Welcome to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms, (RPMs) and all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 8 January 2020 at 17:00 UTC.

It has worked well in SubPro

The slides of URS individual proposal can be downloaded here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS%20Individual%20Proposal%20Survey%20Result.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1576086277000&api=v2

reminder: Please mute when not speaking :)

=== We are currently discussing Proposal #3 ===

I have an SOI update - I am now a member of the IRP-IOT. Although this was notified back in Montreal the formalities of getting added to the group have taken a while

Noted Susan

a technical correction likes this seems to make sense but we may wish to make that clear to public as Griffin seems to suggest

Susan is that -- Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team?

oh, yes thanks Kathy it is

Feel free to use chat to support and oppose too!

I might suggest we look at how the renewal issue is handled under the UDRP and perhaps use that info to clarify the language of this proposal a bit so it is very clear

But happy to defer that until post-public comment (and we can include some suggestions for clarifying in public comment so as to not delay the process now

=== Now Discussing Proposal #30 ===

Very strongly oppose this proposal. Mandatory mediation would simply drag out what is intended to be a rapid procedure unnecessarily. I recognize that is a substantive ground for opposing rather than procedural in terms of threshold for publishing for comment.

mediation could imperil the R of URS

agree with the comments above and of Jason

+1 with Jason's comments

I don't necessarily support either for the UDRP but I do think we should note it to revisit and debate in phase 2

Agree - definitely need to remove UDRP from this proposal in any case

+1 Susan

domain registrants?

good [poin Steve. I believe it's an increment from the domain cost that funds this

I am assuming that our prior arrangement to remove considerations of UDRP from these discussions is still in place when we approach proposals that mention both URS and UDRP

point

Good intention but I don't see how parties can be compelled to undertake mandatory mediation. If parties don't want to then they will simply decline. So oppose for publication.

I am curious who supported publication... no has spoken up in support

(supported in the poll that is)

=== Now Discussing #26 ===

I do not think you should have to speak verbally to count.

Otherwise this is just an endurance test.

Rebecca - not disagreeing with that, just noting

Note that staff will review both the chat and the transcript/recording for the record of deliberations

Thanks Julie

Not opposed to proposal 26, but I think most if not all providers do already publish their roster of examiners, although may not take the further step of identifying number of appointments and links to cases by each examiner (beyond the general publication of all decisions)

+1 to Zak's proposal #26

looks like #26 is ready for takeoff

Can we go back to the prior proposal?

Phil +1

@Renne that sounds sufficient to me

@Renee, thanks, I was about to check if you were on the call and if you comment in this proposal #26 from a provider's POV.

*if you would comment on ...

=== Now Discussing #7 ===

hand up

Do we have the authority/scope to recommend a change to WHOIS to add a new contact field, as this proposal suggests?

@Julie/Ariel - it would be good to show the comments briefly (next page)

In principle I have no problem with having notice go to all available points of contact associated with a domain name, but I don't know that this proposal as currently written is something we can put forward

Agree with Griffin and Susan

Noted Kathy

+1 Griffin

Susan +1

What if you don't have a retained lawyer? Or you have one for real estate, or family matters, but not for DNs? Can't see this being feasible.

Susan's suggestion makes sense to refer the idea to the EPDP

Tx!!

:-)

ha Jason - yes!

Agree Jason - great point - anyone could put any contact into the legal contact field and potentially cause lots of issues with attorney0-client realtionships etc

Interesting point, Jason

Agree with Jason & Griffin.

(maybe that's why such a field does not exist)

+ I don't want cybersquatters putting my name down as a Legal Contact

+1 Zak!!! :)

Agree with Jason although I'm not sure that Legal Contact is a legal counsel per se. Having said that, I'm not convinced this is necessary. Admin Contact is sufficient, that person can deal with notice accordingly.

=== Now Discussing #28 ===

providers already implement conflict of interest measures... they may differ slightly by provider, but wondering if we need to address this at the PDP level?

that said, no strong opposition to this in principle

I think it is provider specific, as in providers themselves have one

yes - providers each have internal conflicts policies that they employ, its just not a single uniform one... i also take that there may be concerns about proper compliance with these policies, but that is not a policy question, but rather an implementation/compliance issue

Yes, what Griffin said

Didn't we discuss this previously??

#19 that is

What Griffin said.

along with 18 and 20?

#18 I think Griffin

hand up

Were we meant to take #18, #19 and #20 together?

I agree that a lot of discussion has occurred but if the survey matters, this one did do a lot better in the survey

=== Now Discussing #29 ===

Kathy - the prior comments have been captured, do we need to look at them for each proposal now, when presumably they will be part of the co-chair discussion ?

(along with poll results and present discussion)

Agree with Phil

I suspect it would benefit few...

