Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG
Cyntia King (USA)
35:54
Happy Friday Eve, all!
Andrea Glandon
36:35
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Paul McGrady
37:39
@Julie, Are the comments for TM-PDDRP in this subgroup or the other?
Ariel Liang
38:01
Sub Group A
Paul McGrady
38:09
Thanks!
Philip Corwin
39:05
@Paul -- this one is URS recommendations only; other subgroup is all the rest
Paul McGrady
39:32
@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.
Kathy Kleiman
40:05
I think we have another volunteer as well.
Zak Muscovitch
40:29
I would be happy to cochair with you Paul, if you were agreeable.
Susan Payne
40:35
I think Paul would do a fine job
Kathy Kleiman
41:15
(Zak had sent a note earlier to the Co-Chairs)
Cyntia King (USA)
41:54
My split personalities like Paul & Zak as co-chars. :)
Paul McGrady
42:15
@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.
Jay Chapman
42:35
Zak & Paul would be great co-chairs
Zak Muscovitch
42:37
Sounds good, many thanks, Paul.
Philip Corwin
43:09
Thanks to Paul and Zak
Brian beckham
43:12
thx guys - clear your calendars;)!
Kathy Kleiman
43:14
Tx to Paul and Zak!
Susan Payne
47:06
+1 - thanks to Zak and Paul
Paul McGrady
48:35
+1 Phil - that makes sense and it seemed to work well in Sub Group A.
Kathy Kleiman
50:07
Tx Ariel, interrelation clear!
Cyntia King (USA)
50:16
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.
Julie Hedlund
50:54
Thanks @Cyntia and noted.
Philip Corwin
52:02
Question: Is the complaint made public or just the panelist determination?
Kathy Kleiman
52:17
@Ariel: could you make this a little bigger?
Julie Hedlund
52:57
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=
Julie Hedlund
53:11
Let’s see if I can get a better link :-)
Julie Hedlund
53:39
Here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSKFv1Mg18/edit?usp=sharing
Julie Hedlund
59:29
LOL Paul ;-)
Ariel Liang
01:00:11
I tried to make my screen slightly larger, but you are also welcome to review the spreadsheet on your own, and press “command
Ariel Liang
01:00:30
“Command” and “+” to enlarge the font
Kathy Kleiman
01:00:33
Much better, tx Arile!
Kathy Kleiman
01:00:37
Ariel!
Susan Payne
01:01:13
we did address this in the WG didn't we? Was discussed in a subteam and then accepted by the full WG
Kathy Kleiman
01:01:32
Phil's hand is up.
Brian Beckham
01:01:44
correct @Susan, that's why its a proposed WG recommendation
Cyntia King (USA)
01:02:42
Please pardon, but I understood we would forego reading of the individal comments in favor of more discussion. Is that right?
Susan Payne
01:03:05
@Paul, I think the top box are not all the comments. No tthat I'm suggesting you go through them all
Paul McGrady
01:04:29
@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.
Susan Payne
01:04:38
@Phil - just the decision
Cyntia King (USA)
01:04:53
Thanks @Paul
Susan Payne
01:05:10
+1
Griffin Barnett
01:07:58
Isn’t there a separate section dealing with publication of registrant names in decisions?
Kathy Kleiman
01:09:37
@Griffin: I think this is it.
Philip Corwin
01:10:34
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.
Griffin Barnett
01:11:30
@Kathy - I think URS Q1 actually deals with that separately (but relatedly to URS Rec 1)
Cyntia King (USA)
01:11:58
Of course. :)
Kathy Kleiman
01:12:27
I think that: "boil down"
Kathy Kleiman
01:12:57
is a great phrase!
Cyntia King (USA)
01:13:27
Respectfuly, knowing the name of the Respondant may absolutely change teh arguments.
Griffin Barnett
01:13:31
@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
Griffin Barnett
01:13:44
*cases not cats
Kathy Kleiman
01:13:53
@Cyntia: Doesn't the Examiner, Forum, and Complainant know the Registrant?
