a registration program application could, for example, provide for authorization to implement programs set forth in Registry Operator’s application for the TLD, which, if set forth in reasonable detail in the application for the TLD, will carry a presumption of being approved, unless ICANN reasonably determines that such requested registration program could contribute to consumer confusion or the infringement of intellectual property rights. If Registry Operator seeks ICANN’s approval of a program under this Section 4.5.2, and such requested registration program is substantially similar to a...” ACTION ITEM: Staff will check with GDS to see if this recommendation is feasible. 4. URS Final Recommendations; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMP… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk9…> a. URS Final Recommendation (was #1): -- Recommendation language stays as is. -- Contextual language – inserted text to reflect the WG’s agreement to include the EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation #27 Wave 1 Report. ACTION ITEM: Minor change in the contextual language – change from “the Working Group affirms” to “the Working Group further notes”. b. New URS Final Recommendation: -- This is based on URS Question 1. -- It is a new recommendation based on responses received in the public comment. -- The context comes from the WG discussion of URS Question 1. -- The public comment review is based on the discussion of URS Question 1 and suggestion for a recommendation. Discussion: -- Questions about the contextual language. Concern that the reference to Purpose 6-PA5 is somehow binding. -- Staff noted that it is not binding and there was no change to the new recommendation resulting from the WG’s review of the ICANN org’s EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation #27 Wave 1 Report. ACTION ITEM: Remove the quoted text from Purpose 6-PA5 and move it to a footnote for reference.

1 0

Proposed Agenda for RPM PDP WG Meeting - Thursday, 17 September 17:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 17, 2020

Sept. 17, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda for the full WG meeting on Thursday, 17 September at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language; see: Suggested Language from Small Team 2<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2020-September/004503.html> and https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW… 3. Suggested Language from Small Team 1 on ALP relating to Sunrise Questions #3 and #4 (TBD) 4. URS Final Recommendations; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMP… 5. AOB Proposed Co-Chair rotation for chairing the meeting: Phil Corwin. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 1

Suggested Language from Small Team 1 on ALP relating to Sunrise Questions #3 and #4
by Paul Tattersfield Sept. 16, 2020

Sept. 16, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, Please find below suggested Language from Small Team 1 on ALP relating to Sunrise Questions #3 and #4 (Item 3 on our proposed draft agenda) The Working Group recommends guidance to the Implementation Review Team that the Approved Launch Program (ALP) Application Review Guidelines be reviewed and clarified in order to address feedback obtained by the working group regarding the length of time and complexity of process involved in seeking to obtain approval for an ALP, and in particular recommends that the IRT consider the following: 1. Where ICANN can not make a determination regarding an ALP application it will notify the Registry Operator to that effect within 45 days stating explicit reasons for needing more time and further, provide a decision date projection plan within a time period not to exceed another 30 days. There should be a reasonable expectation that all negotiations should be completed within a 7 month period. 2. Where ICANN determines to decline an ALP application or make a request for further information ICANN will include a full explanation of the aspects of the ALP application ICANN deems to be acceptable and the aspects ICANN deems to be unacceptable. Best regards, Paul

2 1

Suggested Language from Small Team re: Sunrise Recommendation #2
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 16, 2020

Sept. 16, 2020

Dear WG members, Please see below for your consideration suggested language from Small Team 2 for Implementation Guidance related to Sunrise Recommendation #2. This item will be on the agenda for discussion during the WG meeting tomorrow, Thursday, 16 September at 17:00 UTC. Suggestion Language from Small Team 2: “Implementation Guidance to Sunrise Recommendation 2: The IRT should explore the possibility of a third party challenge mechanism as one of the possible means, among others (for example, direct enforcement by ICANN Compliance) to implement this Recommendation to enforce the implementation of this recommended new RA provision. Any such third party challenge mechanism should include appropriate safeguards for registries.” For reference, see Sunrise Recommendation #2 at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW…. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie

2 1

Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 15 September 2020
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 15, 2020

