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

REMINDER: ICANN63: Schedule of RPM PDP Working Group Meetings
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 21, 2018

Oct. 21, 2018

Dear Working Group members, As a reminder please see below the schedule and links for the RPM PDP Working Group meetings at ICANN63, starting with Sessions 1 and 2 today. Please also see the attached PDF for details. Please also see the full ICANN63 schedule at: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie Barcelona ICANN63: Face-to-Face Full RPM PDP WG Meetings (with remote participation in the links below): GNSO - RPM working group (1 of 4): 15:15 - 16:45, Sun, Oct 21, 2018 Remote Participation -- https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901715 Wiki Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-21+ICANN63+Barcelo… GNSO - RPM working group (2 of 4): 17:00 - 18:30, Sun, Oct 21, 2018 Remote Participation -- https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901716 Wiki Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-21+ICANN63+Barcelo… GNSO - RPM working group (3 of 4): 12:15 - 13:30, Mon, Oct 22, 2018 Remote Participation -- https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901722 Wiki Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-22+ICANN63+Barcelo… GNSO - RPM working group (4 of 4): 13:30 - 15:00, Mon, Oct 22, 2018 Remote Participation -- https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901723 Wiki Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-22+ICANN63+Barcelo…

1 0

Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] URS Proposal #13 - WG Comments & Questions
by Marie Pattullo Oct. 21, 2018

Oct. 21, 2018

All, Firstly, I’m so sorry for the delay in responding and many thanks to all the Staff for taking this on for me - I’m very grateful. And at the risk of becoming a phantom, also apologies for the 1st meeting this afternoon: it clashes with the GAC-GNSO joint session. I’ve made some comments inline below. And to comment briefly on the “support” thread: I’m from the BC. I’m of course not representing the BC in this WG – I’m 100% here for my employer – but I hope this goes to show that no one member of this WG speaks for the BC (indeed, for any C/SG) so that can’t be a “support measure” IMO. Thanks again Marie From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 5:32 PM To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo(a)aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>; Berry Cobb Mail <mail(a)berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com>> Subject: URS Proposal #13 - WG Comments & Questions Hello Marie, We hope this email finds you well. Staff helped present your proposal #13 to the WG during its 10 Oct meeting. You may reference page 28-35 of transcript<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcrip…> and page 9-13 of the AC chat record<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/95095467/Attendance%20%26%…> for the full record of discussion of your proposal. Some WG members supported your proposal, while some opposed and/or expressed concerns. We have highlighted the WG’s questions, oppositions, suggestions below. If you wish to respond, please be so kind to send your response via the WG mailing list. Thank you for your time and help! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry == * Michael Karanicolas: What is the evidence supporting the claim that a losing respondent is able to reregister a domain name once it becomes available? Does it happen often? (Staff’s data: Up to 2017, recall one domain that was re-registered by the original registrant. The domain was dropped after suspension and seemed to be legit use. There were other domains that were dropped and re-registered by a different registrant. Not a huge % but still significant.) We based this on the comments in the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table, F(2)/Practitioners Sub-Team: “in some cases, a losing Respondent is able to re-register a domain once it becomes available”; “after the lock, the cybersquatters just renew the domain name” – if it were an important enough concern to be in that Table, we thought it ought to be discussed further. * Kristine Dorrain: Strong disagreement - It's absolutely impossible to implement. You cannot distinguish between registrants even within a registry or registrar. There's evidence that there are cyber squatters that have thousands of new accounts with new identities, and they can hop from place to place and even between registrars. How can those people be prevented from registering the domain name? Assuming a registrar/registry can identify a single customer (who hasn’t opened a new account), how would that information be included across hundreds of registrars? As a complainant, let's say you win a URS and the domain is immediately re-registered. How will you know if the registrant is the same? How will you enforce this proposal? How would ICANN enforce this proposal? We hadn’t gone into implementation, but in essence: we’d like to disrupt the business model of those who abuse the system – as we assume everyone here would, as it negatively affects us all! Could we consider the systematic verification of a registrant’s data when they are trying to register a domain name that has been the subject of a URS where the Complainant prevailed? Connected to a common database of such cases to which all Registrars/Registries would have access? * George Kirikos: There's no registrant verification taking place, so it would be nearly impossible for a registrar to handle it on their own, let alone having all registrars potentially block one registrant from registering the relevant domain name at the other registrar. How can we overcome these technical problems with regard to implementation? There is no “know your client” requirement for registrars to know the registrant. Also, what if the WHOIS of the registrant is fake? The lack of KYC and fake info are without doubt huge problems. Data accuracy is something I know we would all love to work towards. * Maxim Alzoba: There are two issues with this proposal. 1) It would create gaming concerns, as the registrant can simply use false contact information. Wouldn’t it be great if they couldn’t... But also – as said in the proposal – it could actually reduce gaming. (“This would help to prevent gaming of the system and unnecessary cluttering of the providers’ workload with spurious or vexatious cases”). 2) For registrars, there is almost no way to identify the person behind it – it could be a good guys’ domain name that is stolen and used for bad things, and the registrars cannot share information with those parties outside the law. There are no safeguards for the situation where trademark is no longer protected. There is no way to identify a bad guy before they do something fishy or before they follow a pattern. They would have done here – that’s exactly the point. Maybe something limited could be implemented, such as limiting the registration of this domain name for one year. * Christine Farley: If a registrant has been shown to have a bad faith in registering a domain, does it mean that all future registrations will be in bad faith? Or might it be possible for that registrant to re-register that domain with a good faith in future? Is that not a bit unrealistic? * Griffin Barnet: Could perhaps link the registrant to his/her email address, payment info, or something more unique to the actual registrant? Maxim Alzoba: Payment info does not propagate further than one registrar and potentially ICANN. See idea above re a database. * Justine Chew: Could perhaps use a blacklist to identify "losing respondent" as named by that party itself, even if they used false name, contact info etc. Interesting.

