[GNSO-RPM-WG] ACTION ITEM: Review Options for Revised Text for Converted Individual URS Proposal #28

Tue Oct 6 20:08:00 UTC 2020

Perfect!

/ Petter
-- 
Petter Rindforth, LL M

Fenix Legal KB
Östermalmstorg 1, 3tr
114 42 Stockholm
Sweden
Fax:+46 8 50256500
Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu
www.fenixlegal.eu

NOTICE
This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed.
It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read,
copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains.
Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail.
Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu
Thank you

On 6 October 2020 at 17:59:21 +02:00, BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int> wrote:

> Thanks Zak, all, for the below, and for the chance for me to engage in some further consultations.
> 
> As a slight variation on Option 1, perhaps “published” and “effective” should appear in the below (updated) order:
> 
> The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall have a published and effective Conflict of Interest (COI) policy…
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> From:GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf OfZak Muscovitch
> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 6:09 PM
> To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>; Griffin Barnett <Griffin at Winterfeldt.law>; Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ACTION ITEM: Review Options for Revised Text for Converted Individual URS Proposal #28
> 
> I support Option 1. I am also good with Option 2 and 4, respectively. And I am also supportive of Griffin’s proposed tweak of Option 1 as well, which Paul McGrady also supported, as per his below email.
> 
> Zak Muscovitch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From:GNSO-RPM-WG <<gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf OfMcGrady, Paul D.
> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 6:23 PM
> To: Griffin Barnett <<Griffin at Winterfeldt.law>>; Tushnet, Rebecca <<rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>>; <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ACTION ITEM: Review Options for Revised Text for Converted Individual URS Proposal #28
> 
> I like Griffin’s tweaked version.
> 
> Best,
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> From:Griffin Barnett <<Griffin at Winterfeldt.law>>
> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 4:57 PM
> To: McGrady, Paul D. <<PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>>; Tushnet, Rebecca <<rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>>; <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: RE: ACTION ITEM: Review Options for Revised Text for Converted Individual URS Proposal #28
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> After thinking through the options a bit further, I tend to favor Option 1, with a couple suggested relatively minor (I hope) tweaks:
> 
> The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall publish an effective Examiner Conflict of Interest (COI) policy that the Provider reasonably enforces against any Examiners who violate such policy.
> 
> If we must choose to live with one of the presented options “as-is” then I could live with Option 1 as is too, but I think the above variant is a further improvement. I could also live with a similar variant of Option 2:
> “The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 6 be amended to add a requirement that each URS Provider shall publish an enforceable Examiner Conflict of Interest (COI) policy.” This option is less explicit about who would enforce the policy, but it is at least implicit that the Provider would be the one doing the enforcing, and the policy itself once implemented could make this explicitly clear (let’s not forget that implementation is a thing).
> 
> Best,
> 
> Griffin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b113a1d2a61b_WIPG_LogoMark.png <https://www.winterfeldt.law/> Griffin M. Barnett
> Associate
> Winterfeldt IP Group
> 1601 K Street NW, Ste 1050
> 
> <griffin at winterfeldt.law>
> +1 202 759 5836
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From:GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf OfMcGrady, Paul D.
> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 5:47 PM
> To: Tushnet, Rebecca <<rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>>; <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ACTION ITEM: Review Options for Revised Text for Converted Individual URS Proposal #28
> 
> Agree with Rebecca.
> 
> Best,
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft,subscribe here <https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19Resource Toolkit <https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit>.This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
> From:GNSO-RPM-WG <<gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf OfTushnet, Rebecca
> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 4:45 PM
> To: <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ACTION ITEM: Review Options for Revised Text for Converted Individual URS Proposal #28
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rebecca Tushnet
> 
> Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
> 703 593 6759
> 
> From:GNSO-RPM-WG <<gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <<julie.hedlund at icann.org>>
> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 4:55 PM
> To: <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> <<gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>
> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ACTION ITEM: Review Options for Revised Text for Converted Individual URS Proposal #28
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> 
> 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: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DAz2no/edit?usp=sharing <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=>.
> 
> 
> Please indicate your preference not later than 16:00 UTC on Monday, 05 October, to be discussed at the WG meeting on Tuesday, 06 October at 13:00 UTC.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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 theRPM PDP Working Groupcall held on01 October 2020 at 17:00 UTC. Staffwill postthese to the wiki space. Please note that thesearehigh-levelnotesand are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, Zoom chat,transcriptand attendance records are posted on the wikiat:https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-10-01+Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+WG <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=>.
> 
> 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 rec #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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
> GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy)> and the website Terms of Service (<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos).> You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20201006/fbffd037/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 20169 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20201006/fbffd037/attachment-0001.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 6393 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20201006/fbffd037/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9698 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20201006/fbffd037/image002-0001.png>