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

Pre-ICANN67 Policy Report now available!
by Nathalie Peregrine Feb. 18, 2020

Feb. 18, 2020

Dear all, Just in time for ICANN67 Prep Week, the Pre-ICANN67 Policy Report is now available: https://go.icann.org/pre67. For prep-week webinar dates and times, please check here: https://meetings.icann.org/en/cancun67-prep-week Kind regards, Nathalie

1 1

Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 19 February 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 17, 2020

Feb. 17, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials below for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 19 February 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC. As is the GNSO's practice, the document is being circulated for the purpose of ensuring that WG members are comfortable with the format and overall coverage of the recommendations and deliberations. Please remember that the Initial Report is meant to focus on specific recommendations/proposals, with brief, relevant, accompanying rationale, rather than be a comprehensive record of the WG's deliberations. WG members are reminded that comments in the Google docs should be limited only to error corrections that you believe are necessary. The documents will be open for comment until COB Tuesday, 18 February. After that time they will be closed to comment. While they are closed comments will not be visible, but they will be displayed during the WG meeting. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Finalize Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: TMCH Structure and Scope: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-TH7WopFauhEU1Z0zCjQp26s3S8d6J3SnLLOnTf… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> -- Review Action Items for TMCH Recommendation #1 3. Continue Discussion of TMCH Individual Proposals for which the Working Group is Seeking Input, starting with Proposal #2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fh6KnBvqH78Pmo7qUBtR3JyIIvUifJ-8hzX9dcJ… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 4. Discussion (time permitting) of Deliberations of the Working Group: URS Individual Proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kHBPLtbp6BgqmxZGPHC1Yeciulvvk79niPOuURI… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 5. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 12 February 2019
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 12 February 2019 at 18:00 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/2020-02-12+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: 1. Complete Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: URS – Draft of Initial Report Text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZWow09gE6-YmZYcty81CT2Tujm-3vTZE7lHj2f… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> Recommendation #7: ACTION ITEM: Delete the last sentence in the context and replace it with this wording: “The WG reviewed data from over 900 URS cases and agreed that a sufficient number cited either inadequate or no rationale for the decisions, such that the WG recommends that URS Providers require their examiners to document their rationale in sufficient details to explain how the decision was reached in all issued Determinations.” Question #8: ACTION ITEM: Add an opening sentence, “The WG was unable to find any instance of the penalty for abusive conduct being levied.” 2. Begin Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: TMCH Structure and Scope: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-TH7WopFauhEU1Z0zCjQp26s3S8d6J3SnLLOnTf… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> TMCH Recommendation #1: Recommendation Text: ACTION ITEM: Clarify the language to not make it sounds like open questions: Take out the word “whether” as it makes them sound like open questions. Context Text: 1. TM+50: ACTION ITEM: Add a link to the current rule. 2. Exact Match: ACTION ITEM: Change “current” to “correct”. Also need to be consistent with TM Claims recommendation #6. 3. Limiting the Sunrise & Claims RPMs to certain gTLDs for trademarks containing dictionary term(s)? ACTION ITEM: Delete the question mark. ACTION ITEM: Clarify the text and perhaps break it into two sentences. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Complete Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: URS – Draft of Initial Report Text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZWow09gE6-YmZYcty81CT2Tujm-3vTZE7lHj2f… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> Recommendation #7: ACTION ITEM: Delete the last sentence in the context and replace it with this wording: “The WG reviewed data from over 900 URS cases and agreed that a sufficient number cited either inadequate or no rationale for the decisions, such that the WG recommends that URS Providers require their examiners to document their rationale in sufficient details to explain how the decision was reached in all issued Determinations.” -- Some support for an option that does not quote specific statistics or that mentions “non-compliance” (option 2). -- Some support for percentage range (option 1). -- Agree with the suggestion for hybrid language (option 3, see above). Question #5: -- WG does not have changes. Question #2: -- WG does not have changes. Question #6: -- WG does not have changes. Question #7: -- WG does not have changes. Question #8: ACTION ITEM: Add an opening sentence, “The WG was unable to find any instance of the penalty for abusive conduct being levied.” Question #9: -- WG does not have changes. 3. Begin Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: TMCH Structure and Scope: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-TH7WopFauhEU1Z0zCjQp26s3S8d6J3SnLLOnTf… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> Overview: -- Combines into a single recommendation several specific topics: the recommendation for all of the topics is to keep the status quo. But make it clear that it is three separate topics. -- There also is a separate section on URS proposals, on which there is not agreement for recommendations. So the WG is seeking comment on the proposals including on whether the proposals can be amended. -- With respect to the Charter questions for the TMCH: the way the WG approach the refining of the question was to divide them into six different categories. We are proposing to list the questions by category in a separate section on which there could be comments. TMCH Recommendation #1: Recommendation Text: ACTION ITEM: Clarify the language to not make it sounds like open questions: Take out the word “whether” as it makes them sound like open questions. Context Text: 1. TM+50: ACTION ITEM: Add a link to the current rule. 2. Exact Match: ACTION ITEM: Change “current” to “correct”. Also need to be consistent with TM Claims recommendation #6. 3. Limiting the Sunrise & Claims RPMs to certain gTLDs for trademarks containing dictionary term(s)? ACTION ITEM: Delete the question mark. ACTION ITEM: Clarify the text and perhaps break it into two sentences. 4. Begin Discussion (Time Permitting) of TMCH Proposals for which the Working Group is Seeking Input: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fh6KnBvqH78Pmo7qUBtR3JyIIvUifJ-8hzX9dcJ… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> -- Language of the recommendation and the rationale are from the proposals. -- What is new is the WG deliberations. -- Only the deliberation language is up for review by the WG. Proposal #1: -- The WG has no changes. Proposal #2: -- Discuss the deliberations section on the next call.