Sept. 15, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 15 September 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/2020-09-15+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: TM Claims Final Recommendation #5 ACTION ITEM: Reference the previous footnote that describes Spec 13 and Spec 9. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. TM Claims Final Recommendations #4 and #5; see revisions at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAq…> TM Claims Final Recommendation #5 -- Changed the placement of the recommendation as a New Policy Recommendation. -- Insert in parenthesis what Spec 13 and Spec 9 are. ACTION ITEM: Reference the previous footnote that describes Spec 13 and Spec 9. TM Claims Final Recommendation #4: -- Removed the sentence on the exemption language in the recommendation because this is addressed in Rec #5. -- Minor change in the contextual language – reference the status quo. 3. TMCH Final Recommendation #1; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y1MOiUU4G4_mzbte75RGXp22JT13k0Sym4OgwpC… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1y1MOiUU4G4_m…> -- The WG accepts the edits arising from the discussion of the public comments; there are no further changes. 4. TM-PDDRP Final Recommendation; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y1MOiUU4G4_mzbte75RGXp22JT13k0Sym4OgwpC… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1y1MOiUU4G4_m…> -- No change in the recommendation from what was published in the Initial Report, after review of the public comments. 5. AOB – Small Team on Sunrise Questions #3-#5 -- Small Team met but during that brief meeting no one suggested recommendation text. -- Paul Tattersfield subsequently suggested text, but one Small Team member expressed concerns with it and there were no other expressions of support. -- Paul Tattersfield may suggest alternative text. Not clear if the Small Team will support as the text has not been circulated. The Co-Chair and staff made the following points: (1) the WG has discussed the ALP extensively, both for the Initial Report (with no conclusion or recommendation) and in reviewing the public comments; (2) they thought the comments warranted a Small Team but it is clear the Small Team did not uncover a new issue or a solution; (3) as the problem remains what was identified early on and no solution has been proposed throughout the life of the WG or via the comments and Small Team work, this is not new and in fact may be out of scope (seeing how the WG treated other voluntary mechanisms). -- Finally, the Co-Chair emphasized that even with the Project Change Request being considered by the GNSO Council the WG does not have time to reopen or reconsider closed issues, and thus without agreement from the Small Team on recommendation text this item should remain closed.

1 0

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Tuesday, 15 September 2020 at 13:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 15, 2020

Sept. 15, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Tuesday, 15 September 2020 at 13:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/vwG-C> 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, Julie

1 0

Proposed Agenda for RPM PDP WG Meeting - Tuesday, 15 September 13:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 14, 2020

Sept. 14, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the updated proposed agenda for the full WG meeting on Tuesday, 15 September at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. TM Claims Final Recommendations #4 and #5; see revisions at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAq…> 3. Update from Small Team 2 and Sunrise Recommendation #2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW… 4. TMCH Final Recommendations; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y1MOiUU4G4_mzbte75RGXp22JT13k0Sym4OgwpC… 5. TM-PDDRP Final Recommendation; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y1MOiUU4G4_mzbte75RGXp22JT13k0Sym4OgwpC… 6. AOB Proposed Co-Chair rotation for chairing the meeting: Brian Beckham. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 1

Final draft language about GIs in TMCH - 14 September 2020
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 14, 2020

Sept. 14, 2020

Dear Working Group members, An action item from the Working Group meeting of 6 August was for staff to work with Rebecca and Paul Tattersfield to refine draft text for an agreed recommendation concerning the scope of marks to be accepted into the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). The text was to include clarifications as to the continued availability of ancillary services for other signs (such as geographical indications) that would, however, not be eligible for the mandatory RPMs (Sunrise and Trademark Claims). With thanks to Rebecca and Paul for their redrafts and explanations, please find attached the proposed final text for this recommendation. Given the extensive discussion that this topic has gone through at the Working Group level, please review the draft language and post any questions or comments you may have to this mailing list by Monday, 21 September following which staff will incorporate the final text into the set of final recommendations for the formal consensus call. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie

1 0

RPMs PDP WG Project Change Request (PCR) to Extend Timeline to Deliver Final Report
by Corwin, Philip Sept. 11, 2020

Sept. 11, 2020

>From the RPMs PDP WG Co-Chairs to WG members: Subject: RPMs PDP WG Project Change Request (PCR) to Extend Timeline to Deliver Final Report To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Dear WG members, As mentioned during the WG meeting this past Tuesday (September 8), the RPMs PDP WG Co-Chairs and Council Liaison were reluctantly considering submission of a Project Change Request (PCR) to extend the timeline to deliver the WG's Final Report to the GNSO Council. The Co-Chairs have since then met with the Council Liaison and ICANN support Staff and - notwithstanding concerns having been raised that any extension could unintentionally lead to re-litigating closed issues and eliciting open-ended debates - it was agreed that a PCR requesting an extension of 40 days was necessary. The co-chairs are committed to assuring that this extension is used to complete our final work and is not wasted or abused. If granted by Council, this will mean the due date for delivery of the PDP Final Report will shift from mid-October to the end of November. It will also represent the tenth change in the PDP timeline since the PDP was launched in February 2016. As such, we must be absolutely confident that the WG commits to meet the new deadline since the GNSO Council is unlikely to entertain requests for any additional extensions. The Co-Chairs note that this proposed extended timeframe will not allow time for a supplemental public comment period on any new proposals or recommendations. Therefore, any new proposals will need to meet the standard for consideration in the consensus call (broad support and minimal opposition) and will also need to be agreed as not requiring public comment, in order to be considered as WG recommendations for inclusion in the Final Report. Despite the requested extension, the Co-Chairs agree that maintaining an aggressive schedule of twice weekly meetings remains critical to meet the new goal of delivery of the Final Report by the end of November 2020. In this regard, we request that WG members remain mindful of the WG Guidelines, in particular insofar as those call for WG members to refrain from reopening closed discussions, and at the same require WG members to time be informed on and keep up with deliberations as we move toward finalizing our report and a formal consensus call; notably, this latter provision includes WG members who have not been active participants during the course of our work. In turn, the Co-Chairs and Staff will work to give the WG adequate time to review new and revised documents and materials. The Co-Chairs thank the WG members for their commitment and diligence in helping us to achieve our shared goal of completing Phase I of this PDP within the (new) time frame that will hopefully be approved by Council. Kind regards, Brian Beckham Phil Corwin Kathryn Kleiman RPMs PDP WG Co-Chairs Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

