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

Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 22 January 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC
by Ariel Liang Jan. 17, 2020

Jan. 17, 2020

Dear All, To further clarify the directions provided with the agenda, we wish to remind WG members that comments for the Google Doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-AUekmrPgnPge6-pt57EFqnQH4DY3R0OY_zmtT2…> should be limited only to error corrections or to note any clarifications that you believe are necessary. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, January 17, 2020 at 11:09 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 22 January 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 22 January 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC. Please note re: Deliberations of the Working Group: Sunrise & Claims – Draft of Initial Report Text: The language of the recommendations has previously been agreed to by the Sub Teams and the WG. The context of the deliberations is largely based on the answers to charter questions, which have been also agreed on by the Sub Teams and 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. The document will be open for comment until COB Tuesday, 21 January. After that time it will be closed to comment. While it is closed comments will not be visible, but they will be displayed during the WG meeting and the document will be re-opened for comment after the meeting. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Begin Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: Sunrise & Claims – Draft of Initial Report Text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-AUekmrPgnPge6-pt57EFqnQH4DY3R0OY_zmtT2… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 3. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 22 January 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 17, 2020

Jan. 17, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 22 January 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC. Please note re: Deliberations of the Working Group: Sunrise & Claims – Draft of Initial Report Text: The language of the recommendations has previously been agreed to by the Sub Teams and the WG. The context of the deliberations is largely based on the answers to charter questions, which have been also agreed on by the Sub Teams and 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. The document will be open for comment until COB Tuesday, 21 January. After that time it will be closed to comment. While it is closed comments will not be visible, but they will be displayed during the WG meeting and the document will be re-opened for comment after the meeting. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Begin Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: Sunrise & Claims – Draft of Initial Report Text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-AUekmrPgnPge6-pt57EFqnQH4DY3R0OY_zmtT2… 3. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 15 January 2019
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 16, 2020

Jan. 16, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 15 January 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/2020-01-15+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No update provided. 2. Complete Discussion of Individual URS Proposals, see attached survey results slides and the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ -- Order of remaining proposals: 33 (continue discussion), 15, 22, 4, 14, 13, 17, and 16. #33: -- Strike reference to UDRP as it is out of scope. -- Don’t edit these proposals on the fly. -- No sure how we would handle this one – not opposed on the concept of getting comments on whether MOU for URS providers should be turned into a contract. But this issue only exists for registry contracts, so not sure how we handle the context. -- The term is one of the T's and C's of a contract - much too fine to seek comment on in my view but agree with Phil on overcall contract/MOU point. -- Not in favor of publishing because it is based on a misunderstanding of the MOU – it is a binding contract and there is no context as to why the MOU isn’t sufficient. -- The MOU currently is enforceable and also has termination options. -- If it is published then contextual language should note that URS providers are under MOU, that MOU is a short form contract, and provide a link to the MOU text. -- Some support for publication. -- More a question about the terms of the contract and how they are enforced. May include questions for public comment. -- The issue when we discussed this before was the presumptive renewal. That is a issue that might go out for public comment. -- Keep in mind the MOU incorporates the URS Procedure and Rules, so it isn’t as barebones as it might appear. -- MOU should not be relegated to letter of intent status or an informal contract. The original agreement for ICANN to govern the internet was an MOU with the Department of Commerce MOU's are often used in governmental services. #15: -- How do you know what a registrant is? Someone could register in someone else’s name and that person could be blacklisted. No framework to identify who the bad guys are. It is unenforceable. -- There are issues about implementation. But the concept seems like something that the community should comment on. We should be asking for comment on the concept, even if the implementation isn’t clear. -- This proposal gets to the heart of whether or not we want the URS to be a deterrent and not just a remedial mechanism. -- Could note that the proposal was to change the threshold – point that out for context to seek a range of views. -- Staff notes that based on previous and recent experiences with PDPs, there are a multitude of ways that a WG can solicit comment. You can put in language in the proceeding or in the report that we are looking for a certain kind of comments. Break out how and what you ask for with the RPMs. You don’t need a one-size-fits-all approach. It can be specific to URS. -- You could have a general instruction on thresholds that commenters should indicate whether they are two low, high, or otherwise. -- General support for publication. #14: -- Merge with #15. -- Split on support or not to publish in the survey – but survey notes that they have already been merged. -- Doesn’t pass the standard as unmerged. -- Doesn’t specify registrants. #14 might just be making the penalties reciprocal. -- Text of the proposal is not substantively different from #15 and staff can merge with #15 in the Initial Report, noting the context in the rationale. #22: -- Support for publication. #4: -- All providers are on a common platform and are in compliance. So this proposal is moot. -- It doesn’t seem that there is any point in asking this question. The requirement for these formats now exists. -- No support for publication. #13: -- Torn on this proposal. Support for the idea, but hard to put a barrier on someone’s future actions. -- Could be a wide variety of opinions on this proposal. Support for publication. -- Could bring up a lot of interesting questions. #17 (related to #16): -- Confused about this one – doesn’t seem clear re: suspension period. Confusing to send it out as is. -- Think this was intending this to apply to the suspension period of the lifecycle of the domain. -- Should go out for public comment, despite that several WG members disagree with the proposal. #16 (related to #17): -- #16 it is effectively a demand to transfer (if the party has the superior rights). -- Several comments in support for the proposal and indicating that it is feasible. 3. Proposed Revised Work Plan/Timeline: See: Attached -- Due to additional activities of the WG including revisiting the URS Sub Team recommendations and individual proposals, additional WG meetings to review the Initial Report draft, and additional meetings to review the public comments the work plan and timeline has been extended. -- The goal to deliver the Final Report to the GNSO Council now is end of August 2020, changed from end of April 2020. -- This change requires a Project Change Request to be reviewed and approved by the GNSO Council, per the new PDP 3.0 implementation.

