Hi All, Thank you for our discussion about the URS-1 last Tuesday. I appreciate the close read and consideration given to our research and history of the RPM WG Recommendation #1. We dug deeply into the Final Report and URS Rules. I look forward to continuing our discussion this week. For anyone who missed it, I reshare my email of last Sunday. Best regards, Kathy -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [RPM IRT] RPM IRT Updates & Scheduling for Future Meetings - URS-1 and the scope of our work Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2025 16:21:12 +0000 From: Kathryn Anne Kleiman <kleiman@wcl.american.edu> To: rpm-irt@icann.org <rpm-irt@icann.org>, Antonietta Mangiacotti <antonietta.mangiacotti@icann.org> Hi All, Belated Happy New Year greetings, and sending our thoughts, best wishes and prayers to friends and everyone in the LA area. In preparation for our last meeting (originally December), and URS-1, some of us did a lot of research and historical investigation. We dug deeply in the RPM PDP WG Final Report because our IRT discussion did not reach key questions – /what was the history of the section? What had the Working Group discussed? What was the range of the recommendation provided by the WG?/ */Did the RPM PDP Working Group want to invite broad and unbounded changes to the URS filing?/* We found that the RPM PDP WG had a very narrow purpose in its Recommendation #1, and a clear focus. We share our findings below with you – to take all of us back to the original policy discussions of the RPM IRT Working Group, now over five years ago. 1. The RPM PDP Working Group wrote a clear recommendation and provided written context for it. _ The Phase 1 Final Report of the RPM PDP Working Group sets out the concerns of this first recommendation (pages 7-9), _https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpm-phase-... <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpm-phase-1-proposed-24nov20-en.pdf>_ _ (bold added)_ : _ /_ “2.2 Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) Final Recommendations _/ /_ “2.2.1 URS Recommendations for New Policies and Procedures _/ */_ “URS Final Recommendation #1 _/* */_ “The Working Group recommends that URS Rule 3(b), and, where necessary, a URS Provider’s Supplemental Rules be amended to clarify that a Complainant must only be required to insert the publicly-available WHOIS/Registration Data Directory Service (RDDS) data for the domain name(s) at issue in its initial Complaint. _/* */_ “Furthermore, the Working Group recommends that URS Procedure paragraph 3.3 be amended to allow the Complainant to update the Complaint within 2-3 calendar days after the URS Provider provides updated registration data related to the disputed domain name(s). _/* /_ “Context: _/ /_ “This recommendation specifically concerns the following parts of the URS Rules and URS Procedure: _/ /_ • URS Rule 3(b)(iii): Provide the name of the Respondent and all other relevant contact __ information from the Whois record as well as all information known to Complainant __ regarding how to contact Respondent or any representative of Respondent, including __ contact information based on pre-complaint dealings, in sufficient detail to allow the __ Provider to notify the Respondent of the complaint as described in Rule 2(a); _/ /_ • URS Procedure paragraph 3.3: Given the rapid nature of this Procedure, and the __ intended low level of required fees, there will be no opportunity to correct inadequacies __ in the filing requirements. _/ /_ “Since the implementation of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), personally identifiable information, including a registrant’s contact details, has been masked in the public WHOIS/RDDS data. URS Providers receive the contact information and other relevant WHOIS/RDDS data of the registrants from Registries or Registrars. _/ /_ “In May 2018, the ICANN Board approved a Temporary Specification as an interim measure to __ bring existing WHOIS obligations in line with requirements of GDPR.6 In relation to the URS, __ Section 5.6 of the Temporary Specification obligates ICANN’s Contracted Parties to comply with Appendix D of the Temporary Specification (and, relatedly, Appendix E for the UDRP). Appendix D states that a Registry Operator “MUST provide the URS provider with the full Registration Data for each of the specified domain names, upon the URS Provider notifying the Registry Operator (or appointed BERO) of the existence of a Complaint, or participate in another mechanism to provide the full Registration Data to the Provider as specified by ICANN…” _/ Plus, we know the long-standing procedural provision which the RPM PDP Working Group expressly endorsed: URS Procedure paragraph 3.3, /_https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/urs-procedure-redline-21feb24-en... <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/urs-procedure-redline-21feb24-en.pdf>_/ /_ _/__ */_ “3.3 Given the rapid nature of this Procedure, and the intended low level of