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

URS Proposal Submissions - 30 Aug 2018
by Ariel Liang Aug. 30, 2018

Aug. 30, 2018

Dear RPM WG members, This is to let you know that David McAuley and Maxim Alzoba submitted URS Proposals by COB today (30 Aug 2018). You may see the proposals uploaded to the wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry

1 0

URS Proposal Submissions - 28 Aug 2018
by Ariel Liang Aug. 29, 2018

Aug. 29, 2018

Dear RPM WG members, This is to let you know that George Kirikos submitted two more URS Proposals by COB today (28 Aug 2018). You may see the proposals uploaded to the wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry

1 0

URS Respondent Response Rates -- China vs. USA
by George Kirikos Aug. 28, 2018

Aug. 28, 2018

Hi folks, To support an upcoming proposed URS policy re: language, I did some analysis today of the data that had been generously shared with the working group by Rebecca Tushnet: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1dodxsqkauqp1vr/URS%20Case%20Review%20-%20Final.x… comparing the response rates (within 14 days) of respondents from the top 2 respondent countries, namely China and the USA. Rebecca's data showed there were 252 cases involving a respondent from China, and they responded (within 14 days) 50 times, for a response rate of 19.8%. For the 159 cases involving a respondent from the United States, they responded (within 14 days) 57 times, for a response rate of 35.8%, which is markedly higher. Furthermore, if one compares the number of "Denied" cases, there were just 11 of them for registrants from China, for a "win rate" of the domain name registrants of just 4.4% (11/252). For respondents/registrants from the United States, 20 of the 159 URS complaints were denied, for a much higher "win rate" of 12.6%. I'm posting these stats to the mailing list, so that others have access to them, and to also reduce the need to have to reproduce the calculations in the URS Proposals submissions (which uses up some of the 250 words!). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

CANCELLED: 29 August RPM PDP Working Group Meeting
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 27, 2018

Aug. 27, 2018

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, The Working Group call this week on 29 August at 12:00 UTC is cancelled. Instead, it will be re-purposed for the URS Sub Teams to refine the language of their draft proposed policy recommendations and operational fixes for the Working Group to consider at the meeting on Wednesday, 05 September. The Sub Teams will shortly receive further guidance separately. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie On behalf of the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs

1 0

URS Proposal Submission - 1
by Ariel Liang Aug. 27, 2018

Aug. 27, 2018

Dear RPM WG members, Kindly find attached the first URS Proposal submitted by George Kirikos. Staff have created a wiki page to store the individual proposals submitted: https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ (the structure/organization of the page may be updated). Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry

1 0

FOR REVIEW: Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 26, 2018

Aug. 26, 2018

Dear All, Per the action items 1 and 2 below, please see the updated document, Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations. WG members are requested to review the document and send any comments, questions, or suggested changes to the WG list. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 4:20 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 22 August 2018 Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP WG call held on 22 August 2018 (17:00-18:30 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-08-22+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == ACTIONS: ACTION ITEM 1: Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations -- Edit the second bullet on page 4. Put a period after "initial report". Delete the rest of the text. ACTION ITEM 2: WG members to review the Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations and send any comments, questions, or suggested changes to the WG list. NOTES: 1. Review Agenda/SOIs: -- New EFF representative Mitch replacing Jeremy. 2. Discussion of Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations (see attached Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations): 1) Review of Proposals from URS Sub Teams: -- Contact Sub Teams if you have questions (Staff can provide names). 2) Logistical requirements for proposal submission from individual Working Group members: -- Send your proposals via the online survey form or the Word doc or they won't be in order. -- Deadline is 31 August for proposals. -- Question: If someone has already submitted a proposal they need to resubmit using the form? Answer: Yes, it is very doubtful that anyone has submitted a proposal in a form that we are going to be requiring. -- Question: Can we get a record of what we have sent and to whom do we send proposals if we use the Word form? Answer: SurveyMonkey will capture the submission that staff will send to the list and individuals as PDF. Send Word forms to Ariel Liang on staff at: ariel.liang(a)icann.org, -- Question: Can we extend the deadline to 05 or 12 September for submissions? Answer: We have a very tight timeline. We will keep it at the 31st but if there is a lot of push back we may consider pushing back to early the following week. 3) Content requirements for proposals: -- Question: Should the Sub Teams have to answer these questions for their own proposals? Or can the individuals have more time? Answer: The Sub Teams have been working over a long period of time and as a group have come up with draft recommendations, and these will need more discussion. They don't need the same level of detail. 4) Administrative review of proposals: -- Staff will review the proposals and identify those that don't meet the criteria. 5) Meeting Duration: 6) Presentation of Proposals: -- This is all happening over a pretty short time period. The time zone issue also can be significant, so it is better if the proponents can be on the call to present. If not, we should be able to designate an alternate. This proposal will be considered by the Co-Chairs. -- Might need to schedule more meetings. -- Concern that if many people wish to express their views and you only hear from one perspective then that could be an issue. -- Also doesn't seem to allow for engaging in a debate via email since the poll is initiated right after the call. -- Could allow less time for -- Before presentation, encourage WG members to propose questions for the proponents and post on mailing list -- Instead of 2 min response to questions, 3-4 min for proponents to respond would be more effective -- Each proposal needs to be under 30 min total for the presentation and discussion -- Want a diversity of people for presenting. Need to decide which proposals have significant support to go into the Initial Report. -- It would be ideal to have a diversity of SGs and Cs supporting a proposal -- support across the WG. -- The poll should be transparent with names attached. -- After the presentations, the proponent should be permitted to elaborate after the presentation via email, and start the poll a few days later. -- Concerns about "significant support" -- there should be a predetermined level and applies equally. -- All the URS Sub Team proposals should go through the same poll. -- The bias is towards inclusion. 7) Co-Chair's review of proposals: -- This is not the consensus call process. -- The point of the Initial Report is to get feedback from the community. -- Question: One of the problems we had in the IGO/INGO group was the perception where those leading the working group supported a matter silence was treated as tacit support, when those leading the working group were against a matter silence was treated a implicit objection. Could this happen here? -- Page 4: Second bullet point, that Sub Team recommendations will be included as a WG recommendation -- but individual member proposals are excluded by default. But Sub Team recommendations are reviewed by the plenary. -- Sub Team recommendations are already the result of work of WG members. -- Page 4: There is some non-parallel drafting in the second and third bullet points. Seems to suggest that these won't be treated equally. -- Sub Team recommendations in the end will have no advantage over individual recommendations in the Final Report. It is not the intent to give greater weight to Sub Team recommendations. ACTION ITEM: Edit the second bullet on page 4. Put a period after "initial report". Delete the rest of the text. Submission Form: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/URSProposal -- Urging the WG members to use the online form. -- Whether they are going to be in the Final Report as a consensus recommendations is a separate point. Whether a proposal is WG or individual will not determine what is in the Final Report. 3. Begin consideration of the sub team recommendations, under the proposed framework (see attached Super Consolidated URS Topics Table – with Findings, Issues, and Suggestions from all Three URS Sub Teams for Working Group Discussion) – postponed to the next meeting. 4. Next meeting: Asia Pacific Time for the last meeting of the month -- Wednesday, 29 August at 1200 UTC.

2 1

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 22 August 2018 at 17:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Aug. 23, 2018

Aug. 23, 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 Wednesday, 22 August 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/wANpBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-22aug18-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p4g7yzu246f/ 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, Michelle DeSmyter

1 0

ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 22 August 2018
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 22, 2018

