Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 29 January 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/2020-01-29+Review+of+all+Ri.... Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Review Determinations re: URS Individual Proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110tgExAlgzrCbuiy0OiefXG2mKbo_SCLrU037zErN2k/edit?usp=sharing[docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_110tgExAlgzrCbuiy0OiefXG2mKbo-5FSCLrU037zErN2k_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=NzviWLMuXxtAzD7auTszQy9l0_oL38MbtnuIMd6I7V4&s=UyEezizWHBRyyIDZqEcQ17H2A0P8YRN_zRbm-6GxUc4&e=> Proposals #18, #19, and #20: ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs to review the determination on these three proposals. Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: URS – Draft of Initial Report Text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZWow09gE6-YmZYcty81CT2Tujm-3vTZE7lHj2fI... ACTION ITEM: WG members to review the Google document prior to the meeting on 05 February and will continue the discussion of recommendation #3 during the meeting. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Complete Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: Sunrise & Claims – Draft of Initial Report Text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-AUekmrPgnPge6-pt57EFqnQH4DY3R0OY_zmtT20... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> The WG addressed the revised document based on the action items from the meeting on 22 January as follows: ACTION ITEM: Sunrise Recommendation #5: Staff will confirm whether there is any basis for using the term “in general” such as a reference to specific questions/exceptions. -- The use of "in general" in this recommendation does not link to any specific example or question for community input. Staff believe that this phrase is used to reflect some WG member's belief that the current minimum period was insufficient -- e.g., one WG proposed an increase of the notification period based on the number of gTLDs scheduled to launch concurrently. This proposal did not receive wide support, and the WG did not put forward this proposal as a question for community input either. Therefore, staff suggested deleting "in general" in the recommendation itself, noting that the WG's deliberation on the aforementioned proposal has been captured in the "Context" section: "...To address this unintended consequence, one WG member proposed to increase the notification period, but the proposal did not receive wide support for inclusion in the Initial Report for public comment. " ACTION ITEM: Trademark Claims Recommendations #1 and #2: Combine Recommendations #1 and #2, but without rewriting. -- Staff has combined the recommendations but retained the original text. -- Little bit of overlap of the language, but clearly shows that they are linked. ACTION ITEM: Trademark Claims Recommendation #3 (now #2): Second bullet: Change to "The Claims Notice should include a link to a web page on the ICANN Org website containing translations of the Claims Notice in all six UN languages". -- Staff have made that change. No further comments from the WG. ACTION ITEM: Trademark Claims Recommendation #5 (now #4): Staff will check the full text to note whether there is a link between the use of “in general” and a specific example/question; in those cases we will retain the terminology, if not then staff will suggesting deleting “in general”. -- Suggest keeping this "in general" and added the note to provide context. -- Note: Some WG members asked for public comment on potential exemptions which would then not be subject to a Claims Period of any length, see Trademark Claims Question #2. ACTION ITEM: Trademark Claims Question #1: Add a footnote to define “manually hand-registered domains”. -- Staff switch the order of the questions #1 and #2 as it seemed more logical. -- Added note on #2: “Note: This question is related to Trademark Claims Recommendations #4 and #5. “ -- Added footnote on #2: “Manually hand-registered domains literally refer to the domains registered manually at a registrar by hand. In other words, it is the practice of registering a new domain name without the use of automated robots or automated computer systems that search for and register domain names; those domain names are purchased new and not on an after-market system. In the context of Trademark Claims Question #2, it refers to the domain name that is registered manually following the specific registry policy.” 3. Review Determinations re: URS Individual Proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110tgExAlgzrCbuiy0OiefXG2mKbo_SCLrU037zErN2k/edit?usp=sharing[docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_110tgExAlgzrCbuiy0OiefXG2mKbo-5FSCLrU037zErN2k_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=NzviWLMuXxtAzD7auTszQy9l0_oL38MbtnuIMd6I7V4&s=UyEezizWHBRyyIDZqEcQ17H2A0P8YRN_zRbm-6GxUc4&e=> -- The section of the Initial Report on URS Individual Proposals will include a summary of deliberations and context and note where there are specific questions for comment. -- Include whether or not the commenters agree that the proposed action should be taken. Make it clear what we are asking the public to comment on. Proposals #18, #19, and #20: -- Concerns expressed about bias in decision-making on what proposals are published or not; criteria was never clear. -- The Co-Chairs did their best to size up support. -- Co-Chairs are mindful of the fact that the URS is a narrow remedy; doesn’t mean the proposal that couldn’t be addressed under UDRP in Phase 2. -- Grave concerns were expressed in the WG that these proposals were not feasible. -- If not consensus, tell us what the standard was: the sense of the WG is a standard, but it sounds an awful lot like a majority standard, which is wrong. -- Consensus was not the standard, and many individual proposals that did not have majority support in the survey or among WG members are being put out for community comment. But not proposals that had virtually no support and significant opposition. -- Note that there is just one WG member in opposition to the decision not to publish. -- Other unworkable proposals also should be removed. -- Concerns about how the determination was made and the criteria used. ACTION: Co-Chairs to review the decision on these three proposals. 4. Begin Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: URS – Draft of Initial Report Text: URS Recommendation #1: -- re: “URS Procedure para 3.3: Given the rapid nature of this Procedure, and the intended low level of required fees, there will be no opportunity to correct inadequacies in the filing requirements.” Staff will check to see if this is the correct language. It was a cut and paste from the URS procedure. Start with Recommendation #3 at the next meeting.