1 1

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Wednesday, 15 January 2020
by Terri Agnew Jan. 16, 2020

Jan. 16, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Wednesday, 15 January 2020 at 18:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/8wSJBw>(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, Terri

4 6

Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] WG discussion on proposal #6 - last week
by gmlevine＠researchtheworld.com Jan. 16, 2020

Jan. 16, 2020

Not a good idea to hardwire into the URS a result. The jurisprudence should be allowed to develop as it has under the UDRP. Whether related or unrelated complainants in a consolidated proceeding have standing will be decided by Examiners, and in the normal course of decision making it will become consensus or not. Gmlevine -----Original Message----- From: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int> > To: claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi(a)gmail.com <mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com> >; Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org> > Cc: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Sent: Thu, Jan 16, 2020 3:52 am Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] WG discussion on proposal #6 - last week Thanks Claudio, This supplemental clarification fits with what I have understood the proposal to say all along. (For example, the NFL <https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0128.html> or Major League Baseball <https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-0985.html> could bring a consolidated claim <https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/#item411> on behalf of the teams in their respective league.) Thank you for this – which should allow us to consider this particular discussion closed – as we move towards drafting the Initial Report. Brian From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of claudio di gangi Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 11:35 PM To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org> > Cc: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] WG discussion on proposal #6 - last week hi all, I just had a chance to catch up on last week's WG call, when we discussed proposal #6 among other topics. Thanks for the robust discussion on this proposal. Since I wasn't able to join, I am writing to clarify and respond to members' questions about how the proposal is intended to align with the overall design of the URS procedure. Under the existing URS procedure, multiple companies, i.e. complainants, are permitted to consolidate their claims against a single domain name registrant who has registered multiple domain names, but only when they can establish to the panelist that they are all related companies. Under the UDRP, multiple unrelated companies are permitted to consolidate their claim in one proceeding against a single domain name registrant who has registered multiple domain names. So the proposal harmonizes the URS with the UDRP in this one respect, by allowing unrelated companies to consolidate the same way they are permitted to consolidate under the UDRP. Under the existing URS, importantly there is no requirement that the related companies use the same or similar trademarks or other business identifiers in commerce. So the way things exist today the related companies can appear to be unrelated entities on the surface (because they use different trademarks, trade names, and business identifiers) until their trademark registration certificates (and/or other legal documentation) are reviewed by the panelist in order to establish that the various companies are in fact related and all fall under the same corporate 'umbrella'. This documentation must be provided by the complainants and reviewed by the panelist under the existing rules. Proposal #6 proposes to eliminate this step or requirement, i.e. that the companies are related, because it serves no practical purpose, in order to generate efficiencies and reduce costs. Moreover, in terms of the number of domain names in a particular case: the Providers charge additional fees based on the number of domain names per case, with additional fees when the complaint involves over a certain number of domain names. So the proposal does not touch upon this issue or recommend any changes in this respect. I hope this explanation is helpful, and if there are any further questions please do not hesitate to let me know. Thanks in advance for your time. Cheers, Claudio 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. _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

