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

[claudio di gangi]

Mary,

Thank you, very helpful.

I think flexibility is a good thing to have, especially in the fluid
environment in which we operate.

Best regards,
Claudio




On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 2:30 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:

> Hello Claudio and everyone,
>
>
>
> The staff understanding of the text for those parts of the Charter that
> you highlighted is that it was intended to provide the Working Group and
> GNSO Council with as much flexibility as possible, while still staying
> within the GNSO’s operating rules and the requirements of the PDP Manual.
>
>
>
> Basically, having the Charter state expressly that an Initial Report is
> required at the end of Phase One makes it clear that there must be a
> specific deliverable and it must be published for public comment. Given,
> however, that at the outset of a PDP such as this one (i.e. conducted in
> two phases) the various outcomes or recommendations (if any) that may be
> agreed on by the Working Group at the end of this Phase One cannot possibly
> be known, it was considered appropriate to have the language note that *“at
> a minimum”* (emphasis added) the group’s progress is described, with any
> preliminary recommendations also reported. For example, it is possible that
> the Working Group may develop consensus recommendations for new or modified
> Consensus Policies around any of the Phase One RPMs – this will allow the
> Working Group to then develop a Final Report (per the PDP Manual) just for
> these specific Phase One recommendations. Alternatively, the Working Group
> could reach a point where it believes its work and progress will benefit
> from either community input on potential (rather than agreed)
> recommendations, or from GNSO Council guidance as to whether to proceed to
> work on specific recommendations that may impact work in Phase Two, or both
> – in this scenario, an Initial Report seeking that type of input may be
> appropriate, without there being any specific consensus policy
> recommendations. The Working Group could also decide to recommend
> postponing implementation of, or revisiting certain, Phase One
> recommendations pending additional research or work in Phase Two, as
> another example.
>
>
>
> Building in as much flexibility as possible therefore means that multiple
> potential outcomes are not prematurely curtailed, even before the PDP has
> kicked off. As phrased, the Charter certainly allows the Working Group to
> decide, based on the contents of its Initial Report and consequent public
> comment, that certain policy recommendations are ready for approval by the
> GNSO Council – in this scenario, the Charter does not preclude the group
> from then working on a Final Report in accordance with the steps and
> requirements of the PDP Manual, to be presented to the Council for its vote
> and action at the end of Phase One.
>
>
>
> We hope this helps – please let staff know if there are additional
> questions or if we can clarify anything further.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry
>
>
>
> *From: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of claudio
> di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 12:48
> *To: *"gmlevine at researchtheworld.com" <gmlevine at researchtheworld.com>
> *Cc: *"J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposal to Shift URS review to Phase II
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Quick question: I recently reviewed the operative text in our Charter
> (copied below) and it's not clear to me whether our Initial Report, which
> will be produced at the conclusion of Phase I activity, is intended to
> include policy recommendations for GNSO Council/Board approval?
>
>
>
> The Charter states that a Final Report will be produced at the end of
> Phase II, which will be sent to the GNSO Council "for its consideration and
> further action".
>
>
>
> However, the same language is not used in the section on the Initial
> Report, which the Charter states: "shall outline the Working Group’s
> progress and any preliminary recommendations it may have developed with
> regard to its work in Phase One. The first Initial Report shall also
> highlight any relevant findings, information or issues that may have
> emerged during Phase One and any issues or recommendations that the Group
> believes should be considered by the PDP Working Group on New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures, and/or that the Working Group considers relevant to
> its work in Phase Two."
>
>
>
> I also looked at the GNSO's "PDP Manual", and the "WG Guidelines"
> document, which indicate the Final Report is the mechanism through which
> policy recommendations are delivered to the Council, see:
> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_48599/
> annex-2-pdp-manual-16feb16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_filefield-5F48599_annex-2D2-2Dpdp-2Dmanual-2D16feb16-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=bOnsvokUfQPwBI3HtclCjiE-bJGMYN9TR_SvqGIcd6Y&s=RnOXmJJVjZsnSKXyvZTAOuZgVHiLar6a61gljWbBFTM&e=>
> at page 7.
