[GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 20 November 2019

Wed Nov 20 21:49:38 UTC 2019

Dear All,

Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 20 November 2019 at 17:00 UTC.  Staff will post these to the wiki space.  Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, Zoom chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-11-20+Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+WG.

Best Regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

==

NOTES & ACTION ITEMS

Actions:

Pages 9-10: OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) – ACTION: Move the second paragraph to the top and also put the questions before the specifics (as they are more general).
Page 11: F. REMEDIES - 4. Other topics (Providers ST) – ACTION: Provide a description/definition of the HSTS-preloaded domain suspension remedy.
Page 11: G. APPEAL - 1. Appeals process POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST) -- ACTION: Add text in column 2 noting the consolidation with page 7.

Page 12: G. APPEAL - 2. De novo review and H. POTENTIALLY OVERLAPPING PROCESS STEPS - 1. Potential overlap concerning duration of respondent appeal, review and extended reply periods along the URS process timeline POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST; see also Section H) -- ACTION: Revise column 2 to indicate that the WG will review after the URS individual proposals go out for public comment.  No recommendation for the WG at this time.  Delete the current text in column 2.
Page 13: I. COST - 1. Cost allocation model (Providers ST) -- ACTION: Add that FORUM has never collected these fees.

J. LANGUAGE ISSUES - 1. Language issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice of complaint, response, determination

Page 14: OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) -- ACTION: Add the reference concerning consolidation with pages 8-10 to column 2.
Page 15: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST) (middle of page) -- ACTION: Update column 2 to include the explanation that the WG agreed to withdraw this recommendation.
Page 15: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST) (bottom of page) -- ACTION: Change from “guidance to assist examiners” to “guidance to assist URS providers”, but not sure we need the recommendation at all.  Also, change to WG recommendation.

Page 17: L. EDUCATION & TRAINING - 1. Responsibility for education and training of complainants, registrants, registry operators and registrars, POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST; see also Section H) -- ACTION: Change to “WG recommends” (as the WG has previously discussed).
Page 18: M. URS PROVIDERS - 1. Evaluation of URS providers and their respective processes (including training of panelists) OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) -- ACTION: Include the reference to the consolidation with pages 8-10 in column 2.

Review Revisions from the WG Discussions in Montreal:
A. THE COMPLAINT - 6. Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec
Page 1: OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) -- ACTION: Add in brackets/all caps that the language has been overcome by events and is better addressed section X/Y/Z below.
Page 2: OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST) -- ACTION: Insert bracketed text that this has been overcome by events and reference EPDP recommendation #23 as well as the recommendations on compliance.
Page 2: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST) (bottom of page 2) -- ACTION: Start with this item on the next call on 04 December.

Notes:

1.  Updates to Statements of Interest:

-- Justine Chew: Now seated as a member of the ALAC. However, unless otherwise stated, my views in this WG are that of my own.

2. Working Group to complete discussions regarding the recommendations of the URS Sub Teams’ to go into the Initial Report, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vFYm9o/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vFYm9o/edit?usp=sharing%20%5bdocs.google.com%5d> (top of page 9)

F. REMEDIES - 2. Duration of suspension period; 3. Review of implementation

Page 8: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST)
-- Revised language agreed to at ICANN66.

Pages 9-10: OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST)
-- Questions are broad.
-- Include the context.  Staff notes that we’ll include the deliberations in any case.  The intention is to include the entire text of column 2 in the Initial Report.
-- ACTIONS: Move the second paragraph to the top and also put the questions before the specifics (as they are more general).

Page 11: F. REMEDIES - 4. Other topics (Providers ST)
-- ACTION: Provide a description/definition of the HSTS-preloaded domain suspension remedy.

Page 11: G. APPEAL - 1. Appeals process POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST)
-- Consolidated with top of page 7, policy recommendation.
-- ACTION: Add text in column 2 noting the consolidation with page 7.

