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

REMINDER - Cancelled: Session 4 of the RPMs PDP WG Sessions at ICANN67
by Julie Hedlund March 12, 2020

March 12, 2020

Dear RPMs PDP WG members, This is a reminder that the final session scheduled for later today is cancelled and has been removed from the online schedule. Kind regards, Julie From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 1:10 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Cancelled: Session 4 of the RPMs PDP WG Sessions at ICANN67 Dear RPMs PDP WG members, Per the agreement of the WG members and Co-Chairs on during today’s WG session #3, as there are no further agenda items the final session #4, as scheduled below, is cancelled. It will be removed from the online schedule. CANCELLED: Thursday, 12 March: 14:45-15:45 (Cancún)/19:45-20:45 UTC/15:45-16:45 EDT – Session 4 of 4 Please let us know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie

1 0

Finalized Phase 1 Initial Report & Updated Google Forms
by Ariel Liang March 12, 2020

March 12, 2020

Dear RPM Working Group, Please find attached the finalized Phase 1 Initial Report in PDF format. * Staff has completed the remaining actions item by incorporating WG members’ suggestion to the contextual language of URS Question #1. Please see page 32. Specifically, the reference to “Default Determinations” is in the last sentence of the second paragraph on page 32. * Since the WG has concluded the review of the entire report in its draft format, no substantive edits can be made at this stage. * However, if you see any typos, grammatical errors, and formatting issues that need to be corrected, please comment on list no later than 23:59 UTC on Friday, 13 March 2020. Comments received after that date/time will not be considered. In addition, please also find the link to the Google Forms for public comment: https://forms.gle/Pq3bpxP3y4BFC11p7 * The instructions in Section 1 of the form have been updated, incorporating WG’s suggestions (we found an alternative way to “bold” and show emphasis instead of using all capitals – we hope this method would suffice). * Please feel free to test it out and click the links within the form. * If you detect any typos, errors, unclear instructions, and usability issues, please also comment on list no later than 23:59 UTC on Friday, 13 March 2020. Shortly after 23:59 UTC on Friday, 13 March, staff plan to send the final document and Google Forms to the ICANN team that manages public comment forum for final processing. Again, thanks everyone for your time and hard work throughout the process. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

2 1

Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 11 March 2019
by Julie Hedlund March 11, 2020

March 11, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 11 March 2019 at 15:45 UTC at the virtual ICANN67 meeting. 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/2020-03-11+ICANN67+-+Revie…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: 1. EPDP Suggested Potential/Preliminary Recommendations: Review the revised text in Recommendation 1 of URS Deliberations [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> (pages 1, 2 and new question on page 10) Question 1: ACTION ITEMS: -- Add specific mention of the EPDP Team for input. -- Add “(including the GDPR and other applicable privacy laws)”. -- Cross reference to mention in the report where it is noted that most URS are default cases. -- Change to “specifically, Recommendations #21, #23, and #27” and add a footnote with the recommendation text. -- Change “was referred” to “were referred”. 2. Public Comment Tool: ACTION ITEMS: -- Add to the introduction: "Please note: that there is an option at the end of this form for those who wish to add text or a point not covered by the questions" Also note that there is a character limit. -- Add at the end, “are there any other recommendations that you believe the WG should consider making?” -- Use all capitals to show emphasis – since boldface is not an option. But use sparingly. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. EPDP Suggested Potential/Preliminary Recommendations: Review the revised text in Recommendation 1 of URS Deliberations [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> (pages 1, 2 and new question on page 10) Question 1: ACTION ITEMS: -- Add specific mention of the EPDP Team for input. -- Add “(including the GDPR and other applicable privacy laws)”. -- Cross reference to mention in the report where it is noted that most URS are default cases. -- Change to “specifically, Recommendations #21, #23, and #27” and add a footnote with the recommendation text. -- Change “was referred” to “were referred”. 3. Review of Initial Report Remaining Boilerplate Sections – Action Items from Monday’s meeting) – See the Google docs at: https://community.icann.org/x/1SOJBw Next Steps: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUr_YS7PbxFDapazk2wtGxPulPsxgL76P45uCsS… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>: Staff will review the Charter to make sure any overarching issues are reflected in the Next Steps document and in the Charter Questions annex. -- Question: Whether the WG would like to call out the additional questions in the Initial Report for comment? Answer: WG confirms that they should be included for public comment. -- No changes from the WG. 4. Public Comment Tool: Address any questions/clarify possible areas of confusion. See: https://forms.gle/FjAarKNu2HGzdKo8A [forms.gle] [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_FjAarKNu2HGz…> -- Standard form for public comments. -- Ensures that the categorization of the comments is more accurate. Staff don’t have to make assumptions concerning support/non-support. -- Enables commenters to use a free-form box to provide general comments. -- Commenters can access both a Word and PDF version as a working document, although commenters will need to submit comments using the tool. ACTION ITEMS: -- Add to the introduction: "Please note: that there is an option at the end of this form for those who wish to add text or a point not covered by the questions" Also note that there is a character limit. -- Add at the end, “are there any other recommendations that you believe the WG should consider making?” -- Use all capitals to show emphasis – since boldface is not an option. But use sparingly.

