Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 12 September 2018 (17:00-19:00 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 recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-09-12+Review+of+all+Ri.... See also the attached referenced document. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == ACTION ITEMS: A. THE COMPLAINT – 6. Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec Page 5-6: ACTION ITEM: Change the language to "data required to advance the complaint" or similar (Lori Schulman’s suggestion). B. NOTICE – 1. Receipt by Registrant Notice (feedback from Complainant & Respondent) Page 10: ACTION ITEM: Change to "via the online form [if available]..." J. LANGUAGE ISSUES -- 1. Language issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice of complaint, response, determination Page 34: ACTION ITEM: 1st Bullet Point: Documents Sub Team should reconsider the recommendation in light of Maxim's earlier feedback. NOTES: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates: -- Kathy Kleiman joined as a visiting scholar at Princeton. 2. Discussion of URS Draft Policy Recommendations (see attached Super Consolidated URS Topics Table): A. THE COMPLAINT – 6. Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec Page 5-6: -- Technical recommendation for GDPR and also outreach re Doe Complaints -- But the Provider may not be receiving the "full registration data" from the Registrars and thus may not be "disclosing" the "full registration data" to the Complainant. Full WHOIS registration data includes *phone number* which is not a piece of data needed by Providers or Complainants. This something we should address, maybe with just a little modification. -- This also should be a phase 2 topic to be considered in Phase 2 on UDRP as it covers both systems. Suggest deferring to Phase 2. -- Disagree: Have an issue with URS. The Temp Spec doesn't address this. We can have the same suggestions in both phases. Each phase addresses different mechanisms and each mechanism can have similar recommendation. Also support the argument about timeliness of issue. -- Agree that can have the same suggestions in both phases. Also, if we don’t put such (obvious) options out to public comment, I think it’s pretty sure that some of said public will comment on them, albeit questioning why the WG hasn’t considered them. ACTION ITEM: change to "relevant registration data" or "data required to advance the complaint" since providers may not be getting "full registration data". -- Because of the urgency there is not harm, and since we are on URS, to have a recommendation that relates to URS -- and shouldn't wait until a Phase 2 Initial Report. Could be superseded by the Temp Spec though. The WG Agrees to move the recommendations into the Initial Report with background, as well as the suggestion to defer to Phase 2. B. NOTICE – 1. Receipt by Registrant Notice (feedback from Complainant & Respondent) Page 10: -- Another technical recommendation tied to implementation and enforcement of GDPR. Suggest putting it out for public comment. -- EDPDP Team may also have recommendations relating to this issue. -- Not urgent and could wait until Phase 2 and not all registries have implemented the online form. ACTION ITEM: Change to "via the online form [if available]..." The WG agrees to move the recommendations into the Initial Report with background, as well as the suggestion to defer to Phase 2. E. DEFENSES -- 1. Scope of Defenses and 2. Unreasonable delay in filing a complaint (i.e. laches) Page 19: -- Suggest moving this to Phase 2 as it also relates to UDRP. -- Support getting public comment on these two recs on page 19. -- Put out these draft policy recommendations as they exists and ask for comment. -- Could also include for public comment the suggestion to address these in Phase 2. -- Uniform guidance could be developed by ICANN. The WG agrees to move the recommendations into the Initial Report with background, as well as the suggestion to defer to Phase 2. F. REMEDIES – 1. Scope of remedies. Page 23: The WG agrees to use this as a placeholder/umbrella for other recommendations that are related. 2. Duration of Suspension Period and 3. Review of Implementation Pages 26-27: -- Registrars issues with renewals -- Need to have accounts in the bank with the same currency with the payer. Maybe not be able to accept certain payments. Should be some other way of registering the same name through some other registrar. Need this feedback in public comment. -- If there are recommendations about obligations for registrars this could affect contracts, so must be considered whether it is in scope. The WG agrees to include in the Initial Report with a question about the option to use another registrar. G. APPEAL – 1. Appeals process Page 30: The WG agrees to include in the Initial Report. 2. De novo review Pages 30-31: The WG agrees to include as an umbrella topic, but will need to address the details, or call out this as a separate category in the Initial Report (perhaps not a recommendation, but a question); wait until the WG goes through the individual proposals. H. POTENTIALLY OVERLAPPING PROCESS STEPS -- 1. Potential overlap concerning duration of respondent appeal, review and extended reply periods along the URS process timeline Page 31-32: The WG agrees to include as an umbrella topic, but will need to address the details, or call out this as a separate category in the Initial Report (perhaps not a recommendation, but a question); wait until we go through the individual proposals. J. LANGUAGE ISSUES -- 1. Language issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice of complaint, response, determination Page 34: ACTION ITEM: 1st Bullet Point: Documents Sub Team should reconsider the recommendation in light of Maxim's earlier feedback. 2nd Bullet Point: The WG agrees to include in the Initial Report. L. EDUCATION & TRAINING -- 1. Responsibility for education and training of complainants, registrants, registry operators and registrars Pages 38-39: The WG agrees to include the recommendations in the Initial Report. Include a question about who should compile the FAQ and where it should be hosted/published.