[Gnso-rpm-providers] Redline Edits to Providers ST's URS Proposals - Review by COB Fri
Justine Chew
justine.chew at gmail.com
Thu Aug 30 08:37:36 UTC 2018
Aside from the 'discussion' on interpretation of URS Rule 2(a), I had only
1 other point to raise for consideration:
M.1. Suggested Action Item for the WG (found at ~ page 43 of Redline doc),
which reads,
*WG should consider explicit standards for the sanction and removal of
Examiners.*
I suggest to refine this to read as,
WG should consider explicit *practice(*1) standards for the sanction and
removal of Examiners *for non-declaration of a conflict of
interest*,(2) *non-performance
or malfeasance*.(3) [numbers added to facilitate explanation below]
- (1) "practice standards" as opposed to just "standards" so as to avoid
confusion with the term "standards" (to mean examination standards) which
is already used in the URS Procedures;
- (2) "for non-declaration of a conflict of interest" and (3)
"non-performance of malfeasance" are suggested as the areas for which
sanction and removal need to be considered; the omission of which seems to
suggest a sort of uneasy open-endedness'; and
- (3) "non-performance or malfeasance" is drawn from URS Procedure 7.3
My two-cents. Or if anyone wishes to soften the language, please go ahead.
Justine
-----
On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 at 01:51, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Per staff action item, we have updated the Super Consolidated URS Table
> with the suggested edits agreed to by the Sub Team, shown in redline.
> Please note:
>
> - Per ST’s direction, Staff inserted additional language in the
> proposed policy recommendations in section “L. Education & Training” (page
> 38-39) in light of the staff review of Providers’ online forms and Notice
> of Complaint (see staff review in the email attached).
> - Susan’s suggested operational fix with regard to compliance is
> inserted in section “F. Remedies 2./3.” (page 28)
> - Staff also slightly edited the language of “Provider ST’s Suggested
> Action Items for the WG” for consistency
>
>
>
> *ACTION for SUB Team*: Please review the latest redline language of all
> of Providers ST’s policy recommendations, operational fixes, and suggested
> action items for the WG by *COB Friday, 31 August.* If no objection or
> comment/input received, the redline language will be accepted by COB
> Friday, 31 August.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry
>
>
>
> *From: *Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces at icann.org> on
> behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Date: *Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 9:41 AM
> *To: *"gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Gnso-rpm-providers] Actions & Notes: RPM Providers Sub Team
> 29 August 2018
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the
> Providers Sub Team call held on 29 August 2018 (12:00-13:30 UTC). Staff
> have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. *Please note
> that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for
> the recording.* The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted
> on the wiki at:
> https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-08-29+Sub+Team+for+URS+Providers.
>
>
>
>
> See also the attached referenced documents.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
>
>
> ==
>
>
>
> *ACTION ITEMS: *
>
>
>
> 1. Susan Payne will suggest language for an overarching recommendation
> concerning the need for ICANN Compliance proactive monitoring.
> 2. Staff will update the Super Consolidated URS Table with the
> suggested edits agreed to by the Sub Team shown in redline. Note in the
> cover email that staff has inserted additional language in the Education
> and Training section at the direction of the Sub Team. Ask for responses
> by COB Friday and if no objections the redlined document will be accepted
> by COB Friday.
>
>
>
> *NOTES:*
>
>
>
> *Operational Fixes:*
>
>
>
> A. THE COMPLAINT
>
>
>
> 4. Administrative review
>
>
>
> *A URS provider should check the websites of other URS and UDRP providers
> to ensure that a disputed domain name is not already subject to an
> open/active URS/UDRP proceeding.*
>
>
>
> -- I think registrant is in the best position, but I'm assuming it's not
> difficult for the providers to check?
>
> -- Accept the suggested revised language.
>
>
>
> 6. Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec -- page 5/6
>
>
>
> *Providers should modify their operational rules in terms of automatically
> populating the Complaint Form using WHOIS data.*
>
> -and-
>
> *GDD, [Providers, and Registries] should [jointly] develop a uniform
> system for interaction between the Providers and the Registries regarding
> registrant data that is unavailable in publicly accessible WHOIS *
>
> *[*rules *for the timely response by Registries to requests for
> non-public information from Providers]*
>
>
>
> -- Not what sure we are suggesting -- what do we mean by "develop a
> uniform system for interaction" -- do we mean a system for timely response
> from the Providers?
