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

Actions: RPM PDP WG Meeting 11 December 2019
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 12, 2019

Dec. 12, 2019

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 11 December 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/2019-12-11+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Page 10 (bottom of page): F. REMEDIES - 2. Duration of suspension period; 3. Review of implementation, POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST): ACTION: Staff to provide revised text that incorporates the comments provided by Maxim Alzoba, including adding a reference to the URS rules with respect to termination due to settlement. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Working Group to complete discussions regarding the recommendations of the URS Sub Teams’ to go into the Initial Report – Review new text per the action items (pages 10, 15, and 20) below and as redlined in the Google doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vF…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> a. Page 10 (bottom of page): F. REMEDIES - 2. Duration of suspension period; 3. Review of implementation, POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST): ACTION: Staff to provide revised text that incorporates the comments provided by Maxim Alzoba, including adding a reference to the URS rules with respect to termination due to settlement. Discussion: -- If the URS is won, there is no settlement, if settlement happening, there is no URS. -- The specific question is on extending the registration through a different registrar. -- Both (settlement prior to determination AND extension of registration WITHOUT a settlement) were given as different examples of situations where the ST found difficulties in communicating with Registries or registrars. -- Settlement prior to the determination is outside of URS.’ -- This question has nothing to do with a settlement that occurs before determination. -- Forgot to mention about the item with Registrar change after the URS won, the word transfer has very special meaning in the policies, and might have a change of the registrant (the latter is forbidden under URS), and thus I would recommend to mention that such change will not change the registrant. -- Add the reference to the URS rules with respect to termination due to settlement. This is in the case where there is a winning complainant and that complainant is requesting to extend the suspension for another year. b. Page 15 (top of the page): F. REMEDIES - 4. Other topics: -- The WG discussed the edits and accepted them. c. Page 20 (bottom of the page): J. LANGUAGE ISSUES - 1. Language issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice of complaint, response, determination ACTION ITEM: : Add “and the location of the service will determine the language of that service, which may be relevant.” Discussion: -- Not a GDPR issue, the issue is that it is less timely to get the data if there is a privacy or proxy service in place. -- The problem identified was the situation where the “real” registrant is not known when the proceeding commences in language A (b/c of a P/P service) but subsequently it’s discovered that the “real” registrant’s primary language is language B. -- Add “and the location of the service will determine the language of that service, which may be relevant.” 3. Begin Discussion of Individual URS Proposals, see attached survey results slides and procedure below. The order of the proposal review is: 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. Results of WG Discussion on the Individual Proposals: #2: Wide support: publish in the Initial Report #23: Virtually no support: do not publish in the Initial Report #1: Wide support – put the proposal out for comment as is (with both options): publish in the Initial Report #8: Virtually no support: do not publish in the Initial Report #34: Wide support – some concerns, but worth to put out for public comment: publish in the Initial Report #35: Virtually no support: do not publish in the Initial Report #11: Continue discussion: -- Get comment on other possible numbers (3-15, not just on 3). -- Although in general 3 is sufficient to demonstrate a pattern, agree to asking for Public Comment on the appropriate number to demonstrate a pattern. -- Noting the comment on commercial plans, agree to increasing this to 5 -- but getting input on the number appropriate -- Maintain the proposed language and reduction to 3. -- Continue discussion at the next meeting and on the other proposals. Next meeting: Proposals 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.

1 0

Unacceptable URS determinations our initial report will not begin to address
by Paul Tattersfield Dec. 12, 2019