1 0

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Wednesday, 12 February 2020
by Julie Bisland Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Wednesday, 12 February 2020 at 18:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/EhOJBw>(attendance included) 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 <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw>. Thank you. With kind regards, Julie

1 0

REMINDER / Meeting Invitation Webinar | EPDP - Phase 2 Proposed Recommendations on a Standardized System for Access and Disclosure | Thursday, 13 February 2020 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

Dear all, Please find the details below for the EPDP - Phase 2 Proposed Recommendations on a Standardized System for Access and Disclosure Webinar. This webinar will provide an overview of the EPDP’s Phase 2 proposed recommendations for a Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD). This effort builds upon the EPDP’s Phase 1 work on enhancing Registration Data Services where, under certain circumstances, personal contact information is now redacted. The Phase 2 effort for developing the SSAD will allow for disclosure of this redacted contact information based on third-party legitimate interests, administration proceedings, and law enforcement needs, subject to applicable law and the rights of the data subject. The webinar will highlight each of the EPDP Team’s recommendations and will provide an opportunity for participants to ask questions and provide feedback on the Initial Report, which is currently out for public comment. The report can be found on the public comment proceedings section on https://www.icann.org/public-comments [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2…>, and the webinar materials will be posted on the EPDP’s wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/6g6JBw> following the webinar. Thursday, 13 February 2020 at 14:00 UTC for 60 minutes For other times: https://tinyurl.com/wsm7h3y [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_wsm7h3y&d=…> Join Zoom Meeting: https://icann.zoom.us/s/331729252 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.zoom.us_s_331729…> Meeting ID: 331 729 252 Password: 586730 One tap mobile +16699006833,,331729252# US (San Jose) +19294362866,,331729252# US (New York) Find your local number: https://icann.zoom.us/u/abQBVd1jHM [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.zoom.us_u_abQBVd…> Slides to assist you with Zoom: Welcome to Zoom: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/1sal3l5qf4csdukt0pk2c75ey3bte22z.pdf [icann.box.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.box.com_shared_s…> Zoom FAQ: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/d5rap0g6xphevhkdd3mhu2hy753l2m3s.pdf [icann.box.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.box.com_shared_s…> If Zoom disappears, see instructions:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/present…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_d…> A calendar invitation has equally been attachment for you to download to your calendar. Thank you in advance for reserving this time in your schedule. Kind Regards, Terri

