Dear All, Please see below the action items and brief notes captured by staff from the Working Group call held on 02 May 2018 (1700 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 transcript or recording. The recording, transcript, Adobe Connect chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki. The referenced document is attached. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items: WG members are encouraged to review the transcript from the meeting on 02 May, particularly if they could not attend the call. Staff will determine what if any flexibility the charter allows for how URS is addressed, without requiring a change to the charter. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (1 minute): None. 2. Final Status of Questions for Practitioners and Providers (9 minutes) -- Providers: Will be done tomorrow. The aim is to send them out to all three providers by Friday at the latest. -- Practitioners: Questions provided very late in the process and there is a spirited discussion on the list. Let the Practitioners Sub Team work this out. Need to get these out this week. Will take the providers 30-45 days to answer, but some may take longer. 3. Report from the Documents Sub Team (20 minutes) -- There were two questions that we had discussed during the previous two WG calls that would be useful to refer to the providers Sub Team. -- We looked at an excel sheet on the 14 appeal decisions. There was one or two cases where there were questions about the web sites and we referred that to the Providers Sub Team. -- Overall the URS was functioning as intended. Wanted to ask the WG whether further work is needed. There are the 250 cases as well as Rebecca’s Tushnet’s research. Two of the recommendations from the Sub Team to the full WG: 1) Useful to recommend that providers provide to examiners some kind of a guide that captured a bare minimum of elements in a decision. Sometimes it was difficult to understand how the examiner made a determination. 2) there were different communications that were sent by providers whether going to a registry or a registrar – whether these should be coordinated more holistically, or largely the same except for some custom elements. -- Don’t think we made qualitative conclusions about the functioning of the process. -- Distribution of the findings: yoyo respondent – seems to get angry and responses become shorter over time. -- 250+ cases where the respondent filed a response but there were no appeals – question: whether based on the exercise undertaken so far whether the WG thinks it would be useful to go into those cases. -- The 58 cases where the Respondent prevailed, is to understand on what basis they prevailed (per what’s outlined in the rules or procedures or by some other basis). -- Rebecca should present on her research before the document Sub Team goes further. -- Could look at a random sampling of other subsets of cases. Even that would take a significant amount of time. For consideration: Determine whether there is further case review. 3 buckets – 14 cases, 58 cases, 250 cases – to the extent that there is going to be further case review, from the staff perspective you would need a small group to share the work and use the same template. For the 58 and the 250 – the Sub Team indicated they would be willing to take that on with additional volunteers. It does take time. 4. Discussion on URS Phase II proposal (59 minutes) See John McElwaine’s original email at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-April/002857.html and a Google Sheet with the proposal as tab one, and the responses as tab two at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1apbVrFayn_vbPfhKDpjYs66iBWjvwhWFGZbu... -- GNSO Council discussion in San Juan on improving the PDP really resonated. -- Suggestions on what might make for a better way to make policy. Discussion: -- Moving the URS to Phase II: In favor as Co-Chair on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG – Things like the TMCH, Sunrise, Claims can have a significant impact on an applicant’s business model. Implementing URS or UDRP there is very little impact on the Registry. -- Seems that as a new RPM the URS should be treated up front as it was designed in the charter. GDPR is going to have an impact May 25 and it seems good to come to grips with it as soon as we can. -- Thought the GNSO Council discussion in San Juan focused on future PDPs, not current ones. Cannot say that this idea (moving URS to Phase II) came from the GNSO Council discussion. -- Bifurcate it: 1) Just consider whether this RPM should be put into Phase II. 2) Don’t see any reason for keeping URS in this phase unless it affects the Applicant Guidebook or the decisions to apply for TLDs. -- Would need to have all constituencies to agree to request the charter change. -- The Subsequent Procedures working group delegated their work to this group to address RPM issues for the next round. I believe it is our obligation to deliver that input in a timely manner. Now that our work has taken longer than anticipated, we should act in a responsible way and arrange our priorities to meet our obligations. -- Some think the URS and UDRP should be considered separately, some together. I think this is irrelevant to the decision to postpone the URS discussion to Phase 2. Even if moved to Phase 2, the topics could still be considered separately. -- There is no mechanism or procedure where the WG has to have a consensus on changes to the charter. -- GNSO Council discussion in San Juan doesn’t suggest current PDPs and charters can’t be improved. -- URS is moving along very well, so not sure why we would delay. It also has an impact on the Applicant Guidebook. -- There are synergies between the URS and UDRP. Run the risk of burnout if we take too long. Address issue concurrently instead of consecutively. Reviewing concurringly would be more efficient. -- Procedurally there is not requirement or prescribed threshold for recommending a charter change to the Council, but this is not something commonly done and in the two instances when it was done there was no substantial opposition. Also, if the recommendation is to move the URS to Phase II that will require a charter change. But, within Phase I the WG could choose to issue different Initial Reports – so you could make changes in Phase I without needing charter changes. The discussion as to whether to do this in Phases, this was based on community input at the time. In 2011 there had been an Initial Report on UDRP, but we decided not to continue the review since the 2012 round was just starting. Also around that time there was discussion as whether RPM should be done as part of the Subsequent Procedures PDP or as a separate PDP. -- On the question of charter change because of a specificity in the language a move to Phase II would require a change; when the transcript comes out anyone who is not on this call should review it before next week’s call. -- There is a lot of work going on now and surveys going out for URS so we would hate to see that lost or delayed. 5. Notice of agenda for 09 May meeting at 1700 UTC.