October 2017 - Gnso-rpm-data

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Preparation for Sub Team session at ICANN60
by Ariel Liang Oct. 28, 2017

Oct. 28, 2017

Hello Lori, I have now given comment access to both of your email accounts (gmail and inta). Please be so kind to check again (the gmail account probably works better). Best Regards, Ariel From: <gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org> Date: Friday, October 27, 2017 at 6:55 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Preparation for Sub Team session at ICANN60 Hi, I am clicking in to look at the table and I am getting an ICANN VPN Login. With kind regards, Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408 From: gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 10:24 PM To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Preparation for Sub Team session at ICANN60 Dear all, Following from the last Sub Team call this past Friday, staff would like to confirm if the following agenda for the upcoming 90-minute Sub Team session at ICANN60 on Saturday 28 October (15.15-16.45 local time) is appropriate: 1. Welcome and introductions (by Phil as Working Group chair, or Kurt?) 2. Staff update on Table 2 * The objective here is to not only update the Sub Team on what is being done, what is yet to do, but perhaps more importantly, obtain more specific guidance and direction on some of the tasks that are currently phrased in more general terms 1. Sub Team review of suggested questions and comments received to date for Table 1 * How we approach this item may depend on what additional suggestions, and under which target group (registries, registrars, TM/brand owners, actual/potential registrants, trade associations/industry and public interest groups) we receive before Saturday. Given: (a) that Lori has already informed us she will be out of pocket through early November (and has taken on Section 6, the industry and public interest groups/trade associations); and (b) that we are likely to have a number of TM/brand owners and registrants, as well as possibly a number of registries and registrars, perhaps we should focus the discussion on these groups? * If no questions are received for a particular target group, we can ask the audience what objective they think the Charter question vis-à-vis a particular group is intended to achieve, and what specific suggestions they may have for surveying that group * Where questions are received, we can of course work through them. 1. Sub Team discussion of expected timeline for completion of work on Table 1 2. Next steps Please also be so kind as to fill out your “assigned” section in Table 1 on the Google Doc created by Ariel as soon as possible, so that we can get a sense before the end of the week on what specific sections can be reviewed and discussed on Saturday: https://docs.google.com/a/icann.org/document/d/10qENwqvozS-TZfJiVOx5MG71YIs…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_a_ican…> (please refer to Ariel’s email for who’s “assigned” to what section). Please let us know your thoughts and suggestions on the Saturday agenda. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Preparation for Sub Team session at ICANN60
by Mary Wong Oct. 28, 2017

Oct. 28, 2017

Dear all, Following from the last Sub Team call this past Friday, staff would like to confirm if the following agenda for the upcoming 90-minute Sub Team session at ICANN60 on Saturday 28 October (15.15-16.45 local time) is appropriate: 1. Welcome and introductions (by Phil as Working Group chair, or Kurt?) 2. Staff update on Table 2 * The objective here is to not only update the Sub Team on what is being done, what is yet to do, but perhaps more importantly, obtain more specific guidance and direction on some of the tasks that are currently phrased in more general terms 1. Sub Team review of suggested questions and comments received to date for Table 1 * How we approach this item may depend on what additional suggestions, and under which target group (registries, registrars, TM/brand owners, actual/potential registrants, trade associations/industry and public interest groups) we receive before Saturday. Given: (a) that Lori has already informed us she will be out of pocket through early November (and has taken on Section 6, the industry and public interest groups/trade associations); and (b) that we are likely to have a number of TM/brand owners and registrants, as well as possibly a number of registries and registrars, perhaps we should focus the discussion on these groups? * If no questions are received for a particular target group, we can ask the audience what objective they think the Charter question vis-à-vis a particular group is intended to achieve, and what specific suggestions they may have for surveying that group * Where questions are received, we can of course work through them. 1. Sub Team discussion of expected timeline for completion of work on Table 1 2. Next steps Please also be so kind as to fill out your “assigned” section in Table 1 on the Google Doc created by Ariel as soon as possible, so that we can get a sense before the end of the week on what specific sections can be reviewed and discussed on Saturday: https://docs.google.com/a/icann.org/document/d/10qENwqvozS-TZfJiVOx5MG71YIs… (please refer to Ariel’s email for who’s “assigned” to what section). Please let us know your thoughts and suggestions on the Saturday agenda. Thanks and cheers Mary

5 5

Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday
by Mary Wong Oct. 27, 2017

Oct. 27, 2017

Dear RPM Data Sub Team members, Please find attached the updated tables from the Working Group’s data request that was approved by the GNSO Council. As requested, we have done the following: * Broken up the original table into two tables – Table 1 for all the survey work; Table 2 for the other work to be undertaken by staff and others (e.g. researchers, contractors); * Added a third column to Table 1 to include the specific Charter question(s) to which that specific data request is directed; * Added a fourth column to Table 1 for Sub Team draft questions, notes and other guidance to be provided to the professional survey designer; and * Provided staff updates to all the research tasks listed in Table 2. While the resulting document is fairly long, you will see that this is because of pasting the relevant Charter questions, some of which are quite lengthy. We have not changed any of the content from the tables that were part of the Council-approved request. For an agenda for this Friday’s call at 1600 UTC, staff would like to propose the following: 1. Roll call 2. Select/elect Sub Team chair(s) 3. Review staff update on Table 2, for timing and to provide any needed specific guidance to staff 4. Discuss updated Table 1, including assigning volunteers to each set of questions for the target groups 5. Planning for ICANN60 – agenda for Sub Team session Thanks and cheers Mary

