[gnso-rpm-wg] Recordings, Attendance, AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 15 November 2017 17:00 UTC
Terri Agnew
terri.agnew at icann.org
Wed Nov 15 20:32:37 UTC 2017
Dear All,
Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3,
Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all
Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Wednesday,
15 November 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page:
https://community.icann.org/x/egByB
MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-15nov17-en.mp3
Adobe Connect recording:
<https://participate.icann.org/p8ykgtkkwoh/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=ce7e785a0a091b72
246862de4fa632b84d8777a9ce753fff8c3bfcf2940c2a6f>
https://participate.icann.org/p8ykgtkkwoh/
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master
Calendar page: <https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar>
https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/>
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/
Main wiki page for the working group:
<https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw> https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri
Adobe Connect chat transcript for 15 November 2017:
Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms
(RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Wednesday, 15 November 2017 at
17:00 UTC for 90 minute duration.
Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page:
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_
egByB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI
gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wGj1MdxonDKms
&s=kjzUHs1lkd31YpjR-olT5SZb7tdRYAZmCDhDrjf2hMU&e>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_e
gByB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIg
mkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wGj1MdxonDKms&
s=kjzUHs1lkd31YpjR-olT5SZb7tdRYAZmCDhDrjf2hMU&e=
George Kirikos:Hi folks.
Kathy Kleiman:Hi George and All!
George Kirikos:Welcome Kathy.
Paul Tattersfield:Hi Everyone
George Kirikos:Hi Paul.
Philip Corwin:Hello all
Paul Tattersfield:Congratulations on your new appointment Phil
Philip Corwin:Thanks Paul.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Registry call immediately
precedes this.
Susan Payne:this works well for the RySG call which just finished
Mary Wong:Yes, both RySG and this WG call changed according to the change
in daylight savings
Steve Levy:Sorry for joining late
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): Hello all
Kathy Kleiman:Next slide, please
George Kirikos:Muffled audio?
John McElwaine:Are these the identical slides that we went over in Abu
Dhabi or have they been edited based upon our discussions there?
Rebecca L Tushnet:Can other people hear?
Terri Agnew:@Kristine, let me know if a dial out is needed on the
telephone
George Kirikos:Not well.
Mary Wong:@John, these are the same slides
WIPO - Brian Beckham:(very muffled, Kristine)
George Kirikos:It's best to use the telephone bridge.
George Kirikos:VOIP sucks.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:This is the same headset
that's been craxy loud until now...weird.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):skype to ICANN's number works fine sometimes
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:just waiting for someone to
pick up
Terri Agnew:I have alerted the op
WIPO - Brian Beckham:(sorry)
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'm bad
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:back
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:LOL
George Kirikos:All the docs are at:
<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-November/002560.html>
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-November/002560.html for
those who want to scroll on their own.
WIPO - Brian Beckham:Have we agreed not to use a subteam to refine these
URS questions?
Mary Wong:@Brian, I believe not using a sub taem for URS charter questions
is something the co-chairs are proposing
Jon Nevett:Does Kristine get an award for that??
George Kirikos:Plus additional questions in the middle column of that
table.
George Kirikos:+1 Kristine
Susan Payne:only if i get one too Jon. and I think we deserve something
:)
George Kirikos:Those 2 other columns would be blank, so this is just a
starting point.
Brian J Winterfeldt:Wanted to send along aplogies for Lori Schulman from
INTA who continues to unfortunately be under the weather.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:To be clear, this slide is
current charter questions? Not proposed new ones?
Mary Wong:@KRistine, yes
George Kirikos:Right, the "new" ones were in that 2nd document.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:OK, good. thanks for helping
me catch up.
Mary Wong:The additional document that Julie sent around has the
additional sugestions
George Kirikos:Plus, other ones that might come up (I have a couple of
questions to add, when we get to the next slide).
