[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