Page 12: G. APPEAL - 2. De novo review and H. POTENTIALLY OVERLAPPING PROCESS STEPS - 1. Potential overlap concerning duration of respondent appeal, review and extended reply periods along the URS process timeline

POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST; see also Section H)
-- The WG has not made a determination on Sub Team recommendations 1 and 2 so there is nothing to include in the Initial Report.
-- With respect to adjusting the response times, what prompted it was that there was a redundancy in the appeals process.  So for economy purposes make this into one appeal.  Also, hope that proposal #36 will go out for public comment as a proposal to address the redundancy.
-- ACTION: Revise column 2 to indicate that the WG will review after the URS individual proposals go out for public comment.  No recommendation for the WG at this time.  Delete the current text in column 2.

Page 13: I. COST - 1. Cost allocation model (Providers ST)
-- Acts as a deterrent against late responses.
-- ACTION: Add that FORUM has never collected these fees.

J. LANGUAGE ISSUES - 1. Language issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice of complaint, response, determination

Page 14: OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST)
-- Consolidated with recommendation on pages 8-10.
-- ACTION: Add the reference concerning consolidation with pages 8-10 to column 2.

Page 15: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST) (middle of page):
-- ACTION: Update column 2 to include the explanation that the WG agreed to withdraw this recommendation.

Page 15: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Documents ST) (bottom of page):
-- Revised the language to put it in the form of a recommendation and consolidated it with the action item at the top of page 16.
-- By the time the examiner gets the case we’ve had to make a determination on the language based on the examiner we select.  So it wouldn’t be guidance to the examiner, but to the provider.  Per FORUM, this has not been an issue at all.
-- ACTION: Change from “guidance to assist examiners” to “guidance to assist URS providers”, but not sure we need the recommendation at all.  Also, change to WG recommendation.

Page 16: K. ABUSE OF PROCESS - 1. Misuse of the process, including by trademark owners, registrants and “repeat offenders”; 2. Forum shopping; 3. Other documented abuses (Providers ST)
-- WG agrees that these are appropriate questions to ask.

Page 17: L. EDUCATION & TRAINING - 1. Responsibility for education and training of complainants, registrants, registry operators and registrars

POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST)
-- Consolidated the language and made it read as a recommendation.
-- ACTION: Change to “WG recommends” (as the WG has previously discussed).

Page 18: M. URS PROVIDERS - 1. Evaluation of URS providers and their respective processes (including training of panelists)
OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST)
-- Consolidated with the recommendations on pages 8-10.
-- ACTION: Include the reference to the consolidation with pages 8-10 in column 2.

Review Revisions from the WG Discussions in Montreal:

Page 1, A. THE COMPLAINT - 4. Administrative review
OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST)
-- Noted that FORUM already checks this.  Include the rationale when including in the Initial Report.

A. THE COMPLAINT - 6. Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec

Page 1: OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST)
-- Staff suggestion based on the WG discussion is to delete the recommendation, based on FORUM’s practice and EPDP recommendation #27.
-- Why delete this if it doesn’t raise inconsistencies?
-- FORUM is the only provide that auto-populates data.  As we discussed in Montreal we are populating with anything that would need to be redacted for privacy purposes.
-- We could keep language and simply make reference to the paragraph that deals with it comprehensively.
-- ACTION: Add in brackets/all caps that the language has been overcome by events and is better addressed section X/Y/Z below.

Page 2: OPERATIONAL FIX (Providers ST)
-- After review of the WG discussion the staff suggestion is to delete this recommendation.
-- Overlaps with EPDP recommendation #23.
-- ACTION: Insert bracketed text that this has been overcome by events and reference EPDP recommendation #23 as well as the recommendations on compliance.

Page 2: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST) (bottom of page 2)
-- Change to a WG recommendation.
-- Delete the second sentence?
-- This specific language was proposed by MFSD.
-- ACTION: Start with this item on the next call on 04 December.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20191120/3f1f778d/attachment-0001.html>