Dec. 12, 2019

Dear All, Here are 3 example URS determinations that seem very troubling from the public information available. As I pointed out on the call last week, the recommendations from the WG subgroups fail to prevent what seem to be very problematic determinations occurring. I hope all working group members will agree this situation in the absence of further facts is totally unacceptable and those leading the working group will take the necessary action to ensure the initial report will include recommendations to ensure nothing like this will be allowed to happen again. Yours sincerely, Paul. *cfa.club * Creation date July 17, 2017 Registrar www.eachnic.com Complainant submitted September 19, 2019 Commencement October 7, 2019 Default Date October 22, 2019 Domain Suspended October 25, 2019 Examiner Flip Jan Claude Petillion https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1862966D.htm Claimant CFA Institute of Charlottesville Represented DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington Respondent Hao Ming of Beijing, International, CN. Rationale *The Complainant holds that the Respondent is attempting to disrupt the business of a competitor but provides no proof that the Respondent is one of its competitors. However, the passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith registration and use, especially when combined with other factors such as the respondent preventing a trademark or service mark holder from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name, the failure of the respondent to respond to the complaint, inconceivable good faith use, etc. (See e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Myer Stores Limited v. Mr. David John Singh, WIPO Case No. D2001-0763; Liu.Jo S.p.A. v. Martina Hamsikova, WIPO Case No. D2013-1261). In the present case, Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name as it does not resolve to any active* * website. * *It is inconceivable to the Examiner that Respondent was unaware of Complainant and its trademark rights when it registered the disputed domain name which is identical to Complainant’s CFA registered trademark. Given the well-known character of Complainant's CFA trademark, Respondent must have had Complainant's trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. This is further supported by the fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name under the new gTLD “.CLUB”, which increases confusion as the Complainant’s members can be considered as being part of a club. Moreover, Examiner finds that, given the well-known character of the Complainant’s CFA trademark, it is difficult to imagine any future good faith use of the disputed domain name by Respondent. * *Respondent did not file any response to contest the above. Therefore, Examiner finds that the third element for Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.3 has been proven * *cfa.community* Creation date September 24, 2019 Registrar domains.google.com Complainant Submitted October 8, 2019 Commencement October 8, 2019 Default Date October 23, 2019 Domain Suspended October 23, 2019 Examiner Dawn Osborne https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1862966D.htm Claimant CFA Institute of Charlottesville Represented DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington Respondent Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245526592 of Toronto, ON, CA Rationale Effectively blank – just a repeat of the URS rules Not even mention of what was being claimed *cfa.plus * Creation date September 25, 2019 Registrar www.west.cn Complainant Submitted October 16, 2019 Commencement October 17, 2019 Response Date October 29, 2019 Domain Suspended October 29, 2019 Examiner David L. Kreider https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1866970F.htm Claimant CFA Institute of Charlottesville Represented DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington Respondent Peng Cheng Li of He Nan, International, CN Rationale *“The Respondent submits in support of his Response a certificate of qualification issued to the Respondent, Peng Cheng Li (**李鹏程* *), by the China Commodities Association and dated November 2012, along with a business license dated 23 September 2019, pertaining to a Shanghai-based information technology company. Respondent’s said certificates each bear the legend: “For use as evidence in the CFA Institute’s <cfa.plus> litigation only”. * *Respondent concedes that he “had made no formal use of the domain name” by the time he received notice of the commencement of these URS proceedings on October 17, 2019. Significantly, moreover, the Panel notes the complete absence of evidence to show demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name, or a name corresponding to the domain name, in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel concludes that the Registrant intentionally sought to disrupt the business of a competitor or use the <cfa.plus> domain name to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s CFA Mark, as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s product or service on that web site or location* *, or both. * *cfa.business* Creation date August 28, 2019 Registrar www.godaddy.com Complainant Submitted October 16, 2019 Commencement October 17, 2019 Default Date November 1, 2019 Domain Returned November 1, 2019 Examiner Richard W. Hill https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1866971D.htm Claimant CFA Institute of Charlottesville Represented DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington Respondent Domains By Proxy, LLC / DomainsByProxy.com of Scottsdale, AZ, US Rationale “*Complainant states: "By creating confusion through its registration of a domain name wholly comprised of CFA Marks, Respondent is attempting to disrupt the business of a competitor, which is evidence of bad faith registration." Complainant provides evidence showing that the disputed domain name is not being used. Since the standard of review in URS proceedings is "clear and convincing", and Complainant does not explain why failure to use the disputed domain name could constitute bad faith use, the Panel finds that Complainant has not satisfied its burden of proof for this element.”*

4 4

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Wednesday, 11 December 2019
by Andrea Glandon Dec. 11, 2019

Dec. 11, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Wednesday, 11 December 2019 at 18:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/95IzBw> (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

Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 11 December at *18:00-19:30 UTC*
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 11, 2019