>
>
>
> At your convenience, can the Co-Chairs and/or staff please provide
> feedback or clarification on this point?
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Claudio
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> Deliverables & Timeframes:
>
>
>
> In addition to the PDP deliverables prescribed in the ICANN Bylaws and the
> PDP Manual, the Working Group shall provide a first Initial Report to the
> GNSO Council at the conclusion of Phase One of the PDP. The Report shall be
> put out for public comment and also inform the GNSO Council about the
> progress of the Working Group. At a minimum, the Report shall outline the
> Working Group’s progress and any preliminary recommendations it may have
> developed with regard to its work in Phase One. The first Initial Report
> shall also highlight any relevant findings, information or issues that may
> have emerged during Phase One
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:53 PM, <gmlevine at researchtheworld.com> wrote:
>
> I agree with Jon to the extent that “[i]f there are issues with the
> functioning of the current URS that we could dix now, why not try?”  The
> number of URS complaints has been going down from the high in 2016 (Forum
> database). So far in 2018, I see only 5 decisions (4 suspended, 1 denied)
> (Forum database).
>
>
>
> Gerald M. Levine
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Jon
> Nevett
> *Sent:* Monday, April 16, 2018 11:02 AM
> *To:* Brian Beckham <brian.beckham at wipo.int>
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposal to Shift URS review to Phase II
>
>
>
> Sure Brian.
>
>
>
> People use the terms differently, so understand the confusion.  When we
> drafted the URS recommendation in the IRT and the STI, we used the same
> "standard" as the UDRP.  In other words, the elements that a complainant
> needs to prove to win at a URS are the exact same as with a UDRP (i.e. bad
> faith registration, etc.).  The difference between the two systems is the
> "burden of proof" -- how confident the panelist is in the complainant's
> evidence.  In the US, the burden of proof for criminal cases is beyond a
> reasonable doubt, but only more likely than not (51%) in most civil cases.
> A clear and convincing burden used by the URS is in between.  We wanted the
> URS to be used for slam dunk cases, but didn't want the burden as high as a
> criminal case in the US.
>
>
>
> My question below was whether it was worth trying to find a middle ground
> on the URS review by leaving the substance of the URS standard (and even
> the burden of proof) to the UDRP review, but continue the work on the
> procedural issues folks have raised that would improve the URS functioning
> today.  So maybe a substance vs. process distinction.
>
>
>
> Please recall that this RPM WG covers more than the next round of TLDs.
> If there are issues with the functioning of the current URS that we could
> fix now, why not try?
>
>
>
> Hope that clarifies my question.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 16, 2018, at 7:49 AM, BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Jon,
>
>
>
> Could you explain/unpack that a little bit.
>
>
>
> Some folks might see “standard of review” and “burden of proof” as
> somewhat synonymous, in which case as you rightly point out the URS applies
> a “clear and convincing” standard but the UDRP applies a “balance of
> probabilities” (sometimes called “on balance”) standard.
>
>
>
> Or are you referring to the standard of review for appeals cases?
>
>
>
> Sorry for a perhaps basic question, and thanks!
>
>
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jon Nevett
> *Sent:* Friday, April 13, 2018 8:43 PM
> *To:* Nahitchevansky, Georges
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposal to Shift URS review to Phase II
>
>
>
> One alternative is to split the URS review into two parts.
>
>
>
> As most know, the standard of review of a URS claim is exactly the same as
> a UDRP claim.  The burden of proof, however, is higher, as URS was supposed
> to be for "slam dunk" cases -- hence the the clear and convincing burden.
> We could wait on reviewing the URS standard of review and everything that
> goes with that, as that work will mirror the work that will need to be
> completed during the UDRP review.  We could continue to review the facets
> of the URS that differ from the UDRP now and push the rest to later.
