[gnso-rpm-wg] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 17 Sept 2018

Mon Sep 17 19:29:09 UTC 2018

Dear All,

Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 17 September 2018 (17:00-18:30 UTC).  Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes.  Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-09-17+Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+WG. 

See also the proposals at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Proposals. 

Best Regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

==

Actions:

ACTION ITEMS: Re: David McCauley’s proposal:  1) Staff to point to the data collected on the late responses.  2) David agreed to provide revisions based on the feedback.

Notes:

1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates: No updates.

2. Discussion of Individual URS Proposals: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Proposals: 

Operational Fixes: 

1. Kristine Dorrain: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-1.pdf?api=v2.

Discussion:

-- The sentence in URS Paragraph 6 that Kristine pointed out (6.2) also bars the Registrant from changing the WHOIS information, and that could be a problem because a) the WHOIS information may legitimately change (e.g., a business registrant relocates its office or an individual registrant moves or gets a new phone number), and b) other obligations in ICANN contracts require registrants to keep their information current. Kristine agreed this was a known problem. Since it’s part of the same sentence, and Kristine agreed, I think it can go out for public comment too (or at least in our notes for review by Staff and Co-Chairs).

-- Third parties could change it - hosting, persons who hacked the hosting account etc., and the Registrant cannot prevent that in all occasions.

-- Is this procedure covered any place else?  Then we could remove it.  Otherwise it needs to be somewhere.  Is the obligation on the registrar or registry.

Kristine's responses:

1) To Kathy Kleiman Re: the prevention of WHOIS changes: There was a secondary review, and one of the things discussed was the challenge between a domain name registrar to maintain accurate WHOIS and if it is locked it is hard to maintain accurate WHOIS.  If you do a lock that prevents the registrant from changing WHOIS information. 

2) To Michael Graham: the lock really only affects transfer and WHOIS, it doesn't affect content.  You cannot require the registry or registrar to lock content because they have no control over it.  This concept is not covered elsewhere in the URS.  There is no definition of "default period".

It seems that the WG supports including the proposal in the Initial Report for public comment.

2. Maxim Alzoba: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-2.pdf?api=v2 

Discussion:  Support proposal to put this some place that makes more sense.

It seems that the WG supports including the proposal in the Initial Report for public comment.

3. Zak Muscovitch: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-3.pdf?api=v2 

Discussion:

-- Would you be amenable to say that the EDDP applied instead?  See: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registars/accreditation/eddp-en

-- Support the change.

Zak's Response to Kristine Dorrain:  That seems like a potential solution (re: EDDP).

It seems that the WG supports including the proposal in the Initial Report for public comment.

4. George Kirikos: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-4.pdf?api=v2 

Discussion:

-- For HTTPS there will be an issue of certificates, which ones to use?  for example URS was lost. TLD redirected to 207.250.29.219 as ordered .. how to put certificates there, and what reasons to have it (when there is no right to use it)?

-- We don't always get deletion and expiration date so that would be something additional to keep track of.

-- The URS fees are very low; to the extent that providers do additional work and yet we don't want them to raise fees, we should note that the money will need to come from somewhere.

-- Each proposal that has add-on effects can trigger resource implications for providers, and the URS is meant to be lightweight, with corresponding reduced fees; the more is added, the more we stray from the URS' intent

-- With HTTPS there are some technical things to check with the technical community.

It seems that the WG supports including the proposal in the Initial Report for public comment.

Policy Proposals:

5. Claudio DiGangi: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-6.pdf?api=v2 

Discussion:

-- Support to include in Initial Report for public comment.  Concerns that there could be hundreds of complainants in one dispute.  Would the word limit be exceeded in the response?  Would there need to be an operational fix with the word limit for Complainants and Respondents?

-- In UDRP complainants are related through licensing.  Are we talking about allowing a licensing arrangement, or about a joint Complaint within the word limit?

-- If a respondent has to respond to multiple complaints without a common thread, not sure what the advantage is.  How to keep it streamlined.

-- Don't understand the benefits of the proposal., but support including it for public comment.

-- May not be right for public comment.  Question about whether this is what UDRP allows.

-- This would be more efficient and a better use of resources.  The idea is where you have a set of related acts you should be able to bring them into a single case.

-- The point about efficiency is key - this proposal, despite some of the operational concerns noted, should actually improve overall efficiency, as it avoids having multiple complainants bringing multiple URS cases against the same individual respondent, requiring multiple different panelists, etc.

-- Support putting it out for public comment.

-- Could get at serial squatters.  Agree that it should be put out for public comment.

-- May be worth looking at.

-- Don't think it should be put out for public comment because of the ambiguities.   What the term "related registrants" means.  Or what a licensee is. Could benefit from additional detail.

-- This proposal leaves a bunch of unanswered questions.  Could affect word limit as well as fees.

-- Proposal says "unrelated Complainants" so not sure how you reach the question about licensees.

Claudio's responses:

-- Re UDRP -- will circulate some cases to the list that describe the standard in this type of situation.

-- If registration abuse has a pattern by the registrant.

It seems that WG members expressed both support for, and opposition to, including the proposal in the Initial Report for public comment.

6. David McAuley: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-9.pdf?api=v2 

Discussion:

-- Opposed to the proposal.   Most registrants aren't monitoring for disputes.  The time in URS respects the uncertainty of actual notice.  The proposal seems to suggest that there is strategic defaulting, but don't think there is evidence of that.

-- I think it is a very thoughtful proposal and in my personal capacity would support it.  Similar to the INTA proposal.

-- Oppose the proposal, although we can get comments on it.  No evidence of this being needed.

--  Absolutely would like to hear from the community on this issue.

-- Oppose putting this up for public comment because this would give the impression that there is a problem to be fixed.

-- Should look at this, but might need more fleshing out before we consider it for public comment.  Lean towards wanting to put it out for public comment, but understand that the process should be efficient and having a one-year period doesn't seem efficient.

-- If this replaces the de novo appeal procedure we need clarification.

-- Deserves to be put out for comment, but needs to be cleaned up a bit.

-- De Novo Review = examiner looks at the case on the merits if a response was filed within 6 months, even if there was already a Default Determination. Appeal = de novo look at the case if an appeal is filed within 14 days of a determination.

-- Forum wrestled with these back in the day and ended up with stronger supplemental rules:  http://www.adrforum.com/resources/URS/URS%20Supplemental%20Rules.pdf

-- Don't see an identified problem.  

Responses from David:

-- Open to doing some revisions based on the feedback.

-- Re: whether there is a problem -- 12 months is stretching things.  Maybe 90 days would be better.

-- There were some decisions where a complainant made a complaint that was not responded to but then lost.

-- It is possible that there could be 3 separate examiners taking a look.

-- Re: changing the balance of the URS, that is a fair comment.  Seems an anomaly, but would be good to hear from the public.

-- Tend to agree that if is something that is a problem we should put it out there.

It seemed that WG members expressed both support for, and opposition to, including the proposal in the Initial Report for public comment.  David agreed to provide revisions based on the feedback.

ACTION ITEMS: 1) Staff to point to the data collected on the late responses. 2) David agreed to provide revisions based on the feedback. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180917/98413b0d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180917/98413b0d/smime-0001.p7s>