[GNSO-RPM-WG] Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 February 2019

Fri Feb 7 22:09:03 UTC 2020

I’m not going to be able to explain numbers I didn’t provide; Staff may be able to provide some insight into their drafting. When I was on the call and driving, I knew that our detailed coding did not produce the 7% number. I was not able to re-do the math at that point, and I assumed it was some sort of typo.

Rebecca Tushnet
Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School

Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.

On Feb 7, 2020, at 4:55 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

Rebecca,

Thank you for recirculating the URS Case Review spreadsheet.  I'll let Georges explain the methodology he applied to the cases to determine whether or not there was a rationale, and his concerns with the methodology applied in the URS Case Review.

However, the "17% of over 900 Determinations" that was cited in the draft report reviewed yesterday appears to be wrong, even if one believes the cases in the spreadsheet were correctly classified.

On the "Examiner Analysis" tab, there are 105 "no" cases and 682 "yes" cases for a total of 787 cases.  105 divided by 787 equals = 13.342%.
(There were an additional 46 withdrawn cases, for a total of 833 cases.)

I'm not sure what accounts for the gap between 787 cases and "over 900" cases.  The difference in number and result is significant.  Assuming that "over 900" means there were 950 cases and 17% (as claimed) were "no" cases, that would indicate there were 161 "no" cases, rather than 105 (a difference of 56 cases).  That in turn would mean that of the 163 missing cases, the missing "no" cases were 34.3% of the total -- a very different (and skewed) population compared to the population reflected in the spreadsheet. The inclusion of this hyper-incompetent subpopulation (absent from the record) in the population that formed the basis of the initial report's statement produced a result that seems to have significantly overstated the 'reality' created by the methodology applied in the spreadsheet.

I'd be curious to know how these discrepancies arose.

I'll toss it back to George to address concerns with the methodology, and the methodology he used to arrive at his conclusion.

Best regards,

Greg

On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 8:01 AM Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu<mailto:rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>> wrote:
I am reattaching the URS case review data table. The methodology used to code whether there was an explanation for the decision: cut-and-paste copying of URS standard/ procedure, including where the Examiner indicated the type of bad faith by pasting the procedure followed by, for example, 1.2.6.3(a) with no detail or fact-finding.

Rebecca Tushnet
Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
703 593 6759
________________________________
From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 4:10 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 February 2019

Dear All,

Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 05 February 2019 at 18:00 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/2020-02-05+Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+WG<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_RARPMRIAGPWG_2020-2D02-2D05-2BReview-2Bof-2Ball-2BRights-2BProtection-2BMechanisms-2B-2528RPMs-2529-2Bin-2Ball-2BgTLDs-2BPDP-2BWG&d=DwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=_92aw1R7-_ZSJmQ1uaWQme747TdczSipQu7J_57hU-E&s=gUNwo1SHHOcwN_wivFz5YInQvhgXERwYsKCvzsFQ7lE&e=>.

Best Regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

==

NOTES & ACTION ITEMS

Actions:

Recommendation #8:

ACTION ITEM: Change to “Some URS providers reported...”

ACTION ITEM: Move recommendations #3 and #8 together.

Recommendation #5:

ACTION ITEM: Change to “and/or FAQ”.  And, to “with help from URS providers” (delete “the”).

Recommendation #6:

Context:

ACTION ITEM: Re: the figure of %7 in “(a WG member found there are roughly 7% of over 900 issued Determinations that did not include the rationale)”. Suggest changing to less specific language as follows, “

ACTION ITEM: Staff will check whether there is any compliance issue based on rules/procedure and add some text accordingly.

ACTION ITEM: Change to, “Nevertheless, some WG members cautioned against micromanaging and imposing burdensome guidance on panelists, who have limited time and compensation in handling URS cases.”

 Recommendation #7:

ACTION ITEM: Delete the word “with” in, “This recommendation specifically concerns with the following URS Technical Requirement.”

Recommendation #9:

ACTION ITEM: Delete “Post GDPR implementation” from the beginning of the second paragraph.

Recommendation #10:

Context:

ACTION ITEM: Change last sentence in paragraph 3 to: “FORUM reported that it has received some complaints regarding its online filing portal.”

Question #1:

Context:

ACTION ITEM: Delete the third paragraph.

ACTION ITEM: Delete the terms “or court case”.

Question #4:

ACTION ITEM: Re: “This workaround may counter some operational challenges -- for example, the original sponsoring Registrar may not accept payment in the currency of the country where the prevailing Complainant resides. However, some other WG members questioned the feasibility of implementation. As the suspended domain name must remain registered to the Respondent, the Respondent may not agree with the transfer due to geo-political reasons or governmental regulations, for example.”   WG Co-Chairs to consider changing the example to non-specific language such as, “This workaround may counter some operational challenges.  Various examples were discussed by the WG.”

Notes:

1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest: None provided.

2. Continue Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: URS – Draft of Initial Report Text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZWow09gE6-YmZYcty81CT2Tujm-3vTZE7lHj2fIZXE/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1wZWow09gE6-2DYmZYcty81CT2Tujm-2D3vTZE7lHj2fIZXE_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=NzviWLMuXxtAzD7auTszQy9l0_oL38MbtnuIMd6I7V4&s=PSJK3ky-qf3lFgAMIZayYvQEqQ2c7RqAG-UlMP5eeRA&e=>

General Notes:

-- The URS recommendations and questions have already been discussed and approved by the WG.  In addition, the URS context language is based on the Super Consolidated Table that the Sub Teams presented to the WG and that was approved by the WG.

