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

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 03 October 2018
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 3, 2018

Oct. 3, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 03 October 2018 (17:00-19:00 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-03+Review+of+all+R…. See also the proposals at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Proposals. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Chair: Phil Corwin 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates: No updates. 2. Discussion of Individual URS Proposals (See: https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ) Order of Presentations: 22, 26, 27, 29, 28, 30, 31, 32 Brian Winterfeldt’s team (no. 22): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-22.p… Presented by John McElwaine Discussion: -- Since we are trying to determine if there is adequate support notwithstanding opposition, we will lean towards inclusion in the Initial Report. -- Concerns about identify theft issues and that registrant would be liable for damages for a name they never registered. -- Concern about undermining confidence in ICANN to have URS become a pseudo court that adjudicates money disputes. Putting out for public comment would be seen as a power grab to usurp the role of the courts. -- Question: Does the loser pay to both the complainant and the respondent? -- Question: Does this only apply to registrants that are habitual cyber squatters and if so what kind of numbers would determine that? -- Question: It isn't just loser pays but recovery of legal fees (by the registrant)? -- Imposing a filing fee to all respondents would be a barrier to access. -- Any proposal for a user pays system should be set out with exactly what is being proposed, rather than the details filled in later. -- For escrow, suggest a third party. Response: -- We would not adjudicate the amount of legal fees. The fees would be set at a maximum small amount. -- Not adjudicated against the respondent -- not need to be paid until they file their answer. -- Applies to both parties -- amount by complainant and respondent held in escrow. Delivered to the prevailing party. Also some amount to the registry for their administrative costs. -- Threshold: Could be an additional remedy if it only applied to an habitual offender, or could apply in all cases -- that would be for the community to decide. Zak Muscovitch (no. 26): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-26.p… Discussion: -- Support for the proposal. -- Question: Forum has a search page where you can enter the arbitrator name, etc. What in addition to that would he be looking for? -- Question: What harm has been identified? -- Question: Is this issue unique to the URS or for the UDRP? -- Support for the proposal and interacts with other proposals. Response: -- Re: the search function on Forum web site -- tweaking it would make it even more useful. Such as seeing how many decisions are provided over I would have to do that through many searches. -- Re: harm -- From Prof. Tushnet's data there was a wide discrepancy, which could mean two problems 1) any system requires a degree of transparency of who is adjudicating and if there is a concentration of adjudicators, which could be a breach of the policy and inadvertently relying on a small group of panelists; 2) if a select group is only deciding these cases then they aren't representing the full group. -- Re: applicable to UDRP -- comes up there as well and would propose in the context of UDRP. Zak Muscovitch (no. 27): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-27.p… Discussion: -- Seems to be an unnecessary recommendation. Seems like we've already included a recommendation on this. -- Question: Don't know if the proposal is asking if the providers should be ensuring the CVs should be updated. -- Support, but should be more specific -- updated at least once a year. -- Suggest when the CV is updated it should have a time stamp to indicate when it was last updated. -- Suggest URS provider should be sending reminders. -- Support and agree with annual updates. Response: -- This is a minor change. -- Re: Can't hold the provider responsible for CVs that aren't accurate, but the panelists should be required to post updates to their CVs. George Kirikos (no. 29): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-29.p… Discussion: -- Comments: Cost providers a lot of money to implement. Depending on the specification and output there would need to be retranslations and reviews. URS modeled to be fast and automated. Would start from scratch to put these in place. -- Would the same cost apply for doing this for only new cases? The cost would be less over time, but we'd need to redo the process. -- Support for the proposal. Support focusing on doing it going forward. -- Where would the costs be picked up for initial set up? Opposed to the proposal. Not a transparency issue since the data are published. Need to be clear what the costs will be, who picks up the costs, and who the benefit is for. -- Question: Are there any limitations? -- Question: What is the benefit of this proposal versus the search function already on the web site. WIPO does not support. Response: -- You can't capture the fields you want to search by that you can't capture in freeform text. -- The responses by the panelists/rationale wouldn't be standardized, although the decision would be. -- Who would benefit: Not a small group because it would encourage a wider group to study these cases. Zak Muscovitch (no. 28): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-28.p… Discussion: -- Question: If there is a proposal for a conflict of interest policy, would the details be worked out in implementation? Answer: The role of the WG is to develop the policy recommendation and if approved an implementation team comprised from community volunteers works with the Global Domains Division (GDD) to develop implementation details. However, the PDP WG could provide guidelines. -- Worth considering. Helpful to have clear guidance on what a conflict of interest means and unify over jurisdictions. -- Address potential for conflicting rules for conflicts of interest. Response: -- Not asking for the providers to write up a specific policy? No. -- Not asking the public to vote on a policy. -- Conflict of interest is a public interest matter. George Kirikos (no. 30): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-30.p… Discussion: -- Question: Explain mandatory mediation versus a mediation option. -- Doesn't seem to be much of an appetite for mediation and think it should be optional. The main issue seems to be cost. -- Timeline -- it is supposed to be a fast process and mediation would slow that down. -- Lack of use of mediation based on the default rate. -- Mediation cuts both ways. -- Good idea but there is an important issue of when does the mediation occurs. -- Time and costs are factors. Response: -- Statements made in mediation would be without prejudice. -- Don't think the default rate is an indicator as to whether people would engage in mediation. -- Flow of process: Don't need a full complaint, just a skeleton. -- In terms of mandatory: Forces people to think about settlement. David McAuley (no. 31): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-31.p… Discussion: -- Don't support, but agree that it should be put out for public comment. -- Question: In terms of data collection, there wasn't collection of data from registrants. -- Which URS should become Consensus Policy -- the current URS, or that as proposed to be modified by the WG recommendations? -- Worth putting out for public comment, but odd to talk about expanding it now. -- Support for the proposal and helpful to put it out for public comment. Response: -- There was some data collection, but we are asking people to comment. -- Whether this is a big leap that is why it is good to get public comment. -- As to which URS, that will always be an issue. The baseline will be the current URS, but they will see the proposals/options/questions for feedback. -- Re: tied to the price that Verisign charges: will come back to this on the list. Current registry agreement regarding .com may change before this PDP is completed and the cost to registries of implementing a URS decision is very low. 3. Next Meetings: 10 Oct and 12 Oct, 1700 UTC for 120 Minutes 4. Inclusion in Initial Report: See Section 7 of the Co-Chairs Proposed Procedures