Aug. 22, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP WG call held on 22 August 2018 (17:00-18:30 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-08-22+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == ACTIONS: ACTION ITEM 1: Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations -- Edit the second bullet on page 4. Put a period after "initial report". Delete the rest of the text. ACTION ITEM 2: WG members to review the Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations and send any comments, questions, or suggested changes to the WG list. NOTES: 1. Review Agenda/SOIs: -- New EFF representative Mitch replacing Jeremy. 2. Discussion of Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations (see attached Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations): 1) Review of Proposals from URS Sub Teams: -- Contact Sub Teams if you have questions (Staff can provide names). 2) Logistical requirements for proposal submission from individual Working Group members: -- Send your proposals via the online survey form or the Word doc or they won't be in order. -- Deadline is 31 August for proposals. -- Question: If someone has already submitted a proposal they need to resubmit using the form? Answer: Yes, it is very doubtful that anyone has submitted a proposal in a form that we are going to be requiring. -- Question: Can we get a record of what we have sent and to whom do we send proposals if we use the Word form? Answer: SurveyMonkey will capture the submission that staff will send to the list and individuals as PDF. Send Word forms to Ariel Liang on staff at: ariel.liang(a)icann.org, -- Question: Can we extend the deadline to 05 or 12 September for submissions? Answer: We have a very tight timeline. We will keep it at the 31st but if there is a lot of push back we may consider pushing back to early the following week. 3) Content requirements for proposals: -- Question: Should the Sub Teams have to answer these questions for their own proposals? Or can the individuals have more time? Answer: The Sub Teams have been working over a long period of time and as a group have come up with draft recommendations, and these will need more discussion. They don't need the same level of detail. 4) Administrative review of proposals: -- Staff will review the proposals and identify those that don't meet the criteria. 5) Meeting Duration: 6) Presentation of Proposals: -- This is all happening over a pretty short time period. The time zone issue also can be significant, so it is better if the proponents can be on the call to present. If not, we should be able to designate an alternate. This proposal will be considered by the Co-Chairs. -- Might need to schedule more meetings. -- Concern that if many people wish to express their views and you only hear from one perspective then that could be an issue. -- Also doesn't seem to allow for engaging in a debate via email since the poll is initiated right after the call. -- Could allow less time for -- Before presentation, encourage WG members to propose questions for the proponents and post on mailing list -- Instead of 2 min response to questions, 3-4 min for proponents to respond would be more effective -- Each proposal needs to be under 30 min total for the presentation and discussion -- Want a diversity of people for presenting. Need to decide which proposals have significant support to go into the Initial Report. -- It would be ideal to have a diversity of SGs and Cs supporting a proposal -- support across the WG. -- The poll should be transparent with names attached. -- After the presentations, the proponent should be permitted to elaborate after the presentation via email, and start the poll a few days later. -- Concerns about "significant support" -- there should be a predetermined level and applies equally. -- All the URS Sub Team proposals should go through the same poll. -- The bias is towards inclusion. 7) Co-Chair's review of proposals: -- This is not the consensus call process. -- The point of the Initial Report is to get feedback from the community. -- Question: One of the problems we had in the IGO/INGO group was the perception where those leading the working group supported a matter silence was treated as tacit support, when those leading the working group were against a matter silence was treated a implicit objection. Could this happen here? -- Page 4: Second bullet point, that Sub Team recommendations will be included as a WG recommendation -- but individual member proposals are excluded by default. But Sub Team recommendations are reviewed by the plenary. -- Sub Team recommendations are already the result of work of WG members. -- Page 4: There is some non-parallel drafting in the second and third bullet points. Seems to suggest that these won't be treated equally. -- Sub Team recommendations in the end will have no advantage over individual recommendations in the Final Report. It is not the intent to give greater weight to Sub Team recommendations. ACTION ITEM: Edit the second bullet on page 4. Put a period after "initial report". Delete the rest of the text. Submission Form: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/URSProposal -- Urging the WG members to use the online form. -- Whether they are going to be in the Final Report as a consensus recommendations is a separate point. Whether a proposal is WG or individual will not determine what is in the Final Report. 3. Begin consideration of the sub team recommendations, under the proposed framework (see attached Super Consolidated URS Topics Table – with Findings, Issues, and Suggestions from all Three URS Sub Teams for Working Group Discussion) – postponed to the next meeting. 4. Next meeting: Asia Pacific Time for the last meeting of the month -- Wednesday, 29 August at 1200 UTC.

