Changes

===Initial Report===

===Initial Report===

The initial report's findings included a number of conflicts between existing rights protection mechanisms and the [[GDPR]].<ref name="initialrep" /> The WG noted, for example, that the procedural rules of the [[Uniform Rapid Suspension System]] (URS) had filing requirements that included information that the provisions within the [[Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data]] no longer required. As a result, amendments were proposed regarding the specificity of information necessary to file a complaint.<ref name="initialrep" /> The questions to the community sought public input on the workability of the protection mechanisms and specific input from registry operators regarding their experience receiving and processing complaints and other transactions with complainants or petitioners.<ref name="initialrep" /> The proposals from individual WG members dealt with the URS and the [[Trademark Clearinghouse]], specifically. The report noted that some of the rationales behind the proposals were not necessarily supported by the findings of the WG.<ref name="initialrep" />

The initial report's findings included a number of conflicts between existing rights protection mechanisms and the [[GDPR]].<ref name="initialrep" /> The WG noted, for example, that the procedural rules of the [[Uniform Rapid Suspension System]] (URS) had filing requirements that included information that the provisions within the [[Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data]] no longer required. As a result, amendments were proposed regarding the specificity of information necessary to file a complaint.<ref name="initialrep" /> The questions to the community sought public input on the workability of the protection mechanisms and specific input from registry operators regarding their experience receiving and processing complaints and other transactions with complainants or petitioners.<ref name="initialrep" /> The proposals from individual WG members dealt with the URS and the [[Trademark Clearinghouse]], specifically. The report noted that some of the rationales behind the individual proposals were not necessarily supported by the findings of the WG.<ref name="initialrep" />

Public comments on the initial report were extensive - forty-four comments were received from organizations and twelve people submitted comments in their individual capacity.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-initial-report-18may20-en.pdf ICANN.org - Staff Report on Public Comment Proceeding, PDP-RPM Initial Report], May 18, 2020</ref> For ease of analysis, the WG created a matrix of comments received on specific recommendations, questions, and proposals.<ref name="initialpc">[https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Phase+1+Initial+Report+Public+Comment+Review PDP-RPM Workspace - Public Comment Review], last updated July 2020</ref> Notably, [[WIPO]] objected to the focus and subject matter of the Phase 1 Working Group's charter, stating regarding the overarching charter questions:

Public comments on the initial report were extensive - forty-four comments were received from organizations and twelve people submitted comments in their individual capacity.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-initial-report-18may20-en.pdf ICANN.org - Staff Report on Public Comment Proceeding, PDP-RPM Initial Report], May 18, 2020</ref> For ease of analysis, the WG created a matrix of comments received on specific recommendations, questions, and proposals.<ref name="initialpc">[https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Phase+1+Initial+Report+Public+Comment+Review PDP-RPM Workspace - Public Comment Review], last updated July 2020</ref> Notably, [[WIPO]] objected to the focus and subject matter of the Phase 1 Working Group's charter, stating regarding the overarching charter questions: