January 2018 - Gnso-rpm-data

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call on Friday, 26 January 2018
by Michelle DeSmyter Jan. 26, 2018

Jan. 26, 2018

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, 26 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/bga8B MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-26jan18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p7dhylbt97r/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** 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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Urgent re Data Google Doc
by Susan Payne Jan. 26, 2018

Jan. 26, 2018

Hi Ariel Do you have a link to the redline of the Data Sub Google Doc. The original link seems to go to a version dated 27 November and I can’t see any of the mark-up 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 [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: 24 January 2018 21:40 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] Re: Reminder: Google Doc Closes on Tue 23 Jan at 18:00 UTC Hello Kathy, Thanks for the clarification. As per email to the full WG, staff have produced a clean version of the Data Request Table, excluding draft suggested survey questions in Section 4-5 and including the instruction paragraphs. Best Regards, Ariel From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 3:57 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@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: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Reminder: Google Doc Closes on Tue 23 Jan at 18:00 UTC Hi Ariel, I think the language below can be read both ways - showing the questions and not showing the questions. But the whole reason for the work over the weekend, with Kurt's text as revised by Rebecca, was to *not* show questions that the subteam has yet to even review :-). Hence, our work for this week! Best regards, Kathy On 1/23/2018 6:11 PM, Ariel Liang wrote: Hello Kathy, Thank you for your comments. In last week’s Sub Team call, when you raised the question whether to release the draft suggested survey questions for Section 4 and 5 (Section 6 does not have any suggested questions yet), Kurt responded that he was comfortable with either hiding them, or releasing them with important caveats. The language (bolded below) in the paragraphs provided by Kurt and commented by Rebecca and you seem to indicate that draft suggested survey questions should still be kept in the clean copy. “…The ICANN volunteer policy team developing registrant survey questions has only created the rough drafts. Answers to these questions will inform the discussion of the Charter questions that you have read. ICANN staff and policy volunteers will continue to hone the survey questions during the vendor selection process and then will work with the selected survey provider to create a set of questions and methodology to economically and effectively elicit the requisite data.” Kurt and others, please be so kind to confirm whether the draft suggested survey questions for Section 4 and 5 should be excluded from the document at this stage. If they should not be excluded, we will convert the clean copy incorporating the edits/comments received to date. Thank you, Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-data <gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 11:05 AM 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: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Reminder: Google Doc Closes on Tue 23 Jan at 18:00 UTC Hi Ariel, I've checked the document and may be missing something. I thought the goal was to replace Questions 4, 5 and 6 (since the subteam has not yet discussed them) with the paragraphs that Kurt and Rebecca have drafted/edited. Is that your plan as well? I ask because I note the un-reviewed details and columns of questions of 4, 5 and 6 remain in the current document... Best and tx, Kathy On 1/22/2018 7:40 PM, Ariel Liang wrote: Hello everyone, This is a friendly reminder that staff will close “commenting/suggesting” on the Data Request Google doc[docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> by 18:00 UTC on Tuesday, 23 January. After the document is closed, staff will convert a clean version as is, circulate the clean document on the full WG mailing list, and incorporate it in the RFP document, noting the draft status of the document. Thanks for the Registrant / Potential Registrant paragraphs drafted by Kurt and commented by Rebecca and Kathy. If anyone has further comments on the paragraphs, please provide your input ASAP. Thank you! Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-data mailing list Gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-data@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-data

4 4

Action Items from 26 January 2018 RPM Data Sub Team Call
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 26, 2018