>
> -- Accept the suggested revised language with strikeouts and additional
> text in brackets.
>
>
>
> B. NOTICE
>
>
>
> 1. Receipt by Registrant - Notice (feedback from Complainant & Respondent)
>
>
>
> *ADNDRC should change its operational rules to comply with URS Procedure
> 4.2, requiring that notice of the Complaint be transmitted [with
> translation] by the registrant via email, fax, and postal mail.*
>
>
>
> -- Accept the suggested revised language.
>
>
>
> 2. Effect on Registry Operator - Notice requirements for Registry Operators
>
>
>
> *ICANN’s email addresses for Registry contacts (reached by Providers)
> should be kept up to date*
>
> -and-
>
> *GDD, [Providers, and registries] should [jointly] develop a uniform
> system for interaction between the Providers and the Registries regarding
> Registry notice requirements*
>
>
>
> -- What does "(reached by Providers)" mean? Strike the parenthetical and
> change to "should be kept up to date for use by Providers".
>
> -- Accept the suggested revised language with additional text in brackets.
>
>
>
> F. REMEDIES
>
>
>
> 3. Review of Implementation
>
>
>
> *There should be efforts undertaken to better inform and enhance the
> understanding by Registry Operators and Registrars of their role in the URS
> process*
>
>
>
> -- Accept the suggested revised language
>
> ACTION ITEM: Susan Payne will suggest language for an overarching
> recommendation concerning the need for ICANN Compliance proactive
> monitoring.
>
>
>
> J. LANGUAGE ISSUES
>
>
>
> 1. Language issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice
> of complaint, response, determination
>
>
>
> *ICANN should enforce the URS Rules 9 and URS Procedure 4.2 with respect
> to Providers communicating with the Registrant in the predominant language
> of the Registrant. In particular, as the WG has found that ADNDRC is not in
> compliance with URS Procedure 4.2 and URS Rules 9, ICANN should request
> ADNDRC to change their operational rules and to translate the Notice of
> Complaint “into the predominant language used in the Registrant’s country
> or territory”.*
>
>
>
> -- Accept the suggested revised language.
>
>
>
> M. URS PROVIDERS
>
>
>
> 1. Evaluation of URS providers and their respective processes (including
> training of panelists)
>
>
>
> *Provider compliance with URS Rule 6(a) should be enforced. ADNDRC, in
> particular, should be required to list the backgrounds of all of their
> Examiners so that Complainants and Respondents can check for conflicts of
> interest. *
>
>
>
> -- Accept the suggested revised language.
>
>
>
> *Policy Proposals:*
>
>
>
> A. THE COMPLAINT
>
>
>
> 6. Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec
>
>
>
> *URS Rule 3(b) should be amended in light of GDPR and the permissible
> filing of a “Doe Complaint”. *
>
> -and-
>
> *URS Procedure para 3.3 should be amended to enable modification of the
> Complaint within 2-3 days from disclosure of the full registration data by
> the URS Provider.*
>
> -and-
>
> *Outreach and education efforts should be undertaken via expert
> intermediaries to increase awareness and understanding of the common law
> concept of “Doe Complaint” in civil law jurisdictions, especially the EU.*
>
>
>
> -- Accept the suggested revised language.
>
> -- Re: "WG to communicate with the EPDP Team about this issue: European
> civil law systems do not recognize the common law concept of "Doe
> Complaint", and the concept is not well understood in Europe" This could
> be addressed in an informal note.
>
>
>
> B. NOTICE
>
>
>
> 1. Receipt by Registrant -Notice (feedback from Complainant & Respondent)
>
>
>
> *For “Doe Complaints’, Providers should [first] send notice to respondents
> [via the online registrant contact form and then by the required methods]
> as soon as relevant WHOIS data is forwarded by the registry.*
>
>
>
> -- Accept the suggested revised language with additional text in brackets.
>
>
>
> E. DEFENSES
>
>
>
> 1. Scope of Defenses
>
>
>
> 2. Unreasonable delay in filing a complaint (i.e. laches)
>
>
>
> *All Providers should provide similar types and forms of guidance to their
> examiners.*
>
> -and-
>
> *Examiners should document their rationale in all issued Determinations;
> in particular, when an Examiner finds that a registrant has registered and
> used a domain in bad faith supporting facts should be cited.*
>
>
>
> -- Accept the suggested revised language.
