
32:30
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.

33:29
It has worked well in SubPro

34:18
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

36:27
reminder: Please mute when not speaking :)

37:01
=== We are currently discussing Proposal #3 ===

37:36
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

38:52
Noted Susan

39:32
a technical correction likes this seems to make sense but we may wish to make that clear to public as Griffin seems to suggest

39:35
Susan is that -- Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team?

39:50
oh, yes thanks Kathy it is

39:59
Feel free to use chat to support and oppose too!

40:43
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

41:15
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

42:04
=== Now Discussing Proposal #30 ===

42:59
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.

43:11
mediation could imperil the R of URS

43:50
agree with the comments above and of Jason

44:06
+1 with Jason's comments

44:20
I don't necessarily support either for the UDRP but I do think we should note it to revisit and debate in phase 2

44:42
Agree - definitely need to remove UDRP from this proposal in any case

44:47
+1 Susan

45:52
domain registrants?

46:07
good [poin Steve. I believe it's an increment from the domain cost that funds this

46:10
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

46:11
point

46:26
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.

46:32
I am curious who supported publication... no has spoken up in support

46:39
(supported in the poll that is)

47:01
=== Now Discussing #26 ===

47:02
I do not think you should have to speak verbally to count.

47:17
Otherwise this is just an endurance test.

47:20
Rebecca - not disagreeing with that, just noting

48:04
Note that staff will review both the chat and the transcript/recording for the record of deliberations

48:19
Thanks Julie

48:31
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)

49:13
+1 to Zak's proposal #26

49:35
looks like #26 is ready for takeoff

49:41
Can we go back to the prior proposal?

49:44
Phil +1

50:47
@Renne that sounds sufficient to me

50:53
@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.

52:01
*if you would comment on ...

52:41
=== Now Discussing #7 ===

53:36
hand up

54:13
Do we have the authority/scope to recommend a change to WHOIS to add a new contact field, as this proposal suggests?

55:30
@Julie/Ariel - it would be good to show the comments briefly (next page)

55:33
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

55:48
Agree with Griffin and Susan

55:59
Noted Kathy

56:11
+1 Griffin

56:14
Susan +1

56:22
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.

56:27
Susan's suggestion makes sense to refer the idea to the EPDP

56:55
Tx!!

56:57
:-)

57:13
ha Jason - yes!

57:17
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

57:29
Interesting point, Jason

57:31
Agree with Jason & Griffin.

57:33
(maybe that's why such a field does not exist)

57:56
+ I don't want cybersquatters putting my name down as a Legal Contact

58:28
+1 Zak!!! :)

59:02
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.

59:46
=== Now Discussing #28 ===

59:51
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?

01:00:22
that said, no strong opposition to this in principle

01:02:00
I think it is provider specific, as in providers themselves have one

01:03:01
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

01:03:01
Yes, what Griffin said

01:03:29
Didn't we discuss this previously??

01:03:46
#19 that is

01:03:53
What Griffin said.

01:03:53
along with 18 and 20?

01:03:53
#18 I think Griffin

01:04:45
hand up

01:04:57
Were we meant to take #18, #19 and #20 together?

01:05:36
I agree that a lot of discussion has occurred but if the survey matters, this one did do a lot better in the survey

01:06:30
=== Now Discussing #29 ===

01:08:26
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 ?

01:08:51
(along with poll results and present discussion)

01:09:42
Agree with Phil

01:09:47
I suspect it would benefit few...

01:10:12
Technical benefit is likely related to data download and analysis.

01:10:33
Interesting point about the word 'all' - seems to require retroactive application - will be interesting to see what public thinks if this goes out

01:10:53
+1 Kathy -- exactly what I mean

01:11:16
Might also be useful for Westlaw, Lexis, etc.

01:12:22
=== Now going back to #19 ===

01:12:45
Tx going back...

01:12:52
lvery easy to circumvent

01:13:27
same as IP lawyers can do now with UDRP

01:13:53
not good

01:14:44
=== Now discussing #5 ===

01:14:58
Oppose #5

01:15:07
Also oppose 5.

