[gnso-rpm-wg] Proposal to Shift URS review to Phase II

Susan Payne susan.payne at valideus.com
Fri Apr 6 13:26:08 UTC 2018


George, in response to your second paragraph, we certainly did have calls on Wednesday 28 March and 4 April:

URS Practitioners Subteam – 28 March and 4 April
URS Providers Subteam – 28 March and 4 April
There also appear to be further meetings for the Practitioners Sub and the Data Sub scheduled for today, 6 April.

Just because the full working group may not be meeting, and you have chosen not to volunteer for any of the subteams, does not mean that productive work is not taking place amongst those who have volunteered.


Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd

E: susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>


From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: 06 April 2018 12:22
To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposal to Shift URS review to Phase II

Hi folks,

I oppose this attempt to alter the work plan of this PDP.

Without going into exhaustive detail as to why, consider that Point #5 contains questions that are in the charter, and thus *are* by definition within the scope of our work. That's axiomatic. It seems to me that this is just an attempt to alter the charter to remove items that are "uncomfortable questions" for some stakeholders. They're in the charter because they're important concerns that a review must address. Also, Recommendation #1 claims that our work is "well-advanced", to the point that an initial report can be issued. How that can this be asserted, when we've not even received and/or collected important data on these topics? Policymaking needs to be evidence-based, and that evidence/data is still being collected (or has been collected, like the top 500 TMCH terms that I requested a year ago, but has not been delivered, despite repeated requests).

What I find strange is how the ICANN61 meeting seems to have actually *negatively* impacted the work of the PDP, in terms of number of actual meetings. Prior to ICANN61, there was no call because some folks would be traveling to San Juan. After ICANN61, there was no call presumably because some folks would be traveling to return home from San Juan. So it seems that we're down 2 sessions automatically for each ICANN meeting! While there were 4 sessions in San Juan, subtracting 2 (due to cancelled calls the week before and the week after) actually means that there were effecitvely just 2. And 1 would have happened naturally that week, so we're really just ahead, after all is said and done, by 1 session on a net basis! However, we didn't have calls on March 29 or April 5th, so in fact we're now *down* by 1 session, instead of being up by 1 session.
This PDP began in March 2016:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2016-March/date.html
which is roughly 100 weeks ago. However, according to the attendance log:

https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Attendance+Log
we've actually held a total of just 67 "weekly" calls (rather than 100 weekly calls, had the number of actual weekly calls matched the actual potential number of weekly calls during those 2 years). So, in terms of "effective workload", we seem to have worked at under 70% of our potential in that 2 year time period.

Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/


On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:54 PM, John McElwaine <john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com<mailto:john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com>> wrote:
Dear RPM Working Group:

In our meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico, I raised the issue of moving the work set forth in this Working Group’s charter relating to the URS to Phase II.  The Chairs asked that I put something in writing detailing the specific recommendation and reasoning, which I present below and have also attached hereto in a Word document for your review and consideration.

Kind regards,

John

Proposal to Shift URS from Phase I to Phase II:


1.     On 15 December 2011, the GNSO Council requested that eighteen (18) months after the launch of the New gTLD Program ICANN staff prepare and publish an Issue Report on the state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to the UDRP and URS. The Council subsequently agreed to extend the timeline for a report by a further six (6) months.



2.     On 9 October 2015, a Preliminary Issues Report was published discussing the scope of this potential PDP and outlining three possible options for moving forward.  The third option ultimately was elected at that time:



The “third option would be to conduct a policy review of all the RPMs in two phases, with the initial phase being a review only of the RPMs developed for the New gTLD Program. . . . The second, subsequent phase of work would be a review of the UDRP, based on the concerns specific to its scope that were raised in the 2011 GNSO Issue Report and any additional relevant topics derived from the first phase of work concerning the RPMs developed for the New gTLD Program.”



3.     On 15 March 2016, the two phase approach was approved in the Charter for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group  (“RPM Working Group”). Phase One was to focus on a review of all the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program, and Phase Two will focus on a review of the UDRP.



