Hello Julie, I have added my comments to F. REMEDIES - 2. Duration of suspension period; 3. Review of implementation The short version , there is no need to change anything if the parties of the URS settled the dispute prior to the resolution, the URS is terminated as per Art16 of the URS Rules. I added the text about accreditation of the Registrar with the Registry for clarity(without it such a new Registrar will not be able to have any records in the Registry system, and Registrants might not necessary know this, so it is better to avoid confusion here). So I think the only case left - is the situation where the URS case finished and the Complainant choses to use another Registrar (and this will require special procedure under URS Tech document, because the domain is locked and change of the Registrar is a transfer ... which will require the old Registrant to have a contract with the new Registrar too (Registrars have to have a contract with the registrants under RAA 2013 , and we are not reviewing it here) P.s: the last bit about necessity to have for a new Registrar to have a contract with such party makes chances to have this transfer done minimal .... P.P.s: this one (about the new Registrar to have a contract with the losing party is the troublesome bit making the whole construct non working). Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 10 Dec 2019, at 19:49, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RPM WG members,
Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 11 December at 18:00-19:30 UTC.
Draft Proposed Agenda: Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest Working Group to complete discussions regarding the recommendations of the URS Sub Teams’ to go into the Initial Report – Review new text per the action items (pages 10, 15, and 20) below and as redlined in the Google doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vFY... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> Begin Discussion of Individual URS Proposals, see attached survey results slides and procedure below. The order of the proposal review is: 2, 23, 1, 8, 34, 35, 11, 18, 27, 20, 36, 32, 3, 30, 26, 7, 28, 19, 29, 5, 31, 21, 6, 33, 15, 22, 4, 14, 13, 17, 16. AOB
Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel
Actions from 04 December Meeting:
Page 10 (bottom of page): F. REMEDIES - 2. Duration of suspension period; 3. Review of implementation, POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST): ACTION: Staff to provide revised text for WG review. See: “The Providers Sub Team discovered issues with respect to implementing the outcomes of a URS proceeding (e.g. relief awarded following a URS decision, or where the parties settle the case prior to Determination and a transfer at the registrar level is required, or where a Complainant’s requests to extend a suspension.”
Page 15 (top of the page): F. REMEDIES - 4. Other topics: ACTIONS: 1) Add a bullet: “What would need to be done to help resolve the issues you have encountered?” 2) Note in the table that the following text should be added as a footnote in the Initial Report and vet by GDD (done). Also, in the initial report provide the context for why this remedy is relevant to a URS suspension: “HSTS preloading is a function built into the browser whereby a global list of hosts enforce the use of HTTPS ONLY on their site. This removes the opportunity an attacker has to intercept and tamper with redirects over HTTP. The aforementioned remedy is to suspend the HSTS preloading function of a domain name.”
Page 20 (bottom of the page): J. LANGUAGE ISSUES - 1. Language issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice of complaint, response, determination ACTION ITEM: Rewrite the text to avoid the use of the term “privacy shield”. See: “Such guidance should take into account the fact that domains subject to a URS complaint may have been registered via a privacy or proxy service.”
Procedure for handling individual proposals at each of the December meetings: The proposals will be reviewed in the following order - begin with a proposal that received the highest level of support for inclusion in the Initial Report, followed by a proposal that received the lowest level of support for inclusion, then a proposal that received the next-highest level of support for inclusion, followed by one that received the next-lowest level of support, and so forth, until all proposals have been reviewed. Based on this procedures, here is the order of the proposals: 2, 23, 1, 8, 34, 35, 11, 18, 27, 20, 36, 32, 3, 30, 26, 7, 28, 19, 29, 5, 31, 21, 6, 33, 15, 22, 4, 14, 13, 17, 16. For each proposal, where a Working Group member had indicated (by the December 1 deadline) that he/she wished to argue in favor of including the proposal as an actual Working Group recommendation, that member will be given no more than 3 minutes to make his/her case, with questions and answers (limited to 2 minutes per question or answer and two inputs per member). Members are kindly requested not to rehash arguments/discussions and to keep their remarks, questions and answers very brief. Subject to a determination by the Chairs, proposals with wide support and virtually no opposition will be considered as recommendations by the WG. Proposals with wide support and limited opposition will be published for comment in the Initial Report as individual URS Proposals. Proposals with virtually no support and significant opposition will not be published in the Initial Report. Following the Working Group’s review of all individual URS proposals, and in accordance with role ascribed to Working Group chair(s) under the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, the Working Group leadership team will determine whether there is sufficient support from other Working Group members: (i) to “convert” any individual proposal (where one was so argued) to an initial recommendation for purposes of the Initial Report; (ii) to include specific individual proposals in the Initial Report as proposals only; and (iii) to exclude the remaining individual proposals from the Initial Report (although these will all be referenced in the report, with links provided to the actual text of the proposals and the Working Group’s deliberations). _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.