9 12

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday
by Ariel Liang Oct. 23, 2017

Oct. 23, 2017

Hello Kurt and all, I have moved the suggested draft questions from section 5 to section 4 now. I also merged the cells in column 4 of section 4, as I do not want to break the flow of the suggested draft questions and they seem to apply to some aspects of the relevant charter questions corresponding to the three purposes & scopes. Best Regards, Ariel From: "Tushnet, Rebecca" <rtushnet(a)law.harvard.edu> Date: Monday, October 23, 2017 at 5:31 PM To: Kurt Pritz <kurt(a)kjpritz.com>, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday My conception is a relatively standard "potential consumer" definition: people who haven't recently registered a new gTLD but would consider doing so, perhaps screened for whether they'd ever registered a domain name as well as whether they'd consider doing so for a new gTLD. This is the kind of group that internet surveys can plausibly reach. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School 703 593 6759 ________________________________ From: gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org <gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Kurt Pritz <kurt(a)kjpritz.com> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 5:26:58 PM To: Ariel Liang Cc: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday Hi Ariel: Thanks for your help. Yes, please move the questions up to no. 4. Hi everyone: Here is how I don’t have a clue: I saw the no. 5 first column had the word “registrant” and thought that one was mine. Nonetheless, I think the same set of questions will work for no.4 as well, with some additions that I will make later. My question is, what is a potential registrant? I don’t see how we gain any useful, reliable information here. Do we ask, “if you were to ever register a domain name and saw this statement, would you be scared off?” It seems a little odd to me. I know there is a good answer to this and I am embarrassed to be asking: what is the distinction between a registrant and potential registrant that can be measured in a survey or other type of data gathering? Thanks everyone and sorry for the misstep. Kurt. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 23, 2017, at 12:39 PM, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Kurt and All, Thank you, Kurt, for providing your input in Table 1. To facilitate the development of the suggested draft questions, we have converted the Data Request Table document into a Google Document. Kurt’s input has been pasted into the Google Doc. Data Sub Team members and Staff have comment access: https://docs.google.com/a/icann.org/document/d/10qENwqvozS-TZfJiVOx5MG71YIs…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_a_ican…> (using ‘comment access’ is to keep track of who made what comments/edits). Please provide your suggested draft questions directly in your assigned sections in this Google Doc. You may also comment on others’ suggested draft questions. Section 1 New gTLD Registry Operators (RO): Kristine Dorrain (with help from Susan Payne and Kurt Pritz) Section 2 Registrars: Susan Payne Section 3 Trademark & Brand Owners: Michael Graham Section 4 Domain Name Registrants: Kurt Pritz Section 5 Potential Registrants: Rebecca Tushnet Section 6 Public Interest Groups and Trade Associations: Lori Schulman & Michael Graham Kurt, we noticed that you provided suggested draft question in Section 5 of Table 1. If it is misplaced, please let me know and I will move them to Section 4. If they are meant for Section 5, could you please be so kind to continue with your assigned sections? Kiran, while your name has not been assigned to any section, you have the option to volunteer to assist whoever may need it. Last, the google doc is linked from a page[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> within the Sub Team wiki workspace for reference. Thank you everyone for your time and contribution! Best Regards Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) From: <gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kurt Pritz <kurt(a)kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> Date: Monday, October 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday Hi Everyone: Attached is my attempt at formulating the GNSO questions to registrants in a way to engender the responses and data we are seeking. (See question 6.) Is this what we had in mind? I need some advice: The GNSO approved formulation calls for testing trademark claims in “different languages.” How many different languages do we think we will need to satisfy whoever it is that included that phrase in the questions? Thoughts for constructing the survey, where we would want 1000+ respondents to be statistically meaningful: 1) I am against using existing stakeholder groups to take this survey out to their “members” as that will result in non-random samples and results that are otherwise skewed. 2) The most inexpensive way to conduct the survey is for registrars to reach out to their registrants. Registrars could offer discounts on domain renewals for taking the survey (and state the importance of participating). ICANN can fund the discounts and administrative costs. (I don’t know if registrars would do this but I am suggesting this.) 3) An outside survey firm could do this fairly cheaply. It might become expensive because so few people are registrants - they might have to contact 30 panelists or more to find one registrant. Mary - I am sorry I did not put this directly into our wiki document. Would you mind doing that? Comments welcome on the substance and the methodology & thanks, Kurt

1 0

Action Items from 20 October RPM Data Sub Team Call
by Ariel Liang Oct. 20, 2017

Oct. 20, 2017

Dear all, During the RPM Data Sub Team meeting today (20 Oct 2017), when the item of selecting Sub Team chair(s) was discussed, there is a suggestion that Sub Team members take turns to chair the session depending on the topics and agenda for each meeting. As per action item for Staff, we are relaying this information for the Sub Team, especially for the ones who did not attend the session, to weigh in. The other action items noted by staff are as follows: For Staff: * For each Sub Team meeting, Staff to note, as the last agenda item, who is going to chair for the next meeting; Staff to keep track of the chairing rotation * Staff to work with RPMs PDP WG Co-Chairs and Kurt Pritz to clarify the structure and format of the Data Sub Team meeting on Saturday, 28 October in ICANN60; Staff to revise the meeting description to clarify that it is a practical working session for the Sub Team in order to set the expectations (welcome observers but only Sub Team members can speak) For RPM Data Sub Team Meeting on Saturday, 28 October at ICANN60: * Michael Graham to review the scope of the six targeted groups in Chart 1 with a view to defining them further, if needed * Sub Team members to divide up the first six sections in Chart 1 and present the draft suggested questions * Section 1: Kristine Dorrain (with help from Susan Payne and Kurt Pritz) * Section 2: Susan Payne * Section 3: Michael Graham * Section 4: Kurt Pritz * Section 5: Rebecca Tushnet * Section 6: Lori Schulman & Michael Graham The notes from the call will be posted shortly to the Sub Team wiki space, together with the call recording, transcript and Adobe Connect chat and attendance records. Have a good weekend! Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call on Friday, 20 October 2017 at 16:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Oct. 20, 2017

