<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: black; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255)">
I'm sorry I had to leave in the middle of this. 1 and 2 seem generally fine. 3 seems pointless: why have a policy if it need not be followed? 4 seems badly worded. "May" makes it optional for providers, which again makes the conflict of interest policy optional.
If we want to clarify that the providers should be the ones enforcing the policy, then we should say that providers should enforce the policy, not that they may do so.</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div id="Signature">
<div>
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div><br>
</div>
Rebecca Tushnet</div>
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School<br>
703 593 6759 </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="appendonsend"></div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 1, 2020 4:55 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [GNSO-RPM-WG] ACTION ITEM: Review Options for Revised Text for Converted Individual URS Proposal #28</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
p.x_MsoNormal, li.x_MsoNormal, div.x_MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif}
a:link, span.x_MsoHyperlink
{color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline}
span.x_apple-converted-space
{}
span.x_EmailStyle20
{font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext}
.x_MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in}
div.x_WordSection1
{}
-->
</style>
<div lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="x_WordSection1">
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Dear All,</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Per the action item from the WG meeting on 01 October (see actions and notes below), please review the following four options for recommendation text to replace the original for Converted Individual URS Proposal #28. For reference see
page 5 the Google doc at: <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DAz2no_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=H7vvnaMK4jE_mVPvVDYyMINUzYSiqHIdnQBgx4eY44s&s=fJzLxN1FXGA-PkkECdlsHfjA2GJoih_L8v_zs51HiCc&e=">
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DAz2no/edit?usp=sharing</a>. </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Please indicate your preference not later than <b><u>16:00 UTC on Monday, 05 October</u></b>, to be discussed at the WG meeting on Tuesday, 06 October at 13:00 UTC.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Option 1:</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have an effective and published Conflict of Interest (COI) policy that the Provider enforces against any Examiners who violates
such policy.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Option 2:</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have an enforceable and published Examiner Conflict of Interest (COI) policy.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Option 3:</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have a published Examiner Conflict of Interest (COI) policy.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Option 4:</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have a published Conflict of Interest (COI) policy that the Provider may reasonably enforce against any Examiner who violates
such policy.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Kind regards,</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Mary, Ariel, and Julie</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<div style="border:none; border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; color:black">From: </span>
</b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; color:black">GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org><br>
<b>Date: </b>Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 3:45 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>"gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[GNSO-RPM-WG] Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 01 October 2020</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Dear All,</span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">Please see below the action items captured by staff from the<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span>RPM PDP Working Group<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span>call held on<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span>01
October <span style="color:black">2020 at 1</span>7<span style="color:black">:00 UTC. Staff<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span>will post<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span>these to the wiki space. <b><i>Please note that these<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span>are<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span>high-level<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span>notes<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span>and
are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript</i></b><i>.</i> The recording, Zoom chat,<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span>transcript<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span>and attendance records are posted on the
wiki<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span>at: </span><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_RARPMRIAGPWG_2020-2D10-2D01-2BReview-2Bof-2Ball-2BRights-2BProtection-2BMechanisms-2B-2528RPMs-2529-2Bin-2Ball-2BgTLDs-2BPDP-2BWG&d=DwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=H7vvnaMK4jE_mVPvVDYyMINUzYSiqHIdnQBgx4eY44s&s=RvPAoAiGSuDvnQ3L6MEpWQKf68ilVUcmUcxK07uOOKo&e=">https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-10-01+Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+WG</a>.
</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">Best Regards,</span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Mary, Ariel, and Julie</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><b> </b></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><b>==</b></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><b>Action Items: </b></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">URS Final Recommendations – Revised URS Recommendation #3</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">ACTION ITEM: Change “Working Group believes” to “Working Group is unaware of any contradiction” in the context.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Overarching Data Collection Recommendation</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">ACTION ITEM: Change text to “over the preceding period of [not less than every 12 months].</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">URS Rec # (was Individual Proposal #28):</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">ACTION ITEM: Put the four options for revised text out for review by the WG on the email distribution list and discuss during a future meeting.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">URS Rec # (was Individual Proposal #34):</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">ACTION ITEM: Staff to send a separate email that will have links to both of the recommendations and will ask WG members to weigh in on 1) whether these separate recommendations are in conflict or complementary and 2) if they are in conflict
should the Implementation Guidance from the new recommendation be incorporated into rec #9.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><b>Notes:</b></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">2. URS Final Recommendations – Revised URS Recommendation #3; see: <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPWMFY/edit?usp=sharing*20*5bdocs.google.com*5d__;JSUl!!PtGJab4!viwPahgRdyDaYI1QnH4o6SssNP1HyOdHX9Yl7QDtKMfV-ZMJDRsQ9Jz3ch5aeO-25dFeTSaDsQ$" title="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPWMFY/edit?usp=sharing*20*5bdocs.google.com*5d__;JSUl!!PtGJab4!viwPahgRdyDaYI1QnH4o6SssNP1HyOdHX9Yl7QDtKMfV-ZMJDRsQ9Jz3ch5aeO-25dFeTSaDsQ$">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPWMFY/edit?usp=sharing
