[Gnso-rpm-providers] Actions and Notes: URS Providers Call 04 April 2018

Thu Apr 5 00:03:32 UTC 2018

Dear All,

Please see below the actions and notes from today’s call. They have been posted on the meeting wiki page, along with the call recording, chat, and attendance record: https://community.icann.org/x/QoLpB.

For next week’s call (Wednesday, 11 April at 17:00-18:30 UTC), due to other simultaneous calls that will be using WebEx teleconference room (only two available for the GNSO), it would be audio only. GNSO Secretariat will follow up with dial in details in the call invitation. Staff will make relevant documents available via Google Doc and wiki to facilitate the discussion. Please let us know if you have any question/concern.

Thank you,
Ariel

Ariel Xinyue Liang
Policy Analyst | Washington, DC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

==
ACTION ITEMS:

  1.  Sub Team to review the Supplemental Rules of ADNDRC and MFSD and raise any additional questions on the Sub Team mailing list by Friday, 06 April.
  2.  Staff to consolidate all proposed questions, including the additional ones raised by Sub Team members on the mailing list by COB Friday, 06 April.
  3.  Phil Corwin to complete the initial editing/refinement of the proposed questions and share them with the Sub Team by Tuesday, 10 April.
  4.  Sub Team to finalize proposed questions during next week’s call on Wednesday, 11 April at 17:00-18:30 UTC.
  5.  Staff to check the definition of “Rollback” (DONE – please see below) (page 2 of Technical Requirements document)

Non-URS State (URS Rollback): This is the state of a domain name that is not under either URS Lock or URS Suspension. If the domain name is in URS Lock or URS Suspension, and if the URS Provider requests that the domain name be transitioned to a Non-URS State, the Registry Operator MUST restore the original information of the domain name. The reversion of a domain name to a Non-URS State is referred to as a URS Rollback.

·         Note: The Registry Operator MUST update the domain name to set the NS and DS information that was originally present in the domain name before the URS Suspension. If glue records were removed when the Registry Operator activated the URS Suspension, the Registry Operator MUST restore the required glue records.

NOTES:

  1.  Technical Requirements (Questions to Providers)
     *   Registry Requirement 2: Have Providers experienced any difficulties having the URS Lock activated on the disputed domain name within 24 hours after sending the request to Registry Operators?
     *   Registry Requirement 5: Have Providers gotten notifications from Registry Operators via email regarding the completion of URS actions on a domain name?
     *   Registry Requirement 6: Have Providers gotten notification via email from Registry Operator if a URS Locked or URS Suspended domain name has been either deleted or purged?
     *   Registry Requirement 7: Have Providers gotten information from ICANN with regard to the point of contact of BERO appointed by Registry Operators?
     *   Registry Requirement 10:
        *   Do Providers know any cases that Registry Operators refused to offer the option for URS Complainant to extend a URS Suspended domain name’s registration for an additional year?
        *   Why during the one additional year of URS Suspension, the domain name must remain registered to the Registrant, instead of the successful Complainant?
        *   To implement this provision, there seem to be eligibility restrictions for TLDs. Why the inconsistency?
     *   General Questions:
        *   Do Providers envision any difficulty complying with the provisions related to WHOIS in the URS Rules, Procedure, Technical Requirements, and Supplemental Rules, given the uncertainly related to GDPR that goes into effect after 25 May 2018?
        *   Do Providers have any difficulties complying with the highly technical requirements (e.g., PGP Keys, etc.)?
     *   Questions to Other Stakeholders
        *   [Registry Operators] Registry Requirement 5: If URS Suspension is activated, should it be optional or mandatory for Registry Operator to notify the Registrars of domain names that may be affected by potential resolution issues of child hosts that depend on the URS Suspended domain name? Would it be a burden to change “MAY” to “MUST” in the provision for sending such notifications?
        *   [ICANN GDD] Registry Requirement 8: Have ICANN received ERSR Waiver requests from Registry Operators? Has this provision been implemented?
        *   [ICANN GDD] Registry-Registrar Agreement: Have Registry Operators modified their Registry-Registrar Agreement to reflect these two requirements?
        *   [ICANN GDD] Registrar Requirement 2: Clarification on this provision is needed.

  1.  FORUM Supplemental Rules (Questions to Providers)
     *   4(b): Have Providers encountered any issues when dealing with Registrants from EU nations whose WHOIS info is needed URS proceedings?
     *   4(c): How will the rules pertaining to privacy or proxy services be affected if full access to WHOIS data is no longer available due to GDPR implementation?
     *   5(d):
        *   What is the purpose of this provision in the Supplemental Rules?
        *   Has there been any URS case filed against multiple Respondents? (Berry: None – there have been cases where Registrant and Organization are both listed, but they look to be the same).
        *   Have Examiners received requests for separate hearings from the multiple Respondents in the same URS proceeding?
     *   7(a)(b)(c): Have Providers received joint requests for a Stay of the Administrative Proceeding? If so, was the case reinstated or dismissed as a result of the Stay? Have Providers received any requests for a Stay post appointment of the Examiner?
     *   10(a): Can Providers provide a copy of the oath taken by the Examiners for being neutral and independent? Is the oath signed by the Examiners?
     *   10(b): Have any Examiner voluntarily disclosed any conflict of interest?
     *   10(c): Have any Party filed a request to challenge the selection of an Examiner? If so, how was the conflict of interest discovered?
     *   10(d): Why the request to challenge the selection of an Examiner must be filed within one (1) Business Day? Have any Party filed a challenge beyond the required time period? Have there been any difficulty to meet the deadline for filing a challenge?
     *   12: Why the phrase “without prejudice” is used in 12(a) but “with or without prejudice” is used in 12(b)? Why the inconsistency?
     *   15(b): What is the purpose of this provision? Has any Party requested to include or exclude certain information from a publicly available Determination? If so, how did the Provider act on such request?
     *   16(d):
        *   How often was a three-member Appeal Panel requested?
        *   To appoint Examiners to the three-member Appeal Panel, did the Providers encounter any difficulties appointing Examiners from each parties’ list to the Panel?
     *   Appendix A: Did any Party submit an individual file in excess 10MB? Did any Party submit electronic case documents in excess of 10MB, in the aggregate, per domain name?

  1.  Next Steps/Next Meeting

  *   Sub Team members to review the Supplemental Rules of ADNDRC and MFSD and raise questions via the mailing list by Friday, 06 April for incorporation.
  *   Wednesday, 11 April would be the last meeting of the Sub Team; task is to finalize all proposed questions for URS Providers; Phil to take the first stab at editing the questions and send the draft final questions by Tuesday, 10 April.
  *   After questions are finalized and forwarded to the full WG, the Sub Team would be dissolved.
  *   Providers may respond within 30 days after receiving the final questions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-providers/attachments/20180405/49397b70/attachment-0001.html>