Oct. 20, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call held Friday, 20 October 2017at 16:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/SpVEB MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-20oct17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p22sklqj5q4/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/eI1EB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle Adobe Connect chat transcript for 20 October 2017: Michelle DeSmyter:Dear all, Welome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) - Working Group/Sub Team for Data meeting on Friday, 20 October 2017 at 16:00 UTC Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.o… Michael R Graham:Sorry -- waiting for phone line for audio J. Scott:I just joined audio, but I am muted due tp my location Michael R Graham:On at last! Michael R Graham:I have to grab documents from my desk - be right back Susan Payne:@Kurt good idea, i think we could do that Susan Payne:good variation Kurt Pritz:I agree with Susan's agreement Susan Payne:I think it addresses the concern we all have that we don't want to commit to chairing, all meetings knowing we have capacity issues J. Scott:@Kristine. I think that sounds like a workable solution. Not only should you all agree on an agenda at the end of each call, but you could also identify the leader for the next call. Mary Wong:Thanks J Scott and everyone Michael R Graham:Back Mary Wong:That's the staff understanding, Kurt Mary Wong:@Michael, yes Kurt Pritz:I listened to it last night J. Scott:I think we should assume that they have minimal understanding Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agreed. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Fully agree Susan. J. Scott:Agree Susan Mary Wong:That is the staff understanding as well, Susan and Kristine. J. Scott:Would it just be a question about whether they had a premium pricing model and then what was the number of sunrise registrations they took in? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:No, I don't think so...it doesn't get to actual cause/effect..would have they participated but for pricing? Kiran Malancharuvil:I’m on an airplane and internet keeps cutting in and out. if I get kicked out for good, I apologize! sorry for the lack of active participation. Mary Wong:Isn't Susan's concern about why are we asking this of ROs? If we are going to ask ROs, what do we need to find out from them? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes. we have to ask ROs because that wsa decided. We don't all agree that this is a good Q. :) Susan Payne:nail on the head Kristine Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:IMO we don't get to go back and say we think a question is terrible. We tried that and lost. J. Scott:I agree with Kurt. Making knowledge of the system a basic requirement is a very good criteria. Mary Wong:@Kristine, understood - but the Council did ask that we "structure the data request in such a way that the value and relevance of the data is maximised." So if this Sub Team thinks there is no question that can be usefully asked of ROs for this point, maybe the WG chairs can be consulted as to whether it is is acceptable to not ask about this point? Susan Payne:I think we can ask, I don't think we can say there's no question here that we can ask - we just may get relatively few responses on some points, and more on others Mary Wong:OK Susan and Kristine - staff isn't advocating to delete anything, just exploring scope. Thank you! Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I think it's a slippery slope. We risk opening things up again. I agree with Susan. Figure out a question and move on, know we'll get no responses. there are some people in the full group that want to ask and don't believe the answer will be crickets, so perhaps the best solution is to just let them get that answer. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:No, I get it, just a little back and forth! Appreciate your fighting for brevity. Mary Wong::) Kiran Malancharuvil:agree with Susan as well. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I have to bail. I support assigning sections and will happily take whatever section I'm assigned, if that's the path you agree on. Sorry to jump. Mary Wong:Thanks for jumping on even with a conflict, Kristine - much appreciated! Susan Payne:thanks Kristine Mary Wong:I have my hand up too :) Mary Wong:Yes, six target groups Lori Schulman:Hello. My apologies for being late. Mary Wong:Welcome Lori, welcome Rebecca! J. Scott:I see that Lori and Rebecca have both joined Mary Wong:Sorry for changing topics - just wanted to highlight possibilities for allocating work at this point. Ariel Liang:Kurt Pritz 2 Kiran Malanchandruvil 3 Kristine Dorrain 4 Lori Schulman 5 Michael Graham 6 Rebecca Tushnet7 Susan Payne Ariel Liang:Sub Team members: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Susan Payne:SOW is what we have to provide to provider in the RFP? Mary Wong:@Susan, not exactly. Susan Payne:ok. I have limited experience on surveys :) Susan Payne:do we need this column 3 in order to find a provider? because I take the point that it could take a while to find a provider so we could be doing some work whilst it's underway Susan Payne:I can't count - i meant column 4 Mary Wong:@Susan, that is staff's hope - that as we begiin the internal procurement process the Sub Team can work on Column 4 so that it will all align on timing :) Michael R Graham:@Mary -- I wonder as far as budget if $50K was for each of the 6 universes? Mary Wong:@Michael, no - it was for a collective omnibus survey that can be tweaked/customized (we don't have 300K :) ) Michael R Graham:@Mary -- Thanks Susan Payne:thanks Lori that is really good guidance Mary Wong:@Lori, staff has tried to capture your guidance in the notes - so if it's helpful, you can edit/comment on those as well. Mary Wong:We just don't have the six figures this budget year. Lori Schulman:I will look at the notes Mary Wong:Thanks, Kurt - that is helpful too. Lori Schulman:Yes, I would say cost is last too but we need to keep in it mind Rebecca L Tushnet:I would be interested in 5, potential registrants. Mary Wong:@Lori, yes and apologies - but staff just wanted, as you said, to make sure the limitations we are facing are clear. Lori Schulman:what is timeline? as I have explained I am not free until 11/10 for any substantive work Mary Wong:@Lori, I think that's the next thing to decide - what can be ready for the next meeting Mary Wong:Which will be Abu Dhabi Lori Schulman:Sure Lori Schulman:but what is time line Mary Wong:Rebecca volunteered for Group 5 Mary Wong:Maybe we can ask who will have something ready for next Saturday? Mary Wong:Are we assigning Kristine to Group 1 then? :) Mary Wong:Can we decide what you want to present for discussion next Saturday? J. Scott:you also have Kiran Mary Wong:And we presume that chairing in Abu Dhabi will rotate - whoever's section is up will chair that section? Lori Schulman:Agree with Kurt Lori Schulman:We need to be able to push forward Lori Schulman:will think about it Lori Schulman:maybe make it observer only? is that allowed? Mary Wong:I can reply to Susan's point Lori Schulman:subteam members speak only; others can observe Mary Wong:And Lori's J. Scott:I like the comments about the architecture of the live meeting. J. Scott:It needs to be a real working session. J. Scott:right Lori Schulman:not a policy debate Susan Payne:sounds good Lori Schulman:agree J. Scott:Sounds like you all have a plan. Thanks for the good work today. Sorry I had to be muted J. Scott:Silence must be agreement Lori Schulman:thank you Kurt J. Scott:thanks Kurt. J. Scott:Great!