1 1

ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018
by Ariel Liang Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP WG call held on 08 August 2018 (17:00-18:30 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/uwNpBQ Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) == ACTION ITEMS: * Brian Beckham to send to the WG a WIPO FAQ with regard to “Doe Complaint”. * Renee Fossen to provide more information on HSTS-preloaded domain suspension issues in the written responses. * Staff to recirculate the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document * WG members to provide substantive comment and raise anything they believe is missing on the WG mailing list by COB Tue, 14 Aug. Co-Chairs will then discuss among themselves to determine further actions/process. * WG members to finish reviewing the rest of the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document, including page 24-35, during next week’s call. Later period to discuss larger policy issues. NOTES: Review Agenda/Statements of Interest * George Kirikos has become a member of the At-Large Community: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/George+Kirikos+SOI General Comment on the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table Document * The topics in the table were developed by the WG members and deliberated on by the WG & URS Sub Teams. Each Sub Team then did very substantial work on data collection and reviewing what came back. While the actual Sub Team recommendations and suggestions captured in this document are what is intended the WG should discuss - to see if it wishes to develop policy or operational recommendations - discussion over what should be on the actual list of topics should not be reopened unless the WG agrees to do so. We encourage all WG members to review all the previous reports from each Sub Team, and all the documents they worked on. They are linked in this Super Consolidated document (page 2). * The Super Consolidated document is a summary of findings and suggestions by the Sub Teams. The Table does not mean to limit/restrict recommendations from the WG members. If there is any issue overlapping with UDRP, can possibly be carried over to the phase II of the PDP. * Is it possible to add additional topics to the Super Consolidated Table? One WG member said that access to the Courts, for example, is a topic he raised, which isn't in the table. Statute of Limitations, whether URS should apply to legacy gTLDs as a consensus policy, are just a few of the topics not in the table. He brought it up in November 2017 (see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-November/002585.html ) and it was reflected in a later document. That's a critical issue for registrants. if they don't have access to the courts to challenge a URS decision, then it's a huge denial of their rights. * While the chart is not meant to foreclose further discussion, it is a good faith attempt at capturing the work of the sub teams. The purpose of today's, and likely the next few, calls was to make sure this was an accurate and comprehensive reflection of our discussions so far. That said, WG members should bear in mind that we are seeking consensus, so items which are unlikely to achieve that may not be appropriate to reflect as a recommendation, but could be included in public comments on the Initial Report. Also, before adding items to this chart, we will want to work with staff to see whether such topics was previously discussed, and if so, the level of agreement/consensus. In other words, it is not necessary final, but is equally an opportunity to reintroduce topics which have been discussed, but for which consensus is/was not possible. * Could we create a list of "missing issues" -- a list of issues raised in this call (and calls to follow); we can evaluate the nature and weight of these ideas later. * Regarding the Action Items highlighted in column 3 of the table, Providers ST will do a first pass of the responses from the Providers to the follow-up questions, and then discuss the issues that they identified and proposed suggestions with the full WG. Limited filing period (page 3) * One WG member believes that there should be limitation for filing period to bring URS Complaints, so the domain registered many years ago would not be subject to unfair treatment. He said a registrant who owns a domain for 20 years, for example, shouldn't have to be concerned about a policy that can take their domain down with very short time period to respond. * Other WG members said this was discussed, and did not achieve agreement. That would only even be an option if the trademark pre-dated. This is unlikely to be a situation in practice where a URS was brought because it would probably not be a "slam dunk" case after 20 years unless there had been a change of circumstances. * On the issue of delay and laches - as reported by the Docs Sub Team, the data did not provide any basis for which a policy recommendation should be made. The Providers and Practitioners Sub Teams also did not uncover any specific issues that came to either practitioners' or providers' attention. Administrative Review (page 3-4) * One WG member asked whether ICANN should bring Providers into contractual relationship in order to enforce the URS Rules & Procedures. Another member said it probably need to be ICANN’s legal department to enforce the rules & procedure. * URS Providers have MoU with ICANN. Whether it is ICANN’s compliance department or legal department to enforce the rules & procedures, it should not be controversial that Providers must abide by them. * An MOU could be legally enforceable, depending on the circumstances. 500-word Complaint limit (page 4-5) * On 500-word Complaint Limit - Practitioners' survey results were split (out of 12, 5 agree it's sufficient, 4 disagree); results included feedback from some that the word limit was too low: "arbitrary and often insufficient" and "should be slightly increased". * One member said he understands and generally agrees with the decision not to suggest an expansion of the word limit, he wonders if there aren't situations (multi- domain challenges, etc.) where a Complainant or Respondent might be given the opportunity to request an expansion. This point can be captured for decisional phase. * Another member suggested that perhaps providers can provide stats on the average word length of complaints, to see how close to the 500 words they are at present. (i.e. a table of distributions, e.g. 10% under 200 words, 20% between 201 and 300, etc.) Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec (page 5-6) * One member believes that 2-3 days might not be a good rule (e.g. weekends, time to research, etc.). Maybe 5 business days. * WIPO’s approach to “doe complaints” has been very helpful and provides some comfort that the lack of true registrant/registrant organization data masked due to GDPR will not result in a deficient complaint for an omitted respondent. * ACTION ITEM: Brian Beckham to send to the WG a WIPO FAQ with regard to “Doe Complaint”. * Forum is asking for amendment of the complaint in UDRP - under the rules that's not allowed in URS. SMD Files (page 6-7) * SMD files are used for limited purpose of demonstrating the use. * Recollection is that SMD files would be passed to the Examiners and relay the critical information related to the TM registration. That's why some people are surprised by the limited info SMD files would provide. * The SMD files contain some basic human-readable information, with the rest of the information coded. For example, the trademark itself is human-readable but the applicable Nice classification is coded. A SMD file is used by registries/registrars for validation, and as Greg noted, to demonstrate use. From the TMCH provider: http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/help/faq/which-information-does-smd-… * If the intent of the STI was that the SMD file would be a file summary, that got lost somewhere along the way, way before the SMD file was designed by the TMCH providers. * Rules 3(b)(v) Specify the trademark(s) or service mark(s) on which the complaint is based and the goods or services with which the mark is used including evidence of use –which can be a declaration and a specimen of current use in commerce - submitted directly or by including a relevant SMD (Signed Mark Data) from the Trademark Clearinghouse * It might be useful to look at the spec that they relied on. But the real question is how should the examiner get the relevant data about the Complainant’s mark. The SMD file is probably not the answer, if it was ever intended to be. * the Examiner is not required to second-guess the SMD file. Its existence is sufficient that the mark has had use validated by the TMCH. Other Topics (page 7-8) * These are policy proposals can be brought up when WG members are proposing changes to the URS policy itself. Charter asks us to address the question whether the URS should become a consensus policy applicable to legacy domains. Charter is not specific regarding whether such discussion should occur in phase I or phase II. This feedback illustrates that the ST didn't get to propose policy changes, it is for the WG to discuss and propose changes. * when we reference the STI and IRT reports, we need to keep in mind they only had about 1-2 months to complete their work and produce a report; they were not standard PDP working groups and had limited charters and mandates, which were set by the Board * This is feedback from one Provider, who may want to grow their business. Practitioners survey are from Complaints' side. Need to have a balanced solution when considering the input. * There were plenty of practitioners that represent registrants in the Subgroup, although their experience was largely with the UDRP. Duration of response period (Page 11) * One member believes that if the URS continues in its current form, it would affect valuable domain names. The ones the registrants that do want to defend them, 14 days are not sufficient. 20 days may be more appropriate. It should be based on the age of the domain name. If a domain is 3 months, it will have a shorter period to respond. If you own a domain name for 5-10 years, response period would be longer so less urgency. * Several other WG members disagree. The URS is supposed to be an expedited proceeding so increasing the length of time of a streamlined proceeding defeats the purpose. At most, there could be an additional 3 or 4 days extension period for cause. The point is that there are enough circumstances that give rise to the URS 'quick response' that we should NOT make assumptions into policy. It is an assumption that an "aged" domain would not require a fast response. In Mexico, we have not been able to file a domain name case due to Courts ignorance about the subject and also, because it could take years to be solved. We're spinning out fo control - extending the time to respond to URS cases just because a domain registration is not new defeats the purpose of fast action to take down an infringing domain once it's discovered. The URS is meant to address clear and convincing cases of infringement. A person registers a domain name for less than $50 and brand owner find out about at some point and then files an injunction in court for tens of thousands of dollars. Where is the balance. Examiners Guide (page 13) * The WIPO guidance for examiners took 1500 hours to develop. * The WIPO guidance is relevant to the URS, the elements are shown are the same and the differences include the burden of proof, word limit, etc. A lot of WIPO guidance goes to the shade of grey issues. URS is for clear black/white cases, so if there is a URS guidance it would likely be abbreviated. Duration of Suspension Period & Review of Implementation (page 21-23) * One WG member suggests to find out how much cost for registries & registrars to comply with the URS rules and procedures. Need to get data/feedback from the registries/registrars. * Other WG members are not sure "cost of implementation of URS" for Registries/Registrars is relevant to effectiveness of URS. We don't need to do a cost/benefit analysis (the costs & benefits aren't ICANN's), the providers, registrars, registries need to be asked if they are overburdened by the costs of compliance. * There is an action item to contact the registries/registrars about these issues. Timing TBD due to Sunrise & Claims survey launch. Other topics (page 23-24) * One WG member thinks the HSTS issue is not difficult to fix. The Providers need to improve their technical applicability to resolve the issue. Renee Fossen from Forum disagrees. * ACTION ITEM: Renee Fossen to provide more information on HSTS-preloaded domain suspension issues in the written responses. NEXT STEPS * ACTION ITEM: Staff to recirculate the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document and ask all WG members to provide substantive comment and raise anything they believe is missing on the WG mailing list by COB Tue, 14 Aug. Co-Chairs will then discuss among themselves to determine further actions/process. * ACTION ITEM: WG to finish reviewing the rest of the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document, including page 24-35. Later period to discuss larger policy issues.