1 0

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Thursday, 10 September 2020 at 17:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon Sept. 10, 2020

Sept. 10, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Thursday, 10 September 2020 at 17:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/zQG-C> 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 10 September 2020
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 10, 2020

Sept. 10, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 10 September 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/2020-09-10+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: ACTION ITEM: Sunrise Implementation Guidance (was Recommendation #7): -- RE: “Consequently, the Working Group agrees that the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP) is not intended to allow challenges to Sunrise Registrations on the grounds that the Trademark Record on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration is invalid.”: Add a short sentence that the SDRP is intended to allow (with description). -- In footnote 10, we use a lot of capitalized terms – add that they are taken from Module 5 of the AGB. ACTION ITEM: TM Claims Recommendation #2: In WG deliberations – make it clear that the change from “should” to “MUST” is in the second bullet point of the recommendation. ACTION ITEM: TM Claims Recommendation #4 and Rec #5: Re: “and Section 6 of Specification 9 of the Registry Agreement” – indicate that this is a new recommendation, not the status quo. Also update the context and WG deliberations. Remove the context relating to the old Recs #4 and #5 incorrect reference to exceptions to Specs 13 and 9: for all new gTLDs, with the exception of those gTLDs who receive exemptions pursuant to Specification 13 and Section 6 of Specification 9 of the Registry Agreement (or their equivalent in subsequent new gTLD expansion rounds).” Reorder to improve the flow. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Update from Small Team on Sunrise Questions #3-#5 (TBD): Nothing new to report at this time. 3. Review Sunrise and TM Claims Final Recommendations; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW…: Sunrise Recommendations: -- Sunrise Recommendation #2 is deferred for discussion on Tuesday, 15 September when the Small Team 2 may have some language for the WG to consider in relation to this recommendation. Overview: -- Opportunity for WG to review draft Final Recommendations. -- Context is from the Initial Report but may have been expanded based on the WG deliberations. -- Summary of the WG’s deliberations – mostly based on what has been reviewed already in the public comment review analysis document. It is not new. -- The text provides context and background to the draft Final Recommendations. Sunrise Recommendation #6: -- Put footnote in recommendation text. -- Context language is from the Initial Report without changes. Sunrise Recommendation #5: -- No change from preliminary recommendation based on WG deliberation. Sunrise Recommendation #1: -- No change from preliminary recommendation based on WG deliberation. Sunrise Recommendation #8: -- Minor text change for grammatical correctness. -- No change in context from the Initial Report except grammatical adjustments. -- Support for the grammatical changes. Sunrise Recommendation #3: -- Add language to the recommendation to clarify the scope. -- Context language has not changed. Sunrise Recommendation #4: -- Public comment review section: public comments raised issue of Registry operational practices, which the WG considered. But did not agree to this as a mandatory recommendation. Sunrise Implementation Guidance: Sunrise Implementation Guidance (was Recommendation #7): -- RE: “Consequently, the Working Group agrees that the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP) is not intended to allow challenges to Sunrise Registrations on the grounds that the Trademark Record on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration is invalid.”: Add a short sentence that the SDRP is intended to allow (with description). -- In footnote 10, we use a lot of capitalized terms – add that they are taken from Module 5 of the AGB. ACTION ITEM: Sunrise Implementation Guidance (was Recommendation #7): -- RE: “Consequently, the Working Group agrees that the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP) is not intended to allow challenges to Sunrise Registrations on the grounds that the Trademark Record on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration is invalid.”: Add a short sentence that the SDRP is intended to allow (with description). -- In footnote 10, we use a lot of capitalized terms – add that they are taken from Module 5 of the AGB. TM Claims Recommendations: TM Claims Recommendation #2: -- WG agreed to change “should” to “MUST” and a minor grammatical change (“containing” to “contains”). -- In Context, added TM Claims RPM. -- In WG deliberations – make it clear that the change from “should” to “MUST” is in the second bullet point of the recommendation. ACTION ITEM: TM Claims Recommendation #2: In WG deliberations – make it clear that the change from “should” to “MUST” is in the second bullet point of the recommendation. TM Claims Recommendation #4: -- Changes clarified what TLDs are exempt. -- Clarified the claims period should run through the LRP. -- Public Comment Review provides the explanation of where these changes came from and why the WG agreed. -- Re: “and Section 6 of Specification 9 of the Registry Agreement” – this is a new recommendation, not the status quo. -- Remove the context relating to the old Recs #4 and #5 incorrect reference to exceptions to Specs 13 and 9. TM Claims Recommendation #5: -- Re: “and Section 6 of Specification 9 of the Registry Agreement” – this is a new recommendation, not the status quo. -- Remove the context relating to the old Recs #4 and #5 incorrect reference to exceptions to Specs 13 and 9. ACTION ITEM: TM Claims Recommendation #4 and Rec #5: Re: “and Section 6 of Specification 9 of the Registry Agreement” – indicate that this is a new recommendation, not the status quo. Also update the context and WG deliberations. Remove the context relating to the old Recs #4 and #5 incorrect reference to exceptions to Specs 13 and 9: for all new gTLDs, with the exception of those gTLDs who receive exemptions pursuant to Specification 13 and Section 6 of Specification 9 of the Registry Agreement (or their equivalent in subsequent new gTLD expansion rounds).” Reorder to improve the flow. TM Claims Recommendation #6: -- No changes to the preliminary recommendation. TM Claims Implementation Guidance: TM Claims Implementation Guidance (was Recommendation #3): -- Changed to Implementation Guidance since this recommendation is focused on operational issues. TM Claims Implementation Guidance (was Recommendation #1): -- Main redline is the third bullet – giving IRT flexibility to get input from internal or external resources. -- No change in the contextual language. -- Public Comment Review just notes the deliberations on the agreement to give the IRT flexibility.