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday
by Michelle DeSmyter Oct. 20, 2017

Oct. 20, 2017

Hi Kristine, Thank you so much, I have noted that you will be attending the first half. Kind regards, Michelle From: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink(a)amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>> Date: Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 9:28 PM To: Michelle DeSmyter <michelle.desmyter(a)icann.org<mailto:michelle.desmyter@icann.org>>, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday I also have a pre-existing commitment and will join for the first half of the call only. My apologies. Thanks, Kristine From: gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michelle DeSmyter Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 5:05 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>; Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday Hi Philip, Thank you for this, we have noted your apology for this meeting. Kind regards, Michelle From: <gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 6:49 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday I have a preexisting commitment that makes it impossible for me to join this call. Have a good and productive meeting. For those who are heading to ICANN 60, see you there and safe travel. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 2:23 PM To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday Dear RPM Data Sub Team members, Please find attached the updated tables from the Working Group's data request that was approved by the GNSO Council. As requested, we have done the following: ? Broken up the original table into two tables - Table 1 for all the survey work; Table 2 for the other work to be undertaken by staff and others (e.g. researchers, contractors); ? Added a third column to Table 1 to include the specific Charter question(s) to which that specific data request is directed; ? Added a fourth column to Table 1 for Sub Team draft questions, notes and other guidance to be provided to the professional survey designer; and ? Provided staff updates to all the research tasks listed in Table 2. While the resulting document is fairly long, you will see that this is because of pasting the relevant Charter questions, some of which are quite lengthy. We have not changed any of the content from the tables that were part of the Council-approved request. For an agenda for this Friday's call at 1600 UTC, staff would like to propose the following: 1. Roll call 2. Select/elect Sub Team chair(s) 3. Review staff update on Table 2, for timing and to provide any needed specific guidance to staff 4. Discuss updated Table 1, including assigning volunteers to each set of questions for the target groups 5. Planning for ICANN60 - agenda for Sub Team session Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Action Items from 18 October RPM Data Sub Team Call
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 18, 2017

Oct. 18, 2017

Dear all, The action items noted by staff from the RPM Data Sub Team call held today, Wednesday, 18 October, are as follows: For Next RPM Data Sub Team Meeting on 20 October: Staff to revise the attachment 2 table (Data Source 1-6) to include 4 columns: 1) audience, 2) scope, 3) imperfect/charter question from attachment 1, 4) proposed tailored question providing guidance to the survey vendor; once table is revised, staff to circulate it to the Sub Team by Friday 20 Oct. Staff to provide indication on the attachment 2 regarding progress, status, concerns of data sources 7-14, providing understanding where staff sits at the data gathering. Sub Team to organize volunteers to propose tailored questions for column 4 for data source 1-6 for each audience during the call on Friday, 20 Oct. Data Sub Team members to discuss the selection of Chair/Co-Chair. Other actions: Staff to find out which URS reps will be attending ICANN60 (2/3 URS providers have reps in the RPMs WG - ADNDRC, MFSD, FORUM) WG to promote the session about the URS topic and encourage more attendees to share their experience with the URS. Staff to re-send the data request (DMPM) to the WG mailing list. Staff to present the Sub Team the RFP details, process, timeline when more information becomes available. The notes from the call will be posted shortly to the Working Group wiki space, together with the call recording, transcript and Adobe Connect chat and attendance records. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Recordings, Attendance, AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call held 18 October 2017at 17:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Oct. 18, 2017