>
>
>
> Just an idea for a middle ground if folks want one.
>
>
>
> Jon
>
> On Apr 13, 2018, at 2:25 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <
> ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> +1 on moving the URS to phase 2.  Georges N
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kurt Pritz
> *Sent:* Friday, April 13, 2018 2:06 PM
> *To:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposal to Shift URS review to Phase II
>
>
>
> Hi John (and everyone):
>
>
>
> Thank you to John for taking the time to put together this cogent
> document.
>
>
>
> I support moving the URS discussion to phase II for the reasons John cited
> and others.
>
>
>
> As John, and others (in an earlier email string) have pointed out, the
> results of GDRP could affect the URS discussion. The next round of new
> gTLDs should not be held hostage to that.
>
>
>
> For me, I see no reason why the URS discussion was ever on the critical
> path to the next round of new gTLDs.
>
>
>
> The findings of this working group will not affect the analysis of a
> potential gTLD applicant regarding whether to apply or setting up
> operations. Nor will it affect the evaluation of applications. If
> registries receive a URS decision, they will implement it. They have no
> role in setting the criteria or requirements for URS decision making.
> Therefore, there is no reason to put this discussion on the critical path
> to the next round.
>
>
>
> John’s paper alludes to this when he says that URS is a lot more like UDRP
> (which is in Phase II) than TMCH & Claims (which is in Phase I).
>
>
>
> While this phase I / phase II timing decision might not have seemed to be
> a critical decision at the outset, GDRP developments and the length of time
> taken so far has made it a critical decision.
>
>
>
> I find George’s reasoning unpersuasive. He cites section 5 of John’s
> paper, which is essentially background information — dicta with regard to
> he matter at hand. All of the questions in section 5 can be taken up by
> this working group regardless of the timing and none of the questions need
> be on the critical path to the next round for the reason stated above
> (i.e., the new gTLD applicant or operator is not affected by the outcome of
> these discussion topics).
>
>
>
> Similarly, I don’t think George’s discussion regarding fpast meeting
> frequency is relevant to whether to move the URS to phase II.
>
>
>
> I find the discussion of the chairmanship irrelevant to the discussion
> also.
>
>
>
> Thanks again to John for doing this work, I support his conclusion that
> the URS discussion should be moved to phase II.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Kurt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 13, 2018, at 9:12 AM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Greg,
>
> It’s always important to try and be precise in what you say. I think it
> would have been helpful for John to clarify his proposal as he has not done
> so, on a more general level:
>
> Clearly the 3 qualities John identified are important basic competencies.
>
> I agree one of the highest compliments one can give a WG chair is that you
> had no sense of where they stood on any of the issues the group handled.
> The question is how can this be achieved more often than not and will the 3
> qualities John identified be sufficient?
>
> I would suggest character traits high in openness and agreeableness are
> probably as important if not more important. If these could be combined
> with humility, a moral compass and intellect this may help avoid working
> group member fatigue and in the worst case all the time consuming curative
> work necessary to address a situation where someone has fallen below the
> required standards.
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
>
>
> Perhaps John can clarify what he meant by these criteria.  I think they
> make perfect sense and seem like common sense.  As I read them, they are
> fairly common criteria for good ICANN GNSO Working Group chairs and nothing
> surprising.  By your reaction, I suspect you are reading them differently,
> especially since you think that these create a heightened potential to
> shape process in an unwelcome way (I say “heightened” only because any
> chair has some potential to process in a way that is unwelcome to some).
> That may be the source of our different views on these criteria.
>
>
>
> Appropriate neutrality = Someone who is able to act neutral as expected of
> Working Group chairs, as if they had no interest in any particular
> outcome.  Not someone who is in fact neutral (i.e., not a stakeholder at
> all, or a stakeholder in a community that truly has no preference as to
> outcome); this latter type would be relatively rare.  I think one of the
> highest compliments one can give a WG chair is that you had no sense of
> where they stood on any of the issues the group handled.