1 0

Proposed Agenda for RPM PDP WG Meeting - Thursday, 10 September 17:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 9, 2020

Sept. 9, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda for the full WG meeting on Thursday, 10 September at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Update from Small Team on Sunrise Questions #3-#5 (TBD) 3. Review Sunrise and TM Claims Final Recommendations (link TBD) 4. AOB Proposed Co-Chair rotation for chairing the meeting: Phil Corwin. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 1

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Tuesday, 08 September 2020 at 13:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 8, 2020

Sept. 8, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Tuesday, 08 September 2020 at 13:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/vQG-C> 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, Julie

1 0

Public Comment Analysis Updated: URS Qs 9-10
by Ariel Liang Sept. 8, 2020

Sept. 8, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please note that the public comment analysis summary document has been updated by including the WG’s deliberations in yesterday’s meeting (8 Sept). This document is not meant to replace the WG’s transcript, recording, and chat record, which are published here: https://community.icann.org/x/vQG-C The WG deliberation summaries for URS Q9 and Q10 can be found at pp. 37-38: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110It4ZZMV6V4XY77J6DUq-H_ZGtdPNV8qCB_5Uk… You are welcome to point out any error/mischaracterization/missing content on list. Thank you for the review. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Public Comment Analysis Updated: URS Rec 9, Rec 10 & Q6, Q7, Q8, and Q9
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 4, 2020

Sept. 4, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please note that the public comment analysis summary document has been updated by including the WG’s deliberations in yesterday’s meeting (03 Sept). This document is not meant to replace the WG’s transcript, recording, and chat record, which are published here: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-09-03+Review+of+all+R… The WG deliberation summaries for URS Rec 9 (pp. 29-30), Rec 10 & Q6 (pp. 31-33), Q7 (pp. 34-35), Q8 (p. 36), and Q9 (pp. 37-38) can be found at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110It4ZZMV6V4XY77J6DUq-H_ZGtdPNV8qCB_5Uk… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/110It4ZZMV6V4…> You are welcome to point out any error/mischaracterization/missing content on list. Thank you for the review. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Proposed Agenda for RPM PDP WG Meeting - Tuesday, 08 September 13:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 4, 2020

Sept. 4, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the updated proposed agenda and materials below for the full WG meeting on Tuesday, 08 September at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. URS Q#9 (continued from the last meeting) & Q#10; See the Public Comment Analysis Summary at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110It4ZZMV6V4XY77J6DUq-H_ZGtdPNV8qCB_5Uk…<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/110It4ZZMV6V4…> and the Public Comment Review Tool at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRS… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjS…> 3. AOB Proposed Co-Chair rotation for chairing the meeting: Phil Corwin. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Thursday, 03 September 2020 at 17:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon Sept. 3, 2020

Sept. 3, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Thursday, 03 September 2020 at 17:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/ygG-C> 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