Jan. 26, 2018

All, Below are the action items and notes staff captured from the RPM Data Sub Team meeting today (26 January 2018). The notes from the call are posted to the Sub Team wiki space, together with the call recording, transcript and Adobe Connect chat and attendance records. Note also that the next call will be on Friday, 02 February at 1700 UTC. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items: Section 2, Survey of Registrars: Staff will update the Google document based on the discussion on the call on 26 January. Section 3, Survey of TM and Brand Owners: Sub Team members should review and comment on the list concerning the final anecdotal and data questions for the question “What is the evidence of harm under the existing [exact match] system?”, page 22-23 at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcN…. Notes: 1. Section 2, Registrars, Page 14, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcN… Anecdotal Questions: If you offer(ed) pre-order for new gTLD domain names before the launch of GA, when was the Claims Notice submitted to the customer? -- Move to data questions. What, if any, challenges do you encounter when sending Claims Notices in respect of pre-order names. Were there any particular TLDs or types of TLDs where the operation of the Claims was technically or operationally difficult, or where Claims was otherwise problematic or unnecessary? Please explain. -- Variation: "What aspects of the Claims RPMs conflicted with your domain names sales/operations?" and/or "Is the way the claims period described in the RPM too prescriptive?" -- Edit to first bullet, "in respect of pre-order names or other operations?" Given the registration process that you operate, would it be feasible for you, to run surveys... -- Add “and/or your resellers” after “would it be feasible for you,” -- Would it be useful to gather data about the location of the Registrar? The language of the registration agreement might or might not correlate to the location of the registrar. May be useful???

1 0

Reminder: Google Doc Closes on Tue 23 Jan at 18:00 UTC
by Ariel Liang Jan. 24, 2018

Jan. 24, 2018

Hello everyone, This is a friendly reminder that staff will close “commenting/suggesting” on the Data Request Google doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcN…> by the 18:00 UTC on Tuesday, 23 January. After the document is closed, staff will convert a clean version as is, circulate the clean document on the full WG mailing list, and incorporate it in the RFP document, noting the draft status of the document. Thanks for the Registrant / Potential Registrant paragraphs drafted by Kurt and commented by Rebecca and Kathy. If anyone has further comments on the paragraph, please provide your input on the ASAP. Thank you! Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel

2 4

Registrant Questions Paragraphs for RFP
by Kurt Pritz Jan. 21, 2018

Jan. 21, 2018

Hi Mary, Julie, et.al.: Below are a couple paragraphs that might be included in the RFP for a survey provider. The “Our Guidance” paragraphs are optional but I think it is a good opportunity to steer the proposals in the right direction. Here you go: Regarding the Survey to Registrants and Potential Registrants The surveys of registrants has the twin risks of: Being the most expensive part of the work, and Returning little or no value if not done properly Therefore the bidders proposal must address: The survey contents, i.e., questions that: : registrants are willing to answer and When answered, will provide meaningful information The survey methodology, the manner of economically reaching registrants in sufficient numbers to provide statistically meaningful results. (Less than 1% of the world’s population has registered a domain name.) The ICANN volunteer policy team developing registrant survey questions has only created the rough drafts. These questions, when answered by registrant in significant numbers, will inform the discussion of the Charter questions that you have read. ICANN staff and policy volunteers will continue to hone the survey questions during the vendor selection process and then will work with the selected survey provider to create a set of questions and methodology to economically and effectively elicit the requisite data. Our guidance on this is: To increase the likelihood that registrants respond and to control costs: The survey should be relatively short Most or all of the questions should be multiple choice Open ended questions (if any) should be at the end Requests for personal information should be avoided To reach a requisite number of respondents, the survey provider might: Use access to large survey panels Using domain industry contacts, develop incentives, and work with registrars to directly reach out to their customers

3 2

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call on Friday, 19 January 2018
by Michelle DeSmyter Jan. 21, 2018

Jan. 21, 2018

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, 19 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/5gO8B MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-19jan18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p2j3kwc14gd/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** 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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

2 1

Action Items from 19 January 2018 RPM Data Sub Team Call
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 19, 2018