1 0

Proposal No. 30 - Mediation
by Steve Levy Oct. 2, 2018

Oct. 2, 2018

Hello George, I see that you’ve submitted a proposal that the URS and UDRP should implement a mandatory mediation step. Last year I investigated the issue of mediation with both Nominet and some of the URS/UDRP providers. I've attached a copy of my brief report and hope you’ll find it illuminating on this topic. Regards, Steve [cid:6F908F10-786B-4616-986F-BD98CFF78443] Steven M. Levy, Esq. Accent Law Group, Inc. 301 Fulton St. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19147 United States Phone: +1-215-327-9094 Email: slevy(a)AccentLawGroup.com<mailto:slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com<http://www.accentlawgroup.com/> <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/> ________________________________________ Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.

3 2

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] URS Language Proposals, revision/merger of previous proposals #24 & #25
by kathy＠kathykleiman.com Oct. 1, 2018

Oct. 1, 2018

Tx you George and Zak. Best, Kathy Sent from my Sprint phone. ----- Reply message ----- From: "George Kirikos" <icann(a)leap.com> To: "gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org>, "Ariel Liang" <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] URS Language Proposals, revision/merger of previous proposals #24 & #25 Date: Mon, Oct 1, 2018 11:21 AM Hi folks, As discussed on our last call, Zak Muscovitch and I have worked over the past few days to revise and merge our individual language-related proposals for the URS (currently numbered as #24 & #25). Attached as a PDF is the product of that effort. (we leave it to Staff as to how to number this merged proposal). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