1 0

Cancelled: Session 4 of the RPMs PDP WG Sessions at ICANN67
by Julie Hedlund March 11, 2020

March 11, 2020

Dear RPMs PDP WG members, Per the agreement of the WG members and Co-Chairs on during today’s WG session #3, as there are no further agenda items the final session #4, as scheduled below, is cancelled. It will be removed from the online schedule. CANCELLED: Thursday, 12 March: 14:45-15:45 (Cancún)/19:45-20:45 UTC/15:45-16:45 EDT – Session 4 of 4 Please let us know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie

1 0

REMINDER: Schedule and Proposed Agendas for RPMs PDP WG Sessions at ICANN67
by Julie Hedlund March 11, 2020

March 11, 2020

Dear RPMs PDP WG members, Per the ICANN67 Virtual Community Forum Schedule the sessions for the RPMs PDP WG are as follows and are on the schedule at: https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings [67.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__67.schedule.icann.org_…>. Please note the proposed agendas for sessions #2 (10 March), #3 (11 March), and #4 (12 March, if needed) below, which also are posted on the wiki pages at the links below. (Session #1 was completed today.) The agendas for 10 and 11 March reflect WG review of suggested potential/preliminary recommendations on EPDP and CCT-RT issues. See the following ACTION ITEM from the WG meeting on 09 March in preparation for the 10 March meeting as well as the link to the explanatory staff email: ACTION ITEM: WG members are requested to review the new text in the Background [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> (pages 14-15) and the URS Deliberations [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> (page 1) sections pertaining to the EPDP (redlined text in the links). Explanatory Staff Email: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2020-March/004253.html Kindly note that staff have uploaded the google docs for the Initial report draft sections on this wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/1SOJBw. Please let us know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie ICANN67 Schedule – RPM PDP WG Sessions See the ICANN67 GNSO Remote Participation Details Virtual Meetings<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/ICANN67+GNSO+Remote…> The ICANN67 Virtual community Forum [67.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__67.schedule.icann.org_…> scheduled session times are all reflected as Eastern Standard Time (MX) for Cancún, Quintana Roo, Mexico [UTC-5]. Important Reminder: On 8 March, Eastern Standard Time (EST) changes in the U.S. and Canada to Eastern Daylight saving Time (EDT), however, there is NO TIME CHANGE in Cancún, Mexico or to the posted Virtual Community Forum schedule on this date. For the EASTERN US this means that the meeting times will be ONE HOUR LATER than the times listed in the local Cancún time. Tuesday, 10 March: 13:30-15:00 (Cancún)/18:30-19:00 UTC/14:30-16:00 EDT – Session 2 of 4 Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-03-10+ICANN67+Cancun+… 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of EPDP Suggested Potential/Preliminary Recommendations: Review the new text in the Background [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> (pages 14-15) and the URS Deliberations [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> (page 1) sections 3. AOB Wednesday, 11 March: 10:45-12:15 (Cancún)/15:45-17:15 UTC/11:45-13:15 EDT – Session 3 of 4 Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-03-11+ICANN67+Cancun+… 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of CCT-RT Suggested Potential/Preliminary Recommendations 3. Review of Initial Report Remaining Boilerplate Sections (carried over from Monday’s meeting) – See the Google docs at: https://community.icann.org/x/1SOJBw 4. AOB Thursday, 12 March: 14:45-15:45 (Cancún)/19:45-20:45 UTC/15:45-16:45 EDT – Session 4 of 4 Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-03-12+ICANN67+Cancun+… No agenda; meeting will be cancelled if not needed.

