[GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 12 October 2018

Julie Hedlund julie.hedlund at icann.org
Fri Oct 12 19:29:06 UTC 2018


Dear All,

 

Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 12 October 2018 (17:00-19:00 UTC).  Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes.  Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: 

https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-12+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.  In addition, the schedule for ICANN63 is attached and will be sent separately.

   

Best Regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

 

==

 

NOTES & ACTION ITEMS

 

Chair: Phil Corwin

  

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

 

2.   Discussion of Individual URS Proposals (See: https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ)

 

George Kirikos (#23): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-23.pdf?api=v2

 

Discussion:

-- Provider opposed to the proposal.  Not just the fee, but also the cost of the system.

-- Don't support including in the Initial Report.

-- Cost of doing business.  Providers are absorbing costs already.

-- Question: Clarify ICANN's role.  Would open up a Pandora's box with ICANN subsidizing the cost of doing business.

-- Question: Why should the rights of a trademark owner depend on the non-payment of fees and is there a danger that registrars might deliberately not collect those fees. 

-- Support the proposal.  The providers get paid for their work; as a matter of equity this proposal makes sense.

-- Support putting the proposal out for public comment.

-- If it does go out for public comment we should be careful what we are asking.

-- The registrars and registries are not parties to the URS and UDRP, but that they may be involved in tracking down customers.

 

Response:

-- It was suggested why don't the registrars charge the registrant?  GoDaddy is attempting to charge registrants because they can't charge the URS provider.  This creates an additional burden on a registrant.

 

George Kirikos (#32): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-32.pdf?api=v2

 

Discussion:

-- Opposed to the proposal; concern is not with the proposal itself -- will the proposal be included as is, or also secondary facts?  

-- Okay to send for public comment but it is out of scope.

-- Support to include for public comment, but think it is in scope.

-- In what format will these go out for public comment, but if the case should be maintained for retaining URS that should be included.  

 

Response:

-- Put this out for public comment to see what the public thinks.

 

George Kirikos (#33): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-33.pdf?api=v2

 

Discussion:

-- URS is not consensus policy.

-- Question: An MOU is a contract so what is the problem we are trying to solve?  What are the terms that are not being met?

-- STI Report was not consensus policy so its recommendation didn't go into the AGB.

-- Not in favor of going out for public comment because based on a false premise, that an MOU is not a contract and not enforceable.  Also, it is an implementation question.

-- Could revise as a proposal that there should be further requirements on providers.

-- Would like to see regular review of the providers and support putting out for public comment.

-- Favor for public comment.

-- Favor formal contracts.

-- Favor putting out for comment.

 

Response:

-- Issue whether having them under contract is very important.

 

George Kirikos and Zak Muscovitch (#34): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-34.pdf?api=v2

 

Discussion:

-- As it is written it is the language of wherever the registrant is located so not sure how that helps the registrant; also what about the time required?

-- How to translate form cover documents?  How much time required?

 

Response:

-- Timing could be taken into consideration in changes to the policy.

-- How UDRP handles language is reflected in this proposal.  There is nothing new.

-- Registrants are protected because panelists would have to be prepared to appoint panelists in the language of the registration.  

-- Translation costs are same as for the UDRP.

 

For Initial Report for public comment:

-- Low bar of adequate support.  Staff is reviewing chats and transcripts and Co-Chairs will share a draft of whether/how proposals will be included in the Initial Report.

-- We are looking for people to chime in to make proposals better.

-- After Initial Report and public comment if proposals have substantial opposition or lack of consensus will not go into the Final Report.

 

3.  ICANN63 Schedule (see attached) 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20181012/2e19ffd0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Barcelona ICANN63.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 244091 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20181012/2e19ffd0/BarcelonaICANN63-0001.pdf>
-------------- 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/20181012/2e19ffd0/smime-0001.p7s>


More information about the GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list