Oct. 18, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call held Wednesday, 18 October 2017at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/fZREB MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-18oct17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p1ck9gxntzv/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=e7a3e0ad59e75812 eb19f72c46929374e3ff7948a26ef4dfdf6de2363e5902f4> https://participate.icann.org/p1ck9gxntzv/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/ Main wiki page for the working group: <https://community.icann.org/x/hY1EB> https://community.icann.org/x/hY1EB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Adobe Connect chat transcript for 18 October 2017: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data on Wednesday, 18 October at 17:00 UTC for 90 minute duration Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ fZREB&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6HEA6Qs8bCn1cbzeUAHSGgJn9BLBYGfayjQ3zp1vGso &s=GpYeFynHuNV9kWoU0NtOVWAdAgKFgZljjw8kkcSB51E&e> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_f ZREB&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIg mkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6HEA6Qs8bCn1cbzeUAHSGgJn9BLBYGfayjQ3zp1vGso& s=GpYeFynHuNV9kWoU0NtOVWAdAgKFgZljjw8kkcSB51E&e= Kathy Kleiman:Great, tx Terri! George Kirikos:Hi folks. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All Kathy Kleiman:Terri, we may want to delay by our usual two minutes to allow more people to join. Terri Agnew:thank you Kathy Paul Tattersfield:Hi everyone Cyntia King:Hello beautiful people! Philip Corwin:hello all claudio:greetings! Griffin Barnett:I have an SOI update, which you can view here: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di splay_gnsosoi_Griffin-2BBarnett-2BSOI&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbP SS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6HEA6Qs8bCn 1cbzeUAHSGgJn9BLBYGfayjQ3zp1vGso&s=80KhOJa5buiMfJ7gXjQZTejJqMhx3iWCnlA2BW075 Ag&e> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis play_gnsosoi_Griffin-2BBarnett-2BSOI&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPS S6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6HEA6Qs8bCn1 cbzeUAHSGgJn9BLBYGfayjQ3zp1vGso&s=80KhOJa5buiMfJ7gXjQZTejJqMhx3iWCnlA2BW075A g&e= David McAuley:I am now on adobe as well Phil Marano:I owe an SOI update, and will make it now, then send a link to the list. J. Scott:i am here Terri Agnew:if assistance is needed logging into your GNSO SOI - send an email to <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> gnso-secs(a)icann.org for assistance Jon Nevett (Donuts):Congrats Griffin and Phil! Griffin Barnett:Thanks Jon claudio:Is there value in also meeting with the Sub-Pro WG leadership, since our charters are interrelated? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Do we expect URS reps during the meeting? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):3 providers already Jeff Neuman:I am not sure how many attendees will actually have epxeriences with the URS (other than perhaps contracted parties implementing it) Philip Corwin:@Maixim--by URS reps do you mean from the three providers? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Philip, yes Jeff Neuman:Are there 3 providers of the URS? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_ resources_pages_urs-2D2014-2D01-2D09-2Den&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzg fkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6HEA6Qs 8bCn1cbzeUAHSGgJn9BLBYGfayjQ3zp1vGso&s=ggjo0vLMQrB79T-XCpAb4s2367K1KX20pLcEM BfE8Rc&e= Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):the first is the most popular Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):but all three are fully qualified Philip Corwin:Yes--NAF, ADNDRC, and a provider in Italy name of which escapes me at moment -- but NAF has handled about 90% claudio:can also consider inviting WIPO (even though they aren't a current provider) George Kirikos:3rd is MFSD Mary Wong:@Jeff, at the moment, yes, three (ADNDRC, MFSD, FORUM) George Kirikos:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann. org_en_applicants_urs&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM &r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6HEA6Qs8bCn1cbzeUAHSGgJn9BL BYGfayjQ3zp1vGso&s=WC_Ikju691j9YNB-9IFyK4RpxPX_TT39a4N7RyPQxMY&e= Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):MFSD srl, Italy Mary Wong:2 of the 3 URS providers have reps who are members of this Working Group. claudio:thanks, Kathy! Jeff Neuman:The first one has 30 cases or so (Asian Dispute Resolution Centre) Phil Marano:Here is a link to my updated SOI: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di splay_gnsosoi_Phillip-2BVincent-2BMarano-2BSOI&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3 mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6H EA6Qs8bCn1cbzeUAHSGgJn9BLBYGfayjQ3zp1vGso&s=_XRhq0ycVmM_UMGh9jSPadgS2l-V1qJp aCt6plORtco&e> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis play_gnsosoi_Phillip-2BVincent-2BMarano-2BSOI&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3m SVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6HE A6Qs8bCn1cbzeUAHSGgJn9BLBYGfayjQ3zp1vGso&s=_XRhq0ycVmM_UMGh9jSPadgS2l-V1qJpa Ct6plORtco&e= Berry Cobb:ADNDRC 31 ADR Forum 709 MFSD 12 Berry Cobb:as of June 2017 Jeff Neuman:The second one (MFSD) has 10 cases? <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__urs.mfsd.it_urs-2Ddisp utes&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIg mkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6HEA6Qs8bCn1cbzeUAHSGgJn9BLBYGfayjQ3zp1vGso& s=OVV_CVIMtA7zs9aNZyuI3fLku-S8pev9IZM04_SqDdU&e> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__urs.mfsd.it_urs-2Ddispu tes&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgm kXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6HEA6Qs8bCn1cbzeUAHSGgJn9BLBYGfayjQ3zp1vGso&s =OVV_CVIMtA7zs9aNZyuI3fLku-S8pev9IZM04_SqDdU&e= Jeff Neuman:Thanks Berry George Kirikos:14, Jeff. Jeff Neuman:What is the link to the NAF decisions? George Kirikos:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com _SearchDecisions&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DR a2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6HEA6Qs8bCn1cbzeUAHSGgJn9BLBYGfa yjQ3zp1vGso&s=HFNZ9kqMAJj9yCQbspF6D3xkiL_FKNvcdqjk6nbJDxs&e= --- select URS as the Ruleset Philip Corwin:To clarify, are the times noted in item 1 of the Notes for ICANN 60 meetings local time in Abu Dhabi or UTC? Paul Tattersfield:Are the GNSO leadership currently generally pushing all working groups to be more timely? George Kirikos:766 cases there, as of now. Berry Cobb:@Phil - Local time to AD. claudio:one URS case had over 400 domains suspended: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_ 20161223-5Fheres-5Fthe-5Flargest-5Furs-5Fcomplaint-5Fever-5Ffiled_&d=DwICaQ& c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfq a0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6HEA6Qs8bCn1cbzeUAHSGgJn9BLBYGfayjQ3zp1vGso&s=mjXnXJRhqLMx oe99yVGUdhle3k1PF6sk17EI2QU4YFE&e> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2 0161223-5Fheres-5Fthe-5Flargest-5Furs-5Fcomplaint-5Fever-5Ffiled_&d=DwICaQ&c =FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa 0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6HEA6Qs8bCn1cbzeUAHSGgJn9BLBYGfayjQ3zp1vGso&s=mjXnXJRhqLMxo e99yVGUdhle3k1PF6sk17EI2QU4YFE&e= Jeff Neuman:Thanks George. Not too user friendly Philip Corwin:Thx Berry Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):not many people know that there could be more than 1 domain per URS case Terri Agnew:next meeting: Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data Friday, 20 October at 16:00 UTC for 60 minute duration. Jeff Neuman:So 7666 cases right, not names George Kirikos:@Jeff: if you use UDRPSearch.com, and search for "URS" as the text, it'll capture the URS cases (along with some false positives) Jeff Neuman:766 not 76666 George Kirikos:Right. Berry Cobb:The Monday session will provide these types of details similar to how we review the Sunrise data at last week's meeting. Michael R Graham:SubTeam -- Although I do want actively participate, because of work pressures and the fact I will not be attending the Abu Dhabi meeting, I cannot volunteer to help chair. Michael R Graham:@Mary: Who are the members of the team again? Ariel Liang:Members of the Sub Team: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ fY1EB&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6HEA6Qs8bCn1cbzeUAHSGgJn9BLBYGfayjQ3zp1vGso &s=PYgokmd5u7O093INT-yo6kkYVt5zN0WjfjezfLnRYBs&e> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_f Y1EB&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIg mkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6HEA6Qs8bCn1cbzeUAHSGgJn9BLBYGfayjQ3zp1vGso& s=PYgokmd5u7O093INT-yo6kkYVt5zN0WjfjezfLnRYBs&e= Berry Cobb:Kurt Pritz 2 Kiran Malanchandruvil 3 Kristine Dorrain 4 Lori Schulman 5 Michael Graham 6 Rebecca Tushnet7 Susan Payne George Kirikos:Bye folks (just came for the first part of the call). Have a great day. Cyntia King:Staff is capable - let's do it. Jeff Neuman:Technically ICANN staff should not be chairing (even as interim) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):flip the coin method? Terri Agnew:everyone can scroll themselves Mary Wong:Document is unsync'ed Jeff Neuman:yep Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I see the document Paul McGrady:Straw Horse was formally adopted by 100% of the community in JoBurg. :) Mary Wong:Thanks, Paul - I remember now! Jeff Neuman:SOme still use Straw Bunny Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):desiging the RFP with the particular provider does not look very transparent Mary Wong:@Maxim, that's not what I was saying, apologies for not being clear. Mary Wong:I was just saying that if people have suggestions for likely providers, we can make them aware of the RFP. Susan Payne:Maxim, I don't think the RFP would be defined with the provider - the survey would be Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Mary, I understand that, I hoped for discussion with set of providers and not limit to the only one Jeff Neuman: am confused....what happened to the original questions we did? Mary Wong:@Jeff, the Charter questions are in Attachment 1 claudio:I don't think i can see the document for some reason Mary Wong:@Claudio, try logging out and in again Jeff Neuman:Not the charter questions, the questions submitted to the Council? claudio:ok, thxs! Mary Wong:@Jeff, can you clarify? The document is what was submitted to the Council (including Attachments 1 & 2). Ariel Liang:@Claudio, you can also access the data request document online directly here: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draf ts_rpm-2Dsunrise-2Dtrademark-2Dclaims-2D07sep17-2Den.pdf&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJ p6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4x R2EBk&m=6HEA6Qs8bCn1cbzeUAHSGgJn9BLBYGfayjQ3zp1vGso&s=K251j_PKD0zo679Udc81yC wCXvgjkzGfwZAZvupVlAE&e> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draft s_rpm-2Dsunrise-2Dtrademark-2Dclaims-2D07sep17-2Den.pdf&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp 6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR 2EBk&m=6HEA6Qs8bCn1cbzeUAHSGgJn9BLBYGfayjQ3zp1vGso&s=K251j_PKD0zo679Udc81yCw CXvgjkzGfwZAZvupVlAE&e= Mary Wong:@Kristine, that is exactly what the Council had in mind, I believe. claudio:that worked, thanks Mary Jeff Neuman:So the "Purpose and Scope" comes from the previous attachments? Mary Wong:@Jeff, if you mean the description of this item on the agenda, then, yes - based on the Council's discussion and directions. Susan Payne:sounds good Kiran Malancharuvil:I printed it out too Michael! :) Mary Wong:@Jeff, I stand corrected - you're probably referring to Attachment 2 headings. Yes, that is right - based on the Charter questions. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Q14 needs to contain recent clarifications from Nielsen, including breakdown of costs Jeff Neuman:I agree with Michael....this is too difficult with lots of references Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Good point, Michael, I see now that the questions themselves, in Attachment 1 aren't actually sorted in Attachment 2. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I support actually sorting the Questions in Attachment 1 by recipient. Mary Wong:Thanks, Michael and Kristine - staff can add that third column as requested. claudio:agree on need to sort Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Willing to give it a go while we await a chart. We don't need to lose time. Mary Wong:Keep 'em coming Susan :) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 to the actual question column Cyntia King:+ Susan Mary Wong:What Susan is suggesting is basically what the staff suggestion of a "straw [insert thing of choice]" was - it will really be useful, at the end of this Sub Team exercise, to have a starting set of questions for the professional to work with. Susan Payne:ah thanks Mary - and apologies, I missed the straw bit! Susan Payne:isn't that what we'r4e doing Kathy? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes, that's what we're doing. Susan Payne:if we don't give guidance to the survey providers what we get back risks being not as relevant as possible and so costing more/being a waste of money Cyntia King:From experience, professional pollsters requst clients to provide lots of solid context. In this way questions generate the most meaningful responses. Mary Wong:@Cyntia, yes and thanks - that is what we are hoping the Sub Team can provide. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:yes, some questions are a little squishy. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I think the most important bit is to make the questions to be clear enough so non-members of this group can understand those. Paul Tattersfield:+1 Maxim Cyntia King:+1 Maxim Michael R Graham:@JScott -- Agree totally. Thanks for clarifying what I was trying to say. Mary Wong:OK, thanks J Scott Cyntia King:Pollster will want context - they won't need (or even want) us to write out the Qs ourselves. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 @J Scott , I think the people who can properly translate those questions to human language are members of our PDP WG Cyntia King:I must 'duck out'for about 15 mins. Will return afterward. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Q 8 is better to work with Computer Science students & Law stundents (programming knowledge and knwoledge of intellectual property law ) Berry Cobb:and GDD, and Compliance, and existing RPM vendors like IBM/Deloitte where we need a data refresh (not just Berry).. ;-) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):going to IBM with request with Q8, part 1 will double the budget Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I reffer to page 9 of the shared document claudio:that was helpful mary Berry Cobb:@Maxim - The arrangement between IBM,Deloitte/ICANN allow for that and thus far we do not forsee additional costs unless there is something extraordinary that the WG seeks. Steve Levy:Sorry folks, need to jump off. Thanks for letting me sit in. Berry Cobb:@Maxim, but you are right, in that specific ask could be extraordinary. We need to perform additional due diligence and requirements. Michael R Graham:@Mary and Subteam -- I agree we focus on 1-6. Staff to create column 3 and Subteam members to review Qs and whether they require clarification for Survey Org and/or draft Column 4 suggested/possible questions tailored to survey target. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Berry, it is a programming idea, quite outside of the current TMCH design and I am sure that it will be seen as a separate item with "additional development costs", when all you need is a bunch of CS students Mary Wong:@Michael, yes, Column 4 (when done) will be what the vendor will be given as guidance (along, of course, with consultation, calls etc.) claudio:@maxim, you may be right, but no harm in asking IBM to confirm , right? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@claudio., the most important thing will be to remember that it is going to be "IBM costs" , and might not be relevant to others :) Mary Wong:Got it, J Scott Susan Payne:I'm happy with that approach Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes Mary Wong:We will have the updated table ready for the Sub Team call this Friday. The task division can then be discussed on the call. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Can I get a clarification on the time of the call on Friday? The last email I have says 1400, but Mary mentioned 1600 earlier. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I ask because I think I have a conflict at 1600 this week. Philip Corwin:Just one pre-departure Berry Cobb:@Kristine - I have 16UTC on Friday Mary Wong:1600 UTC Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:OK, I clearly missed something. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I will see what I can do. Susan Payne:yes Kiran Malancharuvil:I'm okay with this way forward Mary Wong:Will do, J Scott. Cyntia King:Go Team! Mary Wong:That's exactly what we were going to do, Michael :) Mary Wong:Great minds etc. :) David McAuley:great minds indeed Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:thanks everyone. Michael R Graham:@Mary -- Twins from different mothers -- at least in thinking. Philip Corwin:Excellent work running this call, J Scott claudio:thanks! Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:thanks for stepping up J Scott! David McAuley:good bye all Susan Payne:excellent, thanks J Scott Ariel Liang:thanks everyone