>
>
>
> F. REMEDIES
>
>
>
> 2. Duration of Suspension Period
>
>
>
> 3. Review of Implementation
>
>
>
> *URS Technical Requirements 3 and Registry Requirement 10 should be
> amended, [and compliance efforts should be directed,] to address problems
> with the implementation of the relief awarded following a URS decision; the
> implementation of a settlement (generally a domain transfer at the
> registrar level); and implementation of Complainant requests to extend a
> suspension.*
>
>
>
> -- Do we need to mention ICANN Compliance role at all? Reword accordingly.
>
> -- Accept the suggested revised language.
>
>
>
> K. ABUSE OF PROCESS
>
>
>
> 1. Misuse of the process, including by trademark owners, registrants and
> “repeat offenders”
>
>
>
> *Penalties for the abuse of the process by the Respondent should be added
> to the URS Rules; this proposal should be published to solicit public
> comment on what type of procedural abuse should be sanctioned, and in what
> manner.*
>
>
>
> -- Don't think that anything discussed in the Providers Sub team to
> support or oppose this notion. We could seek public comment on it.
>
> -- Our "position" could be that this examination be for both Complainant
> and Respondent for fairness. But okay to action item to WG rather than as a
> recommendation.
>
> -- Create a new section 3: Suggested Action Items: The WG should consider
> whether to include the following question in the Initial Report for the
> purpose of soliciting public comment: “Are penalties for abuse of the
> process by the Complianant or Respondent sufficient, or if not, or should
> they be expanded, and how?"
>
> -- Accept the suggested approach.
>
>
>
> Re: "WG to consider whether, in light of FORUM and MFSD feedback on use of
> WHOIS to help determine Respondent language, policy recommendations should
> be developed to handle language and related GDPR concerns."
>
>
>
> -- Not sure why this should be a concern since the information about the
> country should be available.
>
> -- Agree GDPR should not be a concern insofar as country of Registrant is
> concerned.
>
> -- Change from a recommendation to an action.
>
>
>
> L. EDUCATION & TRAINING
>
> 1. Responsibility for education and training of complainants, registrants,
> registry operators and registrars
>
>
>
> *ICANN [should] develop easy-to-understand, multilingual, and linkable
> guidance (e.g. basic FAQs) for reference and informational purposes of both
> URS parties (Complainants and Respondents)*
>
> -and-
>
> *URS Providers should develop additional clear and concise reference and
> informational materials specific to their service, practice, and website
> for the use and benefit of both URS parties. *
>
>
>
> -- Accept the suggested revised language.
>
>
>
> M. URS PROVIDERS
>
> 1. Evaluation of URS providers and their respective processes (including
> training of panelists)
>
>
>
> *Explicit standards for [for the sanction and removal of Examiners should
> be considered” removal of Examiners based upon particular background and
> factors, such as continued representation of serial cybersquatters, or
> representation of parties found to have engaged in attempted reverse domain
> name hijacking, should be developed.*
>
>
>
> -- I don't think we identified that there was a problem.
>
> -- Reword "Explicit standards for the sanction and removal of Examiners
> should be considered." Put into Section 3, Suggested Action Items.
>
> -- Accept the suggested revised language with strikeouts and additional
> text in brackets.
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>
> To: "gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 13:45:23 -0400
> Subject: Staff's Review of Notice of Complaint & Providers' Forms &
> Instructions
>
> Dear Providers Sub Team members,
>
>
>
> *Per Action Item 4: Staff to review the Notice of Complaint and Providers’
> forms and instructions to assist the Sub Team to consider proposed
> suggestions, if any. *
>
>
>
> Staff reviewed all the requested materials and found:
>
> - *Notice of Complaint*: While ADNDRC didn’t provide the requested
> document, it seems that FORUM and MFSD have provided quite thorough
> instruction to the Respondent about the steps and what to expect in the URS
> proceedings.
> - *Complaint/Response/Appeal forms*: Providers vary in terms of the
> amount of guidance they provide to the URS Parties. E.g., FORUM provides
> PowerPoint Demo with step-by-step instructions; MFSD references specific
> URS Rules/Procedure & Supplemental Rules in detail; ADNDRC seems to only
> provide simple forms.
>
>
>
> Please see the notes below for details.