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Brian, the subteams who've
used this process HAVE extensively relied on offline review and doc
collaboration. I expect we'll get there.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Point being: I think you're
not wrong, just early.
claudio:once we finalize the list of questions, I think it may make sense
to consider using subteams, if for example there are 4-5 major URS subtopics
under review
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree with Phil, if you
wouldn't join a URS Subteam, then skip Wednesdays for a while. :)
Paul Tattersfield:Would it be possible to unlock the slides please
George Kirikos:I think we've all read them already?
Mary Wong:Link to the slides:
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_
Qi0hB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI
gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wGj1MdxonDKms
&s=v86KacsCe-Cb6EsBRSZsTgY07BKNaxDMkeCFPEMIhMc&e>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_Q
i0hB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIg
mkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wGj1MdxonDKms&
s=v86KacsCe-Cb6EsBRSZsTgY07BKNaxDMkeCFPEMIhMc&e=
Paul Tattersfield: thank you
Susan Payne:sorry, I forgeot to dial in
J. Scott:Given the low turnout in Abu Dahbi, reading the comments would be
helpful.
Terri Agnew:Susasn is on audio
J. Scott:Couldn't we shorten Q1 so the question isn't so convoluted?
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I think one of the problems
with these questions is that they ask for a recommendation without
highlighting the issue. I think we can sort of imagine what the problems
might be but I wonder if our chart should have an "issues" column so we can
try to identify the "why"
WIPO - Brian Beckham:@J Scott: perhaps it should be broken up into
different questions?
J. Scott:+1 @ Kristine
George Kirikos:Ensures due process for registrant.
WIPO - Brian Beckham:Agree with Kristine - this goes to my earlier comment
about these questions making unstated assumptions/lacking context.
Griffin Barnett:Agree we could improve the clarity of Q1, and also agree
with Kristine's suggestion of expressly identifying the issue/concern that
the Q is aimed at addressing
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:For examples, is Q1, really:
Do defaulting respondents get a disproportionate benefit from the extended
reply period? Do complainants have disproportionate uncertainty? Is the
extended reply process even used?
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:^Example, not opinion
George Kirikos:Cracking noise on audio.
Mary Wong:@Brian, what unstated assumptions or context is lacking?
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Mary, I think it's the same
problem we had on the claims subteam, where every question is "should we do
x" without any statement of the concern (and which party might be affected)
J. Scott:Agree Kristine.
Jeff Neuman:There are a number of us on this call and in this group that
were part of the original drafters of the URS from the IRT, STI, etc. I
think I speak for all of us when we state that every word of the URS was
intentionally put in there for a reason and had a purpose. All of this is
to say that context is going to be critical within this group
Jon Nevett:One related issue to add please is whether an unsuccessful
registrant should be able to renew the domain name (unlimited renewal or
just during an appeal)
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:It reads like a hodgepodge of
wishlists from a variety of parties....no context (again, this is par for
the charter questions we've been looking at)
Terri Agnew:Cracking is from Claudio's line, we are attemping to adjust on
the telephone side
Mary Wong:@Kristine and everyone - as noted previously, these are
basically all the suggestions received from comments without any further
edits from the Council
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes, for sure Mary
George Kirikos:Are burdens shifted in court when parties have lost cases
previously? Methinks not.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Just flagging "same problem"
:)
Paul Tattersfield:Good question
Griffin Barnett:@Jon, good question; we can probably address this in
connection with the remedies question(s)
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree, Susan, our edits column
needs to not only address context, but also neutrality
Paul McGrady:+1 Susan. The questions can't presuppose the answers to the
unasked questions.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Charter questions should be
neutral.
Susan Payne:we want to edit
Susan Payne:we spend months editing previously - possibly too long. But no
editing at all misses the balance entirely
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I am not sure similarity could be checked via a
cheap simple process
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree with Susan. Whether we
call this "the WG" or a "subteam", we cannot skip the editing step.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:If people don't want to do
that, they need to skip a few calls.