Technical benefit is likely related to data download and analysis.

Interesting point about the word 'all' - seems to require retroactive application - will be interesting to see what public thinks if this goes out

+1 Kathy -- exactly what I mean

Might also be useful for Westlaw, Lexis, etc.

=== Now going back to #19 ===

Tx going back...

lvery easy to circumvent

same as IP lawyers can do now with UDRP

not good

=== Now discussing #5 ===

Oppose #5

Also oppose 5.

Oppose #5

SOL from creation date makes no sense, as bad faith can take place much later in the domain lifecycle

no - creation date of the domain name

Oppose #5.

+1 Griffin, I have the same opinion

Oppose publication of #5

creation date - this is George's argument that it's the first registration date that should set the date for limitation purposes and not any dates of subsequent transfer

I am strongly opposed to the proposal, but it does have some support (and lots of opposition) to publication. If we publish we need to ensure the public understand what "creation date" means

liitation period and laches are similar but not exactly the same; this proposal specifically refers to a specific, set and firm limitation period

Still strange - what if bad act occurs after transfer?

so let's not automatically conflate that with laches

The point of the proposal is a time limit for filing complaints. The example was “creation date”, but the specific implementation to be considered/decided by an IRT.

is renewal (by old registrant) also considered a new registration?

Kathy - likely not

No Kathy.

Tx Griffin!

and Jason!

@Kathy some panellists have tried that approach

@Paul -- I did think I saw it out there...

Agree that if it goes out for publication, then it must explain the terms "creation" and "registration".

Many years ago there was a question under UDRP jurisprudence whether a renewal constitutes a new registration date but it has been pretty well settled for a while that it does not, without an attendant change in registrant

Yes, Paul is correct

I don't agree with Zak's suggestion regarding the intent of the URS

and Griffin.

But think we may need to put this individual proposal out

+1 Susan

An effective SOL for filing complaints is a valid issue for publication

needs ALOT of work

even to go out comment

Renewal is not a new registration. The line of case that started to support that proposition were rejected by panelists as a group, Proposal 5 would be a major change in policy. I would reject this proposal and perhaps include a separate proposal as to whether or not there should be a limitation period in URS cases. But this proposal is not workanble

Georges comment makes sense.

Georges +1

11 proposals left

=== Now Discussing #31 ===

In the interests of time, can we roll 14 into 15, 17 into 16 and 21 into 22 please?

+1 Phil - I think we were tasked under charter with considering this

Agree - this proposal 31 should be put out for consideration

Agree it should be put out.

It seems GDD front ran this working group on the recent .org and .info contracts

that’s it

Support publication

Can we roll this into 22?

=== Now Discussing #21 (related to #22) ===

any comments?

this was merged with 22 when the IPs were previously reviewed

Very very strongly opposed to this as an overarching principle on such a lightweight RPM as URS as it will be used to bully registrants

Yes!

=== Discussing #21 & #22 Together ===

There will be lots of nastygrams and most unifformed registrants will just not start a legitimate non competing business on a different domain

I just don't see how this could work. At best I thinkwe could request public comment on whether this should be studied.

Hi all, regardless the topic, a 50/50 split indicates to me that we should publish the issue for public comment and further discussion

Can someone clarify the question of what costs are involved here?

Knowing that this may happen could have a deterrent effect on bad actors.

Loser pays as a concept has a lot of nuance, including whether the loser participated in good or bad faith

50 50 split benfits IPC :-))

Will also inform future debate re same issue(s) to be presented in Phase II re UDRP

bulk support v broad support etc

@Paul, not in this instance

Note that complete proposals are stored on this wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ

thanks Mike I don't have the original data in front of me

Agree - public comment could bear out ore specifics regarding these ites

*items

+1 Phil on complexity of determining costs

*more

its an allegation

This is the link to the complete proposal #22: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-22.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1537973000000&api=v2

I would be interested on hearing from the broader community about (a) if/how this could be implemented and (b) in a way that wouldn't further slow down the URS process. Also, as Mike R. noted, this is surely to come up in Phase 2, so a preview on how the community is feeling about this might be helpful.

its an allegation at the point of the claim

registrant bought the domain name reg using some payment method, so there is some means by which a urs fee could be charged to that same payment method, enforceable via the domain name registration agreement

and effectuated by the registrar

Not sure about that, Griffin.

@Phil, that's why I have supported putting out some of the others that I'm fundamentally opposed to on the merits

If we are not merging closely related proposals how do we mitigate increased likelihood of confusion and unhelpful feedback from respondents?

we are talking about implementation mecahnisms

and a strawman

Wrong Griffin we are here to design an equitable framework not ease a litigation strategy fro one party

Beyond no mechanism and being effectively unenforceable, this concept would boost toothless threats and bullying

Zak, these are all interesting points and the community should include them in their comments.