4.     The Objective & Goals in the PDP’s Charter were to examine (i) the RPMs effectiveness, (ii) whether the RPMs collectively fulfil their purposes, and (iii) whether additional policy specific recommendations are needed, including to clarify and unify the policy goals.  RPM Working Group Charter, at p. 3.  The Objectives & Goals in the PDP’s Charter were broadly defined:



“In addition to an assessment of the effectiveness of each RPM, the PDP Working Group is expected to consider, at the appropriate stage of its work, the overarching issue as to whether or not all the RPMs collectively fulfill the purposes for which they were created, or whether additional policy recommendations are needed, including to clarify and unify the policy goals. If such additional policy recommendations are needed, the Working Group is expected to develop  recommendations to address the specific issues identified. The Working Group is also directed to bear in mind that a fundamental underlying intention of conducting a review of all RPMs in all gTLDs is to create a framework for consistent and uniform reviews of these mechanisms in the future.”



5.     However, the RPM Working Group Charter also contains a lengthy attachment entitled “LIST OF POTENTIAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS PDP” This “list was derived from various community suggestions in different forums, they are not listed in any particular order of importance nor has staff attempted to analyze the merits, relevance or significance of each issue”.  This list contains topics that are out of scope when compared with the Objectives and Goals, including:



1.     Are generic dictionary words being adequately protected so that they are available for all to use as allowed under their national laws and international treaties? E.g. sun, window

2.     Should monetary damages be awarded?

3.     Are last names and geographic places adequately protected so that they are available for all to use as allowed under their national laws, e.g, Smith, McDonald, Capitol Hill Cafe, Old Town Deli?

4.     Should injunctive relief be available?

5.     Now that Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is a regular finding of UDRP panels, indicating that domain name registrants are being abused by complaints brought against them in the UDRP process, what penalties and sanctions should be imposed on Complainants found to be reverse domain name hijackers? How can those penalties and sanctions be aligned so as to be fair, as compared to the loss of a domain name taken from a registrant found to be a “cybersquatter”?



6.     Issues from this list and other new out of scope issues, complaints and modifications are causing the work of the RPM Working Group to slow and are polarizing the members; thus, harming the ability to achieve consensus in the Working Group.  As recommend by the PDP breakout group and discussed by the Community in attendance at the Sunday gNSO Working Session in San Juan, it would be particularly useful if working group charters would:



1.     Define clearly what success for the proposed working group ”should look like”.  (K. Kleiman reporting on breakout session, Transcript ICANN61 San Juan GNSO Working Session Part 2 Sunday, 11 March 2018 at 10:30 AS (“Transcript”) at p. 5).

2.     Define topics or issues that must be addressed, may be addressed and may not be addressed.  (Transcript at p. 4).

3.     Have “more defined issues, [be] more bounded, more limited.” (Transcript at p. 5).

4.     Have a narrower scope and be broken up into separate projects.  (Transcript at p. 5).

5.     Having a charter drafting team that “that are experts, and that might mean a legal expert, but we should also have people that have experience, practical experience.”  (S. DelBianco reporting on breakout session, Transcript at p. 5).



7.     The Trademark Clearinghouse, Sunrise and Trademark Claims Notices are RPMs relating to the registration process of domain names in the new gTLDs.   The URS is more akin to the UDRP, and like the UDRP is a mandatory dispute resolution proceeding to recover a domain name that has been clearly registered in bad faith. Since the URS is intended to be complementary of the UDRP and will have similar issues it would be more efficient to address these RPMs in a more cohesive manner.



8.     With respect to the URS and UDRP, The European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, and the European Commission have enacted a new data privacy regulation in 2016 entitled the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) that will likely adversely impact the ability of the URS and UDRP to function as these policies are currently implemented.  The new regulation is scheduled to take effect on May 25, 2018.  Among other ways, GDRP may adversely impact the URS and the UDRP by:



1.     Procedure for UDRP/URS:

1.     Possibility that Providers cannot serve the UDRP/URS Complaint if an email address cannot be obtained.

2.     Possibility that the Language of the URS proceeding cannot be determined.

2.     Procedure for URS:

1.     Possibility that the URS provider cannot translate the notice of URS complaint into the predominant language used in the Registrant’s country or territory.