Jan. 19, 2018

All, Below are the action items and notes staff captured from the RPM Data Sub Team meeting today (19 January 2018). The notes from the call are posted to the Sub Team wiki space, together with the call recording, transcript and Adobe Connect chat and attendance records. Note also that the next call will be on Friday, 26 January at 1700 UTC. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items: Section 2, Survey of Registrars: Staff will update the Google document based on the discussion on the call on 19 January. Section 3, Survey of TM and Brand Owners: Sub Team members should review and comment on the list concerning the final anecdotal and data questions for the question “What is the evidence of harm under the existing [exact match] system?”, page 22-23 at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcN…. Sections 4, 5, & 6: These sections have yet to be discussed, but Kurt will provide by 1800 UTC (1000 PST) Monday, 22 January, suggested brief paragraphs for purposes of publication in the draft document to go out with the RFP. Survey Question Table for RFP: Sub Team members will complete a review of the draft table by 1800 UTC (1000 PST) Tuesday, 23 January and staff will compile as a clean PDF for the RFP. Notes: 1. Section 2, Registrars, Page 9, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcN… In the relevant data question: Change to: "...should the Registry release it -- what Registry..." should be "Registrar". Question 4: Column three, anecdotal questions: "Have you had feedback from your customers with registry reserved names -- positive or negative? -- Addition: “Examples: Brand owners that couldn't get their brand due to reserved names list OR registrants that didn't get a name they wanted because the names was "protectively reserved" for a brand.” When name collision names were released from reservation, trademark owners with a mark in the TMCH were given a right of first refusal. What was your experience of this? -- Change to "Do you have any experience of this, if so, what went well? Were there any technical or other issues?" When name collision names were released from reservation, trademark owners with a mark in the TMCH were given a right of first refusal. What was your experience of this, what went well? Were there any technical or other issues? -- Combine with the following question and reduce to one question. If registry reserved names were to be offered first to trademark owners with a mark in the TMCH, what would be the best way to do this from your perspective as a registrar? A second Sunrise? A right of first refusal? What of any concerns would this raise for you as a registrar? -- Addition: “What if any technical issues need to be taken into account?” -- Rewrite: "One of the questions we’ve been asked to address is should registry reserved names be offered first to trademark owners with a mark in the TMCH and what would be the best way to do this?" Discussion: -- Make sure that the focus is the impact on brands. How do we get to the reason that the name was a problem because it was someone's brand. -- Wondering if this is how data is kept? Is the domain provider going to know that this was a brand issue? Looking for situations where brand owner couldn't get their name since it was on the reserved list or registrants couldn't get it because it was a brand. -- Add: "What would be the consequences to you if the registry were to release the reserved name?" -- Disagree: want to collect data. Trying to find out what is the problem. Question 5: Column three, anecdotal questions, first question: -- Delete, "From your experience as a registrar..." -- Should probably be split into two questions. -- Add, “Does having two models make it difficult for you?” to try to get at the question of whether there is a third option. -- These questions should come before the questions about reserved names -- so Question 5 before Question 4? If they didn't do the Sunrise they wouldn't be answering these questions. Column four, Data question: -- Add: “Did you encounter a Sunrise longer than 30 or 60 days?” 2. RFP Status and Actions: -- Release early. Include the table in draft form and notice of such would be released to the full WG around January 22nd or so. Release the RFP a week early, the week starting 29 January. -- Document is a sample document that the survey providers can refer to. Doesn't have to be final. -- Inputs by 1800 UTC Tuesday, 23 January. A clean version will be included in the RFP.

1 0

Reminder: Google Doc Update & Lock for Edits in 12 Hours
by Ariel Liang Jan. 19, 2018

