[GNSO-RPM-WG] Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 10 March 2019

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear All,

Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 10 March 2019 at 18:30 UTC at the virtual ICANN67 meeting.  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/2020-03-10+ICANN67+-+Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+WG.

Best Regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

==

NOTES & ACTION ITEMS

Actions:

Review of EPDP Suggested Potential/Preliminary Recommendations

ACTION ITEMS:

  1.  Accept the minor/non-substantive edits to the first paragraph of the recommendation.
  2.  Delete the substantive edits to the second paragraph of the recommendation, but maintain the minor/non-substantive edits.
  3.  Delete the third paragraph of the recommendation and make it a question for public comment.
  4.  In the context section quote from Appendix D of the Temp Spec.

Notes:

1. Review of EPDP Suggested Potential/Preliminary Recommendations

URS Recommendation #1:

“Furthermore, the Working Group recommends that, to the extent this is operationally feasible, legally compliant and consistent with the final Phase 1 recommendations from the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data,  the URS Procedure para 3.3 be amended to allow the Complainant to update the Complaint within 2-3 calendar days after the URS Provider provides updated discloses the registration data related to the disputed domain name(s).”

-- Question about “operationally feasible, legally compliant” – need to be clearer.

-- Reflects some of the concerns that people have had in the EPDP context.  Given that we haven’t had the benefit of interactions with the providers who are getting the data and giving it to the complainant – we don’t know if our recommendation is feasible.  So we put the caveats in.  The EPDP also is wrestling with this as part of its Phase 2 recommendations.  So we should reflect the need for any new requirement to be legally compliant.

-- Who decides “legally compliant” – this is something the EDPD is talking about.  The plan is that this is something that needs to be further discussed as part of implementation.

-- The language around “legally compliant” is not as crisp.  Suggest: “… to the extent that this is operationally feasible, compliant with applicable law, and consistent with the final Phase 1 recommendations …”

-- FORUM has a process of automatically generating the complaint with the WHOIS information will populate automatically.  We know that is often redacted.  We contact the registry and sometimes the registrar to obtain the full contact information.  When it comes to the amendment to the complaint that currently isn’t allowed under the rules.  As far as the 2-3 calendar day window – for UDRP we require a 5-day window.  That is a short window but you have to balance that with how fast you want the URS to be.  We think that is feasible.

-- Paragraphs 1 and 2 don’t change the WG’s recommendations.  They were put in as we were discussing the EPDP and CCT-RT recommendations with the Co-Chairs.  We thought we should make it clear that these two paragraphs do take into account the EPDP recommendations.

-- Paragraph 3 is new.  Staff is suggesting that new text to address whether there are GDPR implications.

-- Strongly object to the addition of paragraph 3 and don’t think we need to alter paragraphs 1 and 2.

-- Think about striking paragraph 3 and new language in paragraph 2.  Add a paragraph that we recognize that this recommendation is going to affect the URS rules and supplemental rules but also rule 15 of the URS and once the registrant’s data is known that it could request that it continue to be shielded.

-- Seems clear that the WG does not support paragraph 3 as a recommendation, but could be a question for public comment.  Paragraph 2 – take the highlighted language out and note in the context that there was a range of views to flag it for public comment.

-- Majority of WG members on the call supported maintaining the original language of paragraph 2, which was agreed to by the WG.

-- EPDP tried to avoid using the terminology of “thin” registry.  Staff suggestion is that we quote from appendix D of the Temp Spec, to make it clearer.



ACTION ITEMS:

  1.  Accept the minor/non-substantive edits to the first paragraph of the recommendation.
  2.  Delete the substantive edits to the second paragraph of the recommendation, but maintain the minor/non-substantive edits.
  3.  Delete the third paragraph of the recommendation and make it a question for public comment.
  4.  In the context section quote from Appendix D of the Temp Spec.


2. Review of CCT-RT Suggested Potential/Preliminary Recommendations



-- New text on page 14 – staff wishes to confirm that the WG agrees with the summary of how the WG addressed the CCT-RT’s recommendations #9, #27, and #28.

-- There are recommendations that related to the CCT-RT’s recommendations, but these are not addressed in a specific way.
-- The WG members had no changes to the text.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20200310/38f333b0/attachment-0001.html>