20 45

Review and provide feed back | New Public Comment feature
by Terri Agnew Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

Dear all, As per David Olive’s blogpost [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…>, the Public Comment feature has undergone improvements, developed thanks to community input. The Information Transparency Initiative (ITI) team released the new Public Comment feature on the 7th February 2020 and your feedback is greatly anticipated. Review https://alpha.icann.org/en/public-comment [alpha.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__alpha.icann.org_en_pub…> and provide feedback to public-comment(a)icann.org<mailto:public-comment@icann.org> Thank you. With kind regards, Terri --- Terri Agnew Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype ID: terri.agnew.icann Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…>

1 0

Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 12 February 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials below for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 12 February 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC. As is the GNSO's practice, the document is being circulated for the purpose of ensuring that WG members are comfortable with the format and overall coverage of the recommendations and deliberations. Please remember that the Initial Report is meant to focus on specific recommendations/proposals, with brief, relevant, accompanying rationale, rather than be a comprehensive record of the WG's deliberations. WG members are reminded that comments in the Google docs should be limited only to error corrections that you believe are necessary. The documents will be open for comment until COB Tuesday, 11 February. After that time they will be closed to comment. While they are closed comments will not be visible, but they will be displayed during the WG meeting. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Complete Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: URS – Draft of Initial Report Text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZWow09gE6-YmZYcty81CT2Tujm-3vTZE7lHj2f… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 3. Begin Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: TMCH Structure and Scope: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-TH7WopFauhEU1Z0zCjQp26s3S8d6J3SnLLOnTf… 4. Begin Discussion (Time Permitting) of TMCH Proposals for which the Working Group is Seeking Input: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fh6KnBvqH78Pmo7qUBtR3JyIIvUifJ-8hzX9dcJ… 5. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 February 2019
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 7, 2020