Jan. 19, 2018

Dear All, As per action item for staff, we have incorporated comments and input discussed in the last Sub Team meeting on the Google Doc. Please reference the redlines and comments made on page 20-23: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcN…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>. As before, staff only incorporate edits (with redlines/track changes) and comments provided by the Sub Team in the sections that the group has already discussed. About 12 hours before the start of the Sub Team call (Fri, 19 Jan at 17:00 UTC), we will make this Google Doc “view only” so no further comments/edits can be added before the call. We will also distribute a PDF document that records the redlines and comments made on the Google Doc for reference. As communicated previously, on Monday 22 January, we will forward the Data Request Table (after incorporating input/comments discussed in tomorrow’s call) to the full WG, ensuring that they are comfortable with releasing this table as part of the RFP. Please be assured that to the extent the document is still in draft form when published in the RFP documents, there will be a clarifying note describing the draft status of the document. Last, please review the proposed draft agenda for tomorrow’s call: 1. Complete discussion on Section 3 (TM/Brand Owners), page 23 et seq 2. Commence discussion on either Section 2 (Registrars) or Section 4 (Registrants) at Sub Team’s option 3. Timing of future meetings 4. AOB Thank you for your time and contributions! Best Regards, Mary, Berry, Julie, and Ariel

2 2

Agenda for Tomorrow
by Susan Payne Jan. 18, 2018

Jan. 18, 2018

Hi all I’d be happy to do the registrar section tomorrow if others would like to – but ideally it would be good to know in advance as it’s now a couple of months since I did this and will need to re-familiarise myself. 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 [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: 18 January 2018 16:32 To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Reminder: Google Doc Update & Lock for Edits in 12 Hours Dear All, As per action item for staff, we have incorporated comments and input discussed in the last Sub Team meeting on the Google Doc. Please reference the redlines and comments made on page 20-23: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcN…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>. As before, staff only incorporate edits (with redlines/track changes) and comments provided by the Sub Team in the sections that the group has already discussed. About 12 hours before the start of the Sub Team call (Fri, 19 Jan at 17:00 UTC), we will make this Google Doc “view only” so no further comments/edits can be added before the call. We will also distribute a PDF document that records the redlines and comments made on the Google Doc for reference. As communicated previously, on Monday 22 January, we will forward the Data Request Table (after incorporating input/comments discussed in tomorrow’s call) to the full WG, ensuring that they are comfortable with releasing this table as part of the RFP. Please be assured that to the extent the document is still in draft form when published in the RFP documents, there will be a clarifying note describing the draft status of the document. Last, please review the proposed draft agenda for tomorrow’s call: 1. Complete discussion on Section 3 (TM/Brand Owners), page 23 et seq 2. Commence discussion on either Section 2 (Registrars) or Section 4 (Registrants) at Sub Team’s option 3. Timing of future meetings 4. AOB Thank you for your time and contributions! Best Regards, Mary, Berry, Julie, and Ariel

2 1

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat from eview of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call on Thursday, 11 January 2018 22:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Jan. 12, 2018

Jan. 12, 2018

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 Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 22:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YSByB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-11jan18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p44iunl8uqa/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** 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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Action Items from 11 January 2018 RPM Data Sub Team Call
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 11, 2018