required _/**/_ fees, there will be no opportunity to correct inadequacies in the filing requirements.” _/*__ 2. If the RPM Policy Development Process Working Group wanted to modify other technical filing requirements of the URS Complainant, they could certainly have done so. There are many technical filing requirements of the URS listed in URS Rule 3(b), and the RPM PDP Working Group chose only one of them, 3(b)(iii), as the focus of its work (registrant contact data). Had the Working Group wanted to do so, it could have written recommendations to modify other technical filing requirements, including domain names, trademarks, and explanatory text because_ URS Rule 3(b)(iii) _is only one technical filing requirement among many specific URS technical filing requirements: URS Rules, _<https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/rules-21feb24-en.pdf>_ _https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/rules-21feb24-en.pdf <https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/rules-21feb24-en.pdf>_ __ /_ "3. The Complaint _/ /_ **** _/ /_ (b) The Complaint, including any annexes, shall be submitted using an electronic __ form made available by the Provider and shall: _/ /_ (i) Request that the Complaint be submitted for determination in __ accordance with the URS Procedure, these Rules and the Provider’s __ Supplemental Rules; _/ /_ (ii) Provide the name, contact person, postal and email addresses, and the __ telephone and telefax numbers of the Complainant and of any __ representative authorized to act for the Complainant in the URS __ proceeding; _/ /_ (iii) Provide the name of the Respondent and all other relevant contact __ information from the RDDS record as well as all information known to __ Complainant regarding how to contact Respondent or any representative __ of Respondent, including contact information based on pre-complaint __ dealings, in sufficient detail to allow the Provider to notify the Respondent __ of the complaint as described in Rule 2(a); The Complainant's Complaint __ must not be deemed defective for failure to provide the name of the __ Respondent (Registrant) and all other relevant contact information __ required by Section 3 of the URS Rules if such contact information of the __ Respondent is not available in Registration Data publicly available in __ RDDS or not otherwise known to Complainant. In such an event, __ Complainant may file a complaint against an unidentified Respondent and __ the Provider shall provide the Complainant with the relevant contact __ details of the Registrant after being presented with a complaint against an __ unidentified Respondent. _/ /_ (iv) Specify the domain name(s) that is/are the subject of the Complaint. __ The Complainant shall include a copy of the currently available __ Registration Data and a copy, if available, of the offending portion of the __ website content associated with each domain name that is the subject of __ the complaint; _/ /_ (v) Specify the trademark(s) or service mark(s) on which the complaint is __ based and the goods or services with which the mark is used including __ evidence of use – which can be a declaration and a specimen of current __ use in commerce - submitted directly or by including a relevant SMD __ (Signed Mark Data) from the Trademark Clearinghouse; _/ /_ (vi) Identify which URS Procedure elements (URS 1.2.6) the Complainant __ contends are being violated by Respondent’s use of the domain name. __ This will be done by selecting the elements from URS Procedure section __ 1.2.6 that apply from the list provided on the Provider’s Complaint form; _/ /_ (vii) An optional explanatory statement of no more than 500 words in a __ separate free form text box; _/ /_ (viii) Identify any other legal proceedings that have been commenced or __ terminated in connection with or relating to any of the domain name(s) that __ are the subject of the Complaint; _/ /_ (ix) State that Complainant will submit, with respect to any challenges to a __ determination in the URS proceeding, to the jurisdiction of the courts in at __ least one specified Mutual Jurisdiction; _/ /_ (x) Conclude with agreement to the following statement: _/ /_ “Complainant agrees that its claims and remedies concerning the __ registration of the domain name, the dispute, or the dispute's resolution __ shall be solely against the domain-name holder and waives all such claims __ and remedies against (a) the Provider and Examiner, except in the case of __ deliberate wrongdoing, (b) the Registrar, (c) the Registry Operator, and (d) __ the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, as well as __ their directors, officers, employees, and agents…. *** " _/ // 3. To go beyond the intent, work and express language of the RPM PDP Working Group, we respectfully submit takes this IRT into a policy-making territory, and we have no authority to do that. The goal of the RPM PDP Working Group, in light of its own record, recommendation, and context, shows that the WG intended to