1 0

Proposal #4
by Fossen, Renee Jan. 15, 2020

Jan. 15, 2020

Dear All, I'm attaching the URS Service Provider Technical Guidance making proposal #4 moot with the hope that we can save some time today! Kind regards, Renee Renee Fossen Director of Arbitration Forum 6465 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 480 Minneapolis, MN 55426 Phone 952.516.6456 E-mail rfossen(a)adrforum.com<mailto:rfossen@adrforum.com> www.adrforum.com

1 0

Further to last week’s call - Premium names
by Paul Tattersfield Jan. 15, 2020

Jan. 15, 2020

Dear Griffin, As promised on last week’s call attached is an example of why ICANN’s flawed thinking on which the new RA is founded is so problematic. It’s pretty obvious that IP interests outside of ICANN contracted parties were much better served under the uniform standard pricing of ~$8 per domain/year model together with the occasional use (or threat of use) of the RPMs to manage the nuisances. Until recently “premium names” only affected the ICANN new gTLD bubble and the impacts were pretty much contained, however ICANN GDD is rolling out the same flawed RA model to older more established gTLDs like .org and .info. It is therefore possible the same (totally unnecessary) impacts will increasingly affect a much larger group of rights holders over time. This not only creates a framework disconnect between millions of premium names being outside the reach of URS/UDRP as they are not registered and people who have actually paid for names for genuine, non competing, non infringing future projects. It also underscores the disconnect between UDRP/URS & domestic judicial systems and the injustice of subjecting those same registrants to the risk of having to expend time and money defending vexatious claims premised on an allegation of passive holding. Yours sincerely, Paul

2 1

ICANN67 Prep Week Announcement
by Michelle DeSmyter Jan. 14, 2020

Jan. 14, 2020

Register for ICANN67 Prep Week Webinars https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-01-14-en LOS ANGELES – 14 January 2020 – Today, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) released the schedule for ICANN67 Prep Week, which features a series of nine webinars to prepare the community ahead of the Community Forum in March. To attend any of the webinars, please register here [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.icann.org_prepweeks…> by Friday 14 February 2020 to receive joining instructions. You may also submit questions during the registration process. ICANN67 Prep Week Webinars Schedule Tuesday, 18 February 2020 16:00 UTC | ICANN Open Data Platform · Overview of the ICANN Open Data Platform and planned soft launch at ICANN67 18:00 UTC | ICANN67 Health, Safety, and Security Overview 20:00 UTC | ICANN Org Operations Planning Team Update · ICANN's FY21 Annual Operating Plan and Budget · ICANN's FY21-25 Five-Year Operating and Financial Plan Wednesday, 19 February 2020 16:00 UTC | Contractual Compliance Update · Registrar & Registry Compliance Update · Contractual Compliance Audit Update 21:00 UTC | Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Policy Webinar · Update on GNSO projects and activities, including Policy Development Process (PDP) work, projected timelines, and current challenges Thursday, 20 February 2020 16:00 UTC | Policy Briefing · Updates on current work across ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees 18:00 UTC | Global Stakeholder Engagement (GSE) Update: What to Expect · GSE briefing (e.g., ICANN Learn, Newcomers Day) and useful resources Monday, 24 February 2020 15:00 UTC | Registration Data Policy (Expedited PDP Phase 1): Implementation and Related Activities · Registration Data Policy Implementation Review Team (IRT) work 17:00 UTC | Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) Engagement Activities · Engagement with local/regional community and special sessions for the LAC community All webinars will be conducted in English. The Global Stakeholder Engagement (GSE) Update will offer Spanish interpretation. Recordings and presentation materials will be posted here<https://meetings.icann.org/en/cancun67-prep-week>. Additionally, the Pre-ICANN67 Policy Briefing materials will also be available in Spanish. ICANN Prep Week was established to help streamline the pre-meeting experience, increase awareness of current topics of importance, and enhance briefings and readout sessions conducted around an ICANN Public Meeting.