Question re: TM-PDDRP Draft from Small Group
by Corwin, Philip Sept. 3, 2020

Sept. 3, 2020

During this morning's call I said I had a question/concern about an aspect of the revised draft coming from the TM-PDDRP small group, and that I would post it on the WG list. This is it (referenced section of the PDDRP below), and it is posted in a personal capacity and not in my role as a co-chair. As we are aware, the purpose of the as yet unutilized PDDRP is to allow a mechanism for complaints by trademark owners, and enforceable remediation where they prevail, when a new gTLD registry operator directly and intentionally infringes a trademark, or when it encourages registrants to register infringing domain names and does so with bad faith intent to profit. My question and concern relates to the proposed addition of the phrase "offering for sale...of domain names". This is problematic because registries do not sell domain names; they enter into standard and uniform registry-registrar agreements with registrars, and it is the registrars who enter into contractual relationships with registrants for the sale and renewal of domain names (DNs). A registry has no control over a registrar's pricing, sales practices, or any domain names it may suggest to a prospective purchaser either via human agent or automated naming suggestion tool. A registry has no power to block a DN from being registered, and only learns the exact DN after it receives notification of the registration from the registrar, along with the technical information required to maintain an accurate database and provide the registry service of directing an inquiry for that DN to the correct server where the website will resolve. Now registries do designate premium status for certain domain names, and the small group may intend to target aspects of that practice to the extent it can be demonstrated to be tied to deliberate encouragement of second level infringement. Also, some registries offer their own name suggestion tools, which may occasionally suggest the registration of a trademarked term. But we have to be very careful in that regard, because- * Almost every dictionary name in every major language is trademarked for something, somewhere * It is unreasonable and impractical to expect registry operators to know, much less proactively check for identical or confusing similarity, every unique trademark registered in every national jurisdiction * Under the current UDRP and URS, actionable cybersquatting cannot be based on registration of a trademarked term alone, even if the registrant does so with bad faith intent - there must also be some bad faith use, and it would be even more unreasonable and impractical to imply that registry operators have some duty to monitor the content of every DN that has been registered in a gTLD they operate to check its use. While I realize that a violation of 6.2 requires "bad faith intent to profit", and while the closing lines of this section provide some protection for registry operators - "it is not sufficient to show that the registry operator is on notice of possible trademark infringement through registrations in the gTLD. The registry operator is not liable under the PDDRP solely because: (i) infringing names are in its registry; or (ii) the registry operator knows that infringing names are in its registry; or (iii) the registry operator did not monitor the registrations within its registry" - it remains problematic to use the term "'offering for sale" because registries do not sell DNs to registrants and have no direct relationship with them; registries offer and sell registry services to customers known as registrars. I would therefore urge the small group to determine more precisely what acts by registry operators not already covered by the current PDDRP they are seeking to target, and to bring back different language that does not use the phrase "offering for sale". Thanks in advance for consideration of this input. New proposed language in bold 6.2 Second Level Complainants are required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence that, through the registry operator's affirmative conduct: (a) there is a substantial pattern or practice of specific bad faith intent by the registry operator to profit from the sale of trademark infringing domain names; and (b) the registry operator's bad faith intent to profit from the systematic offering for sale or registration of domain names within the gTLD that are identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's mark, which: (i) takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of the complainant's mark; or (ii) impairs the distinctive character or the reputation of the complainant's mark, or (iii) creates a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark. In other words, it is not sufficient to show that the registry operator is on notice of possible trademark infringement through registrations in the gTLD. The registry operator is not liable under the PDDRP solely because: (i) infringing names are in its registry; or (ii) the registry operator knows that infringing names are in its registry; or (iii) the registry operator did not monitor the registrations within its registry. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

7 19

Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP
by McGrady, Paul D. Sept. 3, 2020