Dec. 11, 2019

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 11 December at 18:00-19:30 UTC. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Working Group to complete discussions regarding the recommendations of the URS Sub Teams’ to go into the Initial Report – Review new text per the action items (pages 10, 15, and 20) below and as redlined in the Google doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vF… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 3. Begin Discussion of Individual URS Proposals, see attached survey results slides and procedure below. The order of the proposal review is: 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. 4. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel Actions from 04 December Meeting: Page 10 (bottom of page): F. REMEDIES - 2. Duration of suspension period; 3. Review of implementation, POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST): ACTION: Staff to provide revised text for WG review. See: “The Providers Sub Team discovered issues with respect to implementing the outcomes of a URS proceeding (e.g. relief awarded following a URS decision, or where the parties settle the case prior to Determination and a transfer at the registrar level is required, or where a Complainant’s requests to extend a suspension.” Page 15 (top of the page): F. REMEDIES - 4. Other topics: ACTIONS: 1) Add a bullet: “What would need to be done to help resolve the issues you have encountered?” 2) Note in the table that the following text should be added as a footnote in the Initial Report and vet by GDD (done). Also, in the initial report provide the context for why this remedy is relevant to a URS suspension: “HSTS preloading is a function built into the browser whereby a global list of hosts enforce the use of HTTPS ONLY on their site. This removes the opportunity an attacker has to intercept and tamper with redirects over HTTP. The aforementioned remedy is to suspend the HSTS preloading function of a domain name.” Page 20 (bottom of the page): J. LANGUAGE ISSUES - 1. Language issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice of complaint, response, determination ACTION ITEM: Rewrite the text to avoid the use of the term “privacy shield”. See: “Such guidance should take into account the fact that domains subject to a URS complaint may have been registered via a privacy or proxy service.” 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).

3 4

Correction - Actions: RPM PDP WG Meeting 04 December 2019
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 5, 2019

Dec. 5, 2019

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 04 December 2019 at 17:00 UTC. Staff will post these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, Zoom chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-12-04+Review+of+all+R…. Please note the correction in the SOIs in red below. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Page 10 (bottom of page): F. REMEDIES - 2. Duration of suspension period; 3. Review of implementation, POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST): ACTION: Staff to provide revised text for WG review. See: “The Providers Sub Team discovered issues with respect to implementing the outcomes of a URS proceeding (e.g. relief awarded following a URS decision, or where the parties settle the case prior to Determination and a transfer at the registrar level is required, or where a Complainant’s requests to extend a suspension.” Page 15 (top of the page): F. REMEDIES - 4. Other topics: ACTIONS: 1) Add a bullet: “What would need to be done to help resolve the issues you have encountered?” 2) Note in the table that the following text should be added as a footnote in the Initial Report and vet by GDD (done). Also, in the initial report provide the context for why this remedy is relevant to a URS suspension: “HSTS preloading is a function built into the browser whereby a global list of hosts enforce the use of HTTPS ONLY on their site. This removes the opportunity an attacker has to intercept and tamper with redirects over HTTP. The aforementioned remedy is to suspend the HSTS preloading function of a domain name.” Page 20 (bottom of the page): J. LANGUAGE ISSUES - 1. Language issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice of complaint, response, determination ACTION ITEM: Rewrite the text to avoid the use of the term “privacy shield”. See: “Such guidance should take into account the fact that domains subject to a URS complaint may have been registered via a privacy or proxy service.” Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: -- Zak Muscovitch joined At-Large as an individual member. -- Susan Payne was re-elected as IPC Secretary. 2. Working Group to complete discussions regarding the recommendations of the URS Sub Teams’ to go into the Initial Report, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vF… [docs.google.com] [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> (page 4) Page 10 (bottom of page): F. REMEDIES - 2. Duration of suspension period; 3. Review of implementation, POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST): ACTION: Staff to provide revised text for WG review. See: “The Providers Sub Team discovered issues with respect to implementing the outcomes of a URS proceeding (e.g. relief awarded following a URS decision, or where the parties settle the case prior to Determination and a transfer at the registrar level is required, or where a Complainant’s requests to extend a suspension.” Page 15 (top of the page): F. REMEDIES - 4. Other topics: ACTIONS: Add a bullet: “What would need to be done to help resolve the issues you have encountered?” Note in the table that the following text should be added as a footnote in the Initial Report and vet by GDD (done). Also, in the initial report provide the context for why this remedy is relevant to a URS suspension: “HSTS preloading is a function built into the browser whereby a global list of hosts enforce the use of HTTPS ONLY on their site. This removes the opportunity an attacker has to intercept and tamper with redirects over HTTP. The aforementioned remedy is to suspend the HSTS preloading function of a domain name.” Page 20 (bottom of the page): J. LANGUAGE ISSUES - 1. Language issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice of complaint, response, determination ACTION ITEM: Rewrite the text to avoid the use of the term “privacy shield”. See: “Such guidance should take into account the fact that domains subject to a URS complaint may have been registered via a privacy or proxy service.”