Feb. 7, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 05 February 2019 at 18:00 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/2020-02-05+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Recommendation #8: ACTION ITEM: Change to “Some URS providers reported...” ACTION ITEM: Move recommendations #3 and #8 together. Recommendation #5: ACTION ITEM: Change to “and/or FAQ”. And, to “with help from URS providers” (delete “the”). Recommendation #6: Context: ACTION ITEM: Re: the figure of %7 in “(a WG member found there are roughly 7% of over 900 issued Determinations that did not include the rationale)”. Suggest changing to less specific language as follows, “ ACTION ITEM: Staff will check whether there is any compliance issue based on rules/procedure and add some text accordingly. ACTION ITEM: Change to, “Nevertheless, some WG members cautioned against micromanaging and imposing burdensome guidance on panelists, who have limited time and compensation in handling URS cases.” Recommendation #7: ACTION ITEM: Delete the word “with” in, “This recommendation specifically concerns with the following URS Technical Requirement.” Recommendation #9: ACTION ITEM: Delete “Post GDPR implementation” from the beginning of the second paragraph. Recommendation #10: Context: ACTION ITEM: Change last sentence in paragraph 3 to: “FORUM reported that it has received some complaints regarding its online filing portal.” Question #1: Context: ACTION ITEM: Delete the third paragraph. ACTION ITEM: Delete the terms “or court case”. Question #4: ACTION ITEM: Re: “This workaround may counter some operational challenges -- for example, the original sponsoring Registrar may not accept payment in the currency of the country where the prevailing Complainant resides. However, some other WG members questioned the feasibility of implementation. As the suspended domain name must remain registered to the Respondent, the Respondent may not agree with the transfer due to geo-political reasons or governmental regulations, for example.” WG Co-Chairs to consider changing the example to non-specific language such as, “This workaround may counter some operational challenges. Various examples were discussed by the WG.” Notes: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest: None provided. 2. Continue Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: URS – Draft of Initial Report Text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZWow09gE6-YmZYcty81CT2Tujm-3vTZE7lHj2f… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> General Notes: -- The URS recommendations and questions have already been discussed and approved by the WG. In addition, the URS context language is based on the Super Consolidated Table that the Sub Teams presented to the WG and that was approved by the WG. -- As is the GNSO's practice, the document is being circulated for the purpose of ensuring that WG members are comfortable with the format and overall coverage of the recommendations and deliberations. Please remember that the Initial Report is meant to focus on specific recommendations/proposals, with brief, relevant, accompanying rationale, rather than be a comprehensive record of the WG's deliberations. -- WG members should not reopen recommendations or context language to substantive revisions, but only noting where there may need to be corrections, such as for grammar, typos, or references. Recommendation #3: Comment from David McCauley: “Recommendation #3 is redundant with URS Procedures 4.2 and 4.3 themselves which appear to me to be self-evidently mandatory – but maybe clarification as per Rec #3 is good. Instead, I wonder whether Rec #3 is as specific as needed with respect to the concept of ‘predominant language’ and ‘fax’ – as we can see by looking at 4.2 and 4.3 but I will ask about that on next call – not sure we can change Rec language at this point.” -- These touch on the same subject, but they aren’t redundant. -- Not changes from the WG. Recommendation #8: -- There might be some benefit of moving 3 next to 8 in the doc, but I don't think we should start deleting or combining recommendations at this stage given the timing pressure we are under. -- Seems to be informed by recommendation #3, but isn’t duplicative. -- We did hear from some URS providers that they reported non-compliance to ICANN. ACTION