Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 06 October 2020 at 13:00 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/2020-10-06+Review+of+all+Ri.... Best Regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie == Action Items: Proposed amendment to Sunrise Recommendation #2: ACTION ITEM: Staff will revise the language to remove the example text from the Implementation Guidance, move the rest of the text to Context, and accept the suggested edits from David McCauley; staff will circulate the revised text to the list for review. Revised URS Recommendation #9 and Converted Individual Proposal #34: ACTION ITEM: Staff will revise the language of the combined Recommendation #9 and converted URS Individual Proposal #34 based on the WG discussion during the meeting on 06 October and circulate it to the WG list for review; staff also will consult with Renee Fossum from FORUM. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: -- Paul McGrady: New position; Policy Coordinator for the IPC. This is a volunteer position. 2. Proposed amendment to Sunrise Recommendation #2, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SmXWvS9M4TAtQ3gC3o4j9-jHaw3uIlWR_2D3lV2v... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1SmXWvS9M4TAtQ...>; new/revised text is shown in redline. David McCauley: -- Support inserting “intentionally” into the recommendation. -- In Implementation Guidance: End with “ICANN policy and procedures”. Don’t include the examples. Not good practice to include examples. -- Move all of the rest of the text into the Context section. Discussion: -- Re: “Registry Operator’s legitimate business practices that are compliant with ICANN policies and procedures” insert “otherwise” before “compliant”. ACTION ITEM: Staff will revise the language to remove the example text from the Implementation Guidance, move the rest of the text to Context, and accept the suggested edits from David McCauley; staff will circulate the revised text to the list for review. 3. Revised URS Recommendation #9 and Converted Individual Proposal #34, 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...> -- In the context, the redlined language is from URS Recommendation #9 to combine the context with that for converted Individual Proposal #34. -- New paragraph under the Public Comment Review also include the content from URS Recommendation #9. Discussion: -- Questions about what is the “predominant language”. Individual Proposal #34 tries to be more specific. -- Recommendation #9 was a proposal for the IRT to develop guidance so it can be merged with the recommendation arising from Individual Proposal #34. -- Recommendation #9 would be guidance for examiners. -- The problem was that the language was always in English, so we are trying to gain more flexibility. -- Discussed whether to consider the country in which the new gTLD is based, but that wouldn’t necessarily indicate the language. -- For due process we want the registrant to have information about a claim filed against them and to be able to respond. From there how do we achieve that is the question. -- The registrar is listed in WHOIS…. From that you can locate their registration agreement and thus the language in which their registration agreement is written. There are potentially some registrars who may provide a registration agreement in more than 1 language but usually they identify which version controls so that would be the controlling language. -- The location of the registrar may be relevant, but we are introducing more confusion. -- In the UDRP the registration agreement should be the determining factor for the language. -- Many registrars are located in very unusual jurisdictions for business reasons, e.g. Bahamas, Grand Cayman, etc. not sure that should be relevant; again though, so long as these are all just identifying potential factors for an Examiner consider should they believe it necessary to deviate from the default (language of registration agreement) then I am not strongly opposed to enumerating these potential factors. -- Could the provider ascertain the language? How do they do that? That would be the simplest way to address the question. -- It seems that the WG is agreeing that it will be helpful to provide all involved (from registrants to Examiners) with a clear rule as a starting point, but with sufficient flexibility built-in to allow for an alternate language if the circumstances warrant. -- Make the recommendation high-level and leave for implementation how the provider best ascertain that language. -- Include bullets 4 and 5 from Recommendation #9. -- I would not leave it at "whether it is possible to ascertain" but say that somehow via implementation, the provider *is able* to ascertain. -- Check with Renee (for FORUM) on revised language. -- BTW, don't forget that aside from fake information, given P/P and GDPR we may never know the location of the registrant. -- Add back in the language from Griffin’s original proposal: “This potential guidance could also consider the relevance of other factors, such as the language requested by either party, the predominant language of the country or territory of the registrant, the language used by the registry and/or predominant language of the country of the registry, if different from that of the registration agreement, and the language used by the registrar and/or predominant language of the country of the registrar if different from the language of the registration agreement.” ACTION ITEM: Staff will revise the language of the combined Recommendation #9 and converted URS Individual Proposal #34 based on the WG discussion during the meeting on 06 October and circulate it to the WG list for review; staff also will consult with Renee Fossum from FORUM. 4. Revised Converted Individual URS Proposal #28, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DAz... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPct...> -- Deferred to the WG meeting on 08 October. 5. Converted Individual TMCH Proposals #1 and #6; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DAz... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPct...> Converted Individual TMCH Proposal #1: -- Context and Public Comment Review text summarizes the WG discussion on TMCH Proposal #1. Discussion: -- WG didn’t define what “community volunteers” mean (didn’t specifically include “academics”). Include “volunteers from the wider community”? -- The WG accepts the language of the recommendation. Converted Individual TMCH Proposal #6: -- Context is from the WG discussion of Individual TMCH Proposal #6. -- Some WG members were unsure about including the two bullet points: 1) Consider the advisability of requiring that more than one provider be appointed; and 2) Review the work of the Implementation Advisory Group that was formed for the 2012 New gTLD Program to assist ICANN org with developing the specifications for and design of the Trademark Clearinghouse. Discussion: -- The WG accepts the language of the recommendation and agrees to include the two bullet points.