Sept. 3, 2020

Copying in the full WG so that they can have the benefit of this exchange. ___________ Hi Phil. Responding now to your second message (or was it first?). Comment in line in [brackets]. Speaking now as a co-chair: *If the small group believes this is a final version ready for full WG consideration, the next step would be to have that discussion and see if it satisfies the same criteria to become a WG recommendation that was applied for the Initial Report (we are long past the point for further Final Report consideration/inclusion of proposals from individuals, or even groups of individuals) [Thanks Phil. Unfortunately, because the deadline of this Friday was not disclosed on the last call and only came out today when Staff mentioned it, the co-chairs (assuming you are speaking for the other two - it's not clear) seem to have put us in a pickle where there is not time to take a roll call of the small group prior to tomorrow's call. But for reasons noted below, I don't think that is an issue. What can be said is that what I sent around today is the result of a small group call, a WG call, and two days on the list. All of the comments were helpful improvements and there weren't many comments. To now suggest the proposal might not be considered is quite the surprise! Importantly, I don't know of any written rules or procedures for small groups that require some sort of small group vote before something comes back to the full WG for discussion. Where can I find that? Surely if such a rule existed the time for that to happen was prior to our last call when this was discussed by the full WG (however briefly due to your intervention asking that it be given only a small amount of time) and proposed changes were made as a result. Even if such a rule exists, and again I can't find it in the GNSO Operating Procedures, surely the ship has sailed on it. Instead of finding ways to block further consideration of work products discussed in small group, in the full WG, and on the list for days, let's find a way to have the WG look over what was done here and get to a conclusion.] *If the proposal receives the requisite level of support vs. opposition to be considered a WG recommendation, the co-chairs will discuss and determine, in consultation with support staff, whether it should be put out for 21 days public comment under the standards contained in the GNSO WG Guidelines [Great news! This comment makes me believe that you will in fact give this the air time it needs tomorrow.] I believe that is the correct procedure, but I'm sure that staff will chime in if it's not. [I'm not sure if this comment refers only to the last bullet, if so I agree. If it refers to both bullets, I don't fully agree for the reasons noted above.] I would also note that it is possible that when the co-chairs and liaison confer with staff for our next planning meeting scheduled on the morning of Wednesday, September 9, we may opt to submit a short-term (likely 30 day) Project Change Request to Council regardless of what happens with this PDDRP proposal. Staff has already alerted us to concern that any unexpected delay in the Final Report review or Consensus Call last steps could make it impossible to meet our current deadline, and submission of a PCR by September 14th is our last opportunity to make the request as a safety measure. [Thanks for letting us know this. Sounds like a short extension is needed.] Rest assured that the co-chairs are all dedicated to the proposition that the Final Report will be delivered to Council prior to Thanksgiving (which, for non-US members, is November 26th). [I will miss the calls and email, but a quiet Thanksgiving, especially after all that 2020 has turned out to be, sounds lovely.] Best, Paul To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit>. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. -----Original Message----- From: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 5:23 PM To: julie.hedlund(a)icann.org; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com>; brian.beckham(a)wipo.int; McAuley, David <dmcauley(a)Verisign.com>; zak(a)muscovitch.com; gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com Cc: ariel.liang(a)icann.org; kathy(a)dnrc.tech; mary.wong(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Speaking now as a co-chair: *If the small group believes this is a final version ready for full WG consideration, the next step would be to have that discussion and see if it satisfies the same criteria to become a WG recommendation that was applied for the Initial Report (we are long past the point for further Final Report consideration/inclusion of proposals from individuals, or even groups of individuals) *If the proposal receives the requisite level of support vs. opposition to be considered a WG recommendation, the co-chairs will discuss and determine, in consultation with support staff, whether it should be put out for 21 days public comment under the standards contained in the GNSO WG Guidelines I believe that is the correct procedure, but I'm sure that staff will chime in if it's not. I would also note that it is possible that when the co-chairs and liaison confer with staff for our next planning meeting scheduled on the morning of Wednesday, September 9, we may opt to submit a short-term (likely 30 day) Project Change Request to Council regardless of what happens with this PDDRP proposal. Staff has already alerted us to concern that any unexpected delay in the Final Report review or Consensus Call last steps could make it impossible to meet our current deadline, and submission of a PCR by September 14th is our last opportunity to make the request as a safety measure. Rest assured that the co-chairs are all dedicated to the proposition that the Final Report will be delivered to Council prior to Thanksgiving (which, for non-US members, is November 26th). Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2020 5:54 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com>; BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int>; McAuley, David <dmcauley(a)Verisign.com>; Zak Muscovitch <zak(a)muscovitch.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>; kathy(a)dnrc.tech; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com>; Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Many thanks Paul for your very helpful suggested approach! Kind regards, Julie From: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com> Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 5:47 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int>, "McAuley, David" <dmcauley(a)Verisign.com>, Zak Muscovitch <zak(a)muscovitch.com>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "kathy(a)dnrc.tech" <kathy(a)dnrc.tech>, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin(a)verisign.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Thanks Julie. Good to know that now, although now it is quite difficult to try to reconvene with short notice on a holiday weekend. Even so, since the only change that was made from the call was the addition of the work "significantly" before where "higher" appears, and since Marc introduced language to deal with the question of whether or not registries sell domain names ("or otherwise making available for registration"), and since we don't really have time to reconvene the small group, I suggest we simply put this back on the agenda for tomorrow's call. Small group members can either support it or not on the call as can working group members. Ultimately, the small group can't dictate an outcome either way, so missing a deadline to discuss the very reasonable addition of "significantly" and seems like process over substance. Toward that end, attached is the latest version for discussion tomorrow. Thanks! Best, Paul To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here [taftlaw.com] For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit [taftlaw.com] This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 4:27 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com>; BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int>; McAuley, David <dmcauley(a)Verisign.com>; Zak Muscovitch <zak(a)muscovitch.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>; kathy(a)dnrc.tech; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com>; Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Hi Paul, The Co-Chairs are meeting next Wednesday morning to review the Work Plan and a Project Change Request (PCR), if needed. They wouldn't likely be able to make a decision on whether to include a new Public Comment Period until the WG has decided what to do with the final language from the Small Team. The PCR must be filed by the Document and Motion deadline of Monday, 14 Sept, so it has to be finalized next week, the earlier the better. So, unfortunately there really isn't much time. I hope that's more explanation for why we'd need to get this done on Friday in order to have it in front of the WG on Tuesday. Kind regards, Julie From: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com> Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 5:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int>, "McAuley, David" <dmcauley(a)Verisign.com>, Zak Muscovitch <zak(a)muscovitch.com>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "kathy(a)dnrc.tech" <kathy(a)dnrc.tech>, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin(a)verisign.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Thanks Julie. I don't think we need to cram this in on Friday. If the co-chairs reach a decision that it needs to go out for public comment then we will need a change request no matter what. If the co-chairs decide that it does not need to go out for public comment, we have plenty of time. So, I think we should try to schedule this for next week after the holiday when people are more likely to be back at their desks, especially David M. who has been very helpful getting this refined. Best, Paul To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here [taftlaw.com] For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit [taftlaw.com] This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 4:16 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com>; BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int>; McAuley, David <dmcauley(a)Verisign.com>; Zak Muscovitch <zak(a)muscovitch.