[docs.google.com] [docs.google.com]</a></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><b>ACTION ITEM: Change “Working Group believes” to “Working Group is unaware of any contradiction” in the context.</b></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">3. URS Final Recommendations – Revised URS Recommendation #2, see: <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPWMFY/edit?usp=sharing*20*5bdocs.google.com*5d__;JSUl!!PtGJab4!viwPahgRdyDaYI1QnH4o6SssNP1HyOdHX9Yl7QDtKMfV-ZMJDRsQ9Jz3ch5aeO-25dFeTSaDsQ$">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPWMFY/edit?usp=sharing
[docs.google.com] [docs.google.com]</a></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">-- The WG agrees to the revised language.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">4. URS Final Recommendations – Revised URS Recommendation #8, continued from last meeting, see: <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPWMFY/edit?usp=sharing*20*5bdocs.google.com*5d__;JSUl!!PtGJab4!viwPahgRdyDaYI1QnH4o6SssNP1HyOdHX9Yl7QDtKMfV-ZMJDRsQ9Jz3ch5aeO-25dFeTSaDsQ$">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPWMFY/edit?usp=sharing
[docs.google.com] [docs.google.com]</a></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">New suggested text from staff: “In addition, the Working Group agrees that as set out in the URS Rules and Procedure, a domain name suspension can be extended for one additional year, and the WHOIS for the domain name shall continue to
display all of the information of the original Registrant and reflect that the domain name will not be able to be transferred, deleted, or modified for the life of the registration.”</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">-- The WG agrees to the revised language.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">5. Overarching Data Collection Recommendation; see: <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Yg6XP1USJFK7Ko5eQFD5EGNC4gwWM-vh07MGSqJ3e0Q/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!viwPahgRdyDaYI1QnH4o6SssNP1HyOdHX9Yl7QDtKMfV-ZMJDRsQ9Jz3ch5aeO-25dEO9RdHog$">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yg6XP1USJFK7Ko5eQFD5EGNC4gwWM-vh07MGSqJ3e0Q/edit?usp=sharing
[docs.google.com]</a></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><b>ACTION ITEM: Change text to “over the preceding period of [not less than every 12 months].</b></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">6. Individual Proposals Converted into Recommendations, beginning with URS Recommendations; see:
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DAz2no/edit?usp=sharing*20*5bdocs.google.com*5d__;JSUl!!PtGJab4!vZsg2hS1Risic1U8X8epV-sBDbYhlVUJXZ77LI1Q0wSRqEnapuPVHsTKSjS9nSBYoTRPwmVg2A$">
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DAz2no/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] [docs.google.com]</a></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">URS Rec # (was Individual Proposal #1):</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">-- The WG agrees to the recommendation and accompanying sections.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">URS Rec # (was Individual Proposal #2):</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">-- The WG agrees to the recommendation and accompanying sections.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">URS Rec # (was Individual Proposals #26 and #27):</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">-- The WG agrees to the recommendation and accompanying sections.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">URS Rec # (was Individual Proposal #28):</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><u>Discussion</u>:</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">-- Some support for “effective, enforceable, and published”.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">-- Some questions about what “enforceable” means and who would enforce.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">-- WIPO has a declaration of independence and impartiality. Published on the web site. Covers the same ground as conflict of interest.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">-- Seems obvious that it is enforceable by the provider, but make that clear. Several WG members agree.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">-- “enforceable by the provider against examiners” and delete “binds”.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">-- Need to note that you are enforcing against any examiner that violates the policy.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">-- What is the concern we are looking to address? </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">-- “Each URS Provider shall have an enforceable published examiner Conflict of Interest policy.”</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">-- Others disagree on using the term “enforceable”.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">-- Take out “enforceable” and just say “published”.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Revised Text Options for the WG to consider:</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Option 1:</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have an effective and published Conflict of Interest (COI) policy that the Provider enforces against any Examiners who violates
such policy.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Option 2:</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have an enforceable and published Examiner Conflict of Interest (COI) policy.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Option 3:</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have a published Examiner Conflict of Interest (COI) policy.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Option 4:</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have a published Conflict of Interest (COI) policy that the Provider may reasonably enforce against any Examiner who violates
such policy.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><b>ACTION ITEM: Put the four options for revised text out for review by the WG on the email distribution list and discuss during a future meeting.</b></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">URS Rec # (was Individual Proposal #34):</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">-- Note that the recommendation may conflict URS Rec #9.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">-- Could be that they complement each other – could bring to Rec #9 the bullet points on Implementation Guidance from the new URS rec, and strike the recommendation.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">-- Useful guide for panelists, but shouldn’t be mandatory.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">-- No reason to have the conflicting individual proposal recommendation.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">-- Consider adding the IG to Rec #9.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">-- Concerns about dropping this new recommendation; these aren’t duplicative.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">-- Can we make the complementary?</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><b>ACTION ITEM: Staff to send a separate email that will have links to both of the recommendations and will ask WG members to weigh in on 1) whether these separate recommendations are in conflict or complementary and 2) if they are in
conflict should the Implementation Guidance from the new recommendation be incorporated into rec #9.</b></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>