Jan. 11, 2018

Dear all, Below are the action items and notes staff captured from the RPM Data Sub Team meeting today (11 January 2018). The notes from the call are posted to the Sub Team wiki space, together with the call recording, transcript and Adobe Connect chat and attendance records. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items: Section 3 of the Charter Questions, Survey of TM and Brand Owners: Staff will incorporate edits into the Google Document and PDF. Notes: 1. Update on the RFP -- Staff is completing the RFP preparation. We can launch a little earlier than expected. -- Does the Sub Team feel comfortable with sharing the survey questions in draft form -- with clarification that it is a work in progress, while the Sub Team can keep working on the data table. We are asking this question now as it's possible the document will not be finalized by 22 January, so we want to be sure the Sub Team understanding. -- Also, request suggestions on vendors. Discussion: -- Wouldn't send the full document with all of the columns. -- Suggest the Analysis Group as a possible vendor. -- Fairly certain that purpose and scope came from the draft document that the co-chairs presented to the GNSO. Yes, it was what was submitted to the GNSO Council. -- Clarify that in the RFP document we will include the whole list of the charter questions as a reference. -- Relevant charter questions are the revised questions. 2. Section 3, Trademark/Brand Owners: Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcN… Obtain feedback on number of cease-and-desist letters sent (Claims Charter Question #3 – whether Claims serves its intended purpose) Fourth Column, data questions: How many Claims Notices have you received for our TMCH registered trademarks? How many of these Claims Notices did you follow up with some actions? What actions did you take? (possible multiple choice with drop-down menu) -- May not want to try to do too much about the options. The list could be developed with the survey experts. -- One issue is that we aren't certain that the survey expert would be an expert in the procedures that are followed. -- Could be followed with "Do you believe your actions were successful?" -- Added for clarification: The primary method for TM owners would be a letter of concern or a cease-and-desist letter. -- Are we seeking information on how many times TM owners got notices about their own mark, or whether someone has registered your name? It would be whether someone has registered the name. -- We MUST change the wording to Notice of Registered Names (NORNs). That's what brand owners get and it's what will ring a bell. How many of these Claims Notices did you follow with a cease and desist letter? Did you leave it alone? If so, why? -- Change to “How many of these NORNs did you follow up with some action, what actions did you take, do you believe these actions were successful, if not why?” -- More neutral, rather than "successful". "What response did you get and are you satisfied, if so why, if not why?" or "Was it resolved? What was the resolution?" -- Or “How many of these did you follow up with a cease-and-desist or similar letter? If you left it alone, why? But that becomes subjective. -- Cease and desist came from the summary of the scope presented to the GNSO. -- Why are we asking TM owners about the claims notice? It is the applicant's opinion that is most relevant. You could ask "Do you think claims notice are serving their intended purpose?" -- One of the data points is getting to what was the experience of TM owners -- can we extrapolate about the registrants’ experience by the behavior of the TM owners? -- Asking about how many NORNs you got and what did you do with them is valuable. -- Proposal: Remove everything from the "How many of these Claims Notices did you follow with a cease and desist letter? Did you leave it alone? If so, why?” to the end “In how many such actions did you lose?” -- If we are interested in people who received the notices and continued. We might be able to learn something about people who continued. -- To be absolutely accurate, the 2013 TMCH Requirements use the term Claims Notice (for the one that goes to registrants) and Notifications (not notices) of Registered Names (NORN) for the one that goes to TM owners. Third column: anecdotal questions: What did you do in response to receiving the NORN? -- Where do we want to have that question? Already have it in the 4th column. Does it matter if we have it in both places? The questions will be all mixed up so leaving it in both provides relevant context. Based on your experience do you believe that the Trademark Claims Notice to domain name applicants has met its intended purpose of notifying applicants of possible conflict with a registered trademark?” If you do not believe the Trademark Claims Notice it (a copy of which is attached) has met its intended purpose, can you say why you believe this? If you believe the Trademark Claims Notice has met its intended purpose, please explain why you do so. Have any of the Domain Applicants [registrants] you have challenged based on a registered trademark said anything about not having understood the Claims Notice? If so, what did they say? Do you believes the Claims Notice sent to domain name applicants (a copy of which is attached) adequately inform domain name applicants of the scope and limitations of trademark holders’ rights? If not, please explain. What else do you believe applicants should be advised in the Notice? how can it be improved? -- Would like to see all 4 of these with tick boxes. Do we do this for the survey company? -- Instead of "What else do you believe applicants should be advised in the notice" change to "What might you change in the notice to better advise applicants in the Notice?" Do you receive any communications from the TMCH? If so, are they Is it clear, or not clear? Please explain. Do the communications you receive from the TMCH make sense? How have you reacted to them? When you sent the cease and desist letter to applicants, how did they react? Did they say anything about the Trademark Claims Notice they received? -- Perhaps remove this line of questions? Remove the above set of questions through "Did they say anything about the Trademark Claims Notice they received?" Should Claims Notifications only be sent to domain name applicants at the time they apply for the domain name, or at the time their domain name is registered? Please explain your answer. -- Wondering since this is going to Brand owners if this question requires explanation. Has this only come about as a result of the pre-order issue. -- If this is a registrar issue is it appropriate to be asking the TM owner what they believe? -- Brand owners have a strong feeling that the notice should be displayed early and often. This is relevant to Brand owners. Maybe it needs to be more open-ended. -- Agree that if we ask this question it requires a preamble since the timing might be a fine point that TM owners may not be aware. Regardless of whether we are asking this because of a potential chilling effect or otherwise, it would be important to know what TM owners think of the timing of the notice. Might be easier to answer in multiple choice -- at this time or after the notice is made; then ask for the timing whether very important, somewhat important, not important (ranking). -- Preamble is wise since most people don't have when communications are supposed to come and why. -- NOTE: Ask a similar question of registrars. Drop a note on Page 12 in the PDF, #4. Obtain feedback on actual brand owner experiences regarding evidence of harm intended to be addressed by the Claims RPM. Third column, anecdotal questions: Are you aware of what harms were meant to be addressed by the Trademark Claims service of notification of TMCH registration to applicants, requirement of statement of non-infringement, and notification of trademark owners upon registration of TMCH registered names? Do you have any evidence of the harm being addressed actually occurring prior to the Claims service? Please describe it. Do you have any evidence that you, your company or your trademarks, or your ability to register domain names have been harmed in any way by the fact that Claims Notices are only issued to Exact Match applications? Do you have any evidence that broadening the comparison bases for issuing Trademark Claims Notifications to include variants of trademarks and not only exact matches would be useful and protect the rights of both trademark owners and domain name applicants? Please provide this evidence or your observations. -- Delete the second bulleted question. A variation would look at the timing of the claims notice, but we have other questions about timing. -- "Are you aware of any harms after the claims period?" Reword to "Do you have any evidence of harm being addressed before the institution of claims notice?" -- “Do you have any evidence that you, your company, etc.”: Needs to be rephrased to be more neutral.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ntfy-gnso-rpm-data] 2nd REMINDER: Doodle Poll / RPMs Data Sub Team for meetings starting week of 15 January 2018
by Mary Wong Jan. 11, 2018