1 0

REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 15 January 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 14, 2020

Jan. 14, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, This is a reminder. Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 15 January 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC (note later time). Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Complete Discussion of Individual URS Proposals, see attached survey results slides and the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ -- Order of remaining proposals: 33 (continue discussion), 15, 22, 4, 14, 13, 17, and 16. 3. Revised Work Plan/Timeline (time permitting) 4. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel 1. Procedure for handling individual proposals at each of the December meetings: * The proposals will be reviewed in the following order - begin with a proposal that received the highest level of support for inclusion in the Initial Report, followed by a proposal that received the lowest level of support for inclusion, then a proposal that received the next-highest level of support for inclusion, followed by one that received the next-lowest level of support, and so forth, until all proposals have been reviewed. Based on this procedures, here is the order of the proposals: 2, 23, 1, 8, 34, 35, 11, 18, 27, 20, 36, 32, 3, 30, 26, 7, 28, 19, 29, 5, 31, 21, 6, 33, 15, 22, 4, 14, 13, 17, 16. * For each proposal, where a Working Group member had indicated (by the December 1 deadline) that he/she wished to argue in favor of including the proposal as an actual Working Group recommendation, that member will be given no more than 3 minutes to make his/her case, with questions and answers (limited to 2 minutes per question or answer and two inputs per member). * Members are kindly requested not to rehash arguments/discussions and to keep their remarks, questions and answers very brief. * Subject to a determination by the Chairs, proposals with wide support and virtually no opposition will be considered as recommendations by the WG. * Proposals with wide support and limited opposition will be published for comment in the Initial Report as individual URS Proposals. * Proposals with virtually no support and significant opposition will not be published in the Initial Report. * Following the Working Group’s review of all individual URS proposals, and in accordance with role ascribed to Working Group chair(s) under the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, the Working Group leadership team will determine whether there is sufficient support from other Working Group members: (i) to “convert” any individual proposal (where one was so argued) to an initial recommendation for purposes of the Initial Report; (ii) to include specific individual proposals in the Initial Report as proposals only; and (iii) to exclude the remaining individual proposals from the Initial Report (although these will all be referenced in the report, with links provided to the actual text of the proposals and the Working Group’s deliberations). From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, January 2, 2020 at 11:10 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 08 January 2020 at 17:00-18:30 UTC Happy New Year RPM WG members, Please see as a reminder the agenda below and attachment for the meeting next week on Wednesday, 08 January at 17:00-18:30 UTC. 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, December 18, 2019 at 3:01 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 08 January 2020 at 17:00-18:30 UTC Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 08 January 2020 at 17:00-18:30 UTC. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Complete Discussion of Individual URS Proposals, see attached survey results slides and the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ -- Order of remaining proposals: 3, 30, 26, 7, 28, 19, 29, 5, 31, 21, 6, 33, 15, 22, 4, 14, 13, 17, and 16. 3. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel 1. Procedure for handling individual proposals at each of the December meetings: * The proposals will be reviewed in the following order - begin with a proposal that received the highest level of support for inclusion in the Initial Report, followed by a proposal that received the lowest level of support for inclusion, then a proposal that received the next-highest level of support for inclusion, followed by one that received the next-lowest level of support, and so forth, until all proposals have been reviewed. Based on this procedures, here is the order of the proposals: 2, 23, 1, 8, 34, 35, 11, 18, 27, 20, 36, 32, 3, 30, 26, 7, 28, 19, 29, 5, 31, 21, 6, 33, 15, 22, 4, 14, 13, 17, 16. * For each proposal, where a Working Group member had indicated (by the December 1 deadline) that he/she wished to argue in favor of including the proposal as an actual Working Group recommendation, that member will be given no more than 3 minutes to make his/her case, with questions and answers (limited to 2 minutes per question or answer and two inputs per member). * Members are kindly requested not to rehash arguments/discussions and to keep their remarks, questions and answers very brief. * Subject to a determination by the Chairs, proposals with wide support and virtually no opposition will be considered as recommendations by the WG. * Proposals with wide support and limited opposition will be published for comment in the Initial Report as individual URS Proposals. * Proposals with virtually no support and significant opposition will not be published in the Initial Report. * Following the Working Group’s review of all individual URS proposals, and in accordance with role ascribed to Working Group chair(s) under the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, the Working Group leadership team will determine whether there is sufficient support from other Working Group members: (i) to “convert” any individual proposal (where one was so argued) to an initial recommendation for purposes of the Initial Report; (ii) to include specific individual proposals in the Initial Report as proposals only; and (iii) to exclude the remaining individual proposals from the Initial Report (although these will all be referenced in the report, with links provided to the actual text of the proposals and the Working Group’s deliberations).