1 0

Revised Version of URS Proposal #12
by George Kirikos Oct. 21, 2018

Oct. 21, 2018

[re-sending from my correct email address] Hi folks, Attached is the revised version of URS Proposal #12, after discussions with Rebecca on how to handle the unintended consequences she identified in the original proposal. Many thanks to Rebecca for identifying the issue and the solution. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

10 29

URS levels of support for public comments
by Tushnet, Rebecca Oct. 20, 2018

Oct. 20, 2018

Following up on what I said on one of the calls, and consistent with Greg Shatan's comments (an agreement that I think should probably be noted as significant in itself), I don't think the staff categorizations have worked. If the ultimate point is to get feedback on potential fixes that have been raised, and we don't want to spend a lot more time on this, then I would say we may need to pass on the proposals as non-consensus proposals for community feedback. As Greg did, I supported proposals for comment that I am presently unlikely to support for adoption; based on other comments, I suspect many of us did so--which means that any staff-prepared summary of objections received is also going to be unrepresentative of the full range of arguments against a particular proposal unless we spend a lot more time on it. One specific thing: the charter asks if the URS is fit for purpose. If you agree that the charge allows the answer "no," then one recommendation for a fix is "make it the UDRP," if you think the game isn't worth the candle. That proposal is thus clearly within scope. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School 703 593 6759

3 2

UPDATED - Final Report: TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Survey
by Ariel Liang Oct. 20, 2018

Oct. 20, 2018

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, Analysis Group have updated the Final Report by including the table of content for easier reference on page 2. Please find attached. For the presentation of the survey results, this report will be used, accompanying Analysis Group’s slides. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 1:36 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Final Report: TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Survey Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, Analysis Group will present the TMCH Sunrise and Trademark Claims survey results during session 2<https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901716> and session 3<https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901722> of the Working Group meetings at ICANN63. To facilitate your participation in the sessions, please find attached the Final Report prepared by the Analysis Group. Key findings from the survey results are from page 6 to page 52. The complete survey results are included in the appendixes. Analysis Group plans to review the survey results in the order of the report and engage in discussions with the Working Group. The order is as follows: 1. Actual Domain Name Registrants 2. Potential Domain Name Registrants 3. Trademark Owners 4. New gTLD Registry Operators 5. Registrars Selling Domain Names Registered in the New gTLDs As a refresher and for those who may not be familiar with the survey, page 2 to page 6 provides background information of this survey project. The complete final survey questions are also included in the appendixes. The survey was launched on 6 September and closed on 5 October 2018. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry

