Happy Friday Eve, all!

Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

@Julie, Are the comments for TM-PDDRP in this subgroup or the other?

Sub Group A

Thanks!

@Paul -- this one is URS recommendations only; other subgroup is all the rest

@Julie, I am happy to serve as Chair if the Subgroup members concur. I am happy to start at agenda item 3 today if you like.

I think we have another volunteer as well.

I would be happy to cochair with you Paul, if you were agreeable.

I think Paul would do a fine job

(Zak had sent a note earlier to the Co-Chairs)

My split personalities like Paul & Zak as co-chars. :)

@Zak - that is fine with me. It will help share the load and we can cover each other when we are unable to make a call.

Zak & Paul would be great co-chairs

Sounds good, many thanks, Paul.

Thanks to Paul and Zak

thx guys - clear your calendars;)!

Tx to Paul and Zak!

+1 - thanks to Zak and Paul

+1 Phil - that makes sense and it seemed to work well in Sub Group A.

Tx Ariel, interrelation clear!

Again, I note that there were a cuple of suggestions that were put out for comment w the understanding that we would revisit after we got the public comments. It's not my intention to relitigate every poin, but I do think we MAY need to review some discussions that were tabled until we got the public response.

Thanks @Cyntia and noted.

Question: Is the complaint made public or just the panelist determination?

@Ariel: could you make this a little bigger?

Kathy and all — might be easier to view directly on your screen: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl-5FBcaggiXpoxiRSKFv1Mg18_edit-23gid-3D1163822586&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=aoUqfau-7-AxKB4o_Y8_EUfa8M4ZNEjCX4sT7vaWVMs&s=BbHUD4QfpETYVOz0-E8tpaKri7h0xqrSsZ1IGik7GhQ&e=

Let’s see if I can get a better link :-)

Here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSKFv1Mg18/edit?usp=sharing

LOL Paul ;-)

I tried to make my screen slightly larger, but you are also welcome to review the spreadsheet on your own, and press “command

“Command” and “+” to enlarge the font

Much better, tx Arile!

Ariel!

we did address this in the WG didn't we? Was discussed in a subteam and then accepted by the full WG

Phil's hand is up.

correct @Susan, that's why its a proposed WG recommendation

Please pardon, but I understood we would forego reading of the individal comments in favor of more discussion. Is that right?

@Paul, I think the top box are not all the comments. No tthat I'm suggesting you go through them all

@Cyntia and @Susan, understood. I thought we should hit these highlights first and then see if they lead us to look more deeply at a particular individual comment. I'll ask the group if this is OK or if they prefer another process.

@Phil - just the decision

Thanks @Paul

+1

Isn’t there a separate section dealing with publication of registrant names in decisions?

@Griffin: I think this is it.

One administrative note -- the work of the subgroup is to advise the full WG whether a recommendation should be considered by the full WG for inclusion in the consensus call process, in original or modified form. We are not determining whether a recommendation is going into the Final Report.

@Kathy - I think URS Q1 actually deals with that separately (but relatedly to URS Rec 1)

Of course. :)

I think that: "boil down"

is a great phrase!

Respectfuly, knowing the name of the Respondant may absolutely change teh arguments.

@Rebecca, knowing the identity of the registrant absolutely can (might not, but could) allow a complainant to identify additional bad faith evidence, such as being able to connect to other infrnging registrations y the same individual, prior losing UDR/URS cats etc

*cases not cats

@Cyntia: Doesn't the Examiner, Forum, and Complainant know the Registrant?

precisely Griffin

From the URS: "...provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct"

Privacy laws don't generally say it's ok to expose an individual because they are one of millions. I take your other points but that one is not relevant.

Note all that there is some cross-over between this recommendation and URS Q1 — some of what you are discussing is covered in more detail in Q1

Q. As a factual matter, in current UDRP and URS practice based upon EPDP1 and the Temp Spec, is the registrant data revealed to the examiner and the complainant?

@Rebecca - the public benefit of knowing the parites to proceedings substanitially outweighs the desire for Respondants to be confidential when the exposure is of a statistically miniscule number of registrants.

@Phil. we need to amend because current practice does not match what the rules currently say

Agree we are getting into re-litigation territory here

I have reviewed all the comments & am responding to the positions presented. Is that not the purpose of this review?

Do you have examples of this @Mitch?

@Mitch, I'd be happy for us to agree that all of this has been considered already, nothing new is being raised, and that the recommendation stands as is.

@Mitch - not sure that has ever occurred, and if it has, as I suggested, there could be an ability of a pen to order redaction of the registrant name in a public decision where such abusive use of the proceeding is found

*a panelist not a pen… not sure what’s with my typing today

@Mitch, evidence of that would certainly be useful to see, as I do not recall seeing that in over a decade of UDRP experience.

es

yes

I don’t see anything new frankly

I don't see anything new either. Much of what I have heard so far has been discussed several times in the last 4 years

@Kathy that was my earlier point. You are going to Q1 and not raising anything speaking to Rec 1 it seems

Q1 bears on Rec 1

Which is fine if we want to move to Q1 and agree that nothing changes re Rec 1

Agree - nothing new. Although we do need to review responses to Q1

I would go back to Rec 1 after Q1

@Brian I can provide numerous examples from US court process, if that would be helpful. Here is one: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-backs-redditor-fight-stay-anonymous

Phil, what is the basis for your claim that the information doesn't automatically get into the published decision?

