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

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and Documents for RPM Working Group Call on Wednesday, 15 November
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 14, 2017

Nov. 14, 2017

Correction: The call is on Wednesday, 15 November. Best, Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, November 13, 2017 at 5:33 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and Documents for RPM Working Group Call on Wednesday, 15 November Dear all, Here is the proposed agenda for the Working Group call scheduled for 1700 UTC on Wednesday 13 November 2017: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review feedback from transcripts of the URS sessions held at ICANN60 and proposed new questions/comments 3. Next steps/next meeting For Agenda Item #2, this is a continued discussion of the charter questions related to Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS), following the discussions at the URS sessions at ICANN60. In particular, the aim of the discussion is to refine (i.e. modify, edit, delete, clarify, or if necessary add to) the existing questions that were listed in our PDP Charter relating to the URS. To facilitate this discussion, the attached documents are provided for reference: the URS charter question slides used for the ICANN60 URS sessions; a compilation of excerpts from the URS session transcripts with general and specific comments and questions concerning the URS and charter questions. In addition to the excerpts from the transcripts, staff has incorporated comments and questions proposed on the Working Group list over the past week subsequent to ICANN60. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

2 1

Agenda and Documents for RPM Working Group Call on Wednesday, 15 November
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 13, 2017

Nov. 13, 2017

Dear all, Here is the proposed agenda for the Working Group call scheduled for 1700 UTC on Wednesday 13 November 2017: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review feedback from transcripts of the URS sessions held at ICANN60 and proposed new questions/comments 3. Next steps/next meeting For Agenda Item #2, this is a continued discussion of the charter questions related to Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS), following the discussions at the URS sessions at ICANN60. In particular, the aim of the discussion is to refine (i.e. modify, edit, delete, clarify, or if necessary add to) the existing questions that were listed in our PDP Charter relating to the URS. To facilitate this discussion, the attached documents are provided for reference: the URS charter question slides used for the ICANN60 URS sessions; a compilation of excerpts from the URS session transcripts with general and specific comments and questions concerning the URS and charter questions. In addition to the excerpts from the transcripts, staff has incorporated comments and questions proposed on the Working Group list over the past week subsequent to ICANN60. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: Action Items and Links from RPM Sessions at ICANN60
by Brian Winterfeldt Nov. 11, 2017