1 0

CONFIRMING: second RPM Data Sub Team call
by Mary Wong Oct. 17, 2017

Oct. 17, 2017

Dear all, Thanks to everyone who was able to fill out the Doodle poll. As we know that everyone’s calendars fill up pretty quickly, staff would like to take the opportunity to CONFIRM that the second Sub Team call will take place this Friday 20 October at 1600 UTC for 60 minutes. The Secretariat will send out the usual calendar invitation and call details shortly. This is in addition to the first call, which will take place in the regular Working Group time slot of 1600 UTC this Wednesday 18 October for 90 minutes. The Sub Team will also have a 90-minute session at ICANN60, probably on Saturday 28 October from 15.15-16.45 local time. Hopefully this will allow us to make good progress on the Sub Team tasks. You may also be interested to know that staff has begun the internal procurement process and hope to have an update for you and the Working Group on likely timelines and additional information needed (if any) soon. Cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, October 16, 2017 at 15:28 To: "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: Doodle poll for ADDITIONAL RPM Data Sub Team meeting Thanks to everyone who responded; in addition to repurposing the RPM Working Group call this Wednesday into a Data Sub Team meeting (for 90 minutes in the usual 1700 UTC time slot), we are trying to schedule another Sub Team meeting before people begin traveling to Abu Dhabi next week. Please fill in this Doodle poll so that we can see if doing an additional Sub Team meeting, on top of this Wednesday’s call and before ICANN60, is feasible: https://icannorg.doodle.com/poll/bcfcm4e7293xvd4f Thank you very much! Cheers Mary From: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org> Date: Monday, October 16, 2017 at 08:48 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)valideus.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: PLEASE READ: Next steps for RPM Data Sub Team Hi, I am happy to have a sub team session at ICANN60. I will be remote. I am not available for a subteam meeting this week or next. The week after ICANN is the INTA Leadership meeting so I am not available then either. I have 4 conferences in the next 3 weeks so scheduling will be super tough. I will dial in if I find myself free but it is unlikely. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman [17-esig] From: gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 5:34 AM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>; gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] PLEASE READ: Next steps for RPM Data Sub Team Thanks Mary 1. Sub Team meeting(s) next week I have no objection to using Wednesday’s call for a sub-team meeting, and do plan to be on the call, subject to the following: * This is/was going to be our last WG meeting before AD. I thought we were going to use some of the meeting to discuss the agendas for our AD meetings? If there won’t now be a WG meeting is it the intention that this happens on the list instead? * Similarly, I had rather assumed we would be reviewing the data staff have been collecting on the Claims, as we did for the Sunrise last week. If that is not the case, will we do this instead in AD? * I presume that this subgroup was set up, at least in part, because it is viewed as impractical to undertake the work through the full working group. With that in mind, if the WG meeting is to be repurposed I think it is important that there is a cancellation sent out as soon as possible. I have no objection to more members of the WG joining the sub-team call, but I’d prefer to see them join the call because they are willing to make a commitment to participating in the sub-team’s ongoing work, not because the fancy “observing” on a one-off occasion. Regarding Friday’s proposed call, again, I am available to join but I think we need to be clear how many people can actually make this time slot (which is inconveniently early for US W Coast) and will be able to actively participate (ie able to join the Adobe and able to speak) and assume “no response” is a no. It might be preferable to do a doodle poll and find a time which works better for people. 1. Sub Team session at ICANN60 I support spending time in AD actively progressing the sub-team’s work. I think most (although not all) of the volunteers will be present, and hopefully the non-attendees could join in Adobe if they are free – in which case the Saturday 17.00-18.30 might be the best, from a time zone perspective, although of course for a non-meeting attendee it is the weekend! Having said this, it looks as though the room allocated to the WG on Thursday may be significantly smaller than for the other sessions. Is that correct? If so, this would seem better suited to a sub-team meeting than to the full WG plus onlookers. Whichever slot is selected, could the ICANN schedule please be updated to make it clear that this is a sub-group working session. Of course it will still be open, should others like to attend, but it will not be conducive to getting the work done if people come in and out thinking they will get an update/overview on the work of the PDP. Thanks Susan Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne(a)valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: 13 October 2017 19:23 To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] PLEASE READ: Next steps for RPM Data Sub Team Dear Sub Team members, Following a meeting between the Working Group co-chairs and staff to prepare for ICANN60, we will be grateful if you can respond to the following questions as soon as possible: 1. Sub Team meeting(s) next week As the first Sub Team call today had to be canceled due to lack of attendance, the co-chairs are proposing to repurpose the Working Group meeting scheduled for Wednesday 18 October into a Sub Team call (with the agenda intended for the call today, below). This call will be open to all Working Group members to observe, but will allow the Sub Team a full 90 minutes to begin its work. In addition, the Sub Team can hold its second meeting next Friday 20 October, in the same time slot as today (i.e. 1400 UTC) for 60 minutes. This will allow the Sub Team to make as much progress as we can before the open community sessions take place in Abu Dhabi at ICANN60. As such, can you respond to let us know if you plan to attend the Wednesday 18 October as well as (if you agree to a second meeting) the Friday 20 October calls? 1. Sub Team session at ICANN60 The Working Group co-chairs also propose that one of the four Working Group sessions scheduled for ICANN60 be used for a Sub Team meeting. This will be an open session where other Working Group members and community participants can also attend. Ideally, this will be one of the two sessions scheduled for Saturday 28 October (either 15.15-16.45 or 17.00-18.30). Can you let us know if you will be attending any/some/all of the Working Group sessions at ICANN60, and whether you plan to do so in person or remotely? (Note: the other Working Group sessions are scheduled for Monday 30 October from 15.15-16.45, and Thursday 2 November from 13.30-15.00.) Thank you! Cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 23:48 To: "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data@icann.org>> Subject: Agenda for first meeting of RPM Data Sub Team Dear all, Thank you for volunteering to be on the new RPM Data Sub Team. In preparation for our first call on Friday 13 October, I hope you don’t mind staff taking the liberty of proposing the following agenda: 1. Roll call 2. Selection of Sub Team chair(s) 3. Review GNSO Council approval of Sunrise and Trademark Claims data request 4. Begin discussion of ideas and suggestions for refining and/or clarifying the objectives and scope of the Sunrise and Claims data request in light of the GNSO Council’s directions and the relevant Charter questions 5. Next steps/next meeting For Agenda Item #2, here is the link to the GNSO Council’s resolution approving the data request: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20170920-1[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> For Agenda Item #3, here is the link to a copy of the data request as submitted to the Council: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-sunrise-trademark-claims-07sep17-en.pd…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draf…> Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0