Jan. 11, 2018

To follow up on Terri’s note, the responses so far indicate that Fridays at 1600 UTC or 1700 UTC are likely to work best, so it will be greatly appreciated if those who have not yet responded can see if either or both of those times work for them, even if we need to rotate between the two times. Thank you! Cheers Mary From: Ntfy-gnso-rpm-data <ntfy-gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 09:58 To: "ntfy-gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <ntfy-gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ntfy-gnso-rpm-data] 2nd REMINDER: Doodle Poll / RPMs Data Sub Team for meetings starting week of 15 January 2018 Dear all, Please complete the following doodle poll to identify an appropriate time for meetings starting the week of 15th January 2018. **As a reminder, the next call is scheduled for Thursday, 11 January 2018 UTC at 22:00 UTC for 60 minute duration. Doodle poll: https://doodle.com/poll/wvfchk9vzq7ggcyv Kind regards, Terri

2 1

Reminder: Google Doc Update & Lock for Edits in 12 Hours
by Ariel Liang Jan. 11, 2018

Jan. 11, 2018

Dear All, As per action item for staff, we have incorporated comments and input discussed in the last Sub Team meeting on the Google Doc. Please reference the redlines and comments made on page 18-20: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcN…. As mentioned previously, staff only incorporate edits (with redlines/track changes) and comments provided by the Sub Team in the sections that the group has already discussed. About 12 hours before the start of the Sub Team call (Thu, 11 Jan at 22:00 UTC), we will make this Google Doc “view only” so no further comments/edits can be added before the call. Please note that once the Google Doc is “view only”, one will see the original version of this Google Doc (generated on 27 November 2017) without showing the redlines and comments. Due to this reason, we will distribute a PDF document that records the redlines and comments made on the Google Doc for reference. Furthermore, staff have investigated and hereby report that Google Doc does not have the capability to display the document in a “clean” format (no markup) that incorporates comments/redlines without accepting or rejecting them. The workaround is to download the Google Doc with redlines, rename the file, upload it to Google doc, and accept/reject comments/redlines as per Sub Team’s discussions. In other words, the workaround is to create a duplicated Google Doc and accept/reject changes on the copy to display a “clean” version. Nevertheless, this method is not so different from generating a clean Word doc incorporating changes already discussed. To have another “clean” Google Doc may contribute to potential version confusions. Last, please review the proposed draft agenda for Thursday 22:00 UTC call: 1. Update on RFP 2. Complete discussion on Section 3 (TM/Brand Owners), page 20 et seq; commence discussion on either Section 2 (Registrars) or Section 4 (Registrants) at Sub Team’s option 3. Timing of future meetings 4. AOB Thank you for your time and contributions! Best Regards, Mary, Berry, Julie, and Ariel