01:15:22
Oppose #5

01:15:34
SOL from creation date makes no sense, as bad faith can take place much later in the domain lifecycle

01:15:48
no - creation date of the domain name

01:16:03
Oppose #5.

01:16:32
+1 Griffin, I have the same opinion

01:16:54
Oppose publication of #5

01:17:09
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

01:18:17
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

01:18:46
liitation period and laches are similar but not exactly the same; this proposal specifically refers to a specific, set and firm limitation period

01:18:52
Still strange - what if bad act occurs after transfer?

01:18:57
so let's not automatically conflate that with laches

01:19:15
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.

01:19:24
is renewal (by old registrant) also considered a new registration?

01:19:36
Kathy - likely not

01:19:42
No Kathy.

01:19:45
Tx Griffin!

01:19:53
and Jason!

01:19:55
@Kathy some panellists have tried that approach

01:20:12
@Paul -- I did think I saw it out there...

01:20:34
Agree that if it goes out for publication, then it must explain the terms "creation" and "registration".

01:20:42
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

01:20:44
Yes, Paul is correct

01:21:06
I don't agree with Zak's suggestion regarding the intent of the URS

01:21:23
and Griffin.

01:21:45
But think we may need to put this individual proposal out

01:22:02
+1 Susan

01:22:07
An effective SOL for filing complaints is a valid issue for publication

01:22:21
needs ALOT of work

01:22:31
even to go out comment

01:24:42
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

01:25:53
Georges comment makes sense.

01:25:56
Georges +1

01:25:59
11 proposals left

01:26:32
=== Now Discussing #31 ===

01:26:45
In the interests of time, can we roll 14 into 15, 17 into 16 and 21 into 22 please?

01:27:21
+1 Phil - I think we were tasked under charter with considering this

01:27:40
Agree - this proposal 31 should be put out for consideration

01:28:03
Agree it should be put out.

01:28:21
It seems GDD front ran this working group on the recent .org and .info contracts

01:28:29
that’s it

01:29:26
Support publication

01:29:30
Can we roll this into 22?

01:30:06
=== Now Discussing #21 (related to #22) ===

01:30:08
any comments?

01:30:13
this was merged with 22 when the IPs were previously reviewed

01:30:56
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

01:31:47
Yes!

01:32:20
=== Discussing #21 & #22 Together ===

01:32:44
There will be lots of nastygrams and most unifformed registrants will just not start a legitimate non competing business on a different domain

01:34:20
I just don't see how this could work. At best I thinkwe could request public comment on whether this should be studied.

01:34:23
Hi all, regardless the topic, a 50/50 split indicates to me that we should publish the issue for public comment and further discussion

01:34:54
Can someone clarify the question of what costs are involved here?

01:34:57
Knowing that this may happen could have a deterrent effect on bad actors.

01:35:14
Loser pays as a concept has a lot of nuance, including whether the loser participated in good or bad faith

01:35:21
50 50 split benfits IPC :-))

01:35:23
Will also inform future debate re same issue(s) to be presented in Phase II re UDRP

01:35:36
bulk support v broad support etc

01:35:36
@Paul, not in this instance

01:36:10
Note that complete proposals are stored on this wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ

01:36:18
thanks Mike I don't have the original data in front of me

01:36:35
Agree - public comment could bear out ore specifics regarding these ites

01:36:37
*items

01:36:43
+1 Phil on complexity of determining costs

01:36:45
*more

01:37:17
its an allegation

01:37:34
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

01:37:45
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.

01:37:52
its an allegation at the point of the claim

01:38:10
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

01:38:15
and effectuated by the registrar

01:38:36
Not sure about that, Griffin.

01:39:17
@Phil, that's why I have supported putting out some of the others that I'm fundamentally opposed to on the merits

01:39:21
If we are not merging closely related proposals how do we mitigate increased likelihood of confusion and unhelpful feedback from respondents?