1 3

Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 10 March 2019
by Julie Hedlund March 10, 2020

March 10, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 10 March 2019 at 18:30 UTC at the virtual ICANN67 meeting. 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/2020-03-10+ICANN67+-+Revie…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Review of EPDP Suggested Potential/Preliminary Recommendations ACTION ITEMS: 1. Accept the minor/non-substantive edits to the first paragraph of the recommendation. 2. Delete the substantive edits to the second paragraph of the recommendation, but maintain the minor/non-substantive edits. 3. Delete the third paragraph of the recommendation and make it a question for public comment. 4. In the context section quote from Appendix D of the Temp Spec. Notes: 1. Review of EPDP Suggested Potential/Preliminary Recommendations URS Recommendation #1: “Furthermore, the Working Group recommends that, to the extent this is operationally feasible, legally compliant and consistent with the final Phase 1 recommendations from the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data, the URS Procedure para 3.3 be amended to allow the Complainant to update the Complaint within 2-3 calendar days after the URS Provider provides updated discloses the registration data related to the disputed domain name(s).” -- Question about “operationally feasible, legally compliant” – need to be clearer. -- Reflects some of the concerns that people have had in the EPDP context. Given that we haven’t had the benefit of interactions with the providers who are getting the data and giving it to the complainant – we don’t know if our recommendation is feasible. So we put the caveats in. The EPDP also is wrestling with this as part of its Phase 2 recommendations. So we should reflect the need for any new requirement to be legally compliant. -- Who decides “legally compliant” – this is something the EDPD is talking about. The plan is that this is something that needs to be further discussed as part of implementation. -- The language around “legally compliant” is not as crisp. Suggest: “… to the extent that this is operationally feasible, compliant with applicable law, and consistent with the final Phase 1 recommendations …” -- FORUM has a process of automatically generating the complaint with the WHOIS information will populate automatically. We know that is often redacted. We contact the registry and sometimes the registrar to obtain the full contact information. When it comes to the amendment to the complaint that currently isn’t allowed under the rules. As far as the 2-3 calendar day window – for UDRP we require a 5-day window. That is a short window but you have to balance that with how fast you want the URS to be. We think that is feasible. -- Paragraphs 1 and 2 don’t change the WG’s recommendations. They were put in as we were discussing the EPDP and CCT-RT recommendations with the Co-Chairs. We thought we should make it clear that these two paragraphs do take into account the EPDP recommendations. -- Paragraph 3 is new. Staff is suggesting that new text to address whether there are GDPR implications. -- Strongly object to the addition of paragraph 3 and don’t think we need to alter paragraphs 1 and 2. -- Think about striking paragraph 3 and new language in paragraph 2. Add a paragraph that we recognize that this recommendation is going to affect the URS rules and supplemental rules but also rule 15 of the URS and once the registrant’s data is known that it could request that it continue to be shielded. -- Seems clear that the WG does not support paragraph 3 as a recommendation, but could be a question for public comment. Paragraph 2 – take the highlighted language out and note in the context that there was a range of views to flag it for public comment. -- Majority of WG members on the call supported maintaining the original language of paragraph 2, which was agreed to by the WG. -- EPDP tried to avoid using the terminology of “thin” registry. Staff suggestion is that we quote from appendix D of the Temp Spec, to make it clearer. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Accept the minor/non-substantive edits to the first paragraph of the recommendation. 2. Delete the substantive edits to the second paragraph of the recommendation, but maintain the minor/non-substantive edits. 3. Delete the third paragraph of the recommendation and make it a question for public comment. 4. In the context section quote from Appendix D of the Temp Spec. 2. Review of CCT-RT Suggested Potential/Preliminary Recommendations -- New text on page 14 – staff wishes to confirm that the WG agrees with the summary of how the WG addressed the CCT-RT’s recommendations #9, #27, and #28. -- There are recommendations that related to the CCT-RT’s recommendations, but these are not addressed in a specific way. -- The WG members had no changes to the text.