1 0

Eliminating the Disparate Treatment of Subteam vs. Individual Recommendations (was Re: Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations; Draft Agenda for 22 Aug Call)
by George Kirikos Aug. 22, 2018

Aug. 22, 2018

Hi folks, At the end of today's call, we were asked to put in writing some of the points that we'd expressed regarding the proposed process. Early on in this PDP, it had been decided that no deference was owed any of the work of the subteams. However, this proposed process suddenly changes the rules of the game, during the middle of the game, and gives advantages to proposals that have come out of the 3 subteams. We see that in several places in this document: (i) subteam proposals do not have to answer the various detailed questions that are required in the online form (or .doc), unlike those from individuals (ii) subteam proposals don't go through the "polls" on page 3 for support/oppose/defer (iii) subteam proposals are (second bullet point of point #7 on page 4) included in the Initial Report as being considered "Working Group Recommendations" (unless there's "significant opposition"), but it's impossible for proposals from individuals to become "Working Group Recommendations" in that initial report, regardless of the level of support or "significant opposition". Thus, those subteam proposals have an elevated status when reviewed by the public in any report. (iv) subteam proposals are included by default "unless there is substantial opposition", whereas individual working group member proposals are *excluded* by default, "unless there is substantial support". As Paul Tattersfield noted in today's Adobe Connect chat, that's treating "silence" differently. If this disparate treatment is not eliminated, this implies that working group members will in the future feel compelled to participate in every subteam, if there's an advantage to be gained by doing so (and there's a clear advantage being given in this proposed process). If everyone has to join the subteams, to avoid being disadvantaged, then that defeats the purpose of having subteams, i.e. keeping them small, etc., as they then become mirrors of the entire working group. Normally we're not supposed to do a "+1" or post simple "I agree", etc. posts, but if folks *agree* with the co-chairs' proposal (which has those differences), then they should vocalize that support. Similarly, if folks agree there's a problem, they should vocalize their support for treating all proposals equally, with a similar process regardless of where the proposal originated. Otherwise, we get back into the "How shall we interpret the silence?" issue. Lastly, as for the deadline (which apparently has moved to COB of August 31st now, i.e. Friday night), I would suggest it be moved to at least COB Tuesday September 4, 2018) -- I find it hard to believe that staff/co-chairs will spend the Labour Day weekend studying proposals submitted by Friday night. My preference would be that it be Sept 5 or 12, as stated earlier, given that we're apparently not going to get to the individual presentations until late September in any event, due to review of the subteam proposals first. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 12:10 PM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: > Hi again, > > 3. As a test, I tried making a submission on the online form. After > one clicks "Done", it simply thanks one for the submission, and > there's no record (for the submitter) of what they actually submitted. > If it's possible, it might be wise for the next page to display what > was actually submitted, so that the submitter can have an accurate and > independent record of their submission. [presumably having an email > input field, and emailing them the submission would be prone to abuse > by spammers, so that wouldn't be a wise approach] If this can't be > done, I'd appreciate a copy of the .DOC template. > > 4. Given the summer holidays, and the extensive answers required for > fields 3 through 8 of the form (which were not present in past > discussions regarding submissions), I think the current proposed > deadline of August 29, 2018 is insufficient. At least an extra week > until September 5, 2018 or even September 12, 2018 might be more > appropriate. Given that we'll be discussing the subteam > recommendations for a couple of weeks anyhow, this would not impact > the timeline of our work (i.e. individual recommendations can then be > handled immediately thereafter, once the extensive subteam proposals > are reviewed/debated on our weekly calls and on the mailing list). > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > http://www.leap.com/ > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:51 PM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: >> Hi folks,, >> >> At this time, I have 2 concerns with the Proposed Procedures for URS >> Policy and Operational Recommendations. >> >> 1. On page 3, the use of a poll is mentioned. In keeping with ICANN's >> transparency requirements, that poll should not be an anonymous poll. >> >> 2. On page 4, there's a double-standard in the default treatment of >> Sub Team Recommendations vs. Working Group member submissions, and >> that double-standard should be eliminated, as there was no deference >> to the work of the sub teams. >> >> In particular, Sub Team recommendations are included by default >> "unless there is substantial opposition". >> >> On the other hand, Working Group member submissions are *excluded* by >> default, unless there is substantial support. >> >> The standard for inclusion should be made identical for all proposals, >> regardless of where they originated. >> >> Also, the standard should be objectively stated *prior* to >> measurement, to ensure that a "substantial support" or "substantial >> opposition" (whichever uniform standard ultimately applies) is not >> determined in an ad hoc manner. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> George Kirikos >> 416-588-0269 >> http://www.leap.com/ >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> wrote: >>> Dear RPM PDP Working Group members >>> >>> >>> >>> On behalf of the Co-Chairs, the attached document is a proposal that the >>> Co-Chairs hope will facilitate the RPM PDP Working Group discussion and >>> development of URS policy and operational recommendations over the course of >>> the upcoming Working Group meetings in August and September, beginning with >>> our next meeting. >>> >>> >>> >>> The Working Group faces a significant challenge in adhering to its current >>> timeline and completing its URS work for the Initial Report by the end of >>> September. It is therefore imperative that the Working Group agrees on tight >>> procedures that provide a fair opportunity for all members to propose >>> operational and policy modifications to the URS. In addition, the procedures >>> should facilitate identification of those proposals that lack significant >>> support and thus may be deferred to the Initial Report for public comment, >>> or to Phase Two of the WG’s efforts because they are substantially >>> intertwined with UDRP issues. >>> >>> >>> >>> In addition to the proposal, please also review the online survey form for >>> WG members to submit proposals. Upon request, staff can also provide a .doc >>> version of the online survey form to WG members who have difficulty >>> accessing the online survey. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please review the proposal and come prepared to discuss them at the meeting >>> on Wednesday, 22 August, at 17:00 UTC. Here also is a draft agenda for your >>> review: >>> >>> >>> >>> Draft Working Group Agenda: >>> >>> >>> >>> Review Agenda/SOIs >>> Discussion of Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational >>> Recommendations (see attached Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and >>> Operational Recommendations) >>> Begin consideration of the sub team recommendations, under the proposed >>> framework (see attached Super Consolidated URS Topics Table – with Findings, >>> Issues, and Suggestions from all Three URS Sub Teams for Working Group >>> Discussion) >>> AOB >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry >>> >>> On behalf of the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>> gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