>
>
>
> Experience in PDP consensus-building = Ideally, a former chair,
> vice-chair, subgroup chair, rapporteur or other leader/facilitator in a
> GNSO PDP WG, who has already had the experience of trying to aid the WG (or
> subgroup) to come to consensus.  Less ideally, an experienced GNSO WG PDP
> participant, who has been through some number of consensus building
> processes and is ready to step into the chair role in that process.
>
>
>
> Experience in parliamentary procedure = Someone with experience with and a
> good understanding of the rules and procedures governing the process of
> GNSO PDP WG meetings.  Not someone who has specific experience with
> Robert’s Rules of Order and its non-US equivalents, not someone who is a
> member of an actual Parliament, and not someone who is a “parliamentarian”
> (which could mean a member of parliament or someone who advises a chair on
> rules of procedure).  This may be the one that is tripping you up.  This is
> probably the most susceptible to misunderstanding, since we don’t use the
> term “parliamentary procedure” that often in ICANN-land in any sense (and
> our meetings do not run by Robert’s, etc.)
>
>
>
> The bigger picture I get is of a steady and experienced hand who can stay
> above the fray in terms of issues and positions, who can actively work with
> the group to identify and fashion consensus, and someone who has very good
> understanding of and facility with our rules of procedure so that they can
> run the meetings well and make them as efficient and effective as possible,
> while ensuring that all positions are heard.  From a procedural side, this
> sounds completely sensible and not that uncommon in ICANN-land.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 6:02 AM Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Greg, because they are a subset of the ideal criteria necessary for
> optimum outcomes and as such has the potential to shape process in an
> unwelcome way.
>
> I am hoping John having brought forward his in depth proposal with this
> very significant ballon d'essai in the ultimate paragraph would expand
> further on his intentions or at least indicate if he had someone mind.
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
>
>
> I'm not sure why you say this is precise.  Is there one criterion in
> particular that caused you to say that?
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 9:24 AM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> *it is also recommended that Phase II Working Group has one chairperson
> with appropriate neutrality and experience in PDP consensus building and
> parliamentary procedures*
>
> That is quite a precise skill set, did you have someone in mind?
>
> <~WRD000.jpg>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 2:54 AM, John McElwaine <
> 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[icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_gdpr-2Dcompliance-2Dinterim-2Dmodel-2D08mar18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=bOnsvokUfQPwBI3HtclCjiE-bJGMYN9TR_SvqGIcd6Y&s=kTHgi36Qi8MgQE8e_1fYLzYqUSmGl-_6mvivqB0ogDI&e=>.
>   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.
>
>
>
>
>
> *<image001.jpg>*
>
>
>
> *JOHN C. MCELWAINE  **PARTNER*
>
> *john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com* <john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com>
>
> *LIBERTY CENTER | **SUITE 600 **[maps.google.com]*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3DSUITE-2B600-250D-250A-2B-250D-250A-2B151-2BMEETING-2BSTREET-25C2-25A0-257C-25C2-25A0CHARLESTON-2C-25C2-25A0SC-25C2-25A029401-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=bOnsvokUfQPwBI3HtclCjiE-bJGMYN9TR_SvqGIcd6Y&s=Zu_evt54kdt8QWbSG8a50Pt6xbkG_p-UjkQzJPWyWNU&e=>
>
> *151 MEETING STREET | CHARLESTON, SC 29401**[maps.google.com]*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3DSUITE-2B600-250D-250A-2B-250D-250A-2B151-2BMEETING-2BSTREET-25C2-25A0-257C-25C2-25A0CHARLESTON-2C-25C2-25A0SC-25C2-25A029401-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=bOnsvokUfQPwBI3HtclCjiE-bJGMYN9TR_SvqGIcd6Y&s=Zu_evt54kdt8QWbSG8a50Pt6xbkG_p-UjkQzJPWyWNU&e=>
>
> *T** 843.534.4302   **F** 843.722.8700  *
>
>
>