URS Language Proposals, revision/merger of previous proposals #24 & #25
by George Kirikos Oct. 1, 2018

Oct. 1, 2018

Hi folks, As discussed on our last call, Zak Muscovitch and I have worked over the past few days to revise and merge our individual language-related proposals for the URS (currently numbered as #24 & #25). Attached as a PDF is the product of that effort. (we leave it to Staff as to how to number this merged proposal). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

Agenda and Materials for 03 October Working Group Meeting 1700 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 1, 2018

Oct. 1, 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 Wednesday, 03 October at 1700 UTC for 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. Brian Winterfeldt’s team (no. 22): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-22.p… Zak Muscovitch (no. 26): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-26.p… Zak Muscovitch (no. 27): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-27.p… George Kirikos (no. 29): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-29.p… Zak Muscovitch (no. 28): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-28.p… George Kirikos (no. 30): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-30.p… David McAuley (no. 31): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-31.p… George Kirikos (no. 32): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-32.p… 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 a future meeting. Draft Agenda: Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates Discussion of Individual URS Proposals (See: wiki) AOB Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie On Behalf of the RPM PDP WG Co-Chairs

1 0

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 26 Sept 2018
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 27, 2018

Sept. 27, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 26 September 2018 (12:00-14:00 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-09-26+Review+of+all+R…. See also the proposals at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Proposals. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: ACTION ITEM: Re: Response Fee Threshold: Staff will research how the 15 threshold was determined. ACTION ITEM: Staff will check to see if it is possible to find out how many different languages the registration agreements are in, but the data (if any) is likely limited to what is disclosed during the registrar accreditation process. Notes: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates: -- Is Phil Corwin’s affiliation up to date at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729950? Yes, it matches his SOI at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Philip+S+Corwin+SOI. 2. Discussion of Individual URS Proposals: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Proposals 1) Brian Winterfeldt’s team: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-10.p… Discussion: -- Opposed: This would extend time to appeal and respond. The evidence is the opposite of what is being claimed. -- Where does the 1 year come from? -- Troubling because there is no evidence of a problem. There doesn't seem to be evidence of harm. -- I don't think we have any evidence that there is a problem with receiving notice. We should focus on improving the notice of complaint. -- If we got rid of the opportunity of a registrant to submit a response after a default determination the registrant could appeal through the de novo appeal process, but that doesn't seem to be correct. The existing record would be the original complaint. So the proposal should just be the primary proposal that the time limit should be revisited. -- 2 points: (1) . Assuming the evidence shows all of the filings were within 30 days, I do not see a reason to change what is already there. There is no evidence that the current period has been abused in any way.. (2) . There are a great many ways that registrants may not receive notice. Assuming (as the evidence suggests) there is no abuse, why should we limit the time and potentially harm those non-abusing registrants who recieved notification late. Also, I agree with ZAK on the appeal issue. Response: -- The 1-year period is the 6 month period and the additional 6 months. -- About the appeal -- the appeal is on the existing record, so that is a good point. One possibility is to work with David McCauley on a combined revised proposal. Proposers may work with David McCauley on a combined revised proposal. 2) Brian Winterfeldt’s team:: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-11.p… Discussion: -- Not in favor. Losing past disputes is not the same as being accused of abuse. This would promote further defaults by raising the difficulty of responding. -- Does someone have to pay the response filing fee even if not successful? -- 3 sounds like a pretty low threshold in considering whether someone is a bad-faith actor. Might this incentivize bad behavior to lump cases together to get the discount? -- What is the evidence supporting this change? It appears that most abusive URS complaints are defaulted. So why penalize a registrant who wants to actually deend a URS? -- Gaming is another strawman argument. Sort of like a loser pays system. -- Possible refinement: That the threshold of 3 would be met by 3 registrations targeting the same trademark. -- The IRT report had mentioned a threshold of 25 and there was a request to lower that, but we will look into the deeper history. Responses: -- A lot of the issues can be addressed by noting that the response fee under the current rules is refundable to the prevailing parties. That would remain in place. -- The number 3 was a strawman that ties to the cases of a pattern of 3 constitutes a pattern of bad behavior. -- We will review all of the comments in the chat and consider refining the proposal. ACTION ITEM: Staff will research how the 15 threshold was determined. Proposers will review all of the comments and consider refining the proposal. 