1 0

ACTION ITEM: Preparation for CCT-RT Discussion on 11 March
by Julie Hedlund March 10, 2020

March 10, 2020

Dear RPMs PDP WG members, In preparation for the discussion of agenda item #2 below -- CCT-RT Suggested Potential/Preliminary Recommendations -- on Wednesday, 11 March please review the new suggested text in redline on pages 14-15 in the Background section of the Initial Report at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hDBmPZnazCz2Tv4yFOyBJsMEHOL5K1LQh7krGJ…. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie Wednesday, 11 March: 10:45-12:15 (Cancún)/15:45-17:15 UTC/11:45-13:15 EDT – Session 3 of 4 Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-03-11+ICANN67+Cancun+… 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of CCT-RT Suggested Potential/Preliminary Recommendations 3. Review of Initial Report Remaining Boilerplate Sections (carried over from Monday’s meeting) – See the Google docs at: https://community.icann.org/x/1SOJBw 4. AOB

1 0

Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 09 March 2019
by Julie Hedlund March 9, 2020

March 9, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 09 March 2019 at 17:15 UTC at the virtual ICANN67 meeting. 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/2020-03-09+ICANN67+-+Revie…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: 1. Introduction to the EPDP Suggested Potential/Preliminary Recommendations (topic for 10 March) ACTION ITEM: WG members are requested to review the new text in the Background<https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hDBmPZnazCz2Tv4yFOyBJsMEHOL5K1LQh7krGJ…> (pages 14-15) and the URS Deliberations<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZWow09gE6-YmZYcty81CT2Tujm-3vTZE7lHj2f…> (page 1) sections pertaining to the EPDP (redlined text in the links). 2. Public Comment Tool: ACTION ITEMS: If they wish, WG members may review the tool and send any questions to the email distribution list noting the section and question number. See: https://forms.gle/FjAarKNu2HGzdKo8A 2. Deliberations of Trademark PDDRP – Review Action Items from 04 March Meeting NEW ACTION ITEM: Add clarifying text re: Article 9 to the context: “This recommendation specifically concerns a proposed amendment to the following rule of the TM-PDDRP Rule 3(g)s, and a reference to Article 9 of the TM-PDDRP” and a reference to Article 9. 3. Review of Initial Report Boilerplate Sections Next Steps: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUr_YS7PbxFDapazk2wtGxPulPsxgL76P45uCsS… ACTION ITEM: Staff will review the Charter to make sure any overarching issues are reflected in the Next Steps document and in the Charter Questions annex. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Introduction to the EPDP Suggested Potential/Preliminary Recommendations (topic for 10 March) -- WG may wish to consider if there are recommendations or questions it wishes to put forward in the Initial Report for Public comment. -- Staff proposed text (in the email) includes the source document – such as the Temp Spec – for the text (not yet reviewed by the WG Co-Chairs). -- As of 20 May 2019 there is a temporary consensus policy. -- Implementation of Phase I is well underway. -- While some updates may be necessary for the procedural aspects of the URS and supplemental rules, there may only need to be one modification needed to the URS rules. ACTION ITEM: WG members are requested to review the new text in the Background<https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hDBmPZnazCz2Tv4yFOyBJsMEHOL5K1LQh7krGJ…> (pages 14-15) and the URS Deliberations<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZWow09gE6-YmZYcty81CT2Tujm-3vTZE7lHj2f…> (page 1) sections pertaining to the EPDP (redlined text in the links). 3. Public Comment Tool: -- Standard tool to capture public comments – used by EPDP and Auction Proceeds. ACTION ITEM: Staff will check with EPDP support staff to determine whether it wasn’t feasible to allow submission via Word document (as EPDP didn’t allow that option). ACTION ITEM: If they wish, WG members may review the tool and send any questions to the email distribution list noting the section and question number. See: https://forms.gle/FjAarKNu2HGzdKo8A 4. Initial Report Review of Deliberations/Context – See the Google docs at: https://community.icann.org/x/1SOJBw a. Deliberations of Trademark PDDRP – Review Action Items from 04 March Meeting ACTION ITEM: Keep the footnote but add a direct link to each of the providers supplemental rules. – This was completed during the 04 March meeting. ACTION ITEM: Re: “The filing of a joint Complaint or consolidation is to be permitted only where: (i) the Complaints relate to the Registry Operator’s conduct with respect only to the top or the second level of that gTLD for all Complaints” – add text to clarify. -- Changed to: The filing of a joint Complaint or consolidation is to be permitted only where: (i) the Complaints relate [to the same conduct] by the Registry Operator, at ’s conduct with respect only to the top or the second level [of the same] that gTLD for all Complaints; and (ii) all the trademark owners in the case of a joint Complaint or the Complaints (s) for which consolidation is being requested that ato be consolidated have satisfied the Threshold Review criteria specified in Article 9 of the TM-PDDRP. ACTION ITEM: In #1: Add a reference to Article 9 of TM-PDDRP. -- This has been added. NEW ACTION ITEM: Add clarifying text re: Article 9 to the context: “This recommendation specifically concerns a proposed amendment to the following rule of the TM-PDDRP Rule 3(g)s, and a reference to Article 9 of the TM-PDDRP” and a reference to Article 9. b. Deliberations of Additional Marketplace – Review Action Items from 04 March Meeting The following action items were addressed in real time during the meeting: ACTION ITEM: Add this text at the end of the second paragraph: “This necessarily required the working group to have an appreciation of the wider RPM landscape.” ACTION ITEM: Remove the link from the text and put it into the footnote. 5. Review of Initial Report Boilerplate Sections – See the Google docs at: https://community.icann.org/x/1SOJBw a. Background (introduced on 04 March): https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hDBmPZnazCz2Tv4yFOyBJsMEHOL5K1LQh7krGJ… -- URS Recommendation #1 pertains to the EPDP work. Staff sent an update to the URS Deliberations document showing in redline the staff proposed edits. b. Next Steps: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUr_YS7PbxFDapazk2wtGxPulPsxgL76P45uCsS… -- Numbers 2, 3, and 4 are the overarching charter questions are in the Charter. -- Question: Numbers 1 and 5 are not in the Charter. Why is that? Also, what about the other General questions? Answer: When reviewing the topics for the URS there is a table with a section on the overarching questions, numbers 1-5. -- In the deliberations of the WG some of these questions came up off and on. These came up during the URS discussions. -- Missing is the set of general questions in the Charter and the general effectiveness of the RPMs. Those should be added to the Next Steps document. -- Text added with new question relating to the additional marketplace RPMs: “In addition, based on an early suggestion from one of its Sub Teams, the Working Group is expected to consider the following general question related to the additional marketplace RPMs: “How, and to what extent, does use of Protected Marks Lists (e.g. blocking services) affect the utilization of other RPMs, especially Sunrise registrations?” This question is related to the Overarching Charter Question #3 as described above.” ACTION ITEM: Staff will review the Charter to make sure any overarching issues are reflected in the Next Steps document and in the Charter Questions annex. c. Approach Taken by the Working Group: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R9_cSpOv_BfdSM_8bpyIJ2qa9-NF9onlWO5LOBN… -- This is text that has been discussed; it documents how the WG conducted its work. d. Annex B - Charter Questions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J6oMy7XqA_xcHcEY3RUUxcfozVlxs_5HnOagRm8… -- These will be updated per the action above. e. Annex C - Working Group Documents: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WET4XdASUVplFkph3EirPok1uskIovjcEn5Od0N… -- This is a list of the documents for each topic from the wiki. f. Executive Summary: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12dP6x9PIxGtPrflVMlCUT4JUpE1WxQ8BVuhNMrL… -- Highlighted text is where staff will need to check the numbers. g. Overview of Preliminary Recommendations and Questions for Community Input: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jY9AUhl7EL1xyO0WytF-QJvV11roDQjk0gJCWdi… -- This part duplicates much of the Executive Summary. Might still want to have it here for reference. -- WG agrees to leave it even if it is repetitive. -- Otherwise this is just a repeat of the recommendations captured from each deliberations section. h. Cover Page: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16SRR5Y_WqLSHst2Sq3BVGdfiBjb1b02qcoMfZ40… -- This is just a brief summary of what will be covered in the Initial Report. It is standard text for a cover page of an Initial Report, taken from the templates for these reports. i. Deliberations of the Working Group [introduction – recommendations already covered]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Q-fJlDUygE2jOJQIGCVeuuH2p6o_sdK9jpt4AF… -- This section describes how the various Deliberations sections are laid out and why. -- High level summary of the deliberations that led to the recommendations and questions. j. Individual Proposals (Non-Recommendations) [introduction – recommendations already covered]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Q-fJlDUygE2jOJQIGCVeuuH2p6o_sdK9jpt4AF… -- Includes this disclaimer language (captured as a previous action): “This section does not include the Working Group’s deliberations on proposals submitted by individual Working Group members that did not rise to the level of becoming Working Group preliminary recommendations.” k. Annex E - Community Input -- Documents the outreach to the community and the feedback received.