2.     Possibility that URS complainants cannot know the language of a possible response.

3.     Possibility that URS complainants do not know whether the URS complaint was translated into the correct language(s) and that proceedings were administered correctly.

3.     UDRP Element 2 / URS:

1.     Cannot argue that the registrant is not commonly known by the Domain Name at issue.

2.     Cannot determine if the registrant has been authorized by the Trademark holder.

3.     Cannot determine if the registrant is an authorized reseller of the Trademark holder’s product.

4.     Cannot determine on what date the domain name was “registered” by the current domain name holder if it was transferred to this current domain name holder.  (requires being able to see the WhoIs history).  This could prevent baseless claims from being filed.

4.     UDRP Element 3:

1.     Cannot determine if registrant has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registrations.  Rule 4(b)(ii).

2.     Cannot determine if registrant has been found to engage other unlawful actions, such as malware, phishing or scams.

3.     Cannot determine if the registrant is in a particular geographic region to be better assess the possibility of legitimate co-existence (thus possibly even foregoing the filing of a case, and response, in the first place).

4.     Cannot determine if the registrant is technically a “competitor” that has registered the Domain Name for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant.  Rule 4(b)(iii).



9.     Due to GDPR compliance issues, ICANN org is considering substantial changes to WhoIs, and has published an Interim Model for GDPR Compliance, e.g. "The CookBook" which proposes to significantly limit the public display of WhoIs data after May 25, 2018." see: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdpr-compliance-interim-model-08mar18-en.pdf.   Aggressive current timelines for tiered access to WhoIs data that might provide some fix for the above issues is December 2018.  There is no question that GDPR will require policy consideration relating to the URS and UDRP that cannot be predicted and analyzed at this time.



Recommendation:



1.     The RPM Working Group finishes its already well-advanced work and issues an Initial Report on the PDDRP, Trademark Clearinghouse, Sunrise, and Trademark Claims Notices for public comment.

2.     After comments have been analyzed for those elements, that the RPM Working Group finishes its work and issues its Final Report on the PDDRP, Trademark Clearinghouse, Sunrise, and Trademark Claims Notices.

3.     The RPM Working Group issues a request through its Appointed Working Group Liaison to the GNSO Council to amend the RPM Working Group Charter as follows:

1.     shift the work related to the URS to Phase II and, if necessary, pause starting Phase II until after the permanent impacts of GDPR on the URS and UDRP are known;

2.     provide clear guidance to the WG on the issues that (i) must be addressed, (ii) may be addressed, and (iii) may not be addressed;

3.     provide clear guidance on the scope of the review of the URS and UDRP.

Although a separate issue from this proposal, it is also recommended that Phase II Working Group has one chairperson with appropriate neutrality and experience in PDP consensus building and parliamentary procedures.  Assistance to the chair can be provided by utilizing vice-chairs and well-structured sub-teams.





JOHN C. MCELWAINE  PARTNER
john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com<mailto:john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com>
LIBERTY CENTER | SUITE 600
151 MEETING STREET | CHARLESTON, SC 29401
T 843.534.4302   F 843.722.8700



101 CONSTITUTION AVENUE, NW | SUITE 900
WASHINGTON, D.C.,  20001
T 202.689.2939   F 202.689.2862



NELSONMULLINS.COM<http://www.nelsonmullins.com>    VCARD<http://www.nelsonmullins.com/people/john-mcelwaine/vcard>  VIEW BIO<http://www.nelsonmullins.com/people/john-mcelwaine>




Confidentiality Notice

This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure.

If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and delete all copies of this message.

_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180406/b45c7fe5/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list