Nov. 11, 2017

Dear all: We propose an additional question on "Whether any superfluous overlap is created between: 1. A respondent's right to de novo appeal within fourteen days from a determination; versus 2. A respondent's right to de novo review within six months from a notice of default; versus 3. A respondent's right to request a seven-day extension to respond during the response period, after default, or not more than thirty days from a determination." As an editorial aside, these seem like a series of "compromises" that were not well thought out together in practice at the time. Best regards, Brian ________________________________ [https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b…]<https://www.winterfeldt.law/> Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group 1200 17<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>th<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>, Ste 501<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> brian(a)winterfeldt.law<mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 903 4422 From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2017 5:05 PM To: jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky(a)riskiq.net<mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: Action Items and Links from RPM Sessions at ICANN60 Thanks Jonathan. Staff has noted your proposed additional question. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky(a)riskiq.net<mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net>> Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 4:33 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items and Links from RPM Sessions at ICANN60 Hi, all- For URS, I would add the question whether the type of clear and convincing evidence that you are allowed to submit (within whatever size limitation) in support of the URS should be limited as implemented to a printout of the website, or is this far too limiting, and really should be content neutral to cover the evolving threat landscape like spear phishing attacks, etc.? Best, Jonathan Matkowsky RiskIQ, Inc. On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:36 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Staff is pleased to provide the following action items and links from the RPM sessions at ICANN60. These also are posted to the Working Group wiki meetings pages at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2017+Meetings[community.ic…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…> by meeting date. Please let us know if you have any questions or need further information. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Saturday 28 October, 15.15-16.45: Data Sub Team Working Session - See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbIa/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_eve…> This session was a full working session for the Data Sub Team, which has begun reviewing the Sunrise and Trademark Claims data request recently approved by the GNSO Council with a view toward developing clarifications and specific guidance regarding the proposed surveys for the survey designer to be selected through an ICANN Request for Proposals (RFP). The session was open to all to attend. Action Items: * Post Table 2 to the ICANN meeting schedule (DONE). * UDRP data - Once we have a better sense of how to get the data, and what to get, staff can develop a timeline to produce usable data. * In addition to research and blog, should we get a sampling of different types of domains in terms of sunrise and general availability pricing - look at the charter question as to whether this prevented someone from participating in sunrise? * Question 8 re: semantics of programming that can be used to test historical data to see how many claims notices can be generated - examples: "fat-finger typos". Rules can be applied for each type of mistake. Need to determine these rules before requesting the data so we don't end up with too many. Put this on a back burner until we do more of the quantitative analysis on URS and UDRP data. Need to answer the question: What types of data should generate claims notices? Are there other ways we can get the data to inform that analysis? Saturday 28 October, 17.00-18.30: Staff presentation & Working Group discussion - Overview of the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS); initial staff data findings on URS cases - See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbIa/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_eve…> As with the other RPMs, the Working Group commenced with a brief overview of the URS presented by ICANN staff, as a framework for staff's presentation of the initial data we have compiled about URS cases filed and decided up to June 2017. Action Items: * Table 4: Possible to get a column showing when these domains launched for the top 30 shown in the chart. * Staff will review the data charts to make sure the total numbers are consistent. In Table 6, the number for default (no response filed) does not show the number for which the claimant did not prevail: staff will develop an additional table (per the added note below the current table). * Staff likely will review/refine tables 8 and 9, and also get more detail on average of duration. * Staff will produce another version of the data in a couple of weeks. * Staff will fetch WHOIS data for these URS cases to help address charter questions. The data will be useful both to analyze Trademark Claims and URS. Newer cases (e.g. less than a year) will be relatively easy to obtain. Older ones will be more of a challenge. Monday 30 October, 15.15-16.45: Meeting with the Competition, Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust (CCT) Review Team - See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbK7/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_eve…> The CCT Review Team is preparing its final recommendations, which includes a section on RPMs. Their preliminary report (issued in March 2017) had included some initial recommendations concerning RPMs that implicate our PDP work. The CCT Review Team briefed our Working Group on their likely final RPM recommendations at this meeting. Action Items: * Staff will forward DMPM request to the CCT-RT. * The RPM PDP WG will share with the CCT Review Team what their plan is with regard to the TMCH to ensure that we are headed in right direction to meet Recommendation 42. * The CCT Review Team will follow up with the Analysis Group about the questions concerning costs. * Staff will forward to CCT-RT Support Team the recording/transcript of the Mon 30 Oct session once they are available. * Staff will post the AC transcript of the Mon 30 Oct session on the wiki workspace (DONE). * Staff will post the CCT-RT slides to the wiki workspace & meeting schedule webpage (DONE). Thursday 2 November, 13.30-15.00: Working Group and Community Feedback Session on Experiences with the URS - See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbF6/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_eve…> and This session followed on the introductory Saturday session. The Working Group and community members were invited to provide direct feedback on their experiences with the URS, to inform the Working Group's review of the Charter questions for the URS. As was the case with the TMCH, Sunrise and Trademark Claims, the Working Group is expected to form a Sub Team to review and refine the URS Charter questions for further Working Group consideration. Action Items: (referenced slides are posted to the wiki and also at the above link) Slide 4: * "Should the ability for defaulting respondents in URS cases to file a reply for an extended period (e.g. up to one year) after the default notice, or even after a default determination is issued (in which case the complaint could be reviewed anew) be changed?" [first bullet] * Comments: Understanding is that in that case (before a complaint is filed), the registrant then renews for up to 10 years, in which case, if he/she loses a URS proceeding then the suspension could last for as long as 10 years. Slide 6: * Question on sanctions needs to be rephrased ("what sanctions should be allowed for misuse of the URS for Trademark owners") - also doesn't mention sanctions for repeat offenders. Exercise for the Sub Team to find the context/origins for the questions, for which staff can help. * Split the sections into two for sake of clarity. * Sounds like the need for training/education needs to be raised (training registrants in rights and protections). Slide 7: * Request to strike the first question: "Assess the benefit of the Arbitration Forums Self-Reviews..." * Think about what is the financial model for the URS? Slide 8: * Consider bifurcating this question. 1) whether administering consistently; 2) if the supplemental rules are inconsistent. Encourage the WG to look into the relationship between ICANN and providers. * Question bullet 4: strike the question or comprehensively re-write. Try to find the context. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg -- Jonathan Matkowsky ******************************************************************* This message was sent from RiskIQ, and is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. *******************************************************************