1 0

Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations; Draft Agenda for 22 Aug Call
by Ariel Liang Aug. 22, 2018

Aug. 22, 2018

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members On behalf of the Co-Chairs, the attached document is a proposal that the Co-Chairs hope will facilitate the RPM PDP Working Group discussion and development of URS policy and operational recommendations over the course of the upcoming Working Group meetings in August and September, beginning with our next meeting. The Working Group faces a significant challenge in adhering to its current timeline and completing its URS work for the Initial Report by the end of September. It is therefore imperative that the Working Group agrees on tight procedures that provide a fair opportunity for all members to propose operational and policy modifications to the URS. In addition, the procedures should facilitate identification of those proposals that lack significant support and thus may be deferred to the Initial Report for public comment, or to Phase Two of the WG’s efforts because they are substantially intertwined with UDRP issues. In addition to the proposal, please also review the online survey form<https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/URSProposal> for WG members to submit proposals. Upon request, staff can also provide a .doc version of the online survey form to WG members who have difficulty accessing the online survey. Please review the proposal and come prepared to discuss them at the meeting on Wednesday, 22 August, at 17:00 UTC. Here also is a draft agenda for your review: Draft Working Group Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/SOIs 2. Discussion of Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations (see attached Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations) 3. Begin consideration of the sub team recommendations, under the proposed framework (see attached Super Consolidated URS Topics Table – with Findings, Issues, and Suggestions from all Three URS Sub Teams for Working Group Discussion) 4. AOB Best, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry On behalf of the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs

3 3