2018-02-14 Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP WG

Notes/ Action Items

ACTION ITEMS:

1. Staff will send to the Working Group list a Call for Volunteers for participants and observers in three (3) Sub Teams to carry out the following separate tasks related to the URS review in parallel: 

1. Sub Team for URS Practitioners: To identify a group of URS practitioners and a list of questions to the practitioners 
2. Sub Team for URS Documents: To review the list of topics in the Compilation of URS Review Documents and make suggestions about the data needs/sources 
3. Sub Team for URS Providers: To develop and review questions for the URS providers

2. Staff will schedule the above-mentioned Sub Teams meetings for 21 February and 28 February for 1800 UTC (no meeting on 07 March due to travel conflicts).

3. Staff will schedule a meeting with the URS providers.

NOTES:

1. SOI Updates: No updates.

2. Run through of the topics and high-level questions in the Compilation of Current URS Discussion Documents to identify data needs:

A. THE COMPLAINT

1. Standing to file

2. Grounds for filing

3. Limiting filing period

Suggested data needs to help evaluate these points:

-- A. Ask providers how many complaints were submitted that did not pass the administrative review.

-- B. For those for the notice will need to reach out to the providers.

-- Any data source for that will likely be from the providers themselves.

-- Data acquired from scraping from providers: If it was on the site it met the standing to file.

-- For notice and receipt by the registrant: when the complaint is filed and the admin review is done hypothetically there would be a copy of the notice that went to the registrant -- not sure if those records are kept (SMTP logs).

Possible questions to providers:

-- How many complaints have you received and have any respondents responded that they didn't get the notice.

-- Whether the provider received bounce back from the notification emails.

-- Did they rely on the TMCH files?

-- .SMD file is proof as use as one option, but panel said that no use was proven -- shows a misunderstanding as to the role of the .SMD files.

-- To look at that data point would require a look at the cases.

-- .SMD file is simply a proof of use item in terms of registering a name in the Sunrise period.

-- Usually a.txt or similar format version of an SMD file which can be opened and used to confirm the same info as the SMD file.

-- Working with IBM to get actual case notices -- if there were a 100 notices sent out of the 827 URS cases we can reconcile the data up to the end of 2017.

-- May be questions that aren't tied to data.

-- Difficult to open the .SMD file -- in proof of use, is the .SMD file readable.  Is the proof of use sufficient?  Ask the providers -- we have representatives on this WG.

-- Without question the SMD file that you get from the TMCH is easily opened and readable with a .TXT reader.  Ask service providers.

-- Not sure what the providers will be doing other than reporting to us what they see in the cases.

-- Online filing -- doesn't allow formatting.

-- How often are complaints about common words.

-- Re: Complaint: Regardless of how we get the data -- the policy question is not relevant.

-- We were going to look at each of these topics and ask the high-level questions (those that apply).  Also, if difficult to file then it is not fulfilling its original purpose.  Also could look to practitioners who use URS, in addition to providers.

-- Need to look at what data points we need to address these topics.  Look at the path forward to collect data.  What are the issues we are trying to look at and fix?

-- One of the problems already identified is the lack of participation by respondents.

-- Data-driven policy making: the aspect of reviewing all cases versus buckets -- hope as we work through topics we can see what data we need.

-- If the group were to agree to look at cases for a particular TLD, staff can filter that data in a way to take a look at it from that perspective.

-- Many practitioners/experience in this group who could contribute "war stories" as data.

-- Only one were a defense asserted would be those where there was a response (smaller subset).

-- Possible additional high-level question: Does precedent matter?

-- What element of the URS are we concerned about?  Can we identify buckets to extract data to address the questions?

-- Suggested approach: Why not have the providers do a high-level overview first, formulate questions next, then providers provide answers.  Then say, for the first topic, decide whether there are any data relating to standing to file (look at each of the topics).  Get a list of practitioners on both sides of the spectrum and ask them questions.  Look at perceived problems and look at solutions.  Include practitioners who are members of this WG.

-- Data Suggestions:

A. Complaint:  Data from providers and practitioners.  -- 263 cases had some sort of response.  Would it be helpful to know how may responded in the 14 days -- can easily extract by reviewing the bucket of 263 cases.

B. Notice: Data from providers and practitioners.

C. The Response:

-- Isolate those cases that had 15 or more domain names in them from the lense of should the the response fee be eliminated.

Summary:  Go through the topics and identify the sources of the data -- not every source of data will require opening up a case.  Bring the providers in, have them give a high-level overview, and then agree on questions to ask them.  Ask the WG and practitioners to report on problems/experiences.

Assign a small group or groups 1) identifying a group of practitioners and list of questions 2) looks at the document and makes suggestions about the data needs/sources. 3) look at follow up questions for providers after a presentation.