5 4

Action Items and Links from RPM Sessions at ICANN60
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 9, 2017

Nov. 9, 2017

Dear all, Staff is pleased to provide the following action items and links from the RPM sessions at ICANN60. These also are posted to the Working Group wiki meetings pages at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2017+Meetings by meeting date. Please let us know if you have any questions or need further information. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Saturday 28 October, 15.15-16.45: Data Sub Team Working Session – See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbIa/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-… This session was a full working session for the Data Sub Team, which has begun reviewing the Sunrise and Trademark Claims data request recently approved by the GNSO Council with a view toward developing clarifications and specific guidance regarding the proposed surveys for the survey designer to be selected through an ICANN Request for Proposals (RFP). The session was open to all to attend. Action Items: Post Table 2 to the ICANN meeting schedule (DONE). UDRP data – Once we have a better sense of how to get the data, and what to get, staff can develop a timeline to produce usable data. In addition to research and blog, should we get a sampling of different types of domains in terms of sunrise and general availability pricing – look at the charter question as to whether this prevented someone from participating in sunrise? Question 8 re: semantics of programming that can be used to test historical data to see how many claims notices can be generated – examples: “fat-finger typos”. Rules can be applied for each type of mistake. Need to determine these rules before requesting the data so we don’t end up with too many. Put this on a back burner until we do more of the quantitative analysis on URS and UDRP data. Need to answer the question: What types of data should generate claims notices? Are there other ways we can get the data to inform that analysis? Saturday 28 October, 17.00-18.30: Staff presentation & Working Group discussion – Overview of the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS); initial staff data findings on URS cases – See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbIa/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-… As with the other RPMs, the Working Group commenced with a brief overview of the URS presented by ICANN staff, as a framework for staff’s presentation of the initial data we have compiled about URS cases filed and decided up to June 2017. Action Items: Table 4: Possible to get a column showing when these domains launched for the top 30 shown in the chart. Staff will review the data charts to make sure the total numbers are consistent. In Table 6, the number for default (no response filed) does not show the number for which the claimant did not prevail: staff will develop an additional table (per the added note below the current table). Staff likely will review/refine tables 8 and 9, and also get more detail on average of duration. Staff will produce another version of the data in a couple of weeks. Staff will fetch WHOIS data for these URS cases to help address charter questions. The data will be useful both to analyze Trademark Claims and URS. Newer cases (e.g. less than a year) will be relatively easy to obtain. Older ones will be more of a challenge. Monday 30 October, 15.15-16.45: Meeting with the Competition, Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust (CCT) Review Team – See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbK7/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-… The CCT Review Team is preparing its final recommendations, which includes a section on RPMs. Their preliminary report (issued in March 2017) had included some initial recommendations concerning RPMs that implicate our PDP work. The CCT Review Team briefed our Working Group on their likely final RPM recommendations at this meeting. Action Items: Staff will forward DMPM request to the CCT-RT. The RPM PDP WG will share with the CCT Review Team what their plan is with regard to the TMCH to ensure that we are headed in right direction to meet Recommendation 42. The CCT Review Team will follow up with the Analysis Group about the questions concerning costs. Staff will forward to CCT-RT Support Team the recording/transcript of the Mon 30 Oct session once they are available. Staff will post the AC transcript of the Mon 30 Oct session on the wiki workspace (DONE). Staff will post the CCT-RT slides to the wiki workspace & meeting schedule webpage (DONE). Thursday 2 November, 13.30-15.00: Working Group and Community Feedback Session on Experiences with the URS – See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbF6/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-… and This session followed on the introductory Saturday session. The Working Group and community members were invited to provide direct feedback on their experiences with the URS, to inform the Working Group’s review of the Charter questions for the URS. As was the case with the TMCH, Sunrise and Trademark Claims, the Working Group is expected to form a Sub Team to review and refine the URS Charter questions for further Working Group consideration. Action Items: (referenced slides are posted to the wiki and also at the above link) Slide 4: “Should the ability for defaulting respondents in URS cases to file a reply for an extended period (e.g. up to one year) after the default notice, or even after a default determination is issued (in which case the complaint could be reviewed anew) be changed?” [first bullet] Comments: Understanding is that in that case (before a complaint is filed), the registrant then renews for up to 10 years, in which case, if he/she loses a URS proceeding then the suspension could last for as long as 10 years. Slide 6: Question on sanctions needs to be rephrased (“what sanctions should be allowed for misuse of the URS for Trademark owners”) – also doesn’t mention sanctions for repeat offenders. Exercise for the Sub Team to find the context/origins for the questions, for which staff can help. Split the sections into two for sake of clarity. Sounds like the need for training/education needs to be raised (training registrants in rights and protections). Slide 7: Request to strike the first question: “Assess the benefit of the Arbitration Forums Self-Reviews...” Think about what is the financial model for the URS? Slide 8: Consider bifurcating this question. 1) whether administering consistently; 2) if the supplemental rules are inconsistent. Encourage the WG to look into the relationship between ICANN and providers. Question bullet 4: strike the question or comprehensively re-write. Try to find the context.

