ICANNWiki

Changes

PDP Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs (view source)

Revision as of 19:14, 6 December 2021

5,550 bytes added ,  2 years ago
→‎Final Report
Line 37: Line 37:  
The Working Group's final report was issued in November 2020.<ref name="1finalrep">[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/153518256/Phase%201%20Final%20Report%20on%20the%20Review%20of%20All%20Rights%20Protection%20Mechanisms%20in%20All%20gTLDs%20Policy%20Development%20Process.pdf PDP-RPM - Phase 1 Final Report], November 24, 2020</ref> The final report contained thirty-five recommendations, with associated "implementation guidance" for new policies or modifications to existing procedures.<ref name="1finalrep" /> The recommendations dealt mainly with the URS, Trademark Clearinghouse, and Sunrise and trademark claims periods for new gTLDs, with a single recommendation pertaining to the [[Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure]].<ref name="1finalrep" />
 
The Working Group's final report was issued in November 2020.<ref name="1finalrep">[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/153518256/Phase%201%20Final%20Report%20on%20the%20Review%20of%20All%20Rights%20Protection%20Mechanisms%20in%20All%20gTLDs%20Policy%20Development%20Process.pdf PDP-RPM - Phase 1 Final Report], November 24, 2020</ref> The final report contained thirty-five recommendations, with associated "implementation guidance" for new policies or modifications to existing procedures.<ref name="1finalrep" /> The recommendations dealt mainly with the URS, Trademark Clearinghouse, and Sunrise and trademark claims periods for new gTLDs, with a single recommendation pertaining to the [[Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure]].<ref name="1finalrep" />
   −
'''Recommendation Summary Table'''
+
'''Recommendation Summary Tables'''
 +
 
 +
'''URS'''
 +
{| class="wikitable"
 +
|-
 +
! RPM<br />
 +
! Final Recommendation
 +
! Origin<br />
 +
! Rationales
 +
|-
 +
| URS
 +
| 1 - Modify rules to permit complainants to include only publicly-available registrant contact information; amend registration data within 2-3 days
 +
| Initial Report Recommendation
 +
| Changing data privacy environment thanks to GDPR, other privacy concerns, and ICANN-approved practices.
 +
|-
 +
| URS
 +
| 2 - Parties to a URS proceeding may request redaction of registrant data, and URS panelists/providers may redact such information ''sua sponte''
 +
| Public comment<br />
 +
| Review of public comment from URS Question #1 of the Initial Report; current WIPO practice regarding redaction of respondent's names in final determinations; and EPDP Temp Spec Purpose 6-PA5.
 +
|-
 +
| URS
 +
| 3 - Modify rules so that, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the language of the URS proceeding shall be the language of the underlying registrant agreement
 +
| Initial Report Recommendation #9 and Individual Proposal #34
 +
| Current rules mandate English as the official language of proceedings, which could disadvantage non-English speaking complainants & respondents; wide support for Individual Proposal #34 in the public comments to the initial report.
 +
|-
 +
| URS
 +
| 4 - Modify rules so that the Notice of Complaint is submitted in English, with a translation provided in the language of the Registry Agreement; enforce rule that notice be delivered via email, fax, and postal mail
 +
| Initial Report Recommendation #3, and public comment<br />
 +
| Maintain consistency with Final Recommendation #3 re: languages; WG found variance in compliance with the rule regarding delivery of notice.
 +
|-
 +
| URS
 +
| 5 - Amend rules to define "Default Period" and limit restrictions specific to the Default Period to alteration of registrant data; remove references to "changing content" on the subject domain
 +
| Individual Proposal #1 from the Initial Report<br />
 +
| "Default Period" is not currently defined; "changing content" is better included in other provisions regarding the URS panelist's evalutation of bad faith
 +
|-
 +
| URS
 +
| 6 - URS Providers to maintain a list of its affiliated examiners and their curriculum vitae; providers shall publish a roster of examiners, including frequency of case appointments and links to each examiner's decision
 +
| Individual Proposals #26 & 27 from the Initial Report
 +
| Wide support for the individual proposals; WG was guided by providers regarding practical implementation recommendations<br />
 +
|-
 +
| URS
 +
| 7 - Each URS provider to publish and abide by a conflict of interest policy for examiner selection
 +
| Individual Proposal #28 from the Initial Report
 +
| Wide support for the proposal, with some detractors regarding aspects the original wording; modified recommendation text met demand for the proposal while restricting overreach
 +
|-
 +
| URS
 +
| 8 - ICANN org to create a review mechanism for provider and party compliance with URS rules, proceedings, and determinations; provide an avenue for complaints and resolutions related to compliance issues
 +
| Initial Report Recommendation #4
 +
| Working group found instances of noncompliance which were confirmed by responses to URS Question #2 during the public comment period
 +
|-
 +
| URS
 +
| 9 - develop a uniform set of educational materials to provide guidance for URS practitioners, parties, and examiners on meeting the "clear and convincing" burden of proof standard of evidence
 +
| Initial Report Recommendation #6
 +
| Public comment positive, but providers and practitioners did not heavily support. WG clarified in its rationale that the guidance was not intended to define the standard for examiners; rather, it was intended to be educational in nature
 +
|-
 +
| URS
 +
| 10 - informational materials should be developed & posted on URS providers' websites, including: a uniform FAQ; links to provider forms; and reference materials describing the provider's services and practices
 +
| Initial Report Recommendation #10
 +
| Seeks to establish a baseline understanding of URS procedure for parties to complaints
 +
|-
 +
| URS
 +
| 11 & 12 - URS provider to send notices to respondent once they have received relevant contact details from the registry/registrar; providers, registries, and registrars to routinely ensure that their contact information is up to date
 +
| Initial Report Recommendations #2 & #5
 +
| Ensuring notice requirements are met<br />
 +
|-
 +
| URS
 +
| 13 - URS providers should require examiners to document their rationale in sufficient detail to explain how the decision was reached
 +
| Initial Report Recommendation #7
 +
| Some determinations lack complete rationales or descriptions of the examiner's thought process; recommendation was amended to ensure a minimum standard without being overly prescriptive
 +
|-
 +
| URS
 +
| 14 - Implementation Review Team to review implementation issues regarding URS "High Level Technical Requirements" Registry Requirement #10
 +
| Initial Report Recommendation #8
 +
| WG noted a significant percentage of registries and registrars were confused regarding their role in implementing suspensions under the URS, specifically the extension of registration of suspended URLs.
 +
|-
 +
| URS
 +
| 15 - Rename URS policies related to technical requirements for registries and registrars
 +
| Individual Proposal #2 from the Initial Report
 +
| Public comment revealed broad support for Individual Proposal #2, with preference given to the second approach suggested within the proposal - this recommendation was generated to put that proposal forward as a community- and WG-supported recommendation.<br />
 +
|}
    
==References==
 
==References==
JP
Bureaucrats, Check users, lookupuser, Administrators, translator
3,197

edits

Retrieved from "https://icannwiki.org/Special:MobileDiff/1341166"