Susan Payne:excellent suggestion J Scott
J. Scott:Before you call on me I heard Jonathan Matkowsky speak upt
Paul McGrady:@J. Scott - +1
Paul McGrady:Agree. Let's get them organized and then clean them up to be
nuetral and clear.
Mary Wong:@J Scott, @Kristine and everyone - presumably this exercise
should not only clarify the actual questions but also fill in gaps if needed
(as per the other Sub Teams for the other RPMs)?
J. Scott:We could take a look at the suggested edits each week and come to
consensus.
Cyntia King:+1 J Scott
WIPO - Brian Beckham:Yes, agree Mary, we should have the opportunity to
add questions, as needed
George Kirikos:Yes, the recent 3-letter .com default cases have helped
highlight this issue.
George Kirikos:(in the UDRP)
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree Mary. I am advocating
strongly (since my first comment today) that we repeat the SAME process
we've used previously.
J. Scott:@Mary and Brian. I agree. We can edit the curent questions for
clarity and neutrality and add any additional questions the group feels are
need to fill gaps to cover the issue identified.
Susan Payne:@Kristine -= me too
Paul McGrady:@Kathy - very useful exercise
Susan Payne:@Kathy, well there were various comments in AD about the Qs,
but since these are the same slides those comments haven't yet been
incorporated. When we have our grid it can capture feedback from both
sessions
Susan Payne:You can seek a declaration of non infringement in the UK
George
WIPO - Brian Beckham:An example of what I meant earlier: this third
bullet asks "how" the appeals process can be "expanded" without asking
whether it should be, and if so, why (and what does "expanded" mean anyhow?)
Griffin Barnett:+1 Brian...maybe just "improved"
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):a simple village court hearing halts URS ...
Jon Nevett:I'm putting this back in chat b/c the question might be more
applicable here -- One related issue to add please is whether an
unsuccessful registrant should be able to renew the domain name (unlimited
renewal or just during an appeal)
Michael R Graham:My Chat is not opeating correctly -- it is still
congratulating Phil -- which is great, but misses the postings.
Susan Payne:We are dealing with the URS here. Not the UDRP. Just to be
clear
Sara Bockey:I will need to drop at the top of the hour for another call.
Griffin Barnett:@Claudio: what would be the practical difference between a
perpetual suspension vs. perpetual block?
Terri Agnew:@Michael, you may need to upgrade your adobe connect plug
in's. Check you plug in's:
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_icannactest
&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wGj1MdxonDKms&s=sq
aSlwT9wHymJ50SuwGeS8pOI_rX5XeGI_AdLKfbO0U&e>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_icannactest&
d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhF
zL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wGj1MdxonDKms&s=sqa
SlwT9wHymJ50SuwGeS8pOI_rX5XeGI_AdLKfbO0U&e=
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Julie, just flagging Jon's
question above for the notes - I can see you're typing like mad...
WIPO - Brian Beckham:In terms of appeals questions, we may want to
consider a question to address the potential for gaming, as was raised in
the past in the UDRP context:
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_amc_en_doc
s_icann090409.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=D
Ra2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1w
Gj1MdxonDKms&s=AYyL4ZS6e9Ava4rQ4rTVE_E5Jaes9pf4bIpjO37TJyY&e>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_amc_en_docs
_icann090409.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DR
a2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wG
j1MdxonDKms&s=AYyL4ZS6e9Ava4rQ4rTVE_E5Jaes9pf4bIpjO37TJyY&e=
George Kirikos:The right to appeal to the courts affects BOTH the UDRP and
the URS.
Griffin Barnett:+1 Paul - let's just focus on URS now. Might be same
issues again during UDRP review, but it's not what we are doing now.
George Kirikos:So, now is the time to do it.
Julie Hedlund:@Kristine: I'll be reviewing the chat for questions to add
too -- can't keep up ;-)
Julie Hedlund:As you can see.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I know! you're amazing.