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>; kathy(a)dnrc.tech; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com>; Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Hi Paul, It looks like our emails crossed and I see that you've requested a Doodle for a meeting via a separate email. If we are to get this item on the agenda for next Tuesday, and considering that next Monday is a holiday in the US, we'd need to aim for this Friday to give people time to plan. We can do a Doodle for a few times Friday morning. Thanks! Julie From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 5:10 PM To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com>, BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int>, "McAuley, David" <dmcauley(a)Verisign.com>, Zak Muscovitch <zak(a)muscovitch.com>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "kathy(a)dnrc.tech" <kathy(a)dnrc.tech>, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin(a)verisign.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Hi Paul, In light of the discussion on the list, do you plan to produce a new slightly revised version for the Small Team to review? Also, does the Small Team envision needing a meeting, or can the revision be addressed on the list? Staff also put a placeholder in the agenda for an update on this item for tomorrow's call. If there's nothing new to report (revisions ongoing) then that could simply be noted. But we probably should anticipate putting it on the agenda for WG discussion no later than next Tuesday's call, because if the WG sticks to its work plan it will begin to review Final Recommendations next Thursday, 10 September (if not sooner). Thanks! With kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie From: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com> Date: Monday, August 31, 2020 at 9:40 PM To: BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int>, "McAuley, David" <dmcauley(a)Verisign.com>, Zak Muscovitch <zak(a)muscovitch.com>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "kathy(a)dnrc.tech" <kathy(a)dnrc.tech>, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin(a)verisign.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Hi Small Group 2! As discussed, attached is the mark up to the relevant sections of the TM-PDDRP taking the minimalist approach we kicked around on the call. I look forward to your comments back! Best, Paul To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here [taftlaw.com] For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit [taftlaw.com] This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 11:20 AM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>; McAuley, David <dmcauley(a)Verisign.com>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com>; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com> Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>; kathy(a)dnrc.tech Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP PS, do consider me a volunteer / observer. From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 6:18 PM To: BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int>; McAuley, David <dmcauley(a)Verisign.com>; 'PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com' <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com>; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com> Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>; kathy(a)dnrc.tech Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Hi Brian and everyone, I think the calendar invitation went only to the small team volunteers, so that they can work out amongst themselves what they wish to recommend to the Working Group. I've forwarded you the details for the call that's going on now, in case you wish to join. Cheers Mary From: BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int> Date: Monday, August 31, 2020 at 12:16 To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley(a)Verisign.com>, "'PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com'" <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com>, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin(a)verisign.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "kathy(a)dnrc.tech" <kathy(a)dnrc.tech> Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Hi all, Did I miss the invite (and doodle) for this call today? Brian From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of McAuley, David via GNSO-RPM-WG Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2020 1:09 PM To: 'PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com' <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com>; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com>; 'mary.wong(a)icann.org' <mary.wong(a)icann.org>; 'gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org' <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Hi Paul, and all, I am away on vacation and my replies will be delayed but I will be on the call Monday assuming wifi connection remains fine - so far, so good. I attempted to draft some new language but felt that it would not be helpful - I remain opposed to the new TM-PDDRP proposal for the reasons I mentioned when we discussed this but will endeavor to help with drafting if we can reach suitable compromise. But I also remain of the view that if anything like the proposal is submitted to the WG and the WG wants to adopt it then it must go for public comment. Sunrise Rec #2 would affect only future new gTLDs via a provision in their RA - a matter they would address with ICANN Compliance, not in a formal DRP. The proposal we are considering is a new cause of action under a DRP, it materially changes the present TM-PDDRP standard (section 6.2 Second Level),and it affects all gTLDs. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 2:52 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com>; mary.wong(a)icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Thanks Mary. Thanks Phil. We will, of course, get back to the main WG as quickly as possible. However, I think we may be jumping to the conclusion that the proposed amendments to the TM-PDDRP that are designed to prevent circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise rights protection mechanism would need to be put out to public comment. The WG has already settled on Sunrise Recommendation #2 which is essentially the same idea: "Sunrise Recommendation #2 The Working Group recommends that the Registry Agreement for future new gTLDs includes a provision stating that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise rights protection mechanism." Also, the idea of improvements to the TM-PDDRP came directly from public comment. I hope this helps with any angst over the timeline. Thanks! Best, Paul To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here [taftlaw.com] For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit [taftlaw.com] This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 10:52 AM To: mary.wong(a)icann.org; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com>; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Cc: brian.beckham(a)wipo.int; kathy(a)kathykleiman.com Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Thanks Mary. That is pretty much the language I quoted, plus confirmation of the 21-day minimum comment period. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 11:45 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com>; PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Cc: brian.beckham(a)wipo.int; kathy(a)kathykleiman.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Hello Paul, Phil and all - the Doodle polls were sent out yesterday but we realize that it went to Paul's old email address. The GNSO Secretariat has just re-sent the polls to Paul at his updated email address. With regard to a public comment proceeding, here is the relevant language from the GNSO's PDP Manual that was the basis for my previous guidance (noted by Phil): "In addition to any required public comment periods, the PDP Team may seek public comment on any item that the PDP Team notes it will benefit from further public input. The PDP Team does not have to seek approval from the GNSO Council to seek public comment on interim items. The minimum duration of a public comment period that does not concern the Initial Report is twenty (21) days." I hope that is helpful. Cheers Mary From: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin(a)verisign.com> Date: Friday, August 28, 2020 at 11:09 To: "PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com" <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Cc: "brian.beckham(a)wipo.int" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int>, "kathy(a)kathykleiman.com" <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Paul, Thanks for staying on top of this. We do need that small group to bring something back to the full WG ASAP so that if the co-chairs decide it needs public comment we can hopefully close that 21-day period by the end of September and not have to submit another Project Change Request (ugh). Back in late July, Mary told us, "a PDP Working Group also has the ability to post interim items for public comment that it believes "will benefit from further public input" - this may be an option where there is a need to resolve specific, concrete items during deliberations on a Final Report. You will therefore not need to wait for there to be a full draft report to exercise this option (though staff advises that any such items should be consolidated and posted as a single public comment proceeding and not on a piecemeal basis)." My own view would be that we should seek public comment where we have a substantially new proposal that could have a material effect on the community or portions thereof. Very best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 10:43 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Cc: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com>; Brian Beckham <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>; Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Hi Staff, I've not seen a doodle go out on getting this small group together. I don't think merely trying to work this out on the list is what we need. Can you please send out a doodle and try to get us together as early as possible next week so that we don't have to ask the co-chairs for an extension on our report date? Thanks much! Best, Paul Taft / Paul D. McGrady / Partner Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713 Tel: 312.527.4000 * Fax: 312.754.2354 Direct: 312.836.4094 * Cell: 312.882.5020 www.taftlaw.com [secure-web.cisco.com] / PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com Taft Bio [secure-web.cisco.com] Taft vCard [secure-web.cisco.com] Subscribe to our law updates [secure-web.cisco.com] To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here [secure-web.cisco.com] For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit [secure-web.cisco.com] This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. [wipo.int] 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.

