Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 04 March 2019 at 18:00 UTC. Staff will post these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, Zoom chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-03-04+Review+of+all+Ri.... Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: 1. ICANN67 Virtual Meeting Update ACTION ITEM: Staff will resend the email with the session times and emphasize again that the Cancun times do not correspond to US Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDT), but are an hour earlier. Staff also will note the time in UTC. 2. Begin Discussions of Deliberations of the Working Group: TM-PDDRP ACTION ITEM: Keep the footnote but add a direct link to each of the providers supplemental rules. ACTION ITEM: Re: “The filing of a joint Complaint or consolidation is to be permitted only where: (i) the Complaints relate to the Registry Operator’s conduct with respect only to the top or the second level of that gTLD for all Complaints” – add text to clarify. Possible revision of 1(i): “(i) the Complaints all relate to the same Registry Operator conduct concerning either the top- or second-level of the same gTLD.” ACTION ITEM: In #1: Add a reference to Article 9 of TM-PDDRP. ACTION ITEM: WG to review revised text and provide comments by Friday, 06 March. 3. Begin Discussions of Deliberations of the Working Group: Additional Marketplace RPMs ACTION ITEM: Add this text at the end of the second paragraph: “This necessarily required the working group to have an appreciation of the wider RPM landscape.” ACTION ITEM: Remove the link from the text and put it into the footnote. 4. Background Section of the Initial Report ACTION ITEMS: 1) Staff will finalize the text and send it to the WG to review; 2) WG members should not any errors or omissions; 3) WG will complete discussion on 09 March. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. ICANN67 Virtual Meeting Update Sessions and agendas: Monday, 09 March: 13:45-15:15 EST: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-03-09+ICANN67+Cancun+-... Tuesday, 10 March: 13:30-15:00 EST: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-03-10+ICANN67+Cancun+-... Wednesday, 11 March: 10:45-12:15 EST: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-03-11+ICANN67+Cancun+-... Thursday, 12 March: 14:45-15:45 EST: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-03-12+ICANN67+Cancun+-... -- All times are Cancun (UTC-5) but the US will move ahead one hour to daylight saving time on Sunday, 08 March. This means that the meeting times will be one hour earlier than they would be in the US on the East Coast, which will shift to UTC-4. The meeting schedule enables you to export the meetings into your time zone. -- There is no meeting on 18 March as that is when the Initial Report will be published. -- The session on 12 March currently has no items on the agenda and will be cancelled if not needed. ACTION ITEM: Staff will resend the email with the session times and emphasize again that the Cancun times do not correspond to US Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDT), but are an hour earlier. Staff also will note the time in UTC. 3. Review Revisions from Action Items: Deliberations of the Working Group: URS Individual Proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kHBPLtbp6BgqmxZGPHC1Yeciulvvk79niPOuURI8... [docs.google.com] [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> Staff walked through the revisions to the text to address the following action items from the meeting on 26 February: 5 Overarching Questions: ACTION ITEM: Include a reference in the Executive Summary and specifically ask for public comments on the questions in the Next Steps Section. Proposal #15: ACTION ITEM: Incorporate new language from Zak Muskovitch and Claudio Di Gangi: “There was general support in the Working Group for publishing this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report to seek public comment, with some Working Group members supporting the Individual Proposal as drafted. However, some Working Group members expressed opposition in terms of both substance and implementation of the Individual Proposals including the proposed remedies and the definition of “repeat offender” and of “high volume cybersquatting”.” Proposal #22: ACTION ITEM: Revise the questions to: “The Working Group seeks public comment on: 1) the appropriateness of a “loser pays” model; 2) the definition of specific criteria (e.g., “repeat offender” over a defined time period, “high volume cybersquatting”); 3) the specific item(s) that should be paid in a “loser pays” model (e.g., administrative fees, attorneys’ fees), and 4) the enforcement mechanism of the proposed model.” Proposal #31: ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote to cross-reference to original charter question #4 in the annex, but note that the WG has not yet addressed this overarching question, but will do so following the analysis of the public comments on the Initial Report (see Next Steps section). Proposal #33: ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote to link to the MOU for URS Providers. Proposal #34: ACTION ITEM: Indent the sub-paragraphs to make it clear that they are referenced text and add quotes. Then add “The proponent proposed...” at the beginning of the last paragraph. Proposal #36: ACTION ITEM: Add a link to the URS Procedure at the text “Under the URS Procedure...” 4. Begin Discussions of Deliberations of the Working Group: TM-PDDRP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LlxjoXfMq0OvQlzgSvWyCrITNGYZWBs4lFgqPo23... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> -- First RPM considered by the WG. -- Recommendation refined by a small team at the ICANN meeting in Hyderabad. -- The WG agreed that if any recommendation was made on TM-PDDRP it would be on the consolidation of complaints. -- There was discussion of other possible recommendations but these were deemed not to be timely as no complaints had been made or have yet been made. -- Text of the recommendation is meant to reflect the deliberations of the WG, but should be reviewed by the WG. -- Comment on footnote 2: on TM-PDDRP providers – thought that the footnote would go to the current providers supplemental rules. It does do that but not directly. On #1: -- Re: “The filing of a joint Complaint or consolidation is to be permitted only where: (i) the Complaints relate to the Registry Operator’s conduct with respect only to the top or the second level of that gTLD for all Complaints” – add text to clarify. – Add a reference to Article 9 of TM-PDDRP. On #2: -- This codifies something that is already possible. -- On (i) would it have to be the same top-level or second-level DN, or either one can apply and that the commonality is the gTLD? The intent is that it has to be the same level as well as the same gTLD. ACTION ITEM: Keep the footnote but add a direct link to each of the providers supplemental rules. ACTION ITEM: Re: “The filing of a joint Complaint or consolidation is to be permitted only where: (i) the Complaints relate to the Registry Operator’s conduct with respect only to the top or the second level of that gTLD for all Complaints” – add text to clarify. Possible revision of 1(i): “(i) the Complaints all relate to the same Registry Operator conduct concerning either the top- or second-level of the same gTLD.” ACTION ITEM: In #1: Add a reference to Article 9 of TM-PDDRP. ACTION ITEM: WG to review revised text and provide comments by Friday, 06 March. 5. Begin Discussions of Deliberations of the Working Group: Additional Marketplace RPMs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O89u-b19RoJJppib_nRmgbjkv2LuY-k8y5ElK-Oz... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> -- Note that the WG did not make any recommendations on additional marketplace RPMs, but this section is included for completeness to show that the WG discussed these RPMs. -- Should the link be placed instead into a footnote rather than in text? Not sure if in-text is consistent with how we have provided links elsewhere (or maybe it has been a mix)? ACTION ITEM: Add this text at the end of the second paragraph: “This necessarily required the working group to have an appreciation of the wider RPM landscape.” ACTION ITEM: Remove the link from the text and put it into the footnote. 6. Background Section of the Initial Report -- Staff is finalizing the text. This was not planned to be addressed until ICANN67. -- Pages 1-6 is pulled from the Final Issue Report and the wiki. -- Second section is overview of how the WG was chartered and the milestones – all taken from the wiki. -- Last section is related work of the ICANN community – STI, UDRP Report, CCT-RT, EPDP. ACTION ITEMS: 1) Staff will finalize the text and send it to the WG to review; 2) WG members should not any errors or omissions; 3) WG will complete discussion on 09 March.