Susan Payne
01:13:54
precisely Griffin
Brian Beckham
01:14:00
From the URS: "...provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct"
Rebecca Tushnet
01:16:12
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.
Julie Hedlund
01:17:17
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
Philip Corwin
01:19:32
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?
Cyntia King (USA)
01:20:24
@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.
Susan Payne
01:21:00
@Phil. we need to amend because current practice does not match what the rules currently say
Griffin Barnett
01:21:19
Agree we are getting into re-litigation territory here
Cyntia King (USA)
01:21:28
I have reviewed all the comments & am responding to the positions presented. Is that not the purpose of this review?
Brian Beckham
01:21:54
Do you have examples of this @Mitch?
Susan Payne
01:22:18
@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.
Griffin Barnett
01:22:34
@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
Griffin Barnett
01:22:49
*a panelist not a pen… not sure what’s with my typing today
Brian Beckham
01:23:03
@Mitch, evidence of that would certainly be useful to see, as I do not recall seeing that in over a decade of UDRP experience.
Kathy Kleiman
01:23:09
es
Kathy Kleiman
01:23:11
yes
Griffin Barnett
01:23:44
I don’t see anything new frankly
Georges Nahitchevansky
01:24:46
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
Griffin Barnett
01:25:14
@Kathy that was my earlier point. You are going to Q1 and not raising anything speaking to Rec 1 it seems
Kathy Kleiman
01:25:26
Q1 bears on Rec 1
Griffin Barnett
01:25:28
Which is fine if we want to move to Q1 and agree that nothing changes re Rec 1
Susan Payne
01:25:34
Agree - nothing new. Although we do need to review responses to Q1
Kathy Kleiman
01:25:44
I would go back to Rec 1 after Q1
Mitch Stoltz
01:26:18
@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
Rebecca Tushnet
01:26:48
Phil, what is the basis for your claim that the information doesn't automatically get into the published decision?
Griffin Barnett
01:27:02
@Mitch - We’re not talking about court proceedings, we are talking about URS cases
Georges Nahitchevansky
01:27:04
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
Cyntia King (USA)
01:27:19
@Phil I would go for 3 days peding the further decision of EPDP 2
Rebecca Tushnet
01:27:21
You say it's a factual error, but the workflow we see in practice is that it does get cut & pasted
Mitch Stoltz
01:27:57
@Griffin yes, and URS cases afford far fewer procedural protections to respondents, making the default process even more important.
Philip Corwin
01:28:48
@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.
Cyntia King (USA)
01:29:49
+1 @Paul
Philip Corwin
01:32:01
Noting that this entire question is only relevant if we retain the second half of rec1 in some form
Susan Payne
01:32:48
On 1b I'm pretty sure CITMAs comments are in the wrong basket
Cyntia King (USA)
01:34:59
I support allowing a Panelist to redact the Respondant info when: teh party is a minor/victim or when publishing would be abusive.
Cyntia King (USA)
01:35:37
Any other time the info should be published.
Griffin Barnett
01:35:39
When would a party ever be a minor?
Griffin Barnett
01:35:54
Actually strike that, I suppose it could be possiblr
Griffin Barnett
01:36:39
Sorry but those comments y Tucows mistake the law, and do not consider the reasons why publication is important
Griffin Barnett
01:36:47
*misstate
Cyntia King (USA)
01:36:47
@Griffin - It was a comment from the BC. I assume they are aware of cases.
Mitch Stoltz
01:37:10
@cyntis there are far more categories and circumstances where non-disclosure needs to be the default, including whistleblowers, critics of a company/government, etc.
Georges Nahitchevansky
01:37:43
No sure that is factually correct as trademark oppositions and lawsuits reval the names of the parties.
Cyntia King (USA)
01:37:47
@MItch - point taken so allow the panelist the equivalent of "in the interest of justice"
Griffin Barnett
01:38:25
I would not oppose giving panelists the discretion to order redaction of the registrant name in very limited circumstances
Mitch Stoltz
01:38:37
@Cyntia that would work in a court process or possibly UDRP, but not URS.