3) George Kirikos: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-24.p… Discussion: -- Question: Does his proposal include who would pay for the translation? -- The translation would add time to the examiners side, so how will that be addressed? -- Question: Under the UDRP there is a process that despite the registration language being other than English that English should be the language of the case. Can this be included? -- Question to staff: Registration agreement between the registrar and registrant how many different languages those agreements may be in among ICANN-accredited registrars. Mary Wong: @Phil, we can check with our GDD colleagues but the information (if any) may be limited to what is disclosed during the registrar accreditation process. Response: -- The complainant would be responsible for providing the complaint in the language of the registrant. -- Amenable to follow the UDRP rules. -- Not sure we can get data on the languages of the agreements between registrars and registrants. ACTION ITEM: Staff will check to see if it is possible to find out how many different languages the registration agreements are in, but the data (if any) is likely limited to what is disclosed during the registrar accreditation process. 4) Zak Muscovitch: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-25.p… Discussion: -- How do you handle the issue where a country has multiple official languages? -- What about a domain name registered defensively in language but couldn't defend it in that language? -- Very limited evidence for this proposal, which speaks to following the UDRP precedent having the translation being at the request of the respondent since we don't know in advance what their language is. -- Support combining similar proposals. -- The issue of translation can cross a lot of areas. Question: If we were to consider this option we would want to think about what are the languages where this would have the most impact. How do we allocate costs to keep it fair. How to allocate languages to not overburden the system? Response: -- This proposal seems to be more sensitive to where people are and the languages they speak. -- In terms of the cost: There isn't any cost of translation since the complaint must be brought in the language of the registration agreement; should be less cost. 5) Brian Winterfeldt’s team: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-15.p… Discussion: -- Should be deferred to Phase Two. A different version of loser pays. -- Also there are issues of identity theft. -- Any proposal of black-listing registrants is highly problematic. -- Shouldn't this be up to complainants? This is a somewhat one-sided proposal. -- Proposal are unworkable, so it would be helpful if they are reworked. Response: -- There are challenges concerning how to apply enhanced penalties, but it is workable. We don't have to work out the implementation details. 6) Brian Winterfeldt’s team: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-16.p… Discussion: -- Oppose the proposals. A way to transform the URS into UDRP through a right of first refusal. -- Is it your intent to flesh out what are the additional remedies, or are you asking for the TM community to suggest additional remedies? -- Addresses the under use of the URS in a transformative fashion. Does call into question how both programs are intended to work together. -- Support for the idea for a negotiated transfer of a suspended domain name. -- If the URS allowed a right of first refusal, what would happen in the case of halifax.com? The proposal would contemplate preventing a good faith use of the name. Response: -- What about legitimate TM owners? They typically negotiate with each other, but it is a good question. -- We are not saying the suspension period should be eliminated. Next Steps: -- Presumption of inclusion of all proposals in the Initial Report. Need to get feedback on these divergent proposals and how we can reach a compromise. -- A lot of these proposals are interconnected. -- Put the issues on the table now. Seems like any Phase Two proposals will need to be in Phase One, but more efficient to defer the topics to Phase Two. -- In the proposals the proposers should consider implementation. 3: AOB: Phase One vs. Phase Two Topics: -- Not necessary to only suggest for Phase One or Two so topics may generate different discussion or results in each case. -- Don't want to tell any member of the WG that they can't present something now but have to wait until UDRP. -- Some issues are unique to the URS, and other topics that can straddle URS and UDRP. -- Key thing -- deferred proposals are assured of being addressed in full in Phase Two. Those who want their considered now bear the risk that comments on their proposals now may weigh against them in Phase Two. -- These are two different proceedings and now is the opportunity to look at the operational fixes and policy recommendations that are fairly tailored to the URS. -- Anyone has the opportunity to recategorize their proposals by COB Friday, 28 Sept. -- The PDP Charter contemplates the possibility that Phase One findings may emerge that are relevant to Phase Two discussions - and these should (if known at the appropriate stage) be noted in the Phase One report. The Charter also allows the WG to review its Phase One report if relevant to Phase Two.