allow Registrant data to be added – a modification to one of the many URS technical filing requirements. To do more, unfortunately, is for us to create policy. But Implementation Review Teams do not have the authority to write policy. We seek to implement the rules and recommendations created by the Policy Development Process Working Groups. It is these PDPs that have the time, opportunity, and mandate for broader policy research, debate, discussion and creation/modification. That’s simply no our IRT mandate. Thus, and although it meant diving deeply, we share with you our research and the clear and narrow intent of the RPM PDP Working Group to solve the then-very relevant concern of the GDPR and newly-redacted Registrant data – and the need, very specifically, to be able to add that data into the filing. At this point, allowing changes to other filing requirements, including trademarks, domain names and explanatory statements, is for us to enter the realm of policy and that is beyond our mandate. Best, Kathy -------------- p.s. Here is the analysis we added to the *December 6th Staff Report*, as requested by the IRT and Staff (edited to correct a few misspellings): “Assessment from some members of the RPM-IRT” "It is clear to us after careful review of the full text of the Recommendation of the Final Report, and the wording of URS Rule 3(b)(iii), that the RPM PDP Working Group intended a narrow tweak to the URS rules and procedures. Specifically, and prior to GDRP, the original URS Rules in the first round required the URS Complainant to list the contact details of the URS Respondent and then URS Procedure 3.3 barred any changes to the Complaint. But after the GDPR implementation in May 2018, and the redaction of WHOIS data by ICANN-Accredited Registrars, most Complainants did not have the data of the domain name Registrant, the Respondent. Accordingly, they could not enter it, and they were concerned that their URS Complaints might be deemed inadequate or incomplete. This is the issue to which the RPM PDP Working /Group dedicated itself (with two of its members in this group and part of this assessment). It is very clear in Recommendation One that the WG group agreed to allow the Complainant to a) learn who the Registrant is after filing the URS Complaint and b) without penalty, amend her/his/its complaint to reflect this new data. That required a narrowly-tailored change to one section of the URS Rules, namely Recommendation One to modify the technical filing requirement to include Registrant data in the complaint, URS Rule 3(b)(iii), URS Procedure 3.3, barring any changes to the Complaint. The RPM PDP WG agreed to allow the Complainant to insert the Registrant data into the Complaint after a process of discovery after the filing of the Complaint. If the Working Group had wanted to amend any other section of the Complaint’s Technical Filing Requirements, it would have done so, and modified URS Rule 3b(iv) - domain names – or URS Rule 3b(vi) the Complaint. But the Working Group did not even discuss any other type of change – just the addition of Registrant data. The RPM Working Group did not debate, evaluate or consider the costs, problems, issues or concerns of modifying a complaint to add one (or 100) more domain names or to change in part (or in whole) the original Complaint already submitted to the Provider. If such wholesale changes had been discussed, the Working Group would have a record and the recommendations would have reflected the agreement. Instead, we have a very narrowly-tailored recommendation to allow the Complaint to amend one (and just one) technical filing detail of the Complaint, and that’s the Registrant data. Nothing more. To do more - regardless of additional cost or effort (and our IRT discussion revealed there is a great deal of both to add domain names and modify the complaint) – is to greatly exceed the scope and power of the Implementation Review Team. Such broader changes would be new policy, and such new policy is beyond the scope of an IRT. Policy can only be made by a PDP Working Group or the Council." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Antonietta Mangiacotti via RPM-IRT <rpm-irt@icann.org> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 14, 2025 2:51 PM *To:* rpm-irt@icann.org <rpm-irt@icann.org> *Subject:* [RPM-IRT] Re: [RPM IRT] RPM IRT Updates & Scheduling for Future Meetings Dear RPM IRT, We’d like to follow up on our previous email to inform you that the RPM IRT meetings will now be scheduled biweekly on *Tuesdays at 18:00 UTC. As a result, Meeting #14 will take place on Tuesday, 21 January,* instead of this week. The invitation will be sent out later this week. Additionally, please find the agenda for the call below, which is also available on the _wiki <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=413335567>_: *PROPOSED AGENDA* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Review updated RPM implementation _timeline <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/413335567/RPM%20Implementation%20Timeline.