PROPOSED AGENDA

1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect/phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest
2. Discuss proposed approach to URS review suggested on 30 November call (see the posted Background Document below for consolidated draft documents)
3. Discuss co-chairs' statement on URS review (see final section of Background Document)

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

URS Discussion Drafts - Compiled 13 Dec 2017

Mp3

Adobe Connect Recording

Transcript

Attendance

Apologies:  Jonathan Agmon, David Maher

Notes/ Action Items

Actions:

1. Staff will put out a summary of what was decided today so that those weren't on the call can consider it.

2. Staff will circulate the draft document and ask WG members whether they have changes to it.

Notes:

1.  Discuss proposed approach to URS review suggested on 30 November call:

Part 1:                                     

-- Group the questions in topics, grouped in chronological order of the URS proceeding.

-- Suggest high-level questions to be applied to the topics.

Part 2: Topics matched with the charter questions.

Part 3: Co-Chairs' Statement on URS Review

Summary:

-- Proposed high-level questions (5) applied to various topics within the scope of the URS review.

-- Proposed topics for organizing the issues in the original charter questions.

-- Table that matches the charter questions to a topic.

-- Heather Forrest: Only comment from me Phil is that my intention in the suggestion was to get us to a more concise form of question to prevent getting bogged down in disagreement on slightly varied versions of these questions

-- Question: Are the question in the charter table the original charter question?  There were proposed questions to add.  Response: Yes, just the charter questions.  That is already a long list and until the WG agreed on the approach we didn't know if it was appropriate to take additional proposed questions until the WG has agreed on the approach.

-- If we do take this approach and take this route, then the understanding is that part 1 is how we will approach our work; part 2 is to identify how we reached Part 1 -- how the topics were identified.  We then don't need to answer the questions in detail, just the overarching topics.  Thus we don't have to redraft the questions.

-- The characterization at the top of page 3 of the document -- questions that don't fit into the categories, since they are structural. Suggest moving these questions to the top as the ones we are asking about the overall program.

-- The Charter is divided into overarching, specific (to each RPM), and more general questions - again, unedited from all the community feedback received to date. Staff included these general questions for completeness - so it is up to the WG to decide how they wish to deal with these overarching and general questions.

-- Additional overarching question: claudio: "In light of experience, should the original purpose be maintained or modified" - that's the only other high level question I can think of. Not sure if we want to go down that road, just mentioning it for consideration.

-- The idea that Part 2 is merely informative so that when we do a report these are the overarching issues and we asked the same question against the overarching issues.  How would we get an answer to overarching question at the top of page 3: "Do the RPMs adequately address issues of registrant protection (such as freedom of express and fair use)?  Maybe these need to be asked at the end.

-- When we did trademark claims, sunrise, we took the charter questions as sacred and we didn't depart from them.  If we don't take the question then there is nothing about Notice.  If Part 2 is optional then I think we are losing a lot of what we got from our stakeholder groups.

-- Disagree: If the charter questions are sacred then we can't amend them or add to them.

-- If your reading of "objective" is that the question doesn't express a bias -- if we make changes what collateral consequences will there be, is what are looking at.

-- claudio: @julie/mary, for inclusion on our list of questions, here is a question that I sent to the list after ICANN60 on tuesday, Dec 5: (1) to what extent does the URS permit renewal and/or continued use of a previously suspended domain, and 2) to what extent is renewal and/or continued use of a previously suspended domain consistent with the intended purpose of the URS; and 3) to the extent it is inconsistent, whether any policy recommendations should be implemented to address the inconsistency

-- The answers will require judgment, but the questions should be neutral.  The issue is not the subject matter (such as freedom of expression or notice) but that we want to start with neutral questions.

-- Make sure that today's discussion is to decide whether this approach has consensus, then rather than going through each of the charter questions we would refine the 5 high-level questions and hope to get objective facts.  The idea is whether the concept produced in this paper is acceptable.  Once adopted we would apply that to the material.

-- We are kind of doing a judicial review so we should look at all sides/perspectives.

