[GNSO-RPM-WG] ACTION ITEM: Questions re: Converted Individual Proposal #34/URS Rec #9

Julie Hedlund julie.hedlund at icann.org
Thu Oct 1 20:55:11 UTC 2020


Dear All,

Per the action item from the WG meeting on 01 October (see the notes and actions below), please see the following questions relating to Converted Individual Proposal #34 and URS Recommendation #9 and provide your input not later than 16:00 UTC on Monday, 05 October.

For reference see the following documents:

-- For Converted Individual Proposal #34, see page 7 at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DAz2no/edit?usp=sharing.

-- For URS Recommendation #9, see page 14 at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPWMFY/edit?usp=sharing

Questions for review:

1. Whether these separate recommendations are in conflict or complementary.
2. if these separate recommendations are in conflict should the Implementation Guidance from the new recommendation be incorporated into recommendation #9.

Kind regards,
Mary, Ariel, and Julie

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Date: Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 3:45 PM
To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 01 October 2020

Dear All,

Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 01 October 2020 at 17:00 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/2020-10-01+Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+WG.

Best Regards,
Mary, Ariel, and Julie

==
Action Items:

URS Final Recommendations – Revised URS Recommendation #3
ACTION ITEM: Change “Working Group believes” to “Working Group is unaware of any contradiction” in the context.

Overarching Data Collection Recommendation
ACTION ITEM: Change text to “over the preceding period of [not less than every 12 months].

URS Rec # (was Individual Proposal #28):
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.

URS Rec # (was Individual Proposal #34):
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 recommendation #9.

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.

2. URS Final Recommendations – Revised URS Recommendation #3; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPWMFY/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] [docs.google.com]<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$>

ACTION ITEM: Change “Working Group believes” to “Working Group is unaware of any contradiction” in the context.

3. URS Final Recommendations – Revised URS Recommendation #2, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPWMFY/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] [docs.google.com]<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$>

-- The WG agrees to the revised language.

4. URS Final Recommendations – Revised URS Recommendation #8, continued from last meeting, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPWMFY/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] [docs.google.com]<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$>

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.”

-- The WG agrees to the revised language.

5. Overarching Data Collection Recommendation; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yg6XP1USJFK7Ko5eQFD5EGNC4gwWM-vh07MGSqJ3e0Q/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Yg6XP1USJFK7Ko5eQFD5EGNC4gwWM-vh07MGSqJ3e0Q/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!viwPahgRdyDaYI1QnH4o6SssNP1HyOdHX9Yl7QDtKMfV-ZMJDRsQ9Jz3ch5aeO-25dEO9RdHog$>

ACTION ITEM: Change text to “over the preceding period of [not less than every 12 months].

6. Individual Proposals Converted into Recommendations, beginning with URS Recommendations; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DAz2no/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DAz2no/edit?usp=sharing*20*5bdocs.google.com*5d__;JSUl!!PtGJab4!vZsg2hS1Risic1U8X8epV-sBDbYhlVUJXZ77LI1Q0wSRqEnapuPVHsTKSjS9nSBYoTRPwmVg2A$>

URS Rec # (was Individual Proposal #1):

-- The WG agrees to the recommendation and accompanying sections.

URS Rec # (was Individual Proposal #2):

-- The WG agrees to the recommendation and accompanying sections.

URS Rec # (was Individual Proposals #26 and #27):

-- The WG agrees to the recommendation and accompanying sections.

URS Rec # (was Individual Proposal #28):

Discussion:
-- Some support for “effective, enforceable, and published”.
-- Some questions about what “enforceable” means and who would enforce.
-- WIPO has a declaration of independence and impartiality.  Published on the web site.  Covers the same ground as conflict of interest.
-- Seems obvious that it is enforceable by the provider, but make that clear.  Several WG members agree.
-- “enforceable by the provider against examiners” and delete “binds”.
-- Need to note that you are enforcing against any examiner that violates the policy.
-- What is the concern we are looking to address?
-- “Each URS Provider shall have an enforceable published examiner Conflict of Interest policy.”
-- Others disagree on using the term “enforceable”.
-- Take out “enforceable” and just say “published”.

Revised Text Options for the WG to consider:

Option 1:
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.

Option 2:
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.

Option 3:
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.

Option 4:
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.

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.

URS Rec # (was Individual Proposal #34):

-- Note that the recommendation may conflict URS Rec #9.
-- 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.
-- Useful guide for panelists, but shouldn’t be mandatory.
-- No reason to have the conflicting individual proposal recommendation.
-- Consider adding the IG to Rec #9.
-- Concerns about dropping this new recommendation; these aren’t duplicative.
-- Can we make the complementary?

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20201001/189a4993/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list