May 2020 - GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGB

RESPONSE REQUESTED: Options on URS Question #1
by Julie Hedlund May 28, 2020

May 28, 2020

Dear Sub Group B members, Per the following action item re: URS Question #1 captured from today’s RPMs PDP WG Sub Group B meeting that the Co-Chairs and staff will formulate two options for the Sub Group to consider and take them to the list, please see the following options below and indicate your preference. If you have another option to suggest please provide the text of the option. Please provide your response by COB Monday, 01 June. Thank you very much for your assistance. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie With respect to URS Questions 1a and 1b (see below) please indicate your preference for how the Sub Group should proceed in its summary to the full WG: Option 1: The Sub Group should in its summary to the WG report that there were strong differences of opinion and a variety of responses to URS Questions 1a and 1b and the recommendation of the Sub Group is that the full WG should revisit these questions and the responses to them. Option 2: The Sub Group should in its summary to the WG report that there were strong differences of opinion and a variety of responses to URS Questions 1a and 1b, but in the absence of any high-level of agreement the WG does not need to take further action with respect to URS Question 1. URS Question #1: 1a. Should URS Rule 15(a) be amended to clarify that, where a Complaint has been updated with registration data provided to the Complainant by the URS Provider, there must be an option for the Determination to be published without the updated registration data? 1b. If so, when, by whom, and how should this option be triggered? 1c. Are there any operational considerations that will need to also be addressed in triggering this option?

1 0

Proposed Agenda -- GNSO RPMs PDP WG Sub Group B -- Thursday, 04 June 2020 at 1700 UTC
by Julie Hedlund May 28, 2020

May 28, 2020

Dear Sub Group B members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 04 June 2020 at 1700 UTC for 90 minutes. In preparation for this meeting, Sub Group members are requested to read the comments received on URS Questions #1 (and the options suggested on the list), #2, and #3 – click on the tab links URS Rec #1<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRS…>, URS Rec #2<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRS…>, and URS Rec #3<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRS…> in the spreadsheet at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRS… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…>, or see the links in the Table of Content [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…>s in the first tab. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Reviewing Public Comments – See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRS… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…>, and go to the links in the Table of Content [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…>s on the first tab and below: * URS Question #1<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRS…> (reviewing suggestion options for WG summary report) * URS Question #2<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRS…> * URS Question #3<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRS…> 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie

1 0

Actions -- RPMs PDP WG Sub Group B Meeting -- 28 May 2020 at 1700 UTC
by Julie Hedlund May 28, 2020

May 28, 2020

Dear Sub Group B members, Please see below the actions from the meeting on 28 May 2020 at 1700 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-05-28+RPM+Sub+Group+B. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie Actions: URS Recommendation #1: ACTION ITEM: Note in the summary report that as there was no new information in the comments to otherwise guide the Sub Group the recommendation stands as originally drafted. URS Question #1: ACTION ITEM: The Co-Chairs and staff will formulate two options for the Sub Group to consider and take them to the list -- suggestion as follows: With respect to URS Questions 1a and 1b (see below) please indicate your preference for how the Sub Group should proceed in its summary to the full WG: Option 1: The Sub Group should in its summary to the WG report that there were strong differences of opinion and a variety of responses to URS Questions 1a and 1b and the recommendation of the Sub Group is that the full WG should revisit these questions and the responses to them. Option 2: The Sub Group should in its summary to the WG report that there were strong differences of opinion and a variety of responses to URS Questions 1a and 1b, but in the absence of any high-level of agreement the WG does not need to take further action with respect to Recommendation #1 or URS Question 1. URS Question #1: 1a. Should URS Rule 15(a) be amended to clarify that, where a Complaint has been updated with registration data provided to the Complainant by the URS Provider, there must be an option for the Determination to be published without the updated registration data? 1b. If so, when, by whom, and how should this option be triggered? 1c. Are there any operational considerations that will need to also be addressed in triggering this option? Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Method of Operation -- Chair -- Volunteer(s): Paul McGrady and Zak Muskovitch have volunteered and been accepted as Co-Chairs 3. Reviewing Public Comments – See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRS… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…>, and go to the links in the Table of Content [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…>s on the first tab and below: a. URS Recommendation #1 – tab link URS Rec1 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…> -- Some of the non-supporting comments seem to be based on a misunderstanding of what information about the registrant is being public. -- Differences in number of calendar days versus business days. -- This is a part of the complaint that will be cut and pasted and become public. Need a GDPR analysis of this. -- There are various aspects of your complaint that might change when you do know who the registrant is. WG discussed this extensively. -- The panelist could redact the name of the registrant. -- Knowing the name of the registrant doesn’t change what you say. Given what the URS is we don’t think the panelists will do anything, particularly with the high default rate. -- Shouldn’t just punt to the examiner on privacy issues since they will just cut and paste the information. -- Don’t see a problem with publishing the names of the parties. You should know who they are. -- Some of these issues are dealt with in URS Q1. This is more narrowly focused on being able to amend your complaint once you know the identity of the registrant. -- What is happening under GDPR now is that when a John Doe complaint is filed then the redacted information is provided to the complainant. -- Doesn’t seem to be all that much that is new in the comments, but publication is dealt with in Q1. They are interrelated. ACTION ITEM: Note in the summary report that as there was no new information in the comments to otherwise guide the Sub Group the recommendation stands as originally drafted. b. URS Question #1 – tab link URS Q1 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…> -- CITMA’s comment probably belong in non support. -- Answer to question 1 is split. -- The answers to 1b and 1c are varied with no high-level agreement. -- If there is no high-level agreement the Sub Group can note that in its summary to the full WG. -- Practically speaking, even without something specific in the policy or the rules, panelists in exceptional cases (such as identify theft) that cast doubt on the identify of the registrant they will not include a person’s name in the publication of the determination. -- The Sub Group should consider the comments as to whether they change Recommendation #1. -- Comments show more support for the first part of the recommendation than the second. -- On 1c: FORUM had an operational process that they would have to change. -- Comment regarding pattern of abuse, if the information isn’t public then you can’t get a pattern. -- On GDPR: There are a lot of comments that refer to the GDPR, but registrants have a contract with ICANN in which it says that they won’t use domains for malicious purposes; the GDPR excludes redacting data in those cases. ACTION ITEM: The Co-Chairs and staff will formulate two options for the Sub Group to consider and take them to the list -- suggestion as follows: With respect to URS Questions 1a and 1b (see below) please indicate your preference for how the Sub Group should proceed in its summary to the full WG: Option 1: The Sub Group should in its summary to the WG report that there were strong differences of opinion and a variety of responses to URS Questions 1a and 1b and the recommendation of the Sub Group is that the full WG should revisit these questions and the responses to them. Option 2: The Sub Group should in its summary to the WG report that there were strong differences of opinion and a variety of responses to URS Questions 1a and 1b, but in the absence of any high-level of agreement the WG does not need to take further action with respect to Recommendation #1 or URS Question 1. URS Question #1: 1a. Should URS Rule 15(a) be amended to clarify that, where a Complaint has been updated with registration data provided to the Complainant by the URS Provider, there must be an option for the Determination to be published without the updated registration data? 1b. If so, when, by whom, and how should this option be triggered? 1c. Are there any operational considerations that will need to also be addressed in triggering this option?