ITEM: Change to “Some URS providers reported...” ACTION ITEM: Move recommendations #3 and #8 together. Recommendation #4: -- Seems like a straightforward technical fix. -- No changes from the WG. Recommendation #5: ACTION ITEM: Change to “and/or FAQ”. And, to “with help from URS providers” (delete “the”). Recommendation #6: Context: ACTION ITEM: Re: the figure of 7% in “(a WG member found there are roughly 7% of over 900 issued Determinations that did not include the rationale)”. Suggest replacing the last sentence in the first paragraph with the following text: “Several Determinations did not appear to have an articulated rationale.” ACTION ITEM: Staff will check whether there is any compliance issue based on rules/procedure and add some text accordingly. ACTION ITEM: Change to, “Nevertheless, some WG members cautioned against micromanaging and imposing burdensome guidance on panelists, who have limited time and compensation in handling URS cases.” Recommendation #7: ACTION ITEM: Delete the word “with” in, “This recommendation specifically concerns with the following URS Technical Requirement.” Recommendation #9: -- A few typos were found that were fixed. ACTION ITEM: Delete “Post GDPR implementation” from the beginning of the second paragraph. Recommendation #10: Context: -- FORUM: Can’t say this a problem for us. Not everyone is going to know how to use the portal, so we can’t say that there are no problems. ACTION ITEM: Change last sentence in paragraph 3 to: “FORUM reported that it has received some complaints regarding its online filing portal.” Question #1: Context: -- Re: “Nevertheless, Providers rely heavily on information provided by the URS Parties and are unable to search or track active court cases related to the URS proceedings in certain jurisdiction.” See this comment: “If this is not required by the URS or Rules (it does not appear to be given the above-quoted language) it should be removed or at minimum edited to remove reference to courts and jurisdictions; there are UDRP cases addressing this overlap, and in some cases it is deemed entirely appropriate by the Panel to proceed to a UDRP decision notwithstanding a court action (e.g., especially, but not only, if the subject matter is unrelated).” -- There are, in fact, UDRP and URS cases that move forward despite the current pendency of court cases. -- What if the court case has grown out of a UDRP or URS proceeding? It is incumbent on the parties to bring that to the panel’s attention. -- Maybe this is here in error – strike the references to “court case”. ACTION ITEM: Delete the third paragraph. ACTION ITEM: Delete the terms “or court case”. Question #2: -- No changes from the WG. Question #3: -- Did we mean to include examiners as recipients for the educational materials? They are included I recommendation #5, which is related. -- Just don’t provide them with specific direction. -- No changes from the WG. Question #4: -- Question about whether we should note that in some countries they may not legally be able to pay. -- Concern about citing specifics. We can just change the text from the example itself to something like "various examples were discussed by the WG". -- Continue discussion on the next call. ACTION ITEMS: Re: “This workaround may counter some operational challenges -- for example, the original sponsoring Registrar may not accept payment in the currency of the country where the prevailing Complainant resides. However, some other WG members questioned the feasibility of implementation. As the suspended domain name must remain registered to the Respondent, the Respondent may not agree with the transfer due to geo-political reasons or governmental regulations, for example.” WG Co-Chairs to consider changing the example to non-specific language such as, “This workaround may counter some operational challenges. Various examples were discussed by the WG.”

3 4

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Wednesday, 05 February 2020
by Julie Bisland Feb. 5, 2020

Feb. 5, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Wednesday, 05 February 2020 at 18:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/4RGJBw>(attendance included) 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 <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw>. Thank you. With kind regards, Julie

1 0