4 5

Phase 1 vs Phase 2 proposals/topics (was Re: UPDATE: Agenda and Materials for 26 Sept Working Group Meeting 1200 UTC)
by George Kirikos Sept. 26, 2018

Sept. 26, 2018

Hi folks, I notice that 2 of the proposals scheduled for today's call (#15 and #22, additional penalties for repeat offenders + loser pays) were ones I identified on September 11, 2018 as being more appropriate for Phase 2 discussions, see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003315.html and the ensuing thread. On our last call, Phil Corwin stated: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcrip… "And then those of you who saw on the list last week, George Kirikos raised a question regarding the distinction between Phase 1 and Phase 2 proposals and the chairs are going to put out a statement on that in the next day or two that can be discussed on the list before the next meeting. But we haven't had a chance to put that out yet but the few proposals that George identified that he thought would be more properly addressed in Phase 2 also were not called up, although I think the first one would have been Number 14, which would not have been reached today anyway. But we’re going to have a statement out on that in the next few days." (page 2) However, no such statement has been put out by the co-chairs since that last call. Since we only have 2 minutes to respond to each proposal during today's call, I'd like to reiterate my objection to having these proposals be presented at this time, unless it's agreed in advance that these same topics are going to be completely barred from consideration in relation to the UDRP. It's clear to me that these same topics are intended to be raised again for the UDRP (indeed, the rationale for proposal #22 "loser pays" explicitly references the UDRP). They shouldn't get two bites at the apple, so to speak. One of the main justifications for splitting the work into Phase 1 and Phase 2 was to avoid duplication, and having these proposals presented and considered now makes a mockery of that. Should the proposals above be allowed to proceed to the presentation stage now, despite their relevance to the UDRP and Phase 2, then various counterbalancing proposals to protect registrants' rights and due process that I submitted and explicitly labelled as being more suitable for Phase 2 (since they apply to both the URS and UDRP) should be given equal time in Phase 1 presentations to be considered with and alongside the above proposals. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, > > > > On behalf of the Co-Chairs, please see the draft agenda below for the > Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 26 September at 1200 UTC (NOTE ROTATING > TIME) for 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 and as described in the message below, the > order of the presentation is as follows. WG members are requested to review > the presentations prior to Wednesday’s meeting. Staff would like to provide > you a heads-up that the order of presentations tomorrow would be slightly > adjusted as follows: > > > > Brian Winterfeldt’s team: > https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-10.p… > Brian Winterfeldt’s team: > https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-11.p… > George Kirikos: > https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-24.p… > Zak Muscovitch: > https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-25.p… > Brian Winterfeldt’s team: > https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-15.p… > Brian Winterfeldt’s team: > https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-16.p… > Brian Winterfeldt’s team: > https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-22.p… > > > > 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 a future meeting. > > > > Draft Agenda: > > Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates > Discussion of Individual URS Proposals (See: wiki) > AOB > > > > Best, > > Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie > > On Behalf of the RPM PDP WG Co-Chairs > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

