Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 08 October 2020 at 17:30 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/2020-10-08+Review+of+all+Ri.... Best Regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie == Action Items: Revised URS Recommendation #9 and Converted Individual Proposal #34: ACTION ITEM: Put the recommendation out to the WG with a reference to Recommendation #9 and ask for comments. Put it on the agenda for the first ICANN69 session. Proposed Small Team 1 Recommendation for ALP: ACTION ITEM: Staff will draft language for the Final Report noting the comments on first-round applicants concerning problems, to be included in WG discussion relating to Sunrise for the WG to review. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Revised Converted Individual URS Proposal #28, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DAz... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPct...> Revised versions that received support: * Option A: The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall publish an effective Examiner Conflict of Interest (COI) policy that the Provider reasonably enforces against any Examiners who violate such policy. * Option B: The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have a published and effective Conflict of Interest (COI) policy that the Provider reasonably enforces against any Examiners who violate such policy. Discussion: -- Suggest deleting “that the Provider reasonably enforces against any Examiners who violate such policy.” -- Others noted that that statement was meant to be explicit. -- I agree that it’s implied without the added part that the policy is enforceable, but the latter part is intended to confirm that it is the Provider specifically who would enforce (as opposed to ICANN or something else). -- WG agrees to adopt Option A. 3. Revised URS Recommendation #9 and Converted Individual Proposal #34, -- TBD Re: Response from Renee Fossum/FORUM; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DAz... [docs.google.com] [docs.google.com]<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DAz...> Question from staff re: “If a translation is ordered, as long as the original submission meets the word limits in the original language, the translation of the original submission may nominally exceed the prescribed word limit; for the avoidance of doubt, the translation may not introduce new facts or arguments which may be contained in the Language of Proceeding submission.” -- Not sure if “may” is the appropriate word, or if it should be “should” or “must”. Discussion: -- Strike the 4th and 5th bullets -- again, these languages are likely to have nothing to do with the registrant / registration agreement (e.g., if someone from China registers a ".com" DN, they may very well use a Chinese RA, and the location of Verisign is not helpful, and only risks adding confusion); put another way, the URS itself and the Recommendation Kathy is speaking about risk confusing the parties and panel and harming due process. -- This would be a new requirement. If the providers had to identify the language of the registration agreement that would add time. -- If the complainant identifies the language of proceeding in its submission would the panelist not be able to rely on that, subject to its discretion to find that another language should be used? -- If the Provider needs to verify the language with the Registrar, then so be it, frankly doesn’t seem like a problem since they would be verifying registrant identity details anyway. -- Seems that #34 is inconsistent #9. -- It seems easier for a provider to determine/verify the language of the registration agreement in a given case versus having to figure out what the proper “predominant language” is. -- Modify #9 to include the further details about how to request the language of the proceeding. -- The language used by the registry and registry – worried that introducing those entities could undermine what we are trying to achieve. Risks adding confusion. Need to make it clear that these are additional factors that the examiners can consider. -- Suggest to strike all of the language pertaining to registrar, registry, and privacy/proxy services. -- This recommendation seems to adopt a hard and fast rule, versus Implementation Guidance. -- Suggestion to delete all of the recommendation language in Individual Proposal #34 and keep the Implementation Guidance. ACTION ITEM: Put the recommendation out to the WG with a reference to Recommendation #9 and ask for comments. Put it on the agenda for the first ICANN69 session. 4. Proposed Small Team 1 Recommendation for ALP – Proposed Text: “The working group recommends there should be a transparent and predictable process to timely evaluate, approve and reject ALP applications. Applications, outcomes and process measures should be published.” See also related documentation: -- Approved Launch Program Process & Forms: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/launch-applicati... [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-cle...> (details about this additional voluntary program that was developed during the implementation/AGB phase for ROs, hence the ALP is not a policy) -- Application Review Guidelines: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/launch-applicati... [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-cle...> (ICANN uses these guidelines to review RO applications for conducting an ALP) Discussion: -- Noted that there is not context or Implementation Guidance for this recommendation. -- Asked whether this could be included in the Final Report text, but not as a recommendation, in the WG discussion. ACTION ITEM: Staff will draft language for the Final Report noting the comments on first-round applicants concerning problems, to be included in WG discussion relating to Sunrise for the WG to review.