Please find the details below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call scheduled for Wednesday, 10 October 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 120 minutes.
10:00 PDT, 13:00 EDT, 19:00 Paris CEST, 22:00 Karachi PKT, (Thursday) 02:00 Tokyo JST, (Thursday) 04:00 Melbourne AEDT
For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/ycuxdz4u
PROPOSED AGENDA
Draft Agenda:
- Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates
- Discussion of Individual URS Proposals (See: wiki)
- AOB
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
- George Kirikos (#5): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-5.pdf?api=v2
- George Kirikos (#7): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-7.pdf?api=v2
- George Kirikos (#8): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-8.pdf?api=v2
- Marie Pattullo (staff to present on behalf of Marie) (#13): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-13.pdf?api=v2
- George Kirikos (#12): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-12.pdf?api=v2
- George Kirikos (#18): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-18.pdf?api=v2
- George Kirikos (#19): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-19.pdf?api=v2
- George Kirikos (#20): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-20.pdf?api=v2
RECORDINGS
PARTICIPATION
Notes/ Action Items
Chair: Kathy Kleiman
1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates: No updates
2. Discussion of Individual URS Proposals (See: https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ)
1. George Kirikos (#5): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-5.pdf?api=v2
Discussion:
-- Statute of limitations is based on known or should have known.
-- Question: How does this proposal deal with issues of continuing harm? How to deal with the issue of known or should have known?
-- Worth getting public comments on.
-- Put into the Initial Report for discussion. There is support for and against.
-- There has been no survey of national law.
-- This would create an exception that could blow a hole in the policy.
-- Worthy for further review and discussion.
-- Needs to be put on the table for discussion.
-- Ripe for discussion.
Response:
-- Didn't make a latches proposal because it is more complicated to prove.
-- Useful to survey national law.
-- Re: "submarine registration" it is a possibility but they would have to be paying renewal costs in the mean time.
-- Still a recourse to the courts for all other disputes.
2. George Kirikos (#7): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-7.pdf?api=v2
Discussion:
-- Support including the proposal in the Initial Report..
-- No legal contact right now in the WHOIS. Requirement for everyone is high burden.
-- Revise proposal to say, "If a legal contact is required then in that case..."?
-- Seems like we would be making recommendations where other parts of the community are working.
-- Think it is okay to make recommendations for other groups.
Response:
-- Isn't meant to force someone to have a legal contact if they don't want one. It is just another means of contact in the WHOIS.
3. George Kirikos (#8): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-8.pdf?api=v2
Discussion:
-- Don't know what this proposal does that doesn't already exist in the URS.
-- Don't know how the three days would equate to more than what they can already do.
-- The issue with actual notice not sure if you drag it out for 3 more days’ notice will be achieved.
-- Seems to be effectively a limitation period.
-- Would increase the time (contrary to "rapid).
-- In the Sub Team analysis there was no evidence of people missing the notifications.
Response:
-- Having the additional time period would reduce incidences of default and suspensions.
-- Seems like rapid doesn't apply to bringing complaint.
-- High rate of default is evidence of the problem.
4. Marie Pattullo (staff to present on behalf of Marie) (#13): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-13.pdf?api=v2
Discussion:
-- Good intention, but could be problematic to implement. Could be impossible for a registrar to handle on its own. Interested in how to overcome the technical problems.
-- Would be interested in the evidence. Is it happening? Does it happen often? Check with Berry Cobb re: evidence of a losing registrant re-registering.
-- Sufficient merit for going into the Initial Report.
-- Creative proposal. Need to distinguish implementation changes from policy challenges.
-- Costly monitoring burden on the trademark holder.
-- Strongly oppose putting out for public comment when it is impossible to implement. Cannot distinguish between registrants even within the same registrar.
-- Seems to be unbalanced.
Response: Staff will convey the discussion from the transcript and the chat for Marie to respond to.
5. George Kirikos (#12): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-12.pdf?api=v2
Discussion:
-- Strongly opposed. Challenge: If you transfer a trademark to a new owner and they do something different with it then the clock does reset.
-- Support including it in the Initial Report.
-- In the UDRP there is a lot of ambiguity of what the creation date represents. Ambiguity if a domain is deleted and then re-registered. Area worthy of further discussion.
-- Interesting but needs further development.
-- It's binary -- either it exists or it does not.
Response:
-- Overriding concern is that we want to have safe harbors for when a TM is transfered.
-- Conceivably a domain name could not be fully deleted.
-- Statute of limitations would be another way to handle it.
6. George Kirikos (#18): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-18.pdf?api=v2
Discussion:
-- Needs to be reworked. Not sure it is universally applicable.
-- This has been extensively debated in the IGO/INGO.
-- Real problem if the policies are worded in a way that courts aren't allowing it.
-- There is no real problem here -- it is an outlier case.
-- Not sure in favor of the proposals as currently written. There are
-- Worth getting community feedback.
Response:
-- There were at least 2 cases in the UK and also in Australia.
7. George Kirikos (#19): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-19.pdf?api=v2
Discussion:
-- Does address the concern among some WG members that ICANN cannot decide what case a court will here. This proposal would be able to effect how courts deal with subsequent action following URS.
-- In the URS there are multiple avenues for appeal. The registrant does have avenues for recourse.
Response:
-- Not fair to say that there are multiple avenues for recourse in the URS since it doesn't have the same recourses as a court.
8. George Kirikos (#20): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-20.pdf?api=v2
Discussion: See the chat.