> *101 CONSTITUTION AVENUE, NW | SUITE 900**[maps.google.com]*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D101-2BCONSTITUTION-2BAVENUE-2C-2BNW-25C2-25A0-257C-25C2-25A0SUITE-2B900-2B-250D-250A-2BWASHINGTON-2C-2BD.C.-2C-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A020001-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=bOnsvokUfQPwBI3HtclCjiE-bJGMYN9TR_SvqGIcd6Y&s=BdGvXcDFynHcEXsSntZtkLbh1aB3FsTqJ8rqqXo02Dg&e=>
>
> *WASHINGTON, D.C.,  20001**[maps.google.com]*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D101-2BCONSTITUTION-2BAVENUE-2C-2BNW-25C2-25A0-257C-25C2-25A0SUITE-2B900-2B-250D-250A-2BWASHINGTON-2C-2BD.C.-2C-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A020001-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=bOnsvokUfQPwBI3HtclCjiE-bJGMYN9TR_SvqGIcd6Y&s=BdGvXcDFynHcEXsSntZtkLbh1aB3FsTqJ8rqqXo02Dg&e=>
>
> *T** 202.689.2939   **F** 202.689.2862  *
>
>
>
> *NELSONMULLINS.COM**[nelsonmullins.com]*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nelsonmullins.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=bOnsvokUfQPwBI3HtclCjiE-bJGMYN9TR_SvqGIcd6Y&s=61m9NWRXAXy1R90v8ldgxccYGkWnZVANdn3mMeZvhRs&e=>
>     *VCARD**[nelsonmullins.com]*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nelsonmullins.com_people_john-2Dmcelwaine_vcard&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=bOnsvokUfQPwBI3HtclCjiE-bJGMYN9TR_SvqGIcd6Y&s=P6N9FFYxFXGcCjC7ZgRSguLH3sHUscSL6FhbL2RadKc&e=>
>   *VIEW BIO**[nelsonmullins.com]*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nelsonmullins.com_people_john-2Dmcelwaine&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=bOnsvokUfQPwBI3HtclCjiE-bJGMYN9TR_SvqGIcd6Y&s=ghLIBEW_18_EU62jvN0ItiBn90KoYSqrIjA6eiJix4g&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Confidentiality Notice:
> This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the
> meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
> 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by
> the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may
> contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney
> work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
> copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or
> attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us
> immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original
> transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> ***DISC
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=151%0D%0A+MEETING+STREET+%7C+CHARLESTON,+SC+29401&entry=gmail&source=g>LAIMER***
> Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained
> in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or
> written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
> penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or
> recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: Colorful silhouette of a woman’s head, representing the theme of
> the World IP Day campaign.][wipo.int]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_ip-2Doutreach_en_ipday_index.html-3Futm-5Fsource-3Dwipomail-26utm-5Fmedium-3Dsignature-26utm-5Fcampaign-3Dipday2018&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=bOnsvokUfQPwBI3HtclCjiE-bJGMYN9TR_SvqGIcd6Y&s=eRGuNfLP9_2JPtDwtydMymijJv80mxZLtMjNF2UsyVg&e=>
>
> *Powering change:*
> *Women in innovation and creativity*
> *World Intellectual Property Day 2018*
> *April 26*
> wipo.int/ipday[wipo.int]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_ip-2Doutreach_en_ipday_index.html-3Futm-5Fsource-3Dwipomail-26utm-5Fmedium-3Dsignature-26utm-5Fcampaign-3Dipday2018&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=bOnsvokUfQPwBI3HtclCjiE-bJGMYN9TR_SvqGIcd6Y&s=eRGuNfLP9_2JPtDwtydMymijJv80mxZLtMjNF2UsyVg&e=>
>    #worldipday
>
>
>
> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic
> message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected
> information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please
> immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its
> attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses
> prior to opening or using.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> 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/20180417/c93da79b/attachment-0001.html>