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1736539598000&api=v2>_ 2. Discuss publication of educational materials (Groups 2) 3. Continue discussion on next steps on _RPM Recommendation URS-1 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T9r4uTI4W9QB8QA0zLOumblGPSRsG1v4cfkavS4isOk/edit?tab=t.0>_ regarding the scope of amendments to a complaint (URS _Rules <https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1dC3BIYxnIb2zZks1AOnrUNEkQJCzi8EKaCAbGMP1MKo/edit>_ Section 3(b)(iii)) 4. Continue reviewing the revised _Trademark Claims Notice <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Uy481hQk3Q-5gkabWig5JVswLxjngdI8Hy1cxMtAeSE/edit?tab=t.0>_ 5. AOB Please let us know of any questions. Thank you! Best, Antonietta *From: *Antonietta Mangiacotti <antonietta.mangiacotti@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, January 6, 2025 at 4:47 PM *To: *"rpm-irt@icann.org" <rpm-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *[RPM IRT] RPM IRT Updates & Scheduling for Future Meetings Dear RPM IRT, Happy New Year! I hope you all had a restful and enjoyable holiday break. As we prepare to reconvene this month, we would like to provide a recap of the progress made with the work related to the following RPM implementation groups: *Group 1*: Currently, there are two open implementation items in this group: * *URS Recommendation 1*: We requested IRT feedback on the URS-1 _document <https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1T9r4uTI4W9QB8QA0zLOumblGPSRsG1v4cfkavS4isOk/edit?tab=t.0>_ by 6 December 2024. Staff has since updated the document to include: o Additional text in Section I (Background) o Additional text in Section II (“Inputs from the IRT”), incorporating summarized input from a few RPM IRT members o /The new text added since 6 December is highlighted in yellow in the URS-1 document/ As a reminder, due to the lack of consensus within the IRT regarding the language for URS Rule 3(b), the next step, as per the IRT _Principles and Guidelines <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irt-principles-guidelines-23aug16-en.pdf>_, is to raise the issue with the GNSO Council liaison at the next IRT meeting. The liaison will assess the level of consensus and determine whether the matter should be brought to the GNSO Council for their consideration at their 13 February meeting. Consequently, the RPM implementation _timeline <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/382042176/RPM%20Implementation%20Timeline.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1728405824000&api=v2>_, which had originally targeted the completion of Group 1 items by December 2024, will need to be revised. * *Trademark Claims Notice*: We appreciate the input many of you have already shared on the Trademark Claims notice _document <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Uy481hQk3Q-5gkabWig5JVswLxjngdI8Hy1cxMtAeSE/edit?tab=t.0>_. *Please continue to review the changes and provide any additional feedback before IRT Meeting #14, where we will continue our discussion on this item.* *Group 2*: All final edits/comments to the educational materials were requested by 6 December 2024, and the _document <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f4dJe4ADSHinhChPVRpY3JiVwNCAf61CeuQOBS4mkk4/edit?tab=t.0>_ is now considered final. At our next IRT Meeting #14, staff will discuss with the IRT whether it makes sense to proceed with the publication of the educational materials now, or whether it would be preferable to wait until the revised RPM documents (such as the URS and RPM Requirements) are finalized, allowing us to publish everything together as initially planned. *Group 3*: Staff is currently working with the relevant internal departments on the implementation of URS Recommendation 12, the only recommendation in this group, which calls for stakeholders involved in the URS process to review and update contact data. We will provide an update to the RPM IRT once the details regarding the implementation of this recommendation are finalized. *Meeting Schedule*: As mentioned before the holiday break, we would like to establish a recurring schedule for RPM meetings going forward and propose holding them every other week. *Please take a moment to review the available options below for Meeting #14 (which will also serve as the time for future IRT meetings) and indicate your availability here: *_https://doodle.com/meeting/participate/id/eE1G60le <https://doodle.com/meeting/participate/id/eE1G60le>_ * *Tuesday, 14 January (18:00 - 19:00 UTC)* * *Wednesday, 15 January (18:00 - 19:00 UTC)* * *Wednesday, 15 January (19:00 - 20:00 UTC)* * *Wednesday, 15 January (21:00 - 22:00 UTC)* * *Thursday, 16 January (19:00 - 20:00 UTC)* Lastly, the proposed agenda and materials for RPM IRT Meeting #14 are also available on the _wiki page <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=413335567>_. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us. Best, Antonietta & Karen