1 0

Actions: RPM PDP WG Meeting 04 December 2019
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 4, 2019

Dec. 4, 2019

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 04 December 2019 at 17:00 UTC. Staff will post these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, Zoom chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-12-04+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Page 10 (bottom of page): F. REMEDIES - 2. Duration of suspension period; 3. Review of implementation, POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST): ACTION: Staff to provide revised text for WG review. See: “The Providers Sub Team discovered issues with respect to implementing the outcomes of a URS proceeding (e.g. relief awarded following a URS decision, or where the parties settle the case prior to Determination and a transfer at the registrar level is required, or where a Complainant’s requests to extend a suspension.” Page 15 (top of the page): F. REMEDIES - 4. Other topics: ACTIONS: 1) Add a bullet: “What would need to be done to help resolve the issues you have encountered?” 2) Note in the table that the following text should be added as a footnote in the Initial Report and vet by GDD (done). Also, in the initial report provide the context for why this remedy is relevant to a URS suspension: “HSTS preloading is a function built into the browser whereby a global list of hosts enforce the use of HTTPS ONLY on their site. This removes the opportunity an attacker has to intercept and tamper with redirects over HTTP. The aforementioned remedy is to suspend the HSTS preloading function of a domain name.” Page 20 (bottom of the page): J. LANGUAGE ISSUES - 1. Language issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice of complaint, response, determination ACTION ITEM: Rewrite the text to avoid the use of the term “privacy shield”. See: “Such guidance should take into account the fact that domains subject to a URS complaint may have been registered via a privacy or proxy service.” Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: -- Zak Muscovitch joined the At-Large Advisory Committee as an individual member. -- Susan Payne was re-elected as IPC Secretary. 2. Working Group to complete discussions regarding the recommendations of the URS Sub Teams’ to go into the Initial Report, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vF… [docs.google.com] [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> (page 4) Page 10 (bottom of page): F. REMEDIES - 2. Duration of suspension period; 3. Review of implementation, POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST): ACTION: Staff to provide revised text for WG review. See: “The Providers Sub Team discovered issues with respect to implementing the outcomes of a URS proceeding (e.g. relief awarded following a URS decision, or where the parties settle the case prior to Determination and a transfer at the registrar level is required, or where a Complainant’s requests to extend a suspension.” Page 15 (top of the page): F. REMEDIES - 4. Other topics: ACTIONS: Add a bullet: “What would need to be done to help resolve the issues you have encountered?” Note in the table that the following text should be added as a footnote in the Initial Report and vet by GDD (done). Also, in the initial report provide the context for why this remedy is relevant to a URS suspension: “HSTS preloading is a function built into the browser whereby a global list of hosts enforce the use of HTTPS ONLY on their site. This removes the opportunity an attacker has to intercept and tamper with redirects over HTTP. The aforementioned remedy is to suspend the HSTS preloading function of a domain name.” Page 20 (bottom of the page): J. LANGUAGE ISSUES - 1. Language issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice of complaint, response, determination ACTION ITEM: Rewrite the text to avoid the use of the term “privacy shield”. See: “Such guidance should take into account the fact that domains subject to a URS complaint may have been registered via a privacy or proxy service.”

1 0

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Wednesday, 04 December 2019
by Julie Bisland Dec. 4, 2019

Dec. 4, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Wednesday, 04 December 2019 at 17:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/9ZIzBw> (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

Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] Re: UPDATE: Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 04 December at 17:00-18:30 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 3, 2019

Dec. 3, 2019

Dear Rebecca, There were no proposals for WG recommendation status for any of the individual proposals by the deadline of Sunday, 01 December. Kind regards, Julie From: "Tushnet, Rebecca" <rtushnet(a)law.harvard.edu> Date: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 10:13 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] UPDATE: Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 04 December at 17:00-18:30 UTC Did anyone propose WG recommendation status for any of these by the deadline? I don’t recall any coming through the list. The proposed procedures—with extremely limited discussion—are inappropriate for WG recommendations but seem fine for individual proposals. It would also be useful to distinguish between wide support for publication as an individual proposal and wide support for the substance. As previously noted, the survey and thus the order of consideration presupposes the former. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. On Dec 3, 2019, at 10:05 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> wrote: Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 04 December at 17:00-18:30 UTC. Note that the order of the proposals is updated. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Working Group to complete discussions regarding the recommendations of the URS Sub Teams’ to go into the Initial Report, re-checking the Sub Team proposal revisions, start on page 4 -- the section that starts: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST): URS Rules 3(b) should be amended in light of GDPR and the permissible filing of a “Doe Complaint” See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vF… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 3. Begin Discussion of Individual URS Proposals, see attached survey results slides and procedure below. The order of the proposal review is: 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. 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). _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG(a)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.