1 0

REMINDER: Agenda and Materials for 12 October Working Group Meeting 1700 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 18, 2018

Oct. 18, 2018

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, On behalf of the Co-Chairs, please see the draft agenda below for the Working Group meeting on Friday, 12 October at 1700 UTC for 120 minutes (meeting may not require the full 120 minutes). Per Co-Chairs’ Proposed Procedure, for this next meeting, the Working Group will continue discussion of the Individual URS Proposals. According to the timeline published on the wiki the order of the presentation is as follows. WG members are requested to review the presentations prior to Wednesday’s meeting. George Kirikos (#23): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-23.p… George Kirikos (#32): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-32.p… George Kirikos (#33): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-33.p… George Kirikos and Zak Muscovitch (#34): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-34.p… NOTE FOR WG MEMBERS REVISING PROPOSALS: If WG members have revised/combined proposals the Co-Chairs request that they send them to the WG list as soon as possible and be ready to present them during the meeting on Friday, 12 October. Staff have updated the numberings displayed on the proposals to be consistent with the numberings on the wiki. The wiki page also includes a document that consolidates all URS proposals from individual members to facilitate viewing/reference. Per the procedure, please also note the following time requirements for the presentations: When a proposal is up for discussion, its proponent will be accorded a maximum of five (5) minutes to orally present the proposal, rationale, and supporting evidence. The floor will then be open to other Working Group members to comment on the proposal for a maximum of two (2) minutes each, with total discussion limited to twenty (20) minutes. However, if there is exceptionally high interest in a topic, the Co-Chairs would have discretion to increase the discussion time. At the end of twenty (20) minutes, or when there are no more commenters in queue, the proponent will have up to four (4) minutes to respond and/or propose a modification of the proposal based upon the discussion. Depending on the actual progress during the Wednesday meeting, if a proposal cannot be presented due to time limitation, the presentation should be deferred to the meeting on 12 October. Draft Agenda: Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates Discussion of Individual URS Proposals (See: wiki) ICANN63 Schedule (see attached) AOB Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie On Behalf of the RPM PDP WG Co-Chairs

4 6

URS "Loser Pays" proposal vs. TTAB Manual of Procedure
by George Kirikos Oct. 18, 2018

Oct. 18, 2018

Hi folks, In addition to the past concerns expressed re: identity theft, and how it can lead to a denial of service attack if a loser pays policy was adopted for the URS: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003291.html I did some additional research today on the United States TTAB procedures, and found this: https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TBMP/current#/current/sec-6f6dfee8-51e8-40b5-bc… "Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure 2018-06 502.05 Attorneys’ Fees, etc., on Motions The Board will not hold any person in contempt, or award attorneys’ fees, other expenses, or damages to any party. [ Note 1.] NOTES: 1. 37 C.F.R. § 2.127(f); NSM Resources Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 113 USPQ2d 1029, 1035 n.10 (TTAB 2014) (Board cannot assess monetary damage awards); General Mills Inc. v. Fage Dairy Processing Industries SA, 100 USPQ2d 1584, 1591 (TTAB 2011) (no authority to determine damages), judgment set aside on other grounds, 110 USPQ2d 1679 (TTAB 2014) (non-precedential); Kairos Institute of Sound Healing, LLC v. Doolittle Gardens, LLC, 88 USPQ2d 1541, 1544 n.6 (2008); Central Manufacturing Inc. v. Third Millennium Technology Inc., 61 USPQ2d 1210, 1213 (TTAB 2001) ("although the Board does not impose monetary sanctions or award attorneys’ fees or other expenses, the Board has the authority to enter other appropriate sanctions"); Duke University v. Haggar Clothing Co., 54 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 n.3 (TTAB 2000). See also 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(g) and 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(h)(1). Note, however, that conduct in violation of the Disciplinary Rules set forth in 37 C.F.R. Part 11 may be referred to the Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) for appropriate action. See 37 C.F.R. § 11.19 et seq." So, what is being proposed in regards to "loser pays" doesn't appear to exist in the US TTAB procedures. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

8 11

ICANN63: Schedule of RPM PDP Working Group Meetings
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 18, 2018