1 1

RFP Update: Data Request Table & Vendor Suggestion
by Ariel Liang Jan. 9, 2018

Jan. 9, 2018

Dear All, Staff preparation for the RFP is close to completion. ICANN can potentially launch the RFP a week or so earlier than the original date (9 February). Therefore, we would like to provide clarification and get the Data Sub Team’s input on a couple of crucial items related to the RFP: 1. Inclusion of the Sub Team’s Data Request Table To provide vendors with better understanding of the project scope and survey task, as well as to ensure that community-developed guidance is incorporated into the RFP process, staff strongly recommend including the Sub Team’s Data Request Table in the RFP documents. We understand that the document is currently in draft form and still under discussion within the Sub Team. Please be assured that to the extent the document is still in draft form when published in the RFP documents, there will be a clarifying note describing the draft status of the document. To be accessible to all interested vendors, and for purposes of transparency, the draft Data Request Table will be published on icann.org along with other RFP public documents. The launch of the RFP will not affect the Data Sub Team’s ability to continue working toward the completion of the Data Request Table. There will be a period where ICANN staff answer questions from responding vendors and provide additional information and resources. The final agreed Data Request Table can therefore be included at this stage of the RFP, superseding the earlier draft, and becoming the basis upon which respondents will rely on in their final RFP responses. Depending on the actual RFP launch date and progress, we will advise the Data Sub Team of the final internal deadline to finalize the Data Request Table (this is typically about one week before ICANN finalizes responses to send to RFP participants). Even at its draft stage, the Data Request Table would be very helpful to get suitable vendors and targeted proposals. Since the goal is to launch the RFP as soon as possible, waiting for the Sub Team to finalize the Data Request Table before launching the RFP would risk further delays. After the RFP is launched, the Data Sub Team still have some time to provide the final agreed document to responding vendors. Question from Staff: Can the Data Request Table, even in draft form, be shared with the full PDP WG no later than 22 January? This will give the Sub Team a couple of more weeks to prepare the draft Data Request Table, ensure the full WG is also comfortable with releasing the table as part of the RFP, and achieve an earlier RFP launch date. 2. Potential Vendors Staff would like to seek your input on potential vendors to reach out to for the RFP. If you have suggestions on potential vendors, by Monday, 15 January, please provide: 1) legal entity name of the potential vendor, 2) name of the contact person, and 3) email address of contact person. Due to privacy concerns, please send suggestions directly to ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>. The contact information will be pre-loaded into the ICANN RFP system, which will generate an auto message when the RFP is launched, inviting suggested vendors to submit proposals. As advised previously, staff will also be reaching out to the full WG for suggestions of potential vendors. Thank you for time and input! Happy to discuss these points during the next Sub Team meeting or before. Best Regards, Mary, Berry, Julie, and Ariel

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] RE: conflicts
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 9, 2018

