Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 24 September 2020 at 17:00 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/2020-09-24+Review+of+all+Ri.... Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: ALP Recommendation ACTION ITEM: Small Team to revise the proposal by COB Monday, 28 September for WG discussion on Thursday, 01 October. URS Final Recommendations – URS Recommendation #3 ACTION ITEM: Remove the two bullet points and put in a generic contextual language that the WG has reviewed the Wave 1 report and that the recommendation is not contradicting the Wave 1 recommendations; report at the next WG meeting. URS Recommendation #2: ACTION ITEM: Move the paragraph from URS Recommendation #3. Remove the bullet point and put in the generic language identified for #3. Report at the next WG meeting. New URS Recommendation: ACTION ITEM: Remove this as a recommendation and put the text and context into the background of the Final Report. URS Recommendation #7: ACTION ITEM: Delete the word “uniform” from “uniform set of basic guidance” and change the word “and” to “are” in “and each of the three URS elements listed in the original language of the Determination are addressed in the Determination.” URS Recommendation #8: ACTION ITEM: Staff to review the language of the URS and suggest revised text; review during the next meeting. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Update on ALP Recommendation – Inquiry with GDS staff Background: -- Most ALPs were rejected because they were circumventing the RPMs. -- Some were taken into account for the QLP. Re: the Proposal: -- 45 days plus 7 days limitation on top of the 7 months is unclear. -- Doesn’t take into consideration time for a public comment period related to ALP applications and doesn’t allow time for back and forth between ALP applicant and ICANN org. Answering questions and receiving responses from registry operators. -- Current proposal didn’t include a reset option; without this ICANN would have to reject if they can’t get clarification within the set time frame. -- Any time period should consider these factors. -- Where ICANN determines to decline and makes a request for further information: ICANN org would need to analyze the plan and would require extensive effort and not sure what issues this is trying to solve. Summary: 1) not easily implementable due to lack of clarity of the timeline; not enough time for back and forth; 2) doesn’t seem to resolve the issues with the ALP. Discussion: ACTION ITEM: Small Team to revise the proposal by COB Monday, 28 September for WG discussion on Thursday, 01 October. 3. URS Final Recommendations – Revised URS Recommendation #4; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPW... [docs.google.com] [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95...> -- Staff has revised the contextual language based on the WG’s discussion at the meeting on Tuesday, 22 September. -- Added “current” before “compliance”. -- Put in new text “The Working Group agreed that ICANN org has the obligation to enforce compliance of URS Providers” in response to Jeff Neuman’s comments. -- Add the text in brackets, “Furthermore, the Working Group noted that its recommendation does not specifically require ICANN Compliance to enforce compliance against URS Providers; [ome other relevant ICANN org department(s) may be responsible for enforcing compliance against Providers (e.g., Procurement, Legal).]” -- Add a sentence at the end in response to comments from Maxim Alzoba: “However, the Working Group noted that the IRT is not asked to review all previous URS compliance cases as part of the implementation for this recommendation.” -- WG accepts the revised contextual language. 4. URS Final Recommendations, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPW... [docs.google.com] [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95...> a. URS Recommendation #3, page 10: Discussion: -- Conflicts with recommendation. We want them to get the information and pass it along. -- Suggest moving the context language that is highlighted to Recommendation #2. ACTION ITEM: Remove the two bullet points and put in a generic contextual language that the WG has reviewed the Wave 1 report and that the recommendation is not contradicting the Wave 1 recommendations; report at the next WG meeting. b. URS Recommendation #2: Discussion: -- Recommendation is to continue the current process. Suggestion to delete and summarize text as in the action item is consistent with the recommendation. ACTION ITEM: Move the paragraph from URS Recommendation #3. Remove the bullet point and put in the generic language identified for #3. Report at the next WG meeting. c. New URS Recommendation: Discussion: -- Question: Do we need to specify what terminology needs to be updated? -- Question: Do we need to make a recommendation on this? -- Not sure this needs to be a recommendation. -- Staff suggestion: This could be put into the background section of the report. ACTION ITEM: Remove this as a recommendation and put the text and context into the background of the Final Report. d. URS Recommendation #5: -- Recommendation language slightly changed based on public comments. -- Context is the same. -- Public Comment Review explains the change to the recommendation. -- WG accepts the revised recommendation without changes. e. URS Recommendation #7: -- WG agreed to add the following language to the recommendation: “specifically and at a minimum, that the relevant facts are spelt out and each of the three URS elements listed in the original language of the Determination and addressed in the Determination.” -- Is the intent of the recommendation is asking providers to work together to develop guidance or whether such guidance can be provided individually. Who should enforce the compliance? There is a recommendation separately on that. Discussion: -- WG didn’t clarify what it meant by “uniform”. Different providers can do it as they wish. They can get together if they wish, but they need to provide a baseline. -- Take out “uniform”? -- Change to “are addressed.” -- Make it clear that the IRT wouldn’t go against the notion of allowing providers’ discretion. IRT should make sure the providers are providing basic guidance. ACTION ITEM: Delete the word “uniform” from “uniform set of basic guidance” and change the word “and” to “are” in “and each of the three URS elements listed in the original language of the Determination are addressed in the Determination.” f. URS Recommendation #9: -- New text in green reflects the agreed-upon language from the WG deliberations on the public comments. -- This is Implementation Guidance for the IRT. -- The WG agrees with the new text. g. URS Recommendation #8: -- The contextual language changed in that text around a related URS question was removed as there was nothing conclusive on the question based on public comment. Moved the paragraph to the section on public comment review. Discussion: Re: “In addition, the Working Group agrees that a domain name suspension can be extended for one year as set out in the URS Rules and Procedure, but ownership of the domain name must not be transferred during this period to the winning Complainant or another Registrar.” -- On the new language, shouldn’t it be that ownership of the domain name must not be transferred during this period to the winning complainant or another registrar? Otherwise we are saying that it should never be transferred. -- After “the Working Group agrees that a domain name suspension can be extended for one year” add “as set out in the URS Rules and Procedure”. -- Is it actually the case that once the domain is on suspension that it couldn't be transferred if the claimant and the and the registration came to an agreement? If it isn’t correct that they can, then we seem to be changing things. -- If this language is referring to transfer during the extension suspension period that would be after there's been a decision and if the parties negotiate a settlement, which includes a domain transfer before any decision is rendered, that would end the URS action and wouldn't conflict with the rules. -- We’ve raised the issue of involuntary transfer by court order and that isn’t something we’ve discussed. We should come back to this item on the next call. -- Worried that we are starting to veer into substantive discussion on new issues. -- We should be clarifying language not raising new issues. ACTION ITEM: Staff to review the language of the URS and suggest revised text; review during the next meeting.