>
>
>
> Before the review of those materials, Providers Sub Team proposed the
> following draft recommendations for the WG’s consideration:
>
> 1. WG to discuss whether to recommend ICANN to develop an
> easy-to-understand, multilingual, and linkable guidance (e.g. basic FAQs)
> for both URS parties
> 2. WG to discuss whether Providers should develop additional materials
> specific to their service, practice, website, etc.
>
>
>
> *QUESTION:** Does the Sub Team believe any of those draft recommendations
> need to be amended?*
>
>
>
> Staff have included the links to materials in case you would like to
> reference on your own.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry
>
>
>
> ==
>
> *Detailed Findings*
>
>
>
> Notice of Complaint
>
> - ADNDRC didn’t provide the Notice of Complaint but provided an email
> they send to the Complainant to acknowledge receipt of the Complaint
> - FORUM and MFSD seem to provide thorough instruction to the
> Respondent about the steps, timelines, fees, potential outcomes, and other
> details of the URS proceedings. They also provided the contact information
> if the Respondent needs assistance. Links to the URS Rules, procedure, and
> Supplemental Rules are included in the Notice of Complaint.
>
>
>
> Complaint Form
>
> - ADNDRC: A simple form, no additional instruction on the form itself
> for the Complainant; didn’t ask for fax number from the Complainant and the
> Respondent (it is required in the URS Rule 3b)
> - FORUM: Includes a PowerPoint Demo for the Complainant about how to
> file a Complaint using their online portal, with step-by-step instructions
> and references to specific URS Rules/Procedure
> - MFSD: A Standard form but includes detailed references to specific
> URS Rules/Procedure and MFSD Supplemental Rules
> - All three Providers: Ask the Complainant to provide supporting
> documentation regarding the TM registration and proof of use
>
>
>
> Response Form
>
> - ADNDRC: A simple form, no additional instruction on the form itself
> for the Respondent; the handwritten notes on page 3-4 are a little bit
> confusing, and also there is text being crossed out
> - FORUM: Includes a PowerPoint Demo for the Respondent about how to
> file a Response using their online portal, with step-by-step instructions
> and references to specific URS Procedure
>
>
> - MFSD: A Standard form but includes detailed references to specific
> URS Rules/Procedure and MFSD Supplemental Rules
>
>
>
> Appeal Form
>
> - ADNDRC: A simple form, no additional instruction on the form itself
> for the Appellant/Appellee
> - FORUM: Includes a PowerPoint Demo for the Appellant and the Appellee
> about how to file an Appeal/Appeal Response using their online portal, with
> step-by-step instructions and references to specific URS Procedure
> - MFSD: A Standard form but includes detailed references to specific
> URS Rules/Procedure and MFSD Supplemental Rules
>
>
>
> *Requested Materials *
>
> ADNDRC:
>
> - ADNDRC Complaint Form
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/ADNDRC-Complaint%20Form.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1528731790000&api=v2>
> - ADNDRC Response Form
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/ADNDRC_Attachment%202_URS%20Response%20Form.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1534947742423&api=v2>
> - ADNDRC Appeal Form
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/ADNDRC_Attachment%203_URS%20Appeal%20Form.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1534947763063&api=v2>
> - ADNDRC Notice of Complaint
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/ADNDRC_Attachment%201_Notice%20of%20Complaint.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1534947715236&api=v2>
>
>
>
> FORUM:
>
> - FORUM Complaint Form
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/Forum-Appendix%20A.pptx?version=1&modificationDate=1528731896000&api=v2>
> - FORUM Response Form
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/Forum-Appendix%20B.pptx?version=1&modificationDate=1528731908000&api=v2>
> - FORUM Appeal Form
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/Forum-Appendix%20D.pptx?version=1&modificationDate=1529759423000&api=v2>
> - FORUM Notice of Complaint
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/FORUM_NOTICE%20OF%20COMPLAINT.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1534862777342&api=v2>
>
>
>
> MFSD:
>
> - MFSD Complaint Form
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/MFSD-Complaint%20Form.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1528731818000&api=v2>
> - MFSD Response Form
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/MFSD-Response%20Form.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1528731829000&api=v2>
> - MFSD Appeal Form
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/MFSD-Appeal%20Form.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1528731871000&api=v2>
> - MFSD Notice of Complaint
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/MFSD_Notice%20of%20complaint%20to%20Respondent_EN.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1534261222375&api=v2>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list
> Gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-providers/attachments/20180830/5cbad707/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-rpm-providers
mailing list