1 0

Post Call | RPMs SGB | Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon May 28, 2020

May 28, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS Sub Group B call held on Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/uAIdC> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpms-wg-sga/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=136118869>. Thank you. Kind regards, Andrea

1 0

Reminder: Proposed Agenda -- GNSO RPMs PDP WG Sub Group B -- Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 1700 UTC
by Julie Hedlund May 27, 2020

May 27, 2020

Dear Sub Group B members, As a reminder please see below the agenda and materials for the Sub Group B meeting on Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 1700 UTC for 90 minutes. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie From: GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGB <gnso-rpms-wg-sgb-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, May 22, 2020 at 1:56 PM To: "gnso-rpms-wg-sgb(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpms-wg-sgb(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGB] Proposed Agenda -- GNSO RPMs PDP WG Sub Group B -- Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 1700 UTC Dear Sub Group B members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 1700 UTC for 90 minutes. In preparation for this meeting, Sub Group members are requested to: 1. Familiarize themselves with the relevant sections of the Working Group Guidelines relating to the operation of sub teams. See https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-g… [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_d…>, Section 2.2.1 Chair, pages 4-5, Section 2.3 Use of Sub-Teams, page 6; and 3.3 Process Integrity, page 7, first paragraph. 2. Read the comments received on URS Recommendation #1 and Question #1 – click on the tab links URS Rec1 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…> and URS Q1 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…> in the spreadsheet at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRS… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…>, or see the links in the Table of Content [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…>s in the first tab. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Method of Operation (Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_d…>): * Chair * Reporting to the full WG * Reviewing the Public Comments and Summary * Work Plan [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…> 3. Reviewing Public Comments – See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRS… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…>, and go to the links in the Table of Content [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…>s on the first tab and below: * URS Recommendation #1 – tab link URS Rec1 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…> * URS Question #1 – tab link URS Q1 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…> 4. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie

1 0

Proposed Agenda -- GNSO RPMs PDP WG Sub Group B -- Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 1700 UTC
by Julie Hedlund May 22, 2020

May 22, 2020

Dear Sub Group B members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 1700 UTC for 90 minutes. In preparation for this meeting, Sub Group members are requested to: 1. Familiarize themselves with the relevant sections of the Working Group Guidelines relating to the operation of sub teams. See https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-g…, Section 2.2.1 Chair, pages 4-5, Section 2.3 Use of Sub-Teams, page 6; and 3.3 Process Integrity, page 7, first paragraph. 2. Read the comments received on URS Recommendation #1 and Question #1 – click on the tab links URS Rec1<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRS…> and URS Q1<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRS…> in the spreadsheet at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRS…, or see the links in the Table of Content<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRS…>s in the first tab. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Method of Operation (Working Group Guidelines<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-g…>): * Chair * Reporting to the full WG * Reviewing the Public Comments and Summary * Work Plan<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRS…> 3. Reviewing Public Comments – See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRS…, and go to the links in the Table of Content<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRS…>s on the first tab and below: * URS Recommendation #1 – tab link URS Rec1<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRS…> * URS Question #1 – tab link URS Q1<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRS…> 4. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie

2 1

Re: [GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGB] Scheduling Sub Group B Meetings
by Julie Hedlund May 21, 2020

May 21, 2020

Dear All, Welcome to Sub Group B, which will be reviewing comments for the URS recommendations and questions. See the work plan, third tab, at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PvkLsz4gQMXbkraeNq0iGjmwOJZsG9e7caN…. Per the Work Plan Sub Group B will meet weekly for 90 minutes on Thursdays. The first meeting will be scheduled on Thursday, 28 May. Staff has reviewed the ICANN schedule for conflicting meetings as well as the time zone distribution of the members of the Sub Group. Given these constraints, the least conflicted time to hold the meeting that works reasonably well for all time zones appears to be: 17:00-18:30 UTC on Thursday, 28 May Unless there are any objections, we’ll send out the meeting invite and agenda tomorrow for the above-mentioned time. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie

1 0