1 0

Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 15 January 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 10, 2020

Jan. 10, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 15 January 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Complete Discussion of Individual URS Proposals, see attached survey results slides and the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ -- Order of remaining proposals: 33 (continue discussion), 15, 22, 4, 14, 13, 17, and 16. 3. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel 1. Procedure for handling individual proposals at each of the December meetings: * The proposals will be reviewed in the following order - begin with a proposal that received the highest level of support for inclusion in the Initial Report, followed by a proposal that received the lowest level of support for inclusion, then a proposal that received the next-highest level of support for inclusion, followed by one that received the next-lowest level of support, and so forth, until all proposals have been reviewed. Based on this procedures, here is the order of the proposals: 2, 23, 1, 8, 34, 35, 11, 18, 27, 20, 36, 32, 3, 30, 26, 7, 28, 19, 29, 5, 31, 21, 6, 33, 15, 22, 4, 14, 13, 17, 16. * For each proposal, where a Working Group member had indicated (by the December 1 deadline) that he/she wished to argue in favor of including the proposal as an actual Working Group recommendation, that member will be given no more than 3 minutes to make his/her case, with questions and answers (limited to 2 minutes per question or answer and two inputs per member). * Members are kindly requested not to rehash arguments/discussions and to keep their remarks, questions and answers very brief. * Subject to a determination by the Chairs, proposals with wide support and virtually no opposition will be considered as recommendations by the WG. * Proposals with wide support and limited opposition will be published for comment in the Initial Report as individual URS Proposals. * Proposals with virtually no support and significant opposition will not be published in the Initial Report. * Following the Working Group’s review of all individual URS proposals, and in accordance with role ascribed to Working Group chair(s) under the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, the Working Group leadership team will determine whether there is sufficient support from other Working Group members: (i) to “convert” any individual proposal (where one was so argued) to an initial recommendation for purposes of the Initial Report; (ii) to include specific individual proposals in the Initial Report as proposals only; and (iii) to exclude the remaining individual proposals from the Initial Report (although these will all be referenced in the report, with links provided to the actual text of the proposals and the Working Group’s deliberations). From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, January 2, 2020 at 11:10 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 08 January 2020 at 17:00-18:30 UTC Happy New Year RPM WG members, Please see as a reminder the agenda below and attachment for the meeting next week on Wednesday, 08 January at 17:00-18:30 UTC. 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, December 18, 2019 at 3:01 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 08 January 2020 at 17:00-18:30 UTC Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 08 January 2020 at 17:00-18:30 UTC. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Complete Discussion of Individual URS Proposals, see attached survey results slides and the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ -- Order of remaining proposals: 3, 30, 26, 7, 28, 19, 29, 5, 31, 21, 6, 33, 15, 22, 4, 14, 13, 17, and 16. 3. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel 1. Procedure for handling individual proposals at each of the December meetings: * The proposals will be reviewed in the following order - begin with a proposal that received the highest level of support for inclusion in the Initial Report, followed by a proposal that received the lowest level of support for inclusion, then a proposal that received the next-highest level of support for inclusion, followed by one that received the next-lowest level of support, and so forth, until all proposals have been reviewed. Based on this procedures, here is the order of the proposals: 2, 23, 1, 8, 34, 35, 11, 18, 27, 20, 36, 32, 3, 30, 26, 7, 28, 19, 29, 5, 31, 21, 6, 33, 15, 22, 4, 14, 13, 17, 16. * For each proposal, where a Working Group member had indicated (by the December 1 deadline) that he/she wished to argue in favor of including the proposal as an actual Working Group recommendation, that member will be given no more than 3 minutes to make his/her case, with questions and answers (limited to 2 minutes per question or answer and two inputs per member). * Members are kindly requested not to rehash arguments/discussions and to keep their remarks, questions and answers very brief. * Subject to a determination by the Chairs, proposals with wide support and virtually no opposition will be considered as recommendations by the WG. * Proposals with wide support and limited opposition will be published for comment in the Initial Report as individual URS Proposals. * Proposals with virtually no support and significant opposition will not be published in the Initial Report. * Following the Working Group’s review of all individual URS proposals, and in accordance with role ascribed to Working Group chair(s) under the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, the Working Group leadership team will determine whether there is sufficient support from other Working Group members: (i) to “convert” any individual proposal (where one was so argued) to an initial recommendation for purposes of the Initial Report; (ii) to include specific individual proposals in the Initial Report as proposals only; and (iii) to exclude the remaining individual proposals from the Initial Report (although these will all be referenced in the report, with links provided to the actual text of the proposals and the Working Group’s deliberations).

2 1