Dear All, Please see below the action items and brief notes captured by staff from the Working Group call held on 09 May 2018 (1700 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 transcript or recording. The recording, transcript, WebEx chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items: Co-Chair Nomination: Co-Chairs will send a message to the list indicating that there was consensus on the selection of Brian Beckham and noting that George Kirikos raised an objection. Meetings: 1) Staff will reiterate that observers may not attend the WG meetings and should not receive meeting notices. They do have access to the wiki, transcripts, and recordings. 2) Staff will cancel the calls on 16 and 23 May. Notes: 1. Co-Chair Nomination -- Procedure: Item goes on the Council’s consent agenda for the next meeting on 24 May. -- The request would go from Paul McGrady the Liaison, Kathy and Phil. -- Co-Chairs will notify the WG on the list that the request will go to the Council noting that there was consensus on the selection of Brian and list George as an objection. 2. Presentation of Research from Rebecca Tushnet See: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1dodxsqkauqp1vr/URS%20Case%20Review%20-%20Final.xl... Discussion: -- Important: the effect of the TMCH and claims notice. -- The people who don’t litigate or arbitrate are the key missing people hear. -- Suggest that this file is reformatted to remove personal data re: GDPR. -- The lack of rationale: Is what you are saying that there is nothing? Or is it that I’m satisfied the name is registered in bad faith but nothing saying why? Answer: Some examiners
From the chat:
-- From David McAuley: Rebecca, just curious if you know, did examiners stick to one URS-provider or did they provide examiner-services through more than one provider. I would be interested, for example, if an examiner gave reasons for one provider but not for another. Answer: Did not do that analysis. Should be easy to do. 3. Continued discussion of URS Phase II proposal -- Charter is clear that Phase One focuses on the new gTLD RPMs, which includes URS. -- Initial Report has to contain any preliminary recommendations, but not all. It also has to highlight any issues or recommendations to be considered by the Subsequent Procedures WG. -- Phase Two will also consider the Phase One Initial Report. -- If we don’t change the charter we need to focus on URS in Phase One and do an assessment of its effectiveness. If we find operational issues, such as rules that don’t make sense, those should be in Phase One. But if we decide a policy issue should be deferred to Phase Two, say because of GDPR or because we can’t reach consensus we have flexibility under this charter to put those issues into Phase Two. -- The charter has certain requirements we have to meet and does give us flexibility to defer issues to Phase Two. Discussion: -- Good idea to have a discussion to have certain parts of URS deferred without having to do a charter change. Didn’t want to spend too much time on parts of the URS that are impacted by GDPR. If we can be flexible then we might be able to address these issues without a charter change. -- The second part of the proposal was to make changes to how the WG operates – how we can improve and scope out our work and develop processes to complete the goals of the WG. -- Could use some time in Panama to strategize for how best to operate. -- In order to assess the effectiveness of the URS we will have to review the URS – can we do that? -- Not sure why GDPR should change the order of Phase One and Phase Two. -- General agreement to keep the current order of Phase One and Phase Two and schedule time at ICANN62. -- John McElwaine has offered to rework the proposal.
From the chat:
-- from Philip Corwin to All Participants: Between Berry and Dr. Tushnet's case analysis, and review of the answers to Providers and Practitioners questions, we will certainly have conducted a very full review of the URS. That doesn't mean we have to decide every URS policy issue in Phase 1. And in fact if we don't have a consensus on any policy issue it will be effectively be deferred to Phase 2 and can be revisited then. -- from Martín Silva to All Participants: +1 Phil, that seems more reasonable. -- from Cyntia King to All Participants: @Phil - isn't that what @Susan Payne has been saying? That we can review the URS data then move review to be concurrent w/ UDRP? -- from Philip Corwin to All Participants: @Cyntia--close. We can collectively decide what URS issues to address in Phase 1 and which to defer in Phase 2 so long as we have focused on it and have included an informed assesment of its effectiveness in the Initial Report. Does not have to be all or nothing. -- from Cyntia King to All Participants: @Phil - It may be the collective decision that's problematic. -- from John McElwaine to All Participants: @Maxim - thank you. My point exactly concerning GDPR. We don't know and will not for an unknown period of time. -- from Maxim Alzoba (FAITID) to All Participants: for example transfer of domain requires to know e-mail of the registrant ... and it is going to be an issue -- from Philip Corwin to All Participants: The default position is that if we can't agree on an issue then we likely lack consensus and there will be no recommendation in the Initial Report -- and it will be deferred for (possible) resolution in Phase 2. -- from Maxim Alzoba (FAITID) to All Participants: notification is going to be via web-form or anonymized e-mail -- from Mary Wong to All Participants: @Maxim, some of the GDPR implications are not necessarily requirements under the URS, though (as you noted) there are implications for how Rys and Rrs may deal with the providers and registrants. So there are likely to be a greater number of practical issues rather than policy ones. -- from Mary Wong to All Participants: For purposes of RPM review - not necessarily review of other consensus policies (e.g. around transfers). -- from Maxim Alzoba (FAITID) to All Participants: ability to contact will be maintained (it is possible to do without knowing the particular e-mail) 4. RFP on TMCH and Sunrise Survey -- In the final stretch of contracting. -- There will be work for the TMCH Data Sub Team to do to work with the contractor on the survey.
From the chat:
-- From Mary Wong to All Participants: For the Sunrise & Claims survey, following the announcement of the vendor, the Data Sub Team will work with the vendor to develop the final survey questions (based on the very detailed guidance that the Sub Team developed and that was circulated to the WG and published as part of the RFP). The WG will have a chance to see the final questions before they are sent out to the target respondents, but it will not be a "drafting by group" exercise at that point. 5. Status of meetings for 16 and 23 May -- Staff reiterates that observers may not attend the WG meetings and should not receive meeting notices. They do have access to the wiki, transcripts, and recordings. -- Cancel meetings on 16 and 23 May while the Providers and Practitioners questionnaires are underway.