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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Fri Apr 20 18:05:44 UTC 2018


David,

Thinking through the Trademark Claims process, I do not see any significant
change or impediment arising from the loss of Whois access.   In contrast,
as John McElwaine stated at the beginning of this, there are serious
impediments to the URS process.

Greg

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:44 PM Cyntia King <cking at modernip.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the technical expertise, Jeff.
>
>
>
> Although I would find it gratifying, after 2 years of work, to knock out a
> report on all the new RPMs, I find the current GDPR work a fatal impediment
> to completing the review of URS & UDRP separately.
>
>
>
> Work on the Providers sub-team has convinced me that the URS and UDRP
> share similar mechanisms & processes (for example: RPM provider reporting,
> the hiring/training/monitoring of examiners, notification of parties to RPM
> proceedings, etc.) most easily addressed together.  As well, many of these
> mechanisms & processes will be similarly impacted by the GDPR.
>
>
>
> I think it makes sense at this point to address the URS & UDRP together,
> especially as the moving parts of the GDRP eventually fall into place.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Cyntia King*
>
> E:  cking at modernip
>
> O:  +1 81-ModernIP
>
> C:  +1 818.209.6088
>
> [image: MIP Composite (Email)]
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Jeff
> Neuman
> *Sent:* Friday, April 20, 2018 11:07 AM
> *To:* McAuley, David <dmcauley at verisign.com>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposal to Shift URS review to Phase II
>
>
>
> David,
>
>
>
> With respect to the relationship of the URS to the Next round, I actually
> do not share your view.
>
>
>
> You state: “The URS, as a new gTLD RPM, is a critical consideration for
> the next round of gTLDs. It needs to be nailed down for that round, and
> delaying that work until Phase Two creates a significant impediment to
> being able to start a rational new round of gTLDs.”
>
>
>
> This is something that leadership of both PDPs have been discussing for a
> while now and we do not believe that the URS has an impact on the new gTLD
> Program since everything pretty much occurs outside of the
> registry/registrar process.  With the exception of a registry having to
> lock down names and ultimately having to point to an IP address and
> allowing a registrar to renew a name for an additional year (in the case
> the complainant wins), there is no other impact.  It does not materially
> impact the costs of running a registry, will not impact a registry’s
> business case, etc.  Nor does it impact the relevant phases of the new gTLD
> Program that SubPro is focusing on (namely, pre-application period, the
> application period, evaluation, contracting, delegation, etc.).
>
>
>
> I see this very different than Sunrise, Trademark Claims, the TMCH, etc.
> as those can have a significant impact on business cases and can very well
> play a role in a registry’s decision in whether or not to apply for a
> particular string.  The process for the URS, like the UDRP, I do not
> believe will (or should) play into the decision for a TLD applicant to move
> forward or not.
>
>
> Although this is my personal opinion, this has been discussed with the
> leadership of both PDPs as well as with the GNSO Council.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> *Jeffrey J. Neuman*
>
> *Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
>
> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
>
> Mclean, VA 22102, United States
>
> E: *jeff.neuman at valideus.com <jeff.neuman at valideus.com>* or *jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
> <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>*
>
> T: +1.703.635.7514
>
> M: +1.202.549.5079
>
> @Jintlaw
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *McAuley,
> David via gnso-rpm-wg
> *Sent:* Friday, April 20, 2018 8:51 AM
> *To:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposal to Shift URS review to Phase II
>
>
>
> I have been giving this proposal a lot of thought since John first raised
> it at ICANN 61, and have been interested in his formal written proposal and
> the subsequent thoughtful comments from George, Kurt, Jon and others. Thank
> you all.
>
>
>
> Noting that these are my personal views, I have serious concerns with
> moving URS-review into Phase 2.
>
>
>
> One question our charter poses is whether any of the new gTLD RPMs should
> be consensus policies applicable to all gTLDs and what transitional issues
> would that entail. In my opinion, that thrust of our work needs to treat
> all new gTLD RPMs holistically in the same effort, with the same thought
> process, the same rigor etc. – separating these so widely in time will
> undermine such a consistent approach.
>
>
>
> Moreover, as our work was designed, new gTLD RPMs are to be considered in
> Phase One and the legacy RPM in Phase Two. They were segmented that way for
> a reason, not least allowing new gTLD RPMs to be coordinated with the Sub
> Pro PDP WG (as our charter recognizes). The URS, as a new gTLD RPM, is a
> critical consideration for the next round of gTLDs. It needs to be nailed
> down for that round, and delaying that work until Phase Two creates a
> significant impediment to being able to start a rational new round of
> gTLDs.
>
>
>
> With respect to the impact of GDPR, won’t that affect just about
> everything? Are we sure, for example, that GDPR won’t impact the Trademark
> Claims process?
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> David
>
>
>
> David McAuley
>
> Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
>
> Verisign Inc.
>
> 703-948-4154
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Martin Pablo Silva Valent
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 18, 2018 12:51 PM
> *To:* Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposal to Shift URS review to
> Phase II
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Just a quick opinion I can extend later.
>
> 1) I oposse to the proposal. I think we have a mandate by the council to
> finish URS for the new gTLDs round.
>
> 2) URS shares a lot of things with UDRP, but as mechanisms they have to be
> analyzed separately, even if we want to apply one finding to the other that
> I analogy has to be reviewed.
>
> 3) UDRP will take a long time of work and consensus, research,etc. Letting
> the URS as it is for that long with no review sounds too much.
>
> 4) We are not that far from ending URS compared to the actual times of the
> new rounds.
>
> 5) about the new one and only neutral chair, I also oppose to the
> proposal, the amount of work in the UDRP needa more than one hand, and in
> any case, chair have to be neutral, regardless of their personal position.
> By having three or more chairs they can share workload and achieve a
> natural balance on the chairing neutrality. We are not in the case where
> chairs take turn to impose their views.
>
> 6)the talks in PR on the new PDP process (3.0) and how to improve it, like
> changes in how we chart working groups, is something to debate for future
> PDPs, and despite the changes we do to improve our work, is important to
> understand that difference. What the council was talking about is a general
> debate on PDPs, using actual one to scope ideas, but not to change them
> from one day to another.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Martín Silva
>
> GNSO Councilor
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018, 12:41 PM Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg <
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the excellent summary/explanation, Mary.
>
>
>
> Speaking personally, I would hope and expect that if the WG reaches
> consensus on any recommend changes to the TMCH, Claims Notice, and Sunrise
> Registrations that we would issue a Final Report at the conclusion of Phase
> One – noting that it is the WG, not the co-chairs, who will either reach
> consensus or not. That would permit any such changes to be in place for the
> next round of new gTLDs.
>
>
>
> I did not mention URS in the preceding paragraph because we have an
> ongoing dialogue on that.
>
>
>
> Best, Philip
>
>
>
> Philip S. Corwin
>
> Policy Counsel
>
> VeriSign, Inc.
>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> 703-948-4648/Direct
>
> 571-342-7489/Cell
>
>
>
> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *claudio
> di gangi
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 17, 2018 2:53 PM
> *To:* Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposal to Shift URS review to
> Phase II
>
>
>
> 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>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180420/f02a7b93/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5425 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180420/f02a7b93/image003-0001.png>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list