Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: Action Items and Links from RPM Sessions at ICANN60
Dear all: We propose an additional question on "Whether any superfluous overlap is created between: 1. A respondent's right to de novo appeal within fourteen days from a determination; versus 2. A respondent's right to de novo review within six months from a notice of default; versus 3. A respondent's right to request a seven-day extension to respond during the response period, after default, or not more than thirty days from a determination." As an editorial aside, these seem like a series of "compromises" that were not well thought out together in practice at the time. Best regards, Brian ________________________________ [https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b113a1d2a61b_WIPG_LogoMark.png]<https://www.winterfeldt.law/> Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group 1200 17<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>th<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>, Ste 501<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> brian@winterfeldt.law<mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 903 4422 From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2017 5:05 PM To: jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net<mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: Action Items and Links from RPM Sessions at ICANN60 Thanks Jonathan. Staff has noted your proposed additional question. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net<mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net>> Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 4:33 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items and Links from RPM Sessions at ICANN60 Hi, all- For URS, I would add the question whether the type of clear and convincing evidence that you are allowed to submit (within whatever size limitation) in support of the URS should be limited as implemented to a printout of the website, or is this far too limiting, and really should be content neutral to cover the evolving threat landscape like spear phishing attacks, etc.? Best, Jonathan Matkowsky RiskIQ, Inc. On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:36 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: 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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_RARPMRIAGPWG_2017-2BMeetings&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=oD8p3Ru7p2v2wwmg5rBRrTrrIpDzAMoTu9yn9Hk1_WQ&s=yqBrvA4aVWCX0wPH_BjhSmZzG8a4JLZ9VxZQx9MgKP0&e=> 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[schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_event_CbIa_gnso-2Dreview-2Dof-2Dall-2Drights-2Dprotection-2Dmechanisms-2Din-2Dall-2Dgeneric-2Dtop-2Dlevel-2Ddomains&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=oD8p3Ru7p2v2wwmg5rBRrTrrIpDzAMoTu9yn9Hk1_WQ&s=SRHb2PFPsb1066d4UCYDQHu_mUlj7uRs0NNmc94cfpw&e=> 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[schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_event_CbIa_gnso-2Dreview-2Dof-2Dall-2Drights-2Dprotection-2Dmechanisms-2Din-2Dall-2Dgeneric-2Dtop-2Dlevel-2Ddomains&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=oD8p3Ru7p2v2wwmg5rBRrTrrIpDzAMoTu9yn9Hk1_WQ&s=SRHb2PFPsb1066d4UCYDQHu_mUlj7uRs0NNmc94cfpw&e=> 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[schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_event_CbK7_gnso-2Dreview-2Dof-2Dall-2Drights-2Dprotection-2Dmechanisms-2Din-2Dall-2Dgeneric-2Dtop-2Dlevel-2Ddomains&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=oD8p3Ru7p2v2wwmg5rBRrTrrIpDzAMoTu9yn9Hk1_WQ&s=cVOWFYa0PRsDY-7Mb5EnyEylGvnx_P6klxR5Z-eiygg&e=> 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[schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_event_CbF6_gnso-2Dreview-2Dof-2Dall-2Drights-2Dprotection-2Dmechanisms-2Din-2Dall-2Dgeneric-2Dtop-2Dlevel-2Ddomains&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=oD8p3Ru7p2v2wwmg5rBRrTrrIpDzAMoTu9yn9Hk1_WQ&s=98ENqtvTsE36aUyqRuma2qkYQ7xNPpyMPb72Kqhi35Q&e=> 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. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg -- Jonathan Matkowsky ******************************************************************* This message was sent from RiskIQ, and is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. *******************************************************************
Dear Brian, Thank you very much for your proposed additional question. Staff has noted it. Best, Julie From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Brian Winterfeldt <Brian@Winterfeldt.law> Date: Friday, November 10, 2017 at 10:08 AM To: "'gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org'" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: Action Items and Links from RPM Sessions at ICANN60 Dear all: We propose an additional question on “Whether any superfluous overlap is created between: A respondent’s right to de novo appeal within fourteen days from a determination; versus A respondent’s right to de novo review within six months from a notice of default; versus A respondent’s right to request a seven-day extension to respond during the response period, after default, or not more than thirty days from a determination.” As an editorial aside, these seem like a series of “compromises” that were not well thought out together in practice at the time. Best regards, Brian [winterfeldt.law]Brian J. WinterfeldtPrincipalWinterfeldt IP Group1200 17th St NW, Ste 501Washington, DC 20036brian@winterfeldt.law+1 202 903 4422 From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2017 5:05 PM To: jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: Action Items and Links from RPM Sessions at ICANN60 Thanks Jonathan. Staff has noted your proposed additional question. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net> Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 4:33 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items and Links from RPM Sessions at ICANN60 Hi, all— For URS, I would add the question whether the type of clear and convincing evidence that you are allowed to submit (within whatever size limitation) in support of the URS should be limited as implemented to a printout of the website, or is this far too limiting, and really should be content neutral to cover the evolving threat landscape like spear phishing attacks, etc.? Best, Jonathan Matkowsky RiskIQ, Inc. On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:36 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote: 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[community.icann.org] 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[schedule.icann.org] 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[schedule.icann.org] 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[schedule.icann.org] 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[schedule.icann.org] 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. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg -- Jonathan Matkowsky ******************************************************************* This message was sent from RiskIQ, and is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. *******************************************************************
Each seems to address a different instance so no i don't seem them as superfluous. Sincerely, Paul Keating, Esq.
On Nov 10, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Brian Winterfeldt <Brian@Winterfeldt.law> wrote:
Dear all:
We propose an additional question on “Whether any superfluous overlap is created between:
1. A respondent’s right to de novo appeal within fourteen days from a determination; versus 2. A respondent’s right to de novo review within six months from a notice of default; versus 3. A respondent’s right to request a seven-day extension to respond during the response period, after default, or not more than thirty days from a determination.”
As an editorial aside, these seem like a series of “compromises” that were not well thought out together in practice at the time.
Best regards,
Brian
<image002.png> Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group 1200 17th St NW, Ste 501 Washington, DC 20036 brian@winterfeldt.law +1 202 903 4422
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2017 5:05 PM To: jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: Action Items and Links from RPM Sessions at ICANN60
Thanks Jonathan. Staff has noted your proposed additional question.
Best, Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
From: jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net> Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 4:33 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items and Links from RPM Sessions at ICANN60
Hi, all— For URS, I would add the question whether the type of clear and convincing evidence that you are allowed to submit (within whatever size limitation) in support of the URS should be limited as implemented to a printout of the website, or is this far too limiting, and really should be content neutral to cover the evolving threat landscape like spear phishing attacks, etc.?
Best, Jonathan Matkowsky RiskIQ, Inc.
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:36 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote: 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[community.icann.org] 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[schedule.icann.org] 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[schedule.icann.org] 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[schedule.icann.org] 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[schedule.icann.org] 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. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg -- Jonathan Matkowsky
******************************************************************* This message was sent from RiskIQ, and is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. ******************************************************************* _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi Brian, I'll take it one step further. The entire section in the Rules (Rule 6) relating to Default is impractical. Consider 6.1: ... [if] Registrant does not submit an answer, the Complaint proceeds to Default." Default is not a thing. There is a Determination, but all Complaints go to an Examiner. (See 6.3) I protested this when it was created as nonsensical then and I maintain it's still nonsensical. It simply doesn't *do* anything. Rule 6.2: "Registrant will be prohibited from changing content...." - is not enforceable. First, it's not