Paul Tattersfield:Can URS not be appealed?
Griffin Barnett:OK to raise the issue now as it relates to URS, but let's
not conflate the two
Griffin Barnett:URS absolutely can be appealed
George Kirikos:@Griffin: it affects them both identically.
Griffin Barnett:@George, that's fine if that's the case, but let's just
focus now on the issue w/r/t URS
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:domain name cases are filed de
novo....they're not really an appeal, which is a review of a lower court's
determination.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):explicit use of a particular jurisdiction needs to
be justified
WIPO - Brian Beckham:For the fourth bullet, the cost allocation question,
is this meant to cover a possible (ICANN, contracted party, etc.?) subsidy,
e.g., as in the eBay VeRO program?
Griffin Barnett:@Kristine, fair point
Mary Wong:@Brian, all - if it helps, and possibly for specific questions,
staff can go back and retrieve the origin of those questions for context.
Griffin Barnett:Under URS tho there is a specific appeal mechanism, which
remains within the domain dispute system
George Kirikos:If we're going to make recommendations about the URS before
we get to the UDRP, then this still needs to be studied in the context of
the URS.
WIPO - Brian Beckham:For the second bullet, how do we judge the
"sufficiency" of the suspension?
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@ Brian, I suggest (based on
how we handled this before) asking: what evidence is there that the current
term is too long or not long enough? To Jeff's point, we're looking for
problems, If there are none, then the answer is "yes, it's sufficient."
claudio:@Julie, here is my suggested tweak: "Should the URS allow for
additional remedies, such as a perpetual suspension, block, or a "right of
first refusal" to register the domain name in question?"
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'm a supporter of the Neuman
rule
Julie Hedlund:@Claudio: Thanks!
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Claudio, I'll push
back...your question again is subjective. Should we do x.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Let's start with "what are the
problems...."
Justine Chew:+1 Kristine, and absolutely agree with what Jeff is saying.
George Kirikos:Not in agreement.
claudio:@kristine, I used should because that's how the question is
currently framed, but agree
George Kirikos:Bad past decisions should be reviewed.
Paul Tattersfield:George +1
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@George, past bad decisions
can and should be evidence of some of the bad things we're trying to
address. Those should be considered.
George Kirikos:Zero-based budgeting. Start from zero.
J. Scott:I think Jeff is saying that we need to identify a problem caused
by the current policy. If it is simply, we do not like the policy or a part
of the policy as written then we do not need to re-negotiate.
Paul McGrady:An identifiable problem must proceed a decision to rethink a
certain provision of the RPMs. No problems = high fives and moving on.
George Kirikos:Perhaps removing those people who were part of the past
policy should recuse themselves from the discussion? Since they might be
biased in favour of the status quo.
Jeff Neuman:@George - perhaps those that have criticized the policy from
the beginning should also recuse themselves :)
Paul McGrady:preceed. :)
Griffin Barnett:Not a very fair multi-stakeholder approach George
Paul McGrady:darn. precede. I'm not tired...
Paul McGrady:[sic]
Gary Saposnik:Paul- are U.S Federal Courts to be "the" jurisdiction, or
"a" jurisdiction alternative?
Paul McGrady:@Gary "a" jurisdiction. The other two would be the home of
the registrar and the home of the registrant.
claudio:@Jeff, agree w/ problem aspect, one distinction on the other issue
is that the new gTLD policy went through a full PDP, whereas these RPMs did
not
Gary Saposnik:Paul- +1- the notes indicated "the"
Phil Marano:Lack of robust use of the URS might be attributable to the
higher evidentiary standard, or other aspects of the URS. So it might be
tough to foreclose those types of questions out of the gate absent pertinent
data.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):US courts litigation cost is prohibitive for the
developing world companies
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Phil....feature or flaw? :)
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:(that's Phil M)
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I think we might see this particular part of PDP
mentioned in next GAC communique
George Kirikos:Paul M: that's one possible solution, but we should have a
thorough review of all possible solutions, to find the best one for all
stakeholders.
