Also onboard w/ Option 1 as amended by Griffin. Cyntia King O: +1 816.633.7647 C: +1 818.209.6088 From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Monday, October 05, 2020 11:09 AM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>; Griffin Barnett <Griffin@Winterfeldt.law>; Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ACTION ITEM: Review Options for Revised Text for Converted Individual URS Proposal #28 I support Option 1. I am also good with Option 2 and 4, respectively. And I am also supportive of Griffin’s proposed tweak of Option 1 as well, which Paul McGrady also supported, as per his below email. Zak Muscovitch From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 6:23 PM To: Griffin Barnett <Griffin@Winterfeldt.law <mailto:Griffin@Winterfeldt.law> >; Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu <mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> >; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ACTION ITEM: Review Options for Revised Text for Converted Individual URS Proposal #28 I like Griffin’s tweaked version. Best, Paul From: Griffin Barnett <Griffin@Winterfeldt.law <mailto:Griffin@Winterfeldt.law> > Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 4:57 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com <mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> >; Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu <mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> >; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: ACTION ITEM: Review Options for Revised Text for Converted Individual URS Proposal #28 Hi all, After thinking through the options a bit further, I tend to favor Option 1, with a couple suggested relatively minor (I hope) tweaks: The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall publish an effective Examiner Conflict of Interest (COI) policy that the Provider reasonably enforces against any Examiners who violate such policy. If we must choose to live with one of the presented options “as-is” then I could live with Option 1 as is too, but I think the above variant is a further improvement. I could also live with a similar variant of Option 2: “The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall publish an enforceable Examiner Conflict of Interest (COI) policy.” This option is less explicit about who would enforce the policy, but it is at least implicit that the Provider would be the one doing the enforcing, and the policy itself once implemented could make this explicitly clear (let’s not forget that implementation is a thing). Best, Griffin _____ <https://www.winterfeldt.law/> Griffin M. Barnett Associate Winterfeldt IP Group 1601 K Street NW, Ste 1050 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20006 griffin@winterfeldt.law <mailto:griffin@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 759 5836 From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 5:47 PM To: Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu <mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> >; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ACTION ITEM: Review Options for Revised Text for Converted Individual URS Proposal #28 Agree with Rebecca. Best, Paul To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, <https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe> subscribe here. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 <https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit> Resource Toolkit. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Tushnet, Rebecca Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 4:45 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ACTION ITEM: Review Options for Revised Text for Converted Individual URS Proposal #28 I'm sorry I had to leave in the middle of this. 1 and 2 seem generally fine. 3 seems pointless: why have a policy if it need not be followed? 4 seems badly worded. "May" makes it optional for providers, which again makes the conflict of interest policy optional. If we want to clarify that the providers should be the ones enforcing the policy, then we should say that providers should enforce the policy, not that they may do so. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School 703 593 6759 _____ From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> > Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 4:55 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ACTION ITEM: Review Options for Revised Text for Converted Individual URS Proposal #28 Dear All, Per the action item from the WG meeting on 01 October (see actions and notes below), please review the following four options for recommendation text to replace the original for Converted Individual URS Proposal #28. For reference see page 5 the Google doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DAz... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> . Please indicate your preference not later than 16:00 UTC on Monday, 05 October, to be discussed at the WG meeting on Tuesday, 06 October at 13:00 UTC. Option 1: The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have an effective and published Conflict of Interest (COI) policy that the Provider enforces against any Examiners who violates such policy. Option 2: The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have an enforceable and published Examiner Conflict of Interest (COI) policy. Option 3: The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have a published Examiner Conflict of Interest (COI) policy. Option 4: The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have a published Conflict of Interest (COI) policy that the Provider may reasonably enforce against any Examiner who violates such policy. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> > Date: Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 3:45 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 01 October 2020 Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 01 October 2020 at 17:00 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/2020-10-01+Review+of+all+Ri... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...> . Best Regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie == Action Items: URS Final Recommendations – Revised URS Recommendation #3 ACTION ITEM: Change “Working Group believes” to “Working Group is unaware of any contradiction” in the context. Overarching Data Collection Recommendation ACTION ITEM: Change text to “over the preceding period of [not less than every 12 months]. URS Rec # (was Individual Proposal #28): ACTION ITEM: Put the four options for revised text out for review by the WG on the email distribution list and discuss during a future meeting. URS Rec # (was Individual Proposal #34): ACTION ITEM: Staff to send a separate email that will have links to both of the recommendations and will ask WG members to weigh in on 1) whether these separate recommendations are in conflict or complementary and 2) if they are in conflict should the Implementation Guidance from the new recommendation be incorporated into rec #9. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. URS Final Recommendations – Revised URS Recommendation #3; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPW... [docs.google.com] [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95...> ACTION ITEM: Change “Working Group believes” to “Working Group is unaware of any contradiction” in the context. 3. URS Final Recommendations – Revised URS Recommendation #2, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPW... [docs.google.com] [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95...> -- The WG agrees to the revised language. 4. URS Final Recommendations – Revised URS Recommendation #8, continued from last meeting, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPW... [docs.google.com] [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95...> New suggested text from staff: “In addition, the Working Group agrees that as set out in the URS Rules and Procedure, a domain name suspension can be extended for one additional year, and the WHOIS for the domain name shall continue to display all of the information of the original Registrant and reflect that the domain name will not be able to be transferred, deleted, or modified for the life of the registration.” -- The WG agrees to the revised language. 5. Overarching Data Collection Recommendation; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yg6XP1USJFK7Ko5eQFD5EGNC4gwWM-vh07MGSqJ3... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Yg6XP1USJFK7K...> ACTION ITEM: Change text to “over the preceding period of [not less than every 12 months]. 6. Individual Proposals Converted into Recommendations, beginning with URS Recommendations; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DAz... [docs.google.com] [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPct...> URS Rec # (was Individual Proposal #1): -- The WG agrees to the recommendation and accompanying sections. URS Rec # (was Individual Proposal #2): -- The WG agrees to the recommendation and accompanying sections. URS Rec # (was Individual Proposals #26 and #27): -- The WG agrees to the recommendation and accompanying sections. URS Rec # (was Individual Proposal #28): Discussion: -- Some support for “effective, enforceable, and published”. -- Some questions about what “enforceable” means and who would enforce. -- WIPO has a declaration of independence and impartiality. Published on the web site. Covers the same ground as conflict of interest. -- Seems obvious that it is enforceable by the provider, but make that clear. Several WG members agree. -- “enforceable by the provider against examiners” and delete “binds”. -- Need to note that you are enforcing against any examiner that violates the policy. -- What is the concern we are looking to address? -- “Each URS Provider shall have an enforceable published examiner Conflict of Interest policy.” -- Others disagree on using the term “enforceable”. -- Take out “enforceable” and just say “published”. Revised Text Options for the WG to consider: Option 1: The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have an effective and published Conflict of Interest (COI) policy that the Provider enforces against any Examiners who violates such policy. Option 2: The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have an enforceable and published Examiner Conflict of Interest (COI) policy. Option 3: The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have a published Examiner Conflict of Interest (COI) policy. Option 4: The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have a published Conflict of Interest (COI) policy that the Provider may reasonably enforce against any Examiner who violates such policy. ACTION ITEM: Put the four options for revised text out for review by the WG on the email distribution list and discuss during a future meeting. URS Rec # (was Individual Proposal #34): -- Note that the recommendation may conflict URS Rec #9. -- Could be that they complement each other – could bring to Rec #9 the bullet points on Implementation Guidance from the new URS rec, and strike the recommendation. -- Useful guide for panelists, but shouldn’t be mandatory. -- No reason to have the conflicting individual proposal recommendation. -- Consider adding the IG to Rec #9. -- Concerns about dropping this new recommendation; these aren’t duplicative. -- Can we make the complementary? ACTION ITEM: Staff to send a separate email that will have links to both of the recommendations and will ask WG members to weigh in on 1) whether these separate recommendations are in conflict or complementary and 2) if they are in conflict should the Implementation Guidance from the new recommendation be incorporated into rec #9. -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