01:40:18
we are talking about implementation mecahnisms

01:40:34
and a strawman

01:40:59
Wrong Griffin we are here to design an equitable framework not ease a litigation strategy fro one party

01:41:11
Beyond no mechanism and being effectively unenforceable, this concept would boost toothless threats and bullying

01:41:11
Zak, these are all interesting points and the community should include them in their comments.

01:41:16
+1 Zak

01:41:33
right - equitable - so complainants don't bear the full costs of pursuing valid clais

01:41:36
*claims

01:41:48
+1 Zak

01:42:41
so we are really getting into the substantive merits of the proposal, rather than whether it should be put to public comment

01:42:42
It’s about access to justice Griffinif you want to inject costs file a court case

01:42:54
@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.

01:42:54
clearly there is support and opposition, default to publication

01:44:18
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.

01:44:30
Doable within an expedited time frame

01:44:41
so then let's forego any of this exercise and agree to status quo on all things

01:44:44
very well said

01:44:57
+1 Cyntia

01:44:59
Agree with Cyntia - wise comments

01:45:11
+1 Cyntia

01:45:19
+1 Cyntia

01:45:28
Agree with Cynthia -- Loser pays concept more appropriate for a discussion paper, not really for a open ended question/proposal.

01:45:36
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.

01:45:49
*RDNH

01:46:19
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

01:46:38
=== Now Discussing #6 ===

01:47:00
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

01:47:06
(that comment was re 21/22)

01:47:25
Technical Q: isn't this also a GDPR issue?

01:49:16
LIke a mutant form of consolidation or class action

01:49:25
@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

01:50:00
not following your comment Paul

01:50:23
I post it to the list Griffin - after the call

01:50:27
not sure what premium names has to do with implementing loser pays

01:51:30
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...

01:52:02
+1 Paul -- is this even fair to the Examiner?

01:52:10
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

01:52:22
+1 Paul

01:52:46
Agree with Cynthia and should let the community comment on this

01:53:19
Could you ask? Perhaps of Griffin or the whole group?

01:53:22
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

01:53:34
Sorry -- question raised of what is a related case?

01:53:40
Let the Community comment.

01:53:42
Downstream, Proposal #6 might affect things like requirement to establish the relationship of domains in question, complaint word limit, costs incurred by provider/examiner ....

01:53:50
How is “related” defined?

01:53:51
It's hard to imagine comapnies evening agreeing to do this

01:54:04
as complainants

01:54:08
Agree, David

01:54:14
related = all domains registered bv same registrant

01:54:44
How many are left?

01:55:01
Worth putting forward for comment, but we should closely consider how this would work in practice. Both Cyntia and Paul make good points.

01:55:15
not sure we can get through 33 quickly haha

01:55:16
Proposals remaining: 33, 15, 22, 4, 14, 13, 17, and 16.

01:55:17
and let’s remember how many URS cases have been filed. only hundreds. how realistic is this scenario

01:55:20
Not an easy one.

01:55:45
Has ICANN Mgt been consulted on this?

01:56:14
=== Now Discussing #33 ===

01:56:22
Let's take this up in the next call.

01:56:38
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

01:56:39
good question, Cyntia

01:56:59
@Georges, yes I think fees already escalate based on # of domains

01:58:12
hand up

01:58:17
8 proposals total left for next meeting, including #33

01:58:23
Tx Phil!

01:58:24
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)

01:58:31
good progress, good call

01:58:33
Thanks all, good progress today

01:58:34
hand up re: meeting time

01:58:40
Great call! Thanks everyone for the collegiality on today's call. Happy New Year!

01:58:50
Thanks everyone

01:58:58
Julie's hand is up

01:58:58
David has his hand up

01:59:01
Thanks Phil.

01:59:02
Thanks everyone

01:59:09
Thanks !

01:59:21
back to 1pm Eastern

01:59:34
THAT'S a New Year's Resolution. Phil :-).

01:59:50
thanks Phil we’ll take that as an action

02:00:00
(Re end Phase 1, not the call time)

02:00:12
Noting that the standard is to keep the calls at 17:00 UTC year round (as we have been doing)

02:00:37
Bye All

02:00:40
bye