-- As is the GNSO's practice, the document is being circulated for the purpose of ensuring that WG members are comfortable with the format and overall coverage of the recommendations and deliberations. Please remember that the Initial Report is meant to focus on specific recommendations/proposals, with brief, relevant, accompanying rationale, rather than be a comprehensive record of the WG's deliberations.

-- WG members should not reopen recommendations or context language to substantive revisions, but only noting where there may need to be corrections, such as for grammar, typos, or references.

Recommendation #3:

Comment from David McCauley: “Recommendation #3 is redundant with URS Procedures 4.2 and 4.3 themselves which appear to me to be self-evidently mandatory – but maybe clarification as per Rec #3 is good. Instead, I wonder whether Rec #3 is as specific as needed with respect to the concept of ‘predominant language’ and ‘fax’ – as we can see by looking at 4.2 and 4.3 but I will ask about that on next call – not sure we can change Rec language at this point.”

-- These touch on the same subject, but they aren’t redundant.

-- Not changes from the WG.

Recommendation #8:

-- There might be some benefit of moving 3 next to 8 in the doc, but I don't think we should start deleting or combining recommendations at this stage given the timing pressure we are under.

-- Seems to be informed by recommendation #3, but isn’t duplicative.

-- We did hear from some URS providers that they reported non-compliance to ICANN.

 ACTION ITEM: Change to “Some URS providers reported...”

ACTION ITEM: Move recommendations #3 and #8 together.

Recommendation #4:

-- Seems like a straightforward technical fix.

-- No changes from the WG.

Recommendation #5:

ACTION ITEM: Change to “and/or FAQ”.  And, to “with help from URS providers” (delete “the”).

Recommendation #6:

Context:

ACTION ITEM: Re: the figure of 7% in “(a WG member found there are roughly 7% of over 900 issued Determinations that did not include the rationale)”. Suggest replacing the last sentence in the first paragraph with the following text: “Several Determinations did not appear to have an articulated rationale.”

ACTION ITEM: Staff will check whether there is any compliance issue based on rules/procedure and add some text accordingly.

ACTION ITEM: Change to, “Nevertheless, some WG members cautioned against micromanaging and imposing burdensome guidance on panelists, who have limited time and compensation in handling URS cases.”

 Recommendation #7:

ACTION ITEM: Delete the word “with” in, “This recommendation specifically concerns with the following URS Technical Requirement.”

Recommendation #9:

-- A few typos were found that were fixed.

ACTION ITEM: Delete “Post GDPR implementation” from the beginning of the second paragraph.

Recommendation #10:

Context:

-- FORUM: Can’t say this a problem for us. Not everyone is going to know how to use the portal, so we can’t say that there are no problems.

ACTION ITEM: Change last sentence in paragraph 3 to: “FORUM reported that it has received some complaints regarding its online filing portal.”

Question #1:

Context:

-- Re: “Nevertheless, Providers rely heavily on information provided by the URS Parties and are unable to search or track active court cases related to the URS proceedings in certain jurisdiction.”  See this comment: “If this is not required by the URS or Rules (it does not appear to be given the above-quoted language) it should be removed or at minimum edited to remove reference to courts and jurisdictions; there are UDRP cases addressing this overlap, and in some cases it is deemed entirely appropriate by the Panel to proceed to a UDRP decision notwithstanding a court action (e.g., especially, but not only, if the subject matter is unrelated).”

-- There are, in fact, UDRP and URS cases that move forward despite the current pendency of court cases.

-- What if the court case has grown out of a UDRP or URS proceeding?  It is incumbent on the parties to bring that to the panel’s attention.

-- Maybe this is here in error – strike the references to “court case”.

ACTION ITEM: Delete the third paragraph.

ACTION ITEM: Delete the terms “or court case”.

Question #2:

-- No changes from the WG.

Question #3:

-- Did we mean to include examiners as recipients for the educational materials?  They are included I recommendation #5, which is related.

-- Just don’t provide them with specific direction.

-- No changes from the WG.

Question #4:

-- Question about whether we should note that in some countries they may not legally be able to pay.

-- Concern about citing specifics.  We can just change the text from the example itself to something like "various examples were discussed by the WG".

-- Continue discussion on the next call.

ACTION ITEMS: Re: “This workaround may counter some operational challenges -- for example, the original sponsoring Registrar may not accept payment in the currency of the country where the prevailing Complainant resides. However, some other WG members questioned the feasibility of implementation. As the suspended domain name must remain registered to the Respondent, the Respondent may not agree with the transfer due to geo-political reasons or governmental regulations, for example.”   WG Co-Chairs to consider changing the example to non-specific language such as, “This workaround may counter some operational challenges.  Various examples were discussed by the WG.”

_______________________________________________
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org<mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=cIN1_UwVCU6ZTHHuJ8xWYV3BwAuulOFfhYy_o3DGBa8&s=xN4wvrfYwBKefe0kqUani94rAvtmqx95cTNPfGomnJA&e=>
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=cIN1_UwVCU6ZTHHuJ8xWYV3BwAuulOFfhYy_o3DGBa8&s=fCv3jtsi2kBS-wyAUzPk_9-nMEcQtNfAfPRgTqCxK4s&e=>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=cIN1_UwVCU6ZTHHuJ8xWYV3BwAuulOFfhYy_o3DGBa8&s=pmGlYMPFWT-xIN1aHZMxsuQeOTl5YIjnVddF2ktAG3I&e=>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20200207/8abc36ca/attachment-0001.html>