Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 22 September 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/2020-09-22+Review+of+all+Ri.... Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Overarching Data Collection Recommendation: ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote to explain what are the abuse labels. ACTION ITEM: Staff to revise the recommendation based on the WG discussion. URS Recommendation #4: ACTION ITEM: Add in the context that the recommendation is not asking IRT to review previous URS cases related to compliance matters. ACTION ITEM: Add text in brackets: “ICANN org’s public comment confirmed that enforcing compliance against Providers falls outside the scope of its [current] Compliance process.” Also clarify that the point of the recommendation is that ICANN org doesn’t have a way to enforce compliance. Add clarifying language on who can enforce MOUs with providers. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Overarching Data Collection Recommendation (final wording pending input from ICANN org operational team); see:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yg6XP1USJFK7Ko5eQFD5EGNC4gwWM-vh07MGSqJ3... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Yg6XP1USJFK7K...> Background: -- Although there was some data for the WG to review, it was determined that it would be helpful to make a recommendation about collecting data. -- The CCT-RT also recommended a number of data collection efforts that ICANN should engage in, that cover more than just RPMs. -- Taking those two points together the staff has prepared draft text for the WG to review. -- This is an overarching recommendation covering all of the RPMs, but not decided where it will appear in the report. Discussion: -- Re: “In light of the recommendations from the Competition, Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust (CCT) Review Team, the Working Group recommends that questions aimed at soliciting concrete and specific data relating to trademark owners’/agents’ and registrants’ experiences with the Sunrise and Trademark Claims RPMs in subsequent new gTLD rounds be included in the following data collection work, as appropriate:” Question: What do we mean by “as appropriate”. Answer: As of yet we don’t know what the implementation will be for the final CCT-RT recommendations. -- On the last 4 bullet points: Example Rec #11 – not directed at RPMs. Maybe that shouldn’t be included. And #26, which is geared towards collection of costs required to protect trademarks – get the view of the team on timeframes. Helpful to get more detail. -- Seems like we are making recommendation relating to CCT-RT recommendations that none of us have looked at. -- Staff erred on the side of being inclusive, to phrase the recommendation in such a way that if you wanted to drop one or more bullet points, or drop the recommendation on CCT-RT, you could do that without affecting the initial recommendation. -- The recommendation is that the WG would like RPMs to be included in future data collection work, but we don’t want to be specific on how that would be done. -- Consider removing Rec #8. Maybe it is a SubPro Rec? -- This is a follow-up action that staff had to produce a data collection recommendation. -- CCT-RT recommendations: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-final-recs-08sep18-en.pdf -- Separate out the CCT-RT recommendation. -- Should add data collected relating to trademark claims notices. Claims notice could be addressed in the Rec #11 survey. -- CCT Rec 11: “Conduct periodic end-user consumer surveys.
Future review teams should work with survey
experts to conceive more behavioral measures
of consumer trust that gather both objective and
subjective data with a goal toward generating
more concrete and actionable information.” -- The CCT completed its work in Sept 2018 and the Board decided to adopt some of its recommendations, referred others to various constituent bodies (e.g. GNSO) and deferred action on the remainder. -- Need to be as specific as possible on the exact data we are seeking. -- Timing: Made sense for the WG to consider this after reviewing all other recommendations. -- This is not an individual proposal, it is a staff action based on a WG request. -- On trademark claims notices—surveys; if you are going to get pings from TMCH that data as the Analysis Group found is relatively inaccurate because it doesn’t show the actual number of claims sent. The only group from whom you can get data on the number of notices actually sent is the registrars: There is no way to compel registrars to do that. And that would be an entirely new recommendation that would need at a minimum a review by registrars and/or public comment. -- On Trademark Claims, not sure how meaningful data would be collected -- registrars don't know identity of the potential registrant who terminates registration after receiving Claims Notice, or why they did. -- Only way I could see of collecting the TM notices data would be to mandate all registrars to present a survey as part of the registration flow if someone receives a notice then does not complete the purchase… if this is technologically possible. -- Most registrars did not submit claims notices until the domain names were in a specific shopping cart. Therefore, I believe the registrars would know their identity. Whether they store that information or not is an entirely different question. -- On the CCT-RT recommendations – say that these could be brought to the attention of the appropriate groups. -- On Recs #26 and #28 – the appropriate group is the RPMs PDP WG. -- Registrars don’t know if there is a claims notice, so we query the registry every time there is a claims notice. -- Data related to Trademark Claims notices - Registry relies on the certification from the registrar who presented the notices; registry never knows if/when an actual notice goes out or the registrant has received the notice - Registry goes to TMCH to get the notice and provides an ID to the registrar. They don't need to ping the TMCH every single time as they can cache it. - Registrar would know those registrants who accepted the notice and purchased the domain. - Obtaining the data/survey related to why a registrant abandons the registration after seeing the notice would add a specific obligation to registrars. ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote to explain what are the abuse labels. ACTION ITEM: Staff to revise the recommendation based on the WG discussion. 3. URS Final Recommendations – start at page 5, 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...> a. URS Recommendation #4: Discussion: -- Context: New language reflects the WG deliberation on public comments. -- Giving a lot to the IRT to do. -- IRT needs to find out how ICANN org does enforce this. ACTION ITEM: Add in the context that the recommendation is not asking IRT to review previous URS cases related to compliance matters. ACTION ITEM: Add text in brackets: “ICANN org’s public comment confirmed that enforcing compliance against Providers falls outside the scope of its [current] Compliance process.” Also clarify that the point of the recommendation is that ICANN org doesn’t have a way to enforce compliance. Add clarifying language on who can enforce MOUs with providers. b. URS Recommendation #6: Discussion: -- Question: Wondering if this portion of the new language is redundant: "1) reaching out to the broader multistakeholder community, including Providers/experts, to assist ICANN org and the IRT to develop those educational materials”, Since the recommendation already states "developed with help from URS Providers, Practitioners, Panelists, as well as researchers/academics who study URS decisions closely". Answer: This is what the WG agreed to include, it arose directly from the public comments. Okay to leave as is. -- Question: Do we want the IRT to develop the educational materials? Answer: This is what the WG recommended. -- WG agrees to the recommendation as it is worded. c. URS Recommendation #10: Discussion: -- Additional details in the context were included from the public comments, based on the WG’s deliberation. -- WG agrees to the recommendation and context as it is worded. d. URS Recommendation #3: Discussion: -- Context reflects the WG’s discussion of the EPDP Wave 1 Report. -- Language suggests there is no obligation to send the notice – need to clarify that what we mean is that the notice should be sent when the contact info is disclosed. -- Add the intent of the recommendation -- it is not sufficient just to send the notice to the publicly available information with the aim of achieving actual notice. -- Could remove the bullet points, but the above paragraph also would have to be altered. -- Continue this discussion on the next call.