2 3

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Change in Status
by Paul Keating Nov. 7, 2017

Nov. 7, 2017

Congratulations Phil. You will be a great asset for them. I will, of course, miss working with you on the Wgs. Paul From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> Date: Monday, November 6, 2017 at 10:30 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Change in Status > Dear WG Members: > > I have today, November 6, 2017, terminated all operations of the Virtualaw LLC > consultancy and commenced employment in the legal department of Verisign, Inc. > in the position of Policy Counsel. > > I intend to continue in my co-chair position, and will update my SOI prior to > our next call. > > With best regards, Philip > > > Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal > Virtualaw LLC > 1155 F Street, NW > Suite 1050 > Washington, DC 20004 > 202-559-8597/Direct > 202-559-8750/Fax > 202-255-6172/Cell > > Twitter: @VlawDC > > "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey > > _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

1 0

Change in Status
by Phil Corwin Nov. 6, 2017

Nov. 6, 2017

Dear WG Members: I have today, November 6, 2017, terminated all operations of the Virtualaw LLC consultancy and commenced employment in the legal department of Verisign, Inc. in the position of Policy Counsel. I intend to continue in my co-chair position, and will update my SOI prior to our next call. With best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

1 0

Next Meeting: 15 November 2017 1700 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 2, 2017

Nov. 2, 2017

Dear PDP WG members, As is the usual practice for GNSO groups, we will not hold a meeting of the RPM PDP WG the week following ICANN60. Instead, the next meeting of this WG will be on Wednesday, 15 November at the usual time of 1700 UTC. Teleconference details and a calendar invite will be sent to WG members. Safe travels for all those returning from ICANN60. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