4 6

Scheduling meeting times
by Mary Wong Sept. 26, 2018

Sept. 26, 2018

Dear all, The Working Group co-chairs periodically review the group’s meeting times with staff. You may recall that this group previously held its fourth rotating meeting at a different time (viz. 0300 UTC) which, while making it much easier for APAC-based participants as it meant that one out of every four Working Group calls would take place during working hours in that region, also made it extremely difficult for EMEA-based members to participate. The current rotating time of 1200 UTC was a compromise of sorts, as it falls within EMEA working hours without being overly late (relatively speaking) for APAC – although please note that, in contrast to the previous rotating time of 0300 UTC, 1200 UTC actually means the call takes place after working hours in APAC (e.g. 8 p.m. in Singapore/HK and 10 p.m. in parts of Australia). In either case, the Working Group’s regular meeting time of 1700 UTC makes attending three out of four meetings very difficult for APAC-based members (1700 UTC time is 5 a.m. in Singapore/HK and 7 a.m. in Melbourne). As the GNSO’s rules are designed to facilitate broad and diverse representation and participation, all PDP Working Groups (with the current exception of the new Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification relating to WHOIS data) use a rotating meeting schedule, with actual times determined by the circumstances of each group and set by that group’s leadership team. This is in accordance with the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which prescribe that “scheduling tools should follow the preference of the majority and accommodate those that are in different time zones. Alternating meeting times should be considered as an option if the same members of the WG are always ‘inconvenienced’ by a standing meeting time.” Staff will work with Kathy, Brian and Phil to see if the current rotating time should be changed, but for now we thought this background information may be helpful. Thanks and cheers Mary, Julie & Ariel From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Nahitchevansky, Georges" <ghn(a)kilpatricktownsend.com> Date: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 11:34 To: George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com>, Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org>, gnso-SECS <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday 26 September 2018 Agree with George K that if APAC attendance is light for these calls that we should consider whether or not to have calls in this time slot at this point of our process I hate to think that a number of working group members miss these calls at this juncture because we are sticking to a time slot to accommodate folks that end up not attending. From: icann(a)leap.com Sent: September 26, 2018 11:19 AM To: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org; gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday 26 September 2018 [resending, as I sent the prior email from an unsubscribed email address] The attendance record is not accurate. e.g. my name (George Kirikos) is missing. Also, Georges Nahitchevansky's first name is missing the 's'. There might be other errors beyond that. Also, it seems participation from Asia-Pacific based members was quite light on this call (which was supposed to be APAC-friendly), if the (revised) attendance was accurate. Perhaps a different time slot needs to be considered? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ [leap.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFAg&…> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear all, > > Please find the attendance and AC Chat attached to this email, and the MP3 & > AC recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) > PDP Working Group call held Monday, 26 September 2018 at 12:00 UTC. > Attendance and recording of the call is also posted on agenda wiki page: > https://community.icann.org/x/ZgKNBQ > > MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-26sep18-en.mp3 [audio.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> > > > > AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8ed3wvepp7/ > > > > > > The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master > Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> > [gnso.icann.org] > > > > ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** > > > > Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ > > > > Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw > [community.icann.org] > > > > Thank you. > > Kind Regards, > > Nathalie > > > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

1 0

With updated attendance: Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday 26 September 2018
by Nathalie Peregrine Sept. 26, 2018

Sept. 26, 2018

Resending with updated attendance, thank you George Kirikos for catching the errors and apologies. From: Gnso-secs <gnso-secs-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 5:07 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-secs] Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday 26 September 2018 Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC Chat attached to this email, and the MP3 & AC recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Monday, 26 September 2018 at 12:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/ZgKNBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-26sep18-en.mp3 [audio.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8ed3wvepp7/<https://participate.icann.org/p8ed3wvepp7/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=b53cd1dec1e5ee76…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind Regards, Nathalie

1 0

Revised proposals, timeline/deadline?
by George Kirikos Sept. 26, 2018

Sept. 26, 2018

Hi folks, As per today's call, when should we alll submit merged/revised proposals (e.g. the language proposals by Zak and myself)? Will those be presented again at some point, or .... ? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

2 1