directed to anyone, and second, only the webhost can prohibit content changes...not a registry or registrar. Rule 6.4: This one is just weird. I am not even sure what the compromise was here. If you're a registrant and your super important domain name was taken away and its either a) worth a lot or b) your business site, I hope you'd notice in less than six months. Rule 6.5 involves a giant headache for registries and registrants who have to somehow retain the nameserver information for these sites for at least six months after a Default. Surely the technically-minded registry operators on the WG can suggest a more efficient way to do this? Rules 6.4 and 6.5 contradict: 6.4 --Registrant has a right to seek relief from Default via de novo review 6.5 --filing a Response after Default is not an appeal If we can clean up the intent and practice relating to Defaults (your #2), then at least # 1 in your list makes sense because it applies to both parties. Regarding #3, the first extension mirrors UDRP and the other two come after notices are sent out (so as options to hold on for a second if the registrant somehow didn't get the first notices). I don't think there is so much overlap as just administrative inconvenience and uncertainty for complainants. Thanks, Kristine From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Brian Winterfeldt Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 7:08 AM To: 'gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org' <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: Action Items and Links from RPM Sessions at ICANN60 Dear all: We propose an additional question on "Whether any superfluous overlap is created between: 1. A respondent's right to de novo appeal within fourteen days from a determination; versus 2. A respondent's right to de novo review within six months from a notice of default; versus 3. A respondent's right to request a seven-day extension to respond during the response period, after default, or not more than thirty days from a determination." As an editorial aside, these seem like a series of "compromises" that were not well thought out together in practice at the time. Best regards, Brian ________________________________ [https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b113a1d2a61b_WIPG_LogoMark.png]<https://www.winterfeldt.law/> Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group 1200 17<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>th<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>, Ste 501<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> brian@winterfeldt.law<mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 903 4422 From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2017 5:05 PM To: jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net<mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: Action Items and Links from RPM Sessions at ICANN60 Thanks Jonathan. Staff has noted your proposed additional question. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net<mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net>> Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 4:33 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items and Links from RPM Sessions at ICANN60 Hi, all- For URS, I would add the question whether the type of clear and convincing evidence that you are allowed to submit (within whatever size limitation) in support of the URS should be limited as implemented to a printout of the website, or is this far too limiting, and really should be content neutral to cover the evolving threat landscape like spear phishing attacks, etc.? Best, Jonathan Matkowsky RiskIQ, Inc. On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:36 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: 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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_RARPMRIAGPWG_2017-2BMeetings&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=oD8p3Ru7p2v2wwmg5rBRrTrrIpDzAMoTu9yn9Hk1_WQ&s=yqBrvA4aVWCX0wPH_BjhSmZzG8a4JLZ9VxZQx9MgKP0&e=> 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[schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_event_CbIa_gnso-2Dreview-2Dof-2Dall-2Drights-2Dprotection-2Dmechanisms-2Din-2Dall-2Dgeneric-2Dtop-2Dlevel-2Ddomains&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=oD8p3Ru7p2v2wwmg5rBRrTrrIpDzAMoTu9yn9Hk1_WQ&s=SRHb2PFPsb1066d4UCYDQHu_mUlj7uRs0NNmc94cfpw&e=> 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[schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_event_CbIa_gnso-2Dreview-2Dof-2Dall-2Drights-2Dprotection-2Dmechanisms-2Din-2Dall-2Dgeneric-2Dtop-2Dlevel-2Ddomains&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=oD8p3Ru7p2v2wwmg5rBRrTrrIpDzAMoTu9yn9Hk1_WQ&s=SRHb2PFPsb1066d4UCYDQHu_mUlj7uRs0NNmc94cfpw&e=> 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[schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_event_CbK7_gnso-2Dreview-2Dof-2Dall-2Drights-2Dprotection-2Dmechanisms-2Din-2Dall-2Dgeneric-2Dtop-2Dlevel-2Ddomains&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=oD8p3Ru7p2v2wwmg5rBRrTrrIpDzAMoTu9yn9Hk1_WQ&s=cVOWFYa0PRsDY-7Mb5EnyEylGvnx_P6klxR5Z-eiygg&e=> 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[schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_event_CbF6_gnso-2Dreview-2Dof-2Dall-2Drights-2Dprotection-2Dmechanisms-2Din-2Dall-2Dgeneric-2Dtop-2Dlevel-2Ddomains&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=oD8p3Ru7p2v2wwmg5rBRrTrrIpDzAMoTu9yn9Hk1_WQ&s=98ENqtvTsE36aUyqRuma2qkYQ7xNPpyMPb72Kqhi35Q&e=> 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. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg -- Jonathan Matkowsky ******************************************************************* This message was sent from RiskIQ, and is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. *******************************************************************
considering the stated deadline for each period they don't seem like superfluous overlap Regards Mona ________________________________ From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Brian Winterfeldt <Brian@Winterfeldt.law> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 5:07 PM To: 'gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org' Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: Action Items and Links from RPM Sessions at ICANN60 Dear all: We propose an additional question on “Whether any superfluous overlap is created between: 1. A respondent’s right to de novo appeal within fourteen days from a determination; versus 2. A respondent’s right to de novo review within six months from a notice of default; versus 3. A respondent’s right to request a seven-day extension to respond during the response period, after default, or not more than thirty days from a determination.” As an editorial aside, these seem like a series of “compromises” that were not well thought out together in practice at the time. Best regards, Brian ________________________________ [https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b113a1d2a61b_WIPG_LogoMark.png]<https://www.winterfeldt.law/> Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group 1200 17th St NW, Ste 501 Washington, DC 20036 brian@winterfeldt.law<mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 903 4422 From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2017 5:05 PM To: jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net<mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: Action Items and Links from RPM Sessions at ICANN60 Thanks Jonathan. Staff has noted your proposed additional question. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net<mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net>> Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 4:33 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items and Links from RPM Sessions at ICANN60 Hi, all— For URS, I would add the question whether the type of clear and convincing evidence that you are allowed to submit (within whatever size limitation) in support of the URS should be limited as implemented to a printout of the website, or is this far too limiting, and really should be content neutral to cover the evolving threat landscape like spear phishing attacks, etc.? Best, Jonathan Matkowsky RiskIQ, Inc. On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:36 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: 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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_RARPMRIAGPWG_2017-2BMeetings&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=oD8p3Ru7p2v2wwmg5rBRrTrrIpDzAMoTu9yn9Hk1_WQ&s=yqBrvA4aVWCX0wPH_BjhSmZzG8a4JLZ9VxZQx9MgKP0&e=> 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[schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_event_CbIa_gnso-2Dreview-2Dof-2Dall-2Drights-2Dprotection-2Dmechanisms-2Din-2Dall-2Dgeneric-2Dtop-2Dlevel-2Ddomains&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=oD8p3Ru7p2v2wwmg5rBRrTrrIpDzAMoTu9yn9Hk1_WQ&s=SRHb2PFPsb1066d4UCYDQHu_mUlj7uRs0NNmc94cfpw&e=> 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[schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_event_CbIa_gnso-2Dreview-2Dof-2Dall-2Drights-2Dprotection-2Dmechanisms-2Din-2Dall-2Dgeneric-2Dtop-2Dlevel-2Ddomains&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=oD8p3Ru7p2v2wwmg5rBRrTrrIpDzAMoTu9yn9Hk1_WQ&s=SRHb2PFPsb1066d4UCYDQHu_mUlj7uRs0NNmc94cfpw&e=> 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[schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_event_CbK7_gnso-2Dreview-2Dof-2Dall-2Drights-2Dprotection-2Dmechanisms-2Din-2Dall-2Dgeneric-2Dtop-2Dlevel-2Ddomains&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=oD8p3Ru7p2v2wwmg5rBRrTrrIpDzAMoTu9yn9Hk1_WQ&s=cVOWFYa0PRsDY-7Mb5EnyEylGvnx_P6klxR5Z-eiygg&e=> 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[schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_event_CbF6_gnso-2Dreview-2Dof-2Dall-2Drights-2Dprotection-2Dmechanisms-2Din-2Dall-2Dgeneric-2Dtop-2Dlevel-2Ddomains&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=oD8p3Ru7p2v2wwmg5rBRrTrrIpDzAMoTu9yn9Hk1_WQ&s=98ENqtvTsE36aUyqRuma2qkYQ7xNPpyMPb72Kqhi35Q&e=> 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. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg -- Jonathan Matkowsky ******************************************************************* This message was sent from RiskIQ, and is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. *******************************************************************
participants (5)
-
Brian Winterfeldt -
Dorrain, Kristine -
Dr. Mona Al-achkar JAbbour -
Julie Hedlund -
Paul Keating