REMINDER: RPM sessions at ICANN60
by Mary Wong Nov. 2, 2017

Nov. 2, 2017

Dear all, Just a reminder that the first two (of four) scheduled sessions for our Working Group at ICANN60 kicks off in less than an hour, with remote participation facilities for those who cannot attend in person. The email below notes the different topics and focus for each of the four sessions. For your convenience, we are recirculating the times and locations here: Saturday 28 October 2017 * 15:15 – 18:30: GNSO Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms in all Generic Top-Level Domains in Hall B Section B/C Sunday 29 October 2017 * 9:45-10:15: GNSO Update in Hall B Section B/C Monday 30 October 2017 * 15:15 – 16:45: GNSO Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms in all Generic Top-Level Domains in Hall A Section B/C Thursday 02 November 2017 * 13:30 – 15:00: GNSO Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms in all Generic Top-Level Domains in Capital Suite 1 Remote participation details: https://community.icann.org/x/7ichB In addition, Co-Chair Phil Corwin will also be providing a brief update to the GNSO Council on our work and progress during the GNSO Working Session on Sunday 29 October 2017: https://community.icann.org/x/wiIhB. Finally, the GAC will be holding a discussion on RPMs on Tuesday 31 October, from 17.00-17.45 local time: http://sched.co/CbIL. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 19:22 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: UPDATE on RPM sessions at ICANN60 Dear all, Staff is pleased to provide the following information on the topics to be covered during each of the four sessions that have been allocated to our Working Group at ICANN60. This update follows consultations with our co-chairs and the discussion at the initial part of the repurposed Working Group meeting this past Wednesday. Saturday 28 October, 15.15-16.45: Data Sub Team Working Session * This session will be a full working session for the Data Sub Team, which has begun reviewing the Sunrise and Trademark Claims data request recently approved by the GNSO Council with a view toward developing clarifications and specific guidance regarding the proposed surveys for the survey designer to be selected through an ICANN Request for Proposals (RFP). * The session will be open to all to attend. As it is a working session for the Sub Team, you may wish to consider if you have specific input on the various aspects of the data request – please see the updated documents and notes from the Sub Team calls posted at https://community.icann.org/x/fZREB. Saturday 28 October, 17.00-18.30: Staff presentation & Working Group discussion – Overview of the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS); initial staff data findings on URS cases * In view of the timeline for Phase One of this PDP, the co-chairs have suggested that the Working Group turn its attention to the URS while the data gathering for Sunrise and Trademark Claims takes place. As with the other RPMs, this will commence with a brief overview of the URS presented by ICANN staff, as a framework for staff’s presentation of the initial data we have compiled about URS cases filed and decided up to June 2017. * The data findings will be presented in a similar format to that which was used for the Sunrise Registration data; similarly, staff will update and refine the tables and data following Working Group review and discussion. Monday 30 October, 15.15-16.45: Meeting with the Competition, Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust (CCT) Review Team * The CCT Review Team is preparing its final recommendations, which includes a section on RPMs. Their preliminary report (issued in March 2017) had included some initial recommendations concerning RPMs that implicate our PDP work. The CCT Review Team is expected to brief our Working Group on their likely final RPM recommendations at this meeting. Thursday 2 November, 13.30-15.00: Working Group and Community Feedback Session on Experiences with the URS * This session follows up on the introductory Saturday session. Working Group and community members are invited to provide direct feedback on their experiences with the URS, to inform the Working Group’s review of the Charter questions for the URS. * As was the case with the TMCH, Sunrise and Trademark Claims, the Working Group is expected to form a Sub Team to review and refine the URS Charter questions for further Working Group consideration. With the exception of the Thursday session (which will be held in Capital Suite 1), all other sessions will be held in Hall A, Section B/C. All sessions are open to all interested attendees and community members. Adobe Connect remote participation facilities and dial-in conference bridge will be available – please see this page, compiled by the GNSO Secretariat, for all remote participation information for all GNSO-related sessions at ICANN60: https://community.icann.org/x/7ichB. All sessions will, as usual, also be recorded and transcribed. Wishing all who are traveling to Abu Dhabi safe and uneventful journeys, and looking forward to further discussions with everyone at our ICANN60 sessions, Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, October 13, 2017 at 15:09 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: RPM sessions at ICANN60 (re: Action Items from 11 October Working Group Call) Dear all, Following up on one of the staff action items (below), here is the information on the dates and times of the various RPM Working Group sessions scheduled for ICANN60: * Saturday 28 October 2017, 15:15 – 18:30 (all times listed are local to Abu Dhabi): Working Group open session (two 90-minute sessions, with a 15-minute break at 16.45; in Hall B Section B/C) * Monday 30 October 2017, 15:15 – 16:45: Working Group open session (in Hall A Section B/C) * Thursday 02 November 2017, 13:30 – 15:00: Working Group open session (in Capital Suite 1) In addition, the following related sessions may be of interest: * Sunday 29 October 2017, 9:45-10:15: PDP Update in Hall B Section B/C (part of the full-day GNSO Working Sessions, where each Working Group leadership team provides a status update to the GNSO Council and community, and answers questions about the PDP work. Phil will be doing the update from our Working Group.) * Tuesday 31 October 2017, 17:00-17:45: GAC Discussion on RPMs in Hall 3 (this is an open session run by the GAC; all are welcome to observe.) The GNSO Secretariat will, as always, compile information about remote participation facilities for all GNSO sessions. We will send out that information as soon as it is available. Note that for every session there will be a staff member in charge of managing the Adobe Connect meeting room to ensure that remote participants can contribute actively to the discussion going on in the physical meeting room. For ICANN60 and RPMs, those staff members will be me and Ariel Liang. The full ICANN60 meeting schedule, which you can customize your individual schedule and with links to the downloadable mobile app, is available at https://schedule.icann.org/. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 18:20 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from 11 October Working Group Call Dear all, The action items noted by staff from the Working Group call held today, Wednesday, 11 October, are as follows: 1. Staff Compilation of Sunrise Data: -- WG to consider and to provide feedback to staff: Is the data helpful and is there a different way (or additional ways) it should be presented that would be more helpful? Are there other types of data on Sunrise that you were expecting that staff can provide (assuming the existing sources used by staff contain that data)? Staff action items (Berry Cobb): -- add page number to the data presentation document -- consider removing the spec13 sunrise information as it has no meaning (Chart 3) -- find out whether Donuts opted in all its 238 TLDs for End Date Sunrise (Kathy Kleiman's question) -- consider using scatter diagram for Chart 3 to identify mean and median -- revise the minimal End Day Sunrise period to 67 days (additional 60 days) in Chart 5 -- consider adding variables and correlations for Chart 7-8, including types of registration, number of registration, lengths of sunrise period, etc. Draw data from the column format or add to spreadsheet (Attachment 2) 2. Next Steps/Next Meeting: -- Staff to circulate to the mailing list of times/dates of the RPMs sessions at ICANN60, including remote participation details; in the next RPMs meeting on 18 Oct, preparation for ICANN60 sessions likely to be the main discussion item, including chairing logistics The notes from the call will be posted shortly to the Working Group wiki space, together with the call recording, transcript and Adobe Connect chat and attendance records. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