1 0

FOR REVIEW: Draft staff text on EPDP recommendations for inclusion in Initial Report (Re: UPDATED AGENDAS AND LINK: Schedule and Proposed Agendas for RPMs PDP WG Sessions at ICANN67)
by Mary Wong March 9, 2020

March 9, 2020

Dear Working Group members, This message follows up on Julie’s note below, with reference to our meeting tomorrow (Tuesday 10 March). You will see that the updated agenda calls for us to discuss potential preliminary recommendations that this Working Group may wish to make concerning a few RPM-related recommendations from Phase 1 of the Expedited Policy Development Process on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data (EPDP). These include EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation #21, which the GNSO Council referred to this Working Group in July 2019, proposing that: “… the GNSO Council instructs the review of all RPMs PDP WG to consider, as part of its deliberations, whether there is a need to update existing requirements to clarify that a Complainant must only be required to insert the publicly-available RDDS data for the domain name(s) at issue in its initial Complaint. The EPDP Team also recommends the GNSO Council to instruct the RPMs PDP WG to consider whether upon receiving updated RDDS data (if any), the Complainant must be given the opportunity to file an amended Complaint containing the updated respondent information.” In this regard, staff has updated the URS Deliberations document, to add further proposed text to URS Recommendation #1 that the Working Group has previously discussed and approved, as well as some additional background information about the relevant EPDP Phase 1 recommendations in the Context section. Please note that this is staff-suggested draft text that the Working Group co-chairs have not had the opportunity to review or comment on, and as such has been placed on the Working Group agenda for tomorrow (Tuesday): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZWow09gE6-YmZYcty81CT2Tujm-3vTZE7lHj2f…. The staff-proposed text is based on staff recommendations to the Working Group co-chairs as to how the EPDP recommendations can be handled at this stage of our work, particularly the benefit of including preliminary conclusions in the Initial Report so as to solicit community input. Much of the text has been based on the following resources: * The Wave 1 analysis report that our colleagues in ICANN org’s Global Domains Division (GDD) has produced, in relation to EPDP Phase 1 recommendation #27: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-phas…; * The provisions of the Temporary Specification (which ICANN’s Contracted Parties continue to have to comply with, under the Interim Registration Data Policy that became effective on 20 May 2019 (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/interim-registration-data-policy-en) see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gtld-registration-data-specs-en/#temp…; and * The fact that the URS, while not a Consensus Policy at this stage, is a dispute resolution procedure that registry operators of gTLDS delegated under the 2012 New gTLD Program are mandated to apply and that registrants of domain names in these new gTLDs agree to as part of their registration agreements. Finally, as analysis of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and its impact is outside the scope of this PDP, staff ventures to suggest that the Working Group consider specifically requesting the EPDP Team and/or the GNSO Council to weigh in, during the public comment period, on whether the proposed preliminary recommendations meet the intention and needs of the EPDP recommendations. Staff will be pleased to elaborate further on this topic during the call tomorrow, but we wanted to make sure that you all had the proposed text before the meeting. Thank you. Best regards, Julie, Ariel & Mary From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, March 9, 2020 at 11:58 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] UPDATED AGENDAS AND LINK: Schedule and Proposed Agendas for RPMs PDP WG Sessions at ICANN67 Dear RPMs PDP WG members, Per the ICANN67 Virtual Community Forum Schedule the sessions for the RPMs PDP WG are as follows and are on the schedule at: https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings [67.