Jan. 9, 2018

Dear all, Many thanks to all of you who have provided guidance. Based on the responses it is the staff’s understanding that we will not change the time of the meeting that is scheduled for this Thursday, 11 January, at 2200 UTC. However, staff will take the action to circulate a Doodle to find a rotating time earlier on Friday that avoids an evening meeting time for members in Europe. Kind regards, Julie On 1/8/18, 5:32 PM, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin(a)verisign.com> wrote: I agree that it is not reasonable to expect our European members to participate on calls during their Friday evening; the work week must end sometime. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-rpm-data Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 4:45 PM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)valideus.com>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>; J. Scott Evans <jsevans(a)adobe.com>; Michael Graham (ELCA) <migraham(a)expedia.com>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>; gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] conflicts I support Susan. I had thought we'd rotate between early Friday and less early Friday (from a Pacific time perspective), so I was also surprised that we ended up with a late Thursday time. Both are good for eastern. One better for Europe. The only people who "suffer" are in Pacific time and I arrive for work at 7:30 am so no problem for me. I could be here at 7 if need be. I have a standing conflict at 10 am for 1/2 hour, that's it. I vote we accommodate Europe. Kristine -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>; J. Scott Evans <jsevans(a)adobe.com>; Michael Graham (ELCA) <migraham(a)expedia.com>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>; gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] conflicts Speaking as someone in Europe I would say this rotation (10 - 11pm at night) is hardly for my benefit and is even worse for Lori. I have made myself available for a call this Thursday and so I'm not particularly in favour of cancelling it at this point, but I would like the rotation reviewed as a general matter: - What we discussed was finding a replacement to the 7pm Friday slot. Instead, that slot is being retained and the far more reasonable (if you are European) slot earlier on a Friday is the one that is being replaced. I strongly object to that. - if we're largely given timeslots to vote on which are late at night in Europe it's no big surprise if they come out the winner. After this week, which is already arranged, I would like the poll done again, in a manner which actually recognises that not everyone is based in the US. thanks Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne(a)valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: 08 January 2018 20:59 To: J. Scott Evans <jsevans(a)adobe.com>; Michael Graham (ELCA) <migraham(a)expedia.com>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>; gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] conflicts J. Scott, Staff can confirm that the rotation was to accommodate those members for whom the Friday time did not work (such as those in Europe), but who could attend at the Thursday rotating time. Kind regards, Julie On 1/8/18, 3:56 PM, "Gnso-rpm-data on behalf of J. Scott Evans via Gnso-rpm-data" <gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> wrote: I thought this rotation was an accommodation to sub-team members in Europe. If so, I think we should hold to the current schedule. J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans(a)adobe.com www.adobe.com On 1/8/18, 11:32 AM, "Gnso-rpm-data on behalf of Michael Graham (ELCA)" <gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of migraham(a)expedia.com> wrote: Although I have no preference, I'm concerned that changing at this point might lose some of the working group members. Would members of the group please advise your preferences. Michael R. -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2018 4:14 PM To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] conflicts Hi All, The Data Subteam meeting on Thursday at its evening hour is going to create some conflicts. I have an event rescheduled from 1/4 when everything was canceled here due to snow and cold. I believe Rebecca has a conflict as well. Given the importance of the issues at hand, and with apologies, I would like to recommend that we reschedule to one of our more traditional Friday times for this meeting (and then move into a late Thursday time). Best, Kathy _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-data mailing list Gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protect… _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-data mailing list Gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protect… _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-data mailing list Gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-data _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-data mailing list Gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-data _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-data mailing list Gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-data

1 0

conflicts
by Kathy Kleiman Jan. 8, 2018

Jan. 8, 2018

Hi All, The Data Subteam meeting on Thursday at its evening hour is going to create some conflicts. I have an event rescheduled from 1/4 when everything was canceled here due to snow and cold. I believe Rebecca has a conflict as well. Given the importance of the issues at hand, and with apologies, I would like to recommend that we reschedule to one of our more traditional Friday times for this meeting (and then move into a late Thursday time). Best, Kathy

7 6

Action Items from 05 January 2018 RPM Data Sub Team Call
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 5, 2018

Jan. 5, 2018

Dear all, Below are the action items staff captured from the RPM Data Sub Team meeting today (05 January 2018): Action