Re: Notes for Additional Reference -- 5 questions (top of page 3):

-- MIxed bag of questions.  There is a fair degree of subjective judgment in the first question.  Second questions is about the relationship between the RPMs.  Third question is subjective.  Number 5 -- challenging question.  Question 4 -- look at carefully.

-- Part 2 Charter -- helpful to group the charter questions under the particular issues, along with new questions if they are agreed to by the WG.

-- Suggestion to address the overarching questions for all RPMs at the end of Phase 1.

-- Page 4 under standard of proof: Is the URS "clear and convincing' standard of proof appropriate.  Apply the 5 high-level questions?  They aren't that relevant since this is a policy question.

-- Page 4, Scope of defenses: Are the expanded defenses of the URS being used and if so, when, and by whom? Here the 5 high-level questions seem to be appropriate.

-- High-level questions are better in dealing with some toipcs/charter questions than with others.

-- The intention to see if the WG could agree on the approach: a list of short topics and apply a similar set of high-level questions.  Then the next task is to consider whether these are the right topics.  Then the WG would decide whether to include additional questions that have been suggested.

-- Are we coming at this from the assumption that the original purpose of this RPM should be maintained?  Or might we find evidence that the original policy purpose should be changed?

-- We might decide whether this is the right set of high-level questions.  These questions seem more relevant to the practice part of the questions, not so much for the policy questions.

-- What about suggested/proposed new questions?  What are we doing with them?  Two types of additional questions: 1) questions that are substantive that are meant to be added to the charter questions, so may yield additional topics (George/Maxim); 2) questions that add to the list of high-level questions (Claudio).  These are noted.

-- The overarching questions could be included in the chart with topics applied.

Re: Questions 1-5:

-- Same starting point as with previous reviews. 

-- Dissect the URS into the constituent components. 

-- Some of the charter questions will come into play and we may add new ones.

-- The topic-based process will lead us into preparing a report -- having information arranged in a way that could quite easily be turned into a report.  Also keeps out the issue of question neutrality.

-- Suggested high-level questions are useful but not always appropriate.   Example: Cost allocation -- policy questions.  Be selective in the application of the high-level questions and we may need to re-write some of the questions.

-- The gap noted above could be filled by adding another nuanced high-level question.

-- Additional high-level question: "Is it working, or not?  If not, why not?"

-- Other potential questions will be added to the chart under the appropriate topic.

Questions 1) is the separation of questions into topics useful; 2) is the set of high-level questions useful for addressing the charter questions and do we need to modify them?

Questions: Is everybody comfortable with moving forward with this approach and if the answer is "yes" then we need to work on what high-level questions are we going to ask, decide whether these are the right topics, then whatever information that comes in on those objective questions use that to answer the charter questions -- without needing to rewrite the charter questions.  Could still add questions under the topics, but at some point we'll need to decide on the final questions.

-- Need time to think about the high-level questions and whether they need to be changed.  Not sure what we mean by question 5 "How many managed to prevail?"  Some may not apply to every topic, which is fine.

-- Can we separate the question of whether the WG agrees with the approach summarized by J Scott (agree on a list of topics based on the Charter questions, and ask the same high level questions for each topic) with the question whether the topics are complete/accurate, and whether the current list of high-level questions is the correct/final list?

Questions: 1) Are WG members comfortable with the proposed approach of applying a standard set of high-level questions to the topics; 2) in applying this approach should the WG have the opportunity to modify and add to the 5 high-level questions on page 1?

Agree with the above questions: All marks are check marks/agree; no disagree.

Question 1: All marks are check marks/agree; 1 abstain.

Question 2: All marks are check marks/agree; no disagree.

-- The approach is a draft.  The question is whether to move forward with this methodology and a majority agreed.  Now we move to consideration of the draft: Are these the 5 high-level question?  Do they need to be modified?  Do other questions need to be asked?  We are still formulating the standard set of high-level questions.  Agreed on a methodology but can modify the details.

-- Agreed on the methodology.  Now need to consider the draft.  Once the details of the draft agreed to, it will become the work plan. 

-- Suggestion for re-organizing the table: Put all topics fit into a matrix, where the columns are the standardized questions, and the rows are topics.

2. Next meeting:

-- Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 03 January 2018 at 18:00 UTC for 90 minutes.