@Mitch - We’re not talking about court proceedings, we are talking about URS cases

Phil is correct. Many times only to the complainant and the provider are given the name of the respondent. The whois remains masked to th epublic

@Phil I would go for 3 days peding the further decision of EPDP 2

You say it's a factual error, but the workflow we see in practice is that it does get cut & pasted

@Griffin yes, and URS cases afford far fewer procedural protections to respondents, making the default process even more important.

@rebecca -- we can address whether the registrant identity can or should be publicly disclosed in the determination when we discuss q#1. It is a separate issue.

+1 @Paul

Noting that this entire question is only relevant if we retain the second half of rec1 in some form

On 1b I'm pretty sure CITMAs comments are in the wrong basket

I support allowing a Panelist to redact the Respondant info when: teh party is a minor/victim or when publishing would be abusive.

Any other time the info should be published.

When would a party ever be a minor?

Actually strike that, I suppose it could be possiblr

Sorry but those comments y Tucows mistake the law, and do not consider the reasons why publication is important

*misstate

@Griffin - It was a comment from the BC. I assume they are aware of cases.

@cyntis there are far more categories and circumstances where non-disclosure needs to be the default, including whistleblowers, critics of a company/government, etc.

No sure that is factually correct as trademark oppositions and lawsuits reval the names of the parties.

@MItch - point taken so allow the panelist the equivalent of "in the interest of justice"

I would not oppose giving panelists the discretion to order redaction of the registrant name in very limited circumstances

@Cyntia that would work in a court process or possibly UDRP, but not URS.

But the general rule should favor publication

For questions the Sub Group should look to see if there is high-level agreement on any of the answers

@MItch - I defer to the learned lawyers to create the appropriate language. I think you understand my point.

Hand up from staff

@Phil - well within the WG somehow we have to do that because we should have considered this question fully in the WG before we issued our initial report. We didn't allow the time to do so and so we ducked it by putting it out as a question

+Susan - The question is will we make/change a recommendation now that we're informed of the public sentiment

Brian +1

Strong +1 to Brian

Maybe there is a split, but the recommendation is the recommendation

+1 to

There was consensus that it should be included as a recommendation, and as previously discussed, there doesn’t seem to be new information militating in favor of changing the recommendation or demoting it

How would we ever know if there is a pattern if we can;t see when a party began that pattern?

+1 to Phil and Kathy. The comments show far more agreement on the first part of the recommendation than the second.

(sorry my computer is frozen, hand NOT raised)

@Cyntia--I've been thinking the same thing

Took your hand down Brian

poor 1c :-)

We didn’t consider Q1 fully before because it was raised at the last minute, and we opted to include as a question instead

thanks Griffin

Not easy to "abide by applicable law" when there is no clear agreement on what it means. see EPDP for example

+1 Cyntia!

re pattern

Correct, which is why general rule must favor publication….

Contract b/w registrar and registrant I think you mean

But yes, also that basis

FORUM: Yes. Providers will be required to take additional steps not currently taken to effectuate this change. This, and any other changes to the process, may necessitate an increase in filing fees.

GDPR requires proportionality. Resolving a contract dispute doesn’t necessarily require unmasking a party to the world.

Porportionality - 2 millionths of a percent of Registrants are unmasked by URS

It’s resolving a dispute concerning other valid legal rights, not a contractual dispute per se

And as we have been saying, there are a multitude of reasons weighing in favor of knowing who respondents have been in these proceedings

That outweigh redaction

With perhaps a limited set of exceptions

Cynthia - percentage is a red herring. Every use of personal information must be proportional to its purpose.

+1 Mitch. That's not what proportionality means.

Cyntia, sorry for misspelling

@Mitch - none of the protections apply to Legal Persons, so we

@Paul: fair, would you like to summarize the questions you shared -- on the list for the discussion to come?

Tx!

Next meeting is Thursday, 04 June at 17:00 UTC

're only talking about natural persons. There is a valid purpose, which I've outlined. Given limited exceptions adjudged by panelits - there is minimal harm to individuals who have their name only published, an issue that affectsvery few people but provides a significant public benefit

Just to clarify - these are very high level summary, as the question itself is asking many sub components. We just want to provide a general sense/flow of these comments. But happy to provide further clarification if these summaries need to be more accurate to assist members’ review

+1 @Paul on Rec 1

Agree with Paul - that was my understanding as well

Thanks all - and thanks to Paul and Zak for stepping up to co-chair

Very good chairing Paul – really appreciated thank you. Thanks all bye.

And of course to staff for getting us organized

bye all

Many thanks, Paul and everyone.

Bye All!