Jeff Neuman:@Phil - and if we can establish that the standard is actually
the reason behind no one using it, and we find that the lack of use of the
URS is actually a problem, then yes we can look at the standard
George Kirikos:Setting aside the URS decision is equally "simple", to
compel the case in court.
Paul McGrady:@George - I agree. It is only one solution - it just happens
to be an easy one that will work. But, I agree, we have to talk through all
the other options which may or may not be as easy and may or may not work.
Jeff Neuman:but there should be hurdles to cross before re-litigating
issues that were discussed and handled in 2009 - 2012 simply because we did
not like the way they came out back then
WIPO - Brian Beckham:To question 1 here, there are already sanctions built
in to the mechanism itself.
Paul Tattersfield:Do we need to add a question to see if we should put in
provisions for the publishing of a list of any abuse of filing
determinations?
Philip Corwin:@Jeff--I personally don't think the evidentiary standard is
a reason for the relatively low use of URS, but we can delve into that as
our work continues
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Paul T, that's already in
there.
WIPO - Brian Beckham:To question 2 here - presumably (noting my comment on
questoin 1) this is meant to address repeat registrant (not brand owner)
offenders)?
Paul Tattersfield:Thanks Kristine
Paul McGrady:@George, just to clarify, agreeing with "Paul M: that's one
possible solution, but we should have a thorough review of all possible
solutions, to find the best one for all stakeholders." and not "Setting
aside the URS decision is equally "simple", to compel the case in court."
The latter would be an exception that swallows the whole of the URS. All a
losing respondent would need to do is push the "reject" button and the
complainant would be stuck with Court action, which deprives the complainant
of the benefits of the URS. So, nope to that.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@ Brian...does it feel like
deja vu?
Susan Payne:NEUTRALITY
WIPO - Brian Beckham:To question 3 here - where was it agreed/stated that
it was ICANN's job to train registrants on URS defenses?
Susan Payne:@Brian - yes as discussed in AD, Q2 is repeat offender
registrants
Mary Wong:@Brian, that is a consequence of basically importing
community-suggested questions wholesale
Justine Chew:Interestingly, the question on use of English-only is
preceded with "What evidence is there of problems ...."
Susan Payne:@Brian - quite
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):there are 2 sides of URS abuse (by the abusive
registrants and by the party abusively claiming in URS that the name was
used)
WIPO - Brian Beckham:To question 4 here - the IRT and STI looked at these
- do we have any benefit of the "legislative history" on this from them?
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I reiterate my point in AD
that the first bullet should have lower case "arbitration forums".
Jeff Neuman:Brian - which question 4?
WIPO - Brian Beckham:On slide 4/5, as I stated in Abu Dhabi, this question
should be stricken as it goes to the UDRP (and is not timely, given WIPO's
revised Jurisprudential Overview since 2015).
George Kirikos:More on next slide, actually.
Griffin Barnett:For the last question on this slide, we might say "What
changes, if any, may be needed to ensure..."
Griffin Barnett:Current wording seems to presuppose a problem
WIPO - Brian Beckham:@Jeff slide 3/5 (as to Q4)
Phil Marano:@Brian, support striking the question as outdated and not
relevant to the URS.
J. Scott:@George and all. We have to identify a problem before we can
recommend a solution.