Oct. 18, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the schedule and links for the RPM PDP Working Group meetings at ICANN63: Barcelona ICANN63: Face-to-Face Full RPM PDP WG Meetings (with remote participation in the links below): GNSO - RPM working group (1 of 4): 15:15 - 16:45, Sun, Oct 21, 2018 Remote Participation -- https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901715 Wiki Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-21+ICANN63+Barcelo… GNSO - RPM working group (2 of 4): 17:00 - 18:30, Sun, Oct 21, 2018 Remote Participation -- https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901716 Wiki Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-21+ICANN63+Barcelo… GNSO - RPM working group (3 of 4): 12:15 - 13:30, Mon, Oct 22, 2018 Remote Participation -- https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901722 Wiki Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-22+ICANN63+Barcelo… GNSO - RPM working group (4 of 4): 13:30 - 15:00, Mon, Oct 22, 2018 Remote Participation -- https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901723 Wiki Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-22+ICANN63+Barcelo… Please also see the full ICANN63 schedule at: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

2 3

ICANN 63 BARCELONA
by URS - Uniform Rapid Suspension System - MFSD Oct. 18, 2018

Oct. 18, 2018

Dear All, should anyone of the WG be interested, MFSD is organizing a morning workshop on Tuesday 23 October from 9 to 11 am in order to raise awareness and share experiences and best practices on domain name disputes (.es, URS and UDRP) and the impact of the GDPR on such disputes (program attached hereto). Place: Elzaburu SLP, Carrer del Rosselló 216, 9th Floor, Barcelona Registration: http://www.elzaburu.es/es/area-de-clientes/inscribete/registration-bcn-ican… Looking forward to meeting you in Barcelona, safe travels. Ivett Paulovics URS Domain Dispute Case Manager --- MFSD Srl | IP Dispute Resolution Center Via Giorgio Washington, 50 | 20146 Milano (Italy) T +39 02 45506624 | F +39 02 91471087 M +39 329 2596103 urs(a)mfsd.it <mailto:responsabile@mfsd.it> | https://urs.mfsd.it <https://urs.mfsd.it/> Skype mfsd.urs P. Iva 04810100968 (Italian VAT) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- URS Domain Dispute Resolution Service Provider approved by ICANN .it Domain Dispute Resolution Center accredited by Registry .it IP Mediation Center authorized by Italian Ministry of Justice (no. 903) IP Mediation Training Center authorized by Italian Ministry of Justice (no. 392)

1 0

List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 18, 2018

Oct. 18, 2018

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, In preparation for the Working Group meetings at ICANN63, session 1 and session 4, and in accordance with the attached Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations, staff have reviewed the WG deliberations as recorded in the meeting transcripts and chat rooms, and have produced the attached table with the staff’s suggested levels of support for the individual proposals. The co-chairs believe a good path forward is to allow all WG members to review and, if they wish, comment upon these preliminary designations of support. For those attending ICANN63, please bring your comments to our first face-to-face (F2F) session on Sunday, 21 October at 15:15-16:45 local time. For those not attending the F2F meeting, please feel free to let us know your thoughts online. Staff took its guidance from the following excerpt from Section 7 of the procedures, as agreed to by the WG: “Unless there is substantial material opposition within the Working Group, Sub Team recommendations will be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment thereon. To be clear, Sub Team recommendations have a rebuttable presumption, subject to WG feedback, of enjoying an adequate level of support to be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting community input; Sub Team proposals, like those from individuals, will only become Final Report recommendations if they achieve Full Consensus or Consensus.” The Co-Chairs would like the WG to note the following with respect to these suggested levels of support: These are preliminary and subject to review and deliberation by the WG at ICANN63; WG members are encouraged to provide feedback on the suggested levels of support and in particular as to whether there are any mischaracterizations; The levels of support and determination with respect to inclusion in the Initial Report will be based on the deliberations at ICANN63, with public comment requested on all proposals that garnered adequate support; The Initial Report will note for the record individual proposals that failed to achieve adequate support; The WG will have the opportunity to review the proposals as they appear in the draft Initial Report and propose revisions before the Initial Report is published for public comment. Finally, if WG members have revised proposals they should submit them to the WG list no later than 23:59 UTC on Friday, 19 October so that they may be discussed at the sessions at ICANN63. Best regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry On behalf of the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs

9 18