[Gnso-rpm-providers] Redline Edits to Providers ST's URS Proposals - Review by COB Fri

[Justine Chew]

If nothing at all, shouldn't it be "*to* the Respondent" and not "by the
Respondent" in the first bullet?

Justine
-----

On Sat, 1 Sep 2018, 04:20 Ariel Liang, <ariel.liang at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Following the discussions about Justine’s message, staff would like to
> seek Providers Sub Team’s confirmation of the two outstanding proposed
> suggestions. Unless there is objection, staff intend to include the
> following in the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table:
>
>
>
>    1. *Suggested Operational Fix: *ADNDRC should change its operational
>    rules to comply with URS Procedure para 4.2, requiring that Notice of
>    Complaint be transmitted by the Respondent, with translation in the
>    predominant language of the Respondent, via email, fax, and postal mail *–
>    No Change*
>    2. *Suggested Action Item for the WG: *WG should consider explicit
>    standards for the sanction and removal of Examiners *– Staff to add a
>    note next to this item: “not finalized due to some support with opposition”*
>
>
>
> We will wait for an hour or so (apologies to members in the time zones
> outside of America), and if no objection, we will include these wordings in
> the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document by COB today for the
> circulation with the full WG. In the introductory note of the Super
> Consolidated Table, staff could include the caveat that not all Sub Team
> proposals are finalized due to continuing discussions of certain issues;
> Sub Team members are welcome to speak to them when the specific proposals
> are being discussed during the WG meetings.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry
>
>
>
> *From: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>
> *Date: *Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 1:51 PM
> *To: *"gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Redline Edits to Providers ST's URS Proposals - Review by COB
> Fri
>
>
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180901/061c966b/attachment-0001.html>