2 2

Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 04 December at 17:00-18:30 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 3, 2019

Dec. 3, 2019

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 04 December at 17:00-18:30 UTC. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Working Group to complete discussions regarding the recommendations of the URS Sub Teams’ to go into the Initial Report, re-checking the Sub Team proposal revisions, start on page 4 -- the section that starts: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST): URS Rules 3(b) should be amended in light of GDPR and the permissible filing of a “Doe Complaint” See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vF… 3. Begin Discussion of Individual URS Proposals, see attached survey results slides and procedure below. The order of the proposal review is: 23, 2, 8, 1, 35, 34, 18, 11, 20, 27, 32, 36, 30, 3, 7, 26, 19, 28, 5, 29, 21, 31, 33, 6, 22, 15, 14, 4, 17, 13, 16. 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: 23, 2, 8, 1, 35, 34, 18, 11, 20, 27, 32, 36, 30, 3, 7, 26, 19, 28, 5, 29, 21, 31, 33, 6, 22, 15, 14, 4, 17, 13, 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).

4 5

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 20 November 2019
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 20, 2019

Nov. 20, 2019

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 20 November 2019 at 17:00 UTC. Staff will post these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, Zoom chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-11-20+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Pages 9-10: OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) – ACTION: Move the second paragraph to the top and also put the questions before the specifics (as they are more general). Page 11: F. REMEDIES - 4. Other topics (Providers ST) – ACTION: Provide a description/definition of the HSTS-preloaded domain suspension remedy. Page 11: G. APPEAL - 1. Appeals process POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST) -- ACTION: Add text in column 2 noting the consolidation with page 7. Page 12: G. APPEAL - 2. De novo review and H. POTENTIALLY OVERLAPPING PROCESS STEPS - 1. Potential overlap concerning duration of respondent appeal, review and extended reply periods along the URS process timeline POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST; see also Section H) -- ACTION: Revise column 2 to indicate that the WG will review after the URS individual proposals go out for public comment. No recommendation for the WG at this time. Delete the current text in column 2. Page 13: I. COST - 1. Cost allocation model (Providers ST) -- ACTION: Add that FORUM has never collected these fees. J. LANGUAGE ISSUES - 1. Language issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice of complaint, response, determination Page 14: OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) -- ACTION: Add the reference concerning consolidation with pages 8-10 to column 2. Page 15: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST) (middle of page) -- ACTION: Update column 2 to include the explanation that the WG agreed to withdraw this recommendation. Page 15: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST) (bottom of page) -- ACTION: Change from “guidance to assist examiners” to “guidance to assist URS providers”, but not sure we need the recommendation at all. Also, change to WG recommendation. Page 17: L. EDUCATION & TRAINING - 1. Responsibility for education and training of complainants, registrants, registry operators and registrars, POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST; see also Section H) -- ACTION: Change to “WG recommends” (as the WG has previously discussed). Page 18: M. URS PROVIDERS - 1. Evaluation of URS providers and their respective processes (including training of panelists) OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) -- ACTION: Include the reference to the consolidation with pages 8-10 in column 2. Review Revisions from the WG Discussions in Montreal: A. THE COMPLAINT - 6. Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec Page 1: OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) -- ACTION: Add in brackets/all caps that the language has been overcome by events and is better addressed section X/Y/Z below. Page 2: OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) -- ACTION: Insert bracketed text that this has been overcome by events and reference EPDP recommendation #23 as well as the recommendations on compliance. Page 2: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST) (bottom of page 2) -- ACTION: Start with this item on the next call on 04 December. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: -- Justine Chew: Now seated as a member of the ALAC. However, unless otherwise stated, my views in this WG are that of my own. 2. Working Group to complete discussions regarding the recommendations of the URS Sub Teams’ to go into the Initial Report, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vF… [docs.google.com]<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vF…> (top of page 9) F. REMEDIES - 2. Duration of suspension period; 3. Review of implementation Page 8: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST) -- Revised language agreed to at ICANN66. Pages 9-10: OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) -- Questions are broad. -- Include the context. Staff notes that we’ll include the deliberations in any case. The intention is to include the entire text of column 2 in the Initial Report. -- ACTIONS: Move the second paragraph to the top and also put the questions before the specifics (as they are more general). Page 11: F. REMEDIES - 4. Other topics (Providers ST) -- ACTION: Provide a description/definition of the HSTS-preloaded domain suspension remedy. Page 11: G. APPEAL - 1. Appeals process POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST) -- Consolidated with top of page 7, policy recommendation. -- ACTION: Add text in column 2 noting the consolidation with page 7. Page 12: G. APPEAL - 2. De novo review and H. POTENTIALLY OVERLAPPING PROCESS STEPS - 1. Potential overlap concerning duration of respondent appeal, review and extended reply periods along the URS process timeline POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST; see also Section H) -- The WG has not made a determination on Sub Team recommendations 1 and 2 so there is nothing to include in the Initial Report. -- With respect to adjusting the response times, what prompted it was that there was a redundancy in the appeals process. So for economy purposes make this into one appeal. Also, hope that proposal #36 will go out for public comment as a proposal to address the redundancy. -- ACTION: Revise column 2 to indicate that the WG will review after the URS individual proposals go out for public comment. No recommendation for the WG at this time. Delete the current text in column 2. Page 13: I. COST - 1. Cost allocation model (Providers ST) -- Acts as a deterrent against late responses. -- ACTION: Add that FORUM has never collected these fees. J. LANGUAGE ISSUES - 1. Language issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice of complaint, response, determination Page 14: OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) -- Consolidated with recommendation on pages 8-10. -- ACTION: Add the reference concerning consolidation with pages 8-10 to column 2. Page 15: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST) (middle of page): -- ACTION: Update column 2 to include the explanation that the WG agreed to withdraw this recommendation. Page 15: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST) (bottom of page): -- Revised the language to put it in the form of a recommendation and consolidated it with the action item at the top of page 16. -- By the time the examiner gets the case we’ve had to make a determination on the language based on the examiner we select. So it wouldn’t be guidance to the examiner, but to the provider. Per FORUM, this has not been an issue at all. -- ACTION: Change from “guidance to assist examiners” to “guidance to assist URS providers”, but not sure we need the recommendation at all. Also, change to WG recommendation. Page 16: K. ABUSE OF PROCESS - 1. Misuse of the process, including by trademark owners, registrants and “repeat offenders”; 2. Forum shopping; 3. Other documented abuses (Providers ST) -- WG agrees that these are appropriate questions to ask. Page 17: L. EDUCATION & TRAINING - 1. Responsibility for education and training of complainants, registrants, registry operators and registrars POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST) -- Consolidated the language and made it read as a recommendation. -- ACTION: Change to “WG recommends” (as the WG has previously discussed). Page 18: M. URS PROVIDERS - 1. Evaluation of URS providers and their respective processes (including training of panelists) OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) -- Consolidated with the recommendations on pages 8-10. -- ACTION: Include the reference to the consolidation with pages 8-10 in column 2. Review Revisions from the WG Discussions in Montreal: Page 1, A. THE COMPLAINT - 4. Administrative review OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) -- Noted that FORUM already checks this. Include the rationale when including in the Initial Report. A. THE COMPLAINT - 6. Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec Page 1: OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) -- Staff suggestion based on the WG discussion is to delete the recommendation, based on FORUM’s practice and EPDP recommendation #27. -- Why delete this if it doesn’t raise inconsistencies? -- FORUM is the only provide that auto-populates data. As we discussed in Montreal we are populating with anything that would need to be redacted for privacy purposes. -- We could keep language and simply make reference to the paragraph that deals with it comprehensively. -- ACTION: Add in brackets/all caps that the language has been overcome by events and is better addressed section X/Y/Z below. Page 2: OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) -- After review of the WG discussion the staff suggestion is to delete this recommendation. -- Overlaps with EPDP recommendation #23. -- ACTION: Insert bracketed text that this has been overcome by events and reference EPDP recommendation #23 as well as the recommendations on compliance. Page 2: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST) (bottom of page 2) -- Change to a WG recommendation. -- Delete the second sentence? -- This specific language was proposed by MFSD. -- ACTION: Start with this item on the next call on 04 December.

1 0