Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 10 October 2018 (17:00-19:00 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-10+Review+of+all+Ri.... See also the proposals at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Proposals. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Chair: Kathy Kleiman 1.  Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates: No updates 2.   Discussion of Individual URS Proposals (See: https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ) 1. George Kirikos (#5): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-5.pdf... Discussion: -- Statute of limitations is based on known or should have known. -- Question: How does this proposal deal with issues of continuing harm?  How to deal with the issue of known or should have known? -- Worth getting public comments on. -- Put into the Initial Report for discussion.  There is support for and against. -- There has been no survey of national law. -- This would create an exception that could blow a hole in the policy. -- Worthy for further review and discussion. -- Needs to be put on the table for discussion. -- Ripe for discussion. Response: -- Didn't make a latches proposal because it is more complicated to prove. -- Useful to survey national law. -- Re: "submarine registration" it is a possibility but they would have to be paying renewal costs in the mean time. -- Still a recourse to the courts for all other disputes. 2. George Kirikos (#7): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-7.pdf... Discussion: -- Support including the proposal in the Initial Report.. -- No legal contact right now in the WHOIS.  Requirement for everyone is high burden. -- Revise proposal to say, "If a legal contact is required then in that case..."? -- Seems like we would be making recommendations where other parts of the community are working. -- Think it is okay to make recommendations for other groups. Response: -- Isn't meant to force someone to have a legal contact if they don't want one.  It is just another means of contact in the WHOIS. 3. George Kirikos (#8): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-8.pdf... Discussion: -- Don't know what this proposal does that doesn't already exist in the URS. -- Don't know how the three days would equate to more than what they can already do. -- The issue with actual notice not sure if you drag it out for 3 more days’ notice will be achieved. -- Seems to be effectively a limitation period.  -- Would increase the time (contrary to "rapid). -- In the Sub Team analysis there was no evidence of people missing the notifications. Response: -- Having the additional time period would reduce incidences of default and suspensions. -- Seems like rapid doesn't apply to bringing complaint. -- High rate of default is evidence of the problem. 4. Marie Pattullo (staff to present on behalf of Marie) (#13): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-13.pd... Discussion: -- Good intention, but could be problematic to implement.  Could be impossible for a registrar to handle on its own.  Interested in how to overcome the technical problems. -- Would be interested in the evidence.  Is it happening?  Does it happen often?  Check with Berry Cobb re: evidence of a losing registrant re-registering. -- Sufficient merit for going into the Initial Report. -- Creative proposal.  Need to distinguish implementation changes from policy challenges. -- Costly monitoring burden on the trademark holder. -- Strongly oppose putting out for public comment when it is impossible to implement.  Cannot distinguish between registrants even within the same registrar. -- Seems to be unbalanced.  Response:  Staff will convey the discussion from the transcript and the chat for Marie to respond to. 5. George Kirikos (#12): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-12.pd... Discussion: -- Strongly opposed.  Challenge: If you transfer a trademark to a new owner and they do something different with it then the clock does reset. -- Support including it in the Initial Report. -- In the UDRP there is a lot of ambiguity of what the creation date represents.  Ambiguity if a domain is deleted and then re-registered.  Area worthy of further discussion. -- Interesting but needs further development. -- It's binary -- either it exists or it does not. Response: -- Overriding concern is that we want to have safe harbors for when a TM is transfered. -- Conceivably a domain name could not be fully deleted. -- Statute of limitations would be another way to handle it. 6. George Kirikos (#18): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-18.pd... Discussion: -- Needs to be reworked.  Not sure it is universally applicable. -- This has been extensively debated in the IGO/INGO. -- Real problem if the policies are worded in a way that courts aren't allowing it. -- There is no real problem here -- it is an outlier case. -- Not sure in favor of the proposals as currently written.  There are -- Worth getting community feedback. Response: -- There were at least 2 cases in the UK and also in Australia. 7. George Kirikos (#19): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-19.pd... Discussion: -- Does address the concern among some WG members that ICANN cannot decide what case a court will here.  This proposal would be able to effect how courts deal with subsequent action following URS. -- In the URS there are multiple avenues for appeal.  The registrant does have avenues for recourse. Response: -- Not fair to say that there are multiple avenues for recourse in the URS since it doesn't have the same recourses as a court. 8. George Kirikos (#20): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-20.pd... Discussion: See the chat.