Dear all,

Staff is pleased to provide the following action items and links from the RPM sessions at ICANN60.  These also are posted to the Working Group wiki meetings pages at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2017+Meetings by meeting date.  Please let us know if you have any questions or need further information.

Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Saturday 28 October, 15.15-16.45: Data Sub Team Working Session – See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbIa/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-mechanisms-in-all-generic-top-level-domains This session was a full working session for the Data Sub Team, which has begun reviewing the Sunrise and Trademark Claims data request recently approved by the GNSO Council with a view toward developing clarifications and specific guidance regarding the proposed surveys for the survey designer to be selected through an ICANN Request for Proposals (RFP). The session was open to all to attend.

Action Items:

• Post Table 2 to the ICANN meeting schedule (DONE).
• UDRP data – Once we have a better sense of how to get the data, and what to get, staff can develop a timeline to produce usable data.
• In addition to research and blog, should we get a sampling of different types of domains in terms of sunrise and general availability pricing – look at the charter question as to whether this prevented someone from participating in sunrise?
• Question 8 re: semantics of programming that can be used to test historical data to see how many claims notices can be generated – examples: “fat-finger typos”.  Rules can be applied for each type of mistake.  Need to determine these rules before requesting the data so we don’t end up with too many.  Put this on a back burner until we do more of the quantitative analysis on URS and UDRP data.  Need to answer the question: What types of data should generate claims notices?  Are there other ways we can get the data to inform that analysis?

Saturday 28 October, 17.00-18.30: Staff presentation & Working Group discussion – Overview of the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS); initial staff data findings on URS cases  – See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbIa/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-mechanisms-in-all-generic-top-level-domains As with the other RPMs, the Working Group commenced with a brief overview of the URS presented by ICANN staff, as a framework for staff’s presentation of the initial data we have compiled about URS cases filed and decided up to June 2017.

Action Items:

• Table 4: Possible to get a column showing when these domains launched for the top 30 shown in the chart.
• Staff will review the data charts to make sure the total numbers are consistent.  In Table 6, the number for default (no response filed) does not show the number for which the claimant did not prevail: staff will develop an additional table (per the added note below the current table).
• Staff likely will review/refine tables 8 and 9, and also get more detail on average of duration.
• Staff will produce another version of the data in a couple of weeks.
• Staff will fetch WHOIS data for these URS cases to help address charter questions. The data will be useful both to analyze Trademark Claims and URS. Newer cases (e.g. less than a year) will be relatively easy to obtain.  Older ones will be more of a challenge.

Monday 30 October, 15.15-16.45: Meeting with the Competition, Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust (CCT) Review Team – See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbK7/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-mechanisms-in-all-generic-top-level-domains The CCT Review Team is preparing its final recommendations, which includes a section on RPMs. Their preliminary report (issued in March 2017) had included some initial recommendations concerning RPMs that implicate our PDP work. The CCT Review Team briefed our Working Group on their likely final RPM recommendations at this meeting.

Action Items:

• Staff will forward DMPM request to the CCT-RT.
• The RPM PDP WG will share with the CCT Review Team what their plan is with regard to the TMCH to ensure that we are headed in right direction to meet Recommendation 42.
• The CCT Review Team will follow up with the Analysis Group about the questions concerning costs.
• Staff will forward to CCT-RT Support Team the recording/transcript of the Mon 30 Oct session once they are available.
• Staff will post the AC transcript of the Mon 30 Oct session on the wiki workspace (DONE).
• Staff will post the CCT-RT slides to the wiki workspace & meeting schedule webpage (DONE).

Thursday 2 November, 13.30-15.00: Working Group and Community Feedback Session on Experiences with the URS – See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbF6/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-mechanisms-in-all-generic-top-level-domains and  This session followed on the introductory Saturday session. The Working Group and community members were invited to provide direct feedback on their experiences with the URS, to inform the Working Group’s review of the Charter questions for the URS. As was the case with the TMCH, Sunrise and Trademark Claims, the Working Group is expected to form a Sub Team to review and refine the URS Charter questions for further Working Group consideration.

Action Items:

(referenced slides are posted to the wiki and also at the above link)

Slide 4:

• “Should the ability for defaulting respondents in URS cases to file a reply for an extended period (e.g. up to one year) after the default notice, or even after a default determination is issued (in which case the complaint could be reviewed anew) be changed?” [first bullet]
• Comments: Understanding is that in that case (before a complaint is filed), the registrant then renews for up to 10 years, in which case, if he/she loses a URS proceeding then the suspension could last for as long as 10 years.

Slide 6:

• Question on sanctions needs to be rephrased (“what sanctions should be allowed for misuse of the URS for Trademark owners”) – also doesn’t mention sanctions for repeat offenders.  Exercise for the Sub Team to find the context/origins for the questions, for which staff can help.
• Split the sections into two for sake of clarity.
• Sounds like the need for training/education needs to be raised (training registrants in rights and protections).

Slide 7:

• Request to strike the first question: “Assess the benefit of the Arbitration Forums Self-Reviews...”
• Think about what is the financial model for the URS?

Slide 8:

• Consider bifurcating this question.  1) whether administering consistently; 2) if the supplemental rules are inconsistent.  Encourage the WG to look into the relationship between ICANN and providers.
• Question bullet 4: strike the question or comprehensively re-write.  Try to find the context.