6 6

Staff Compilation of URS Data - ICANN60 - Session 1
by Berry Cobb Oct. 31, 2017

Oct. 31, 2017

WG Members, Apologies for the delayed posting of this to the RPM list. Please find attached two PDFs reviewed on the RPM WG's Saturday session at ICANN60. https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbIa/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-m echanisms-in-all-generic-top-level-domains The second part of the session was a high-level overview of the URS process, rules and procedures followed by a review of URS statistics gathered by staff to date. We invite you to replay the AC recording in parallel to reviewing the URS stats as it will provide an explanation of each page of the compilation report. You should understand that this data is already out of date for the following reasons: 1. Based on feedback received from WG members during the session, staff has several actions to make changes to these charts such as converting some from # of domains to # of URS cases or to provide new charts of the URS data combined with gTLD launch windows. We will deliver an update in several weeks. 2. This version only includes data to 30 June 2017. We have acquired the raw data up to 30 Sept 2017, but we did not have time to import it into this version in preparation for the session. Also attached to compliment the staff compilation report of URS is a copy of the actual URS cases by domain name. It is provided to give context to how the tables and charts are created and it also provides links to actual cases should you wish to review them in detail. Please stay tuned for the next iteration in preparation for the WG's beginning review of the URS as part of phase 1 of this PDP. Should you have any questions or suggestions on how this data is presented, please do send them to me in the meantime. Thank you. B Berry Cobb 720.839.5735 <mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> mail(a)berrycobb.com @berrycobb

3 2

Reminder / RPM / Monday 30 October, 15.15-16.45: Meeting with the Competition, Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust (CCT) Review Team/ Room: Hall A Section B/C
by Terri Agnew Oct. 30, 2017

Oct. 30, 2017

Hello all, This is a reminder the RPM meeting taking place on Monday, 30 October, 15.15-16.45 is in room: Hall A Section B/C Thank you. With kind regards, Terri --- Terri Agnew Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org> terri.agnew(a)icann.org Skype ID: terri.agnew.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy -efforts.htm#newcomers> GNSO Newcomer pages

1 0