Jeff Neuman:On this one, I will note that there was a GNSO Policy
Recommendations that the Providers be "under contract" with ICANN.....I want
to know why that was not implemented
Mary Wong:@Jeff, we can check but I believe all URS providers have a MOU
with ICANN
George Kirikos:Here's the context for NAF:
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_
Forum-5F-28alternative-5Fdispute-5Fresolution-29-23Legislation-5Fand-5Flawsu
its-5Fagainst-5FNAF&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r
=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx
1wGj1MdxonDKms&s=uXWAhtMmQct4_K_tPoSbqLklLnrTazay5T1ei8xwQTg&e>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_F
orum-5F-28alternative-5Fdispute-5Fresolution-29-23Legislation-5Fand-5Flawsui
ts-5Fagainst-5FNAF&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=
DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1
wGj1MdxonDKms&s=uXWAhtMmQct4_K_tPoSbqLklLnrTazay5T1ei8xwQTg&e=
J. Scott:Do we have any evidence the Forum has not effectively run the URS
or their is some type of identifiable bias?
Philip Corwin:@Jeff--it was implemented to some extent; ICANN entered into
an MOU with all URS providers
J. Scott:^*there*
Philip Corwin:So the MOU essentially turns URS providers into a new
species of contracted party, raiisng the issue of whether ICANN has or
should engage in compliance efforts
Paul Tattersfield:it would be a shame to restrict the breadth of the
questions at an early stage
Paul McGrady:+1 Susan. RPM Providers are not RPMs.
Cyntia King:Agreed, Susan
Rebecca L Tushnet:How would the evidence come to light if we don't look
for it? And isn't compliance relevant to whether the RPMs are "working"?
claudio:agree, unless provider is acting inconsistent with policy, there
is nothing for us to review
Cyntia King:Policy & execution of poicy by vendors are separate issues
claudio:I looked at GNSO recommendations and didn't see that
Rebecca L Tushnet:Some policies don't execute as well as others.
claudio:the Business Constituency raised that issue, but don't think its
in GNSO policy recommendations
George Kirikos:Provider accountability goes to the heart of the legitimacy
of the policy.
claudio:here is link to GNSO policy recommendations:
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issu
es_new-2Dgtlds_pdp-2Ddec05-2Dfr-2Dparta-2D08aug07.htm&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6w
rcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2E
Bk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wGj1MdxonDKms&s=BfqJRSPBuZ-6A6-Gz_P1QMdft
WwWaFFqXLYxHK1xG1E&e>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issue
s_new-2Dgtlds_pdp-2Ddec05-2Dfr-2Dparta-2D08aug07.htm&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wr
crwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EB
k&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wGj1MdxonDKms&s=BfqJRSPBuZ-6A6-Gz_P1QMdftW
wWaFFqXLYxHK1xG1E&e=
Paul Tattersfield:The problems are heighten when there are egregious
determinations
Rebecca L Tushnet:+1 Kathy: when the issue was whether indications of
origin were covered, we were very interested in implementation v. policy.
Rebecca L Tushnet:(I am too, by the way!0
Berry Cobb:The MOUs can be found on the microsite:
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_
applicants_urs&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2
dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wGj1
MdxonDKms&s=mt7h3_5et_xHxQdp6-FU7FfYWi4hmXWgKhleLJoYo-s&e>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a
pplicants_urs&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2d
XAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wGj1M
dxonDKms&s=mt7h3_5et_xHxQdp6-FU7FfYWi4hmXWgKhleLJoYo-s&e=
claudio:the only relevance of Providers that I see is whether they are
implementing the RPM in way that is consistent with the URS, everything else
that may be MOU seems out of scope
John McElwaine:What is forum shopping?
claudio:there is only one forum for URS
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):3
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:There are three
claudio:right?
George Kirikos:@John: see
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.michaelgeist.ca_200
2_03_domain-2Ddispute-2Dbias-2Dgoes-2Dfrom-2Dbad-2Dto-2Dworse_&d=DwIFaQ&c=Fm
Y1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AI
gn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wGj1MdxonDKms&s=Cwu9QcV5r2-b2aA1
HzyRHrAJYyVocKALiwmrcN41pqE&e>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.michaelgeist.ca_2002
_03_domain-2Ddispute-2Dbias-2Dgoes-2Dfrom-2Dbad-2Dto-2Dworse_&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY
1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIg
n-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1wGj1MdxonDKms&s=Cwu9QcV5r2-b2aA1H
zyRHrAJYyVocKALiwmrcN41pqE&e=
WIPO - Brian Beckham:On slide 5/5, I don't fully understand bullets 2 and
4
claudio:Ok thanks, Kristine
Cyntia King:Most companies create policy then have an implementation team
look at how new & existing rules are absorbed into the ecosystem.
