2019-12-11 Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP WG

Notes/ Action Items

Actions:

Page 10 (bottom of page): F. REMEDIES - 2. Duration of suspension period; 3. Review of implementation, POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST):

ACTION: Staff to provide revised text that incorporates the comments provided by Maxim Alzoba, including adding a reference to the URS rules with respect to termination due to settlement. 

Notes:

1.  Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.

2. Working Group to complete discussions regarding the recommendations of the URS Sub Teams’ to go into the Initial Report –Review new text per the action items (pages 10, 15, and 20) below and as redlined in the Google doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vFYm9o/edit?usp=sharing[docs.google.com]

a. Page 10 (bottom of page): F. REMEDIES- 2. Duration of suspension period; 3. Review of implementation, POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST):

ACTION: Staff to provide revised text that incorporates the comments provided by Maxim Alzoba, including adding a reference to the URS rules with respect to termination due to settlement. 

Discussion:

-- If the URS is won, there is no settlement, if settlement happening, there is no URS.

-- The specific question is on extending the registration through a different registrar.

-- Both (settlement prior to determination AND extension of registration WITHOUT a settlement) were given as different examples of situations where the ST found difficulties in communicating with Registries or registrars.

-- Settlement prior to the determination is outside of URS.’

-- This question has nothing to do with a settlement that occurs before determination.

-- Forgot to mention about the item with Registrar change after the URS won, the word transfer has very special meaning in the policies, and might have a change of the registrant (the latter is forbidden under URS), and thus I would recommend to mention that such change will not change the registrant.

-- Add the reference to the URS rules with respect to termination due to settlement.  This is in the case where there is a winning complainant and that complainant is requesting to extend the suspension for another year.

b. Page 15 (top of the page):F. REMEDIES- 4. Other topics: The WG discussed the edits and accepted them.

c. Page 20 (bottom of the page):J. LANGUAGE ISSUES - 1. Language issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice of complaint, response, determination

ACTION ITEM: : Add “and the location of the service will determine the language of that service, which may be relevant.”

Discussion:

-- Not a GDPR issue, the issue is that it is less timely to get the data if there is a privacy or proxy service in place.

-- The problem identified was the situation where the “real” registrant is not known when the proceeding commences in language A (b/c of a P/P service) but subsequently it’s discovered that the “real” registrant’s primary language is language B.

-- Add “and the location of the service will determine the language of that service, which may be relevant.”

3. Begin Discussion of Individual URS Proposals, see attached survey results slides and procedure below.  The order of the proposal review is: 2, 23, 1, 8, 34, 35, 11, 18, 27, 20, 36, 32, 3, 30, 26, 7, 28, 19, 29, 5, 31, 21, 6, 33, 15, 22, 4, 14, 13, 17, 16.

Results of WG Discussion on the Individual Proposals:

#2:  Wide support: publish in the Initial Report

#23: Virtually no support: do not publish in the Initial Report

#1: Wide support – put the proposal out for comment as is (with both options): publish in the Initial Report

#8: Virtually no support: do not publish in the Initial Report

#34: Wide support – some concerns, but worth to put out for public comment: publish in the Initial Report

#35: Virtually no support: do not publish in the Initial Report

#11: Continue discussion:

-- Get comment on other possible numbers (3-15, not just on 3).

-- Although in general 3 is sufficient to demonstrate a pattern, agree to asking for Public Comment on the appropriate number to demonstrate a pattern. 

-- Noting the comment on commercial plans, agree to increasing this to 5 -- but getting input on the number appropriate

-- Maintain the proposed language and reduction to 3.

-- Continue discussion at the next meeting and on the other proposals.

Next meeting: Proposals 11, 18, 27, 20, 36, 32, 3, 30, 26, 7, 28, 19, 29, 5, 31, 21, 6, 33, 15, 22, 4, 14, 13, 17, 16.