Griffin Barnett
01:38:38
But the general rule should favor publication
Julie Hedlund
01:39:11
For questions the Sub Group should look to see if there is high-level agreement on any of the answers
Cyntia King (USA)
01:39:39
@MItch - I defer to the learned lawyers to create the appropriate language. I think you understand my point.
Julie Hedlund
01:40:16
Hand up from staff
Susan Payne
01:41:57
@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
Cyntia King (USA)
01:43:18
+Susan - The question is will we make/change a recommendation now that we're informed of the public sentiment
Paul Tattersfield
01:45:54
Brian +1
Griffin Barnett
01:45:57
Strong +1 to Brian
Griffin Barnett
01:48:34
Maybe there is a split, but the recommendation is the recommendation
Mitch Stoltz
01:48:51
+1 to
Griffin Barnett
01:49:16
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
Cyntia King (USA)
01:49:22
How would we ever know if there is a pattern if we can;t see when a party began that pattern?
Mitch Stoltz
01:49:40
+1 to Phil and Kathy. The comments show far more agreement on the first part of the recommendation than the second.
Brian Beckham
01:50:05
(sorry my computer is frozen, hand NOT raised)
Philip Corwin
01:50:11
@Cyntia--I've been thinking the same thing
Julie Hedlund
01:50:21
Took your hand down Brian
Kathy Kleiman
01:50:22
poor 1c :-)
Griffin Barnett
01:50:23
We didn’t consider Q1 fully before because it was raised at the last minute, and we opted to include as a question instead
Paul Tattersfield
01:51:04
thanks Griffin
Philip Corwin
01:51:50
Not easy to "abide by applicable law" when there is no clear agreement on what it means. see EPDP for example
Susan Payne
01:55:16
+1 Cyntia!
Susan Payne
01:55:23
re pattern
Griffin Barnett
01:55:36
Correct, which is why general rule must favor publication….
Griffin Barnett
01:56:03
Contract b/w registrar and registrant I think you mean
Griffin Barnett
01:56:15
But yes, also that basis
Kathy Kleiman
01:56:22
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.
Mitch Stoltz
01:57:40
GDPR requires proportionality. Resolving a contract dispute doesn’t necessarily require unmasking a party to the world.
Cyntia King (USA)
01:58:42
Porportionality - 2 millionths of a percent of Registrants are unmasked by URS
Griffin Barnett
01:58:50
It’s resolving a dispute concerning other valid legal rights, not a contractual dispute per se
Griffin Barnett
01:59:15
And as we have been saying, there are a multitude of reasons weighing in favor of knowing who respondents have been in these proceedings
Griffin Barnett
01:59:27
That outweigh redaction
Griffin Barnett
01:59:37
With perhaps a limited set of exceptions
Mitch Stoltz
01:59:43
Cynthia - percentage is a red herring. Every use of personal information must be proportional to its purpose.
Rebecca Tushnet
02:00:53
+1 Mitch. That's not what proportionality means.
Mitch Stoltz
02:00:54
Cyntia, sorry for misspelling
Cyntia King (USA)
02:01:03
@Mitch - none of the protections apply to Legal Persons, so we
Kathy Kleiman
02:01:25
@Paul: fair, would you like to summarize the questions you shared -- on the list for the discussion to come?
Kathy Kleiman
02:02:35
Tx!
Julie Hedlund
02:02:43
Next meeting is Thursday, 04 June at 17:00 UTC
Cyntia King (USA)
02:02:48
'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
Ariel Liang
02:03:27
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
Cyntia King (USA)
02:04:08
+1 @Paul on Rec 1
Griffin Barnett
02:04:18
Agree with Paul - that was my understanding as well
Griffin Barnett
02:04:47
Thanks all - and thanks to Paul and Zak for stepping up to co-chair
Paul Tattersfield
02:04:56
Very good chairing Paul – really appreciated thank you. Thanks all bye.
Griffin Barnett
02:04:57
And of course to staff for getting us organized
Griffin Barnett
02:05:05
bye all
Zak Muscovitch
02:05:07
Many thanks, Paul and everyone.
Cyntia King (USA)
02:05:17
Bye All!