+1 Zak

right - equitable - so complainants don't bear the full costs of pursuing valid clais

*claims

+1 Zak

so we are really getting into the substantive merits of the proposal, rather than whether it should be put to public comment

It’s about access to justice Griffinif you want to inject costs file a court case

@Jason it must go both ways, RDNH = Loser, who pays; I am not sure IPC is (or ultimately will be) in favor of any Loser Pays type of model.

clearly there is support and opposition, default to publication

Arguably, Griffin. But on the other hand, one of the other yardsticks we have ostensibly using, is whether a proposal can ever get consensus. And even if it is 50-50, that seems to mitigate against consensus being achievable.

Doable within an expedited time frame

so then let's forego any of this exercise and agree to status quo on all things

very well said

+1 Cyntia

Agree with Cyntia - wise comments

+1 Cyntia

+1 Cyntia

Agree with Cynthia -- Loser pays concept more appropriate for a discussion paper, not really for a open ended question/proposal.

Mike, I agree. Not sure this goes anywhere in UDRP or RNDH (Proposed Penalty). As stated, let's focus on the URS and purpose and intention of the URS as fast and efficient.

*RDNH

I personally have questions about specific proposals on loser pays and agree with Cynthia that the proposal should be about putting the issue out of whether there should be some form of loser pay

=== Now Discussing #6 ===

yes - put the question out for public comment... maybe we ultimately decide no consensus to make it a WG recommendation and that's fine but should put out for comment to collect the feedback

(that comment was re 21/22)

Technical Q: isn't this also a GDPR issue?

LIke a mutant form of consolidation or class action

@Griffin on loser pays proposal - It will solve very little because under the new ICANN model fro new gTLDs and now .info and .org etc can charge $000s not only to buy the name but to register it every year – all they have to do is call it a premium name. URS & UDRP won't help

not following your comment Paul

I post it to the list Griffin - after the call

not sure what premium names has to do with implementing loser pays

In India, we have penalties/cost of proceedings in case of INDRP (.IN Domain Disputes) and many times they are imposed along with transfer of domain name but I have never heard that they have ever been recovered...

+1 Paul -- is this even fair to the Examiner?

I think Cyntia did describe the purpose of this proposal #6 - to facilitate joint complaints by multiple unrelated complainants against a single registrant who has registered many doaiins targeting multiple TMs of multiple parties - would be a very liited subset of cases

+1 Paul

Agree with Cynthia and should let the community comment on this

Could you ask? Perhaps of Griffin or the whole group?

Would potentially maximize procedural efficiency, to consolidate cases like this (even if few such cases) as opposed to the alternative of having dozens maybe hundreds of separate individual URS cases by different complainants separately against the same registrant

Sorry -- question raised of what is a related case?

Let the Community comment.

Downstream, Proposal #6 might affect things like requirement to establish the relationship of domains in question, complaint word limit, costs incurred by provider/examiner ....

How is “related” defined?

It's hard to imagine comapnies evening agreeing to do this

as complainants

Agree, David

related = all domains registered bv same registrant

How many are left?

Worth putting forward for comment, but we should closely consider how this would work in practice. Both Cyntia and Paul make good points.

not sure we can get through 33 quickly haha

Proposals remaining: 33, 15, 22, 4, 14, 13, 17, and 16.

and let’s remember how many URS cases have been filed. only hundreds. how realistic is this scenario

Not an easy one.

Has ICANN Mgt been consulted on this?

=== Now Discussing #33 ===

Let's take this up in the next call.

I do think this would be tough to handle and could lead to massively long decisions depending on number of parties and marks involved. If there was to be such a possibility it would seem the fee would need to go up (perhaps each complainant would have to pay a fee) to cover the administrative and panelist time spent on these types of matters. But, essentially, this should be put out to the community

good question, Cyntia

@Georges, yes I think fees already escalate based on # of domains

hand up

8 proposals total left for next meeting, including #33

Tx Phil!

They do, but I would look at it as the fee each complainant would have to pay, which might be higher (e.g. if 5 domains is the same cost, then maybe each complainant pays a new fee)

good progress, good call

Thanks all, good progress today

hand up re: meeting time

Great call! Thanks everyone for the collegiality on today's call. Happy New Year!

Thanks everyone

Julie's hand is up

David has his hand up

Thanks Phil.

Thanks everyone

Thanks !

back to 1pm Eastern

THAT'S a New Year's Resolution. Phil :-).

thanks Phil we’ll take that as an action

(Re end Phase 1, not the call time)

Noting that the standard is to keep the calls at 17:00 UTC year round (as we have been doing)

Bye All

bye