Mary Wong:@Brian, again, these are verbatim from community suggestions and
staff can go back to retrieve information about the specific comment
period/issue for which they were provided as community input.
Paul Tattersfield:no it doesn't it might be no changes are required
Michael R Graham:@Paul +1 -- especially as to biased questions.
George Kirikos:PaulT is right, the answer might be "none".
George Kirikos:Not biased at all.
John McElwaine:@George I reviewed that articvle and that is not forum
shopping in the technical sense.
George Kirikos:@John: it's shopping the providers. to the extent that each
provider is a different forum (due to supplemental rules, or different
panelists), then it is forum shopping.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I wonder if practices have
changed since 2002?
Jeff Neuman:@George, to point out the obvious, that article is over 15
years old
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:^More direct
George Kirikos:@Jeff: that doesn't take away from its truth, though, Jeff.
WIPO - Brian Beckham:On Slide 5/5, bullet 3, is this a requirement under
the MOU or Policy itself?
Mary Wong:Note that URS is not consensus policy
J. Scott:@Jeff. Thank you. I thought that issue had died with the
dinosaurs.
Jeff Neuman:@Mary - you are correct...but in order to change the URS and
have it applicable to all existing registries, those changes must be :)
Michael R Graham:If studies are cited, please ensure they are both
relevant to the CURRENT discussion, and both current and supported.
John McElwaine:@George - I get your point. But forum shopping has nothing
to do with provider selection and it causes me to question bias of the
article. Here's the definition of forum shopping
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.law.cornell.edu_we
x_forum-5Fshopping&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=
DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1
wGj1MdxonDKms&s=gNpYgtcPuu-0bvYMHP-QHYRB_WIqeJLjEcbQpzWERRI&e>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.law.cornell.edu_wex
_forum-5Fshopping&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=D
Ra2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=J9NLJJsgCXj1deISuCPDsZWifU5Wx1w
Gj1MdxonDKms&s=gNpYgtcPuu-0bvYMHP-QHYRB_WIqeJLjEcbQpzWERRI&e=
Jeff Neuman:So....the URS was not established by Consensus Policy....but
all changes to the URS do need to be established by Consensus Policies in
order for them to apply to existing registries
George Kirikos:@John: still consistent with that definition.
WIPO - Brian Beckham:On Slide 9, bullet 4, this raises a question I raised
on several occasions concerning moving the URS to phase 2 as it is meant to
be a complement to the UDRP; discussing them seperately is something of a
fiction
Mary Wong:@Jeff, understood - just thought it may be helpful esp for newer
participants when we (perhaps informally) refer to "policy" :)
John McElwaine:@George - not to a laywer
claudio:if we need to answer these many URS questions, it may make sense
to eventually start using Subteams
David McAuley (Verisign):thanks all, good bye
claudio:thanks all
Philip Corwin:First we need to come up with final list of refined
questions
Paul Tattersfield:thanks all bye
George Kirikos:Bye folks.
J. Scott:ciao
Griffin Barnett:thanks, bye
Steve Levy:Bye all!
Cyntia King:Bye!
Monica Mitchell:thank you all. sorry I was late.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye
Philip Corwin:Thanks. Good discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20171115/7e4ed99f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: attendance RPM Member 15 Nov 2017.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 335776 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20171115/7e4ed99f/attendanceRPMMember15Nov2017-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5018 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20171115/7e4ed99f/smime-0001.p7s>
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg
mailing list