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__67.schedule.icann.org_…>. Please note the updated proposed agendas and link for each session below, which also are posted on the wiki pages at the links below. These updated agendas reflect WG review of suggested potential/preliminary recommendations on EPDP and CCT-RT issues (draft text will be forthcoming from staff). Kindly note that staff have uploaded the google docs for the Initial report draft sections on this wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/1SOJBw. Please let us know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie ICANN67 Schedule – RPM PDP WG Sessions See the ICANN67 GNSO Remote Participation Details Virtual Meetings<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/ICANN67+GNSO+Remote…> The ICANN67 Virtual community Forum [67.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__67.schedule.icann.org_…> scheduled session times are all reflected as Eastern Standard Time (MX) for Cancún, Quintana Roo, Mexico [UTC-5]. Important Reminder: On 8 March, Eastern Standard Time (EST) changes in the U.S. and Canada to Eastern Daylight saving Time (EDT), however, there is NO TIME CHANGE in Cancún, Mexico or to the posted Virtual Community Forum schedule on this date. For the EASTERN US this means that the meeting times will be ONE HOUR LATER than the times listed in the local Cancún time. Monday, 09 March: 13:45-15:15 (Cancún)/18:45-19:15 UTC/14:45-16:15 EDT – Session 1 of 4 Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-03-09+ICANN67+-+Revie… 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Initial Report Review of Deliberations/Context – See the Google docs at: https://community.icann.org/x/1SOJBw * Deliberations of Trademark PDDRP – Review Action Items from 04 March Meeting * Deliberations of Additional Marketplace – Review Action Items from 04 March Meeting 3. Review of Initial Report Boilerplate Sections (as many sections as time permits) – See the Google docs at: https://community.icann.org/x/1SOJBw * Background (introduced on 04 March) * Next Steps * Approach Taken by the Working Group * Executive Summary * Overview of Preliminary Recommendations and Questions for Community Input * Annex B - Charter Questions * Annex C - Working Group Documents * Cover Page * Deliberations of the Working Group [introduction – recommendations already covered] * Individual Proposals (Non-Recommendations) [introduction – recommendations already covered] * Annex E - Community Input 4. AOB Tuesday, 10 March: 13:30-15:00 (Cancún)/18:30-19:00 UTC/14:30-16:00 EDT – Session 2 of 4 Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-03-10+ICANN67+Cancun+… 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of EPDP Suggested Potential/Preliminary Recommendations 3. AOB Wednesday, 11 March: 10:45-12:15 (Cancún)/15:45-17:15 UTC/11:45-13:15 EDT – Session 3 of 4 Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-03-11+ICANN67+Cancun+… 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of CCT-RT Suggested Potential/Preliminary Recommendations 3. Review of Initial Report Remaining Boilerplate Sections (carried over from Monday’s meeting) – See the Google docs at: https://community.icann.org/x/1SOJBw 4. AOB Thursday, 12 March: 14:45-15:45 (Cancún)/19:45-20:45 UTC/15:45-16:45 EDT – Session 4 of 4 Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-03-12+ICANN67+Cancun+… No agenda; meeting will be cancelled if not needed.