4 4

Proposed Agenda for RPM PDP WG Meeting - Thursday, 03 September 17:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 2, 2020

Sept. 2, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials below for the full WG meeting on Thursday, 03 September at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. TM-PDDRP – Revised Text from Small Team (TBD) 3. URS Rec #9 & URS Proposal #34, URS Rec #10 & Q#6; See the Public Comment Analysis Summary at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110It4ZZMV6V4XY77J6DUq-H_ZGtdPNV8qCB_5Uk…<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/110It4ZZMV6V4…> and the Public Comment Review Tool at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRS… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjS…> 4. Overarching Recommendation XX on Data Collection (TBD) 5. AOB Proposed Co-Chair rotation for chairing the meeting: Brian Beckham. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 1

Public Comment Analysis Updated: URS Rec 6 & Q 4, Rec 7, Rec 8 & Q 5, and Rec 4
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 1, 2020

Sept. 1, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please note that the public comment analysis summary document has been updated by including the WG’s deliberations in today’s meeting (01 Sept). This document is not meant to replace the WG’s transcript, recording, and chat record, which are published here: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-09-01+Review+of+all+R…. The WG deliberation summaries for URS Rec 6 & Q 4 (pp. 17-20 and 21-22) Rec 7 (p. 23), Rec 8 & Q 5 (pp. 25-26 and pp. 27-28), and Rec 4 (pp. 8-11) can be found at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110It4ZZMV6V4XY77J6DUq-H_ZGtdPNV8qCB_5Uk… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/110It4ZZMV6V4…> You are welcome to point out any error/mischaracterization/missing content on list. Thank you for the review. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Tuesday, 01 September 2020 at 13:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 1, 2020

Sept. 1, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Tuesday, 01 September 2020 at 13:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/ugG-C> 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, Julie

1 0

Proposed Agenda for Rpm PDP WG Meeting - Tuesday, 1 September 13:00 UTC
by Ariel Liang Sept. 1, 2020

Sept. 1, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials below for the full WG meeting on Tuesday, 1 September at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. URS Recommendation #6 & Question #4, URS Recommendation #7, URS Recommendation #8 & Question #5, See the Public Comment Analysis Summary at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110It4ZZMV6V4XY77J6DUq-H_ZGtdPNV8qCB_5Uk…<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/110It4ZZMV6V4…> and the Public Comment Review Tool at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRS… 3. AOB Proposed Co-Chair rotation for chairing the meeting: Kathy Kleiman. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

3 3