Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 12 October 2018 (17:00-19:00 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-12+Review+of+all+Ri.... See also the proposals at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Proposals. In addition, the schedule for ICANN63 is attached and will be sent separately. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Chair: Phil Corwin 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates: No updates 2. Discussion of Individual URS Proposals (See: https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ) George Kirikos (#23): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-23.pd... Discussion: -- Provider opposed to the proposal. Not just the fee, but also the cost of the system. -- Don't support including in the Initial Report. -- Cost of doing business. Providers are absorbing costs already. -- Question: Clarify ICANN's role. Would open up a Pandora's box with ICANN subsidizing the cost of doing business. -- Question: Why should the rights of a trademark owner depend on the non-payment of fees and is there a danger that registrars might deliberately not collect those fees. -- Support the proposal. The providers get paid for their work; as a matter of equity this proposal makes sense. -- Support putting the proposal out for public comment. -- If it does go out for public comment we should be careful what we are asking. -- The registrars and registries are not parties to the URS and UDRP, but that they may be involved in tracking down customers. Response: -- It was suggested why don't the registrars charge the registrant? GoDaddy is attempting to charge registrants because they can't charge the URS provider. This creates an additional burden on a registrant. George Kirikos (#32): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-32.pd... Discussion: -- Opposed to the proposal; concern is not with the proposal itself -- will the proposal be included as is, or also secondary facts? -- Okay to send for public comment but it is out of scope. -- Support to include for public comment, but think it is in scope. -- In what format will these go out for public comment, but if the case should be maintained for retaining URS that should be included. Response: -- Put this out for public comment to see what the public thinks. George Kirikos (#33): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-33.pd... Discussion: -- URS is not consensus policy. -- Question: An MOU is a contract so what is the problem we are trying to solve? What are the terms that are not being met? -- STI Report was not consensus policy so its recommendation didn't go into the AGB. -- Not in favor of going out for public comment because based on a false premise, that an MOU is not a contract and not enforceable. Also, it is an implementation question. -- Could revise as a proposal that there should be further requirements on providers. -- Would like to see regular review of the providers and support putting out for public comment. -- Favor for public comment. -- Favor formal contracts. -- Favor putting out for comment. Response: -- Issue whether having them under contract is very important. George Kirikos and Zak Muscovitch (#34): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-34.pd... Discussion: -- As it is written it is the language of wherever the registrant is located so not sure how that helps the registrant; also what about the time required? -- How to translate form cover documents? How much time required? Response: -- Timing could be taken into consideration in changes to the policy. -- How UDRP handles language is reflected in this proposal. There is nothing new. -- Registrants are protected because panelists would have to be prepared to appoint panelists in the language of the registration. -- Translation costs are same as for the UDRP. For Initial Report for public comment: -- Low bar of adequate support. Staff is reviewing chats and transcripts and Co-Chairs will share a draft of whether/how proposals will be included in the Initial Report. -- We are looking for people to chime in to make proposals better. -- After Initial Report and public comment if proposals have substantial opposition or lack of consensus will not go into the Final Report. 3. ICANN63 Schedule (see attached)