1 0

UPDATED AGENDAS AND LINK: Schedule and Proposed Agendas for RPMs PDP WG Sessions at ICANN67
by Julie Hedlund March 9, 2020

March 9, 2020

Dear RPMs PDP WG members, Per the ICANN67 Virtual Community Forum Schedule the sessions for the RPMs PDP WG are as follows and are on the schedule at: https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings [67.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__67.schedule.icann.org_…>. Please note the updated proposed agendas and link for each session below, which also are posted on the wiki pages at the links below. These updated agendas reflect WG review of suggested potential/preliminary recommendations on EPDP and CCT-RT issues (draft text will be forthcoming from staff). Kindly note that staff have uploaded the google docs for the Initial report draft sections on this wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/1SOJBw. Please let us know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie ICANN67 Schedule – RPM PDP WG Sessions See the ICANN67 GNSO Remote Participation Details Virtual Meetings<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/ICANN67+GNSO+Remote…> The ICANN67 Virtual community Forum [67.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__67.schedule.icann.org_…> scheduled session times are all reflected as Eastern Standard Time (MX) for Cancún, Quintana Roo, Mexico [UTC-5]. Important Reminder: On 8 March, Eastern Standard Time (EST) changes in the U.S. and Canada to Eastern Daylight saving Time (EDT), however, there is NO TIME CHANGE in Cancún, Mexico or to the posted Virtual Community Forum schedule on this date. For the EASTERN US this means that the meeting times will be ONE HOUR LATER than the times listed in the local Cancún time. Monday, 09 March: 13:45-15:15 (Cancún)/18:45-19:15 UTC/14:45-16:15 EDT – Session 1 of 4 Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-03-09+ICANN67+-+Revie… 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Initial Report Review of Deliberations/Context – See the Google docs at: https://community.icann.org/x/1SOJBw * Deliberations of Trademark PDDRP – Review Action Items from 04 March Meeting * Deliberations of Additional Marketplace – Review Action Items from 04 March Meeting 3. Review of Initial Report Boilerplate Sections (as many sections as time permits) – See the Google docs at: https://community.icann.org/x/1SOJBw * Background (introduced on 04 March) * Next Steps * Approach Taken by the Working Group * Executive Summary * Overview of Preliminary Recommendations and Questions for Community Input * Annex B - Charter Questions * Annex C - Working Group Documents * Cover Page * Deliberations of the Working Group [introduction – recommendations already covered] * Individual Proposals (Non-Recommendations) [introduction – recommendations already covered] * Annex E - Community Input 4. AOB Tuesday, 10 March: 13:30-15:00 (Cancún)/18:30-19:00 UTC/14:30-16:00 EDT – Session 2 of 4 Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-03-10+ICANN67+Cancun+… 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of EPDP Suggested Potential/Preliminary Recommendations 3. AOB Wednesday, 11 March: 10:45-12:15 (Cancún)/15:45-17:15 UTC/11:45-13:15 EDT – Session 3 of 4 Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-03-11+ICANN67+Cancun+… 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of CCT-RT Suggested Potential/Preliminary Recommendations 3. Review of Initial Report Remaining Boilerplate Sections (carried over from Monday’s meeting) – See the Google docs at: https://community.icann.org/x/1SOJBw 4. AOB Thursday, 12 March: 14:45-15:45 (Cancún)/19:45-20:45 UTC/15:45-16:45 EDT – Session 4 of 4 Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-03-12+ICANN67+Cancun+… No agenda; meeting will be cancelled if not needed.

1 0