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_BcaggiXpoxiRSK... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...>, 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_spreadsheets_d_16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl-5FBcaggiXpoxiRSKFv1Mg18_edit-23gid-3D1837977994&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=aoUqfau-7-AxKB4o_Y8_EUfa8M4ZNEjCX4sT7vaWVMs&s=SfbeZk_1J5VmkNvb22Kdj1ax9Ro6I8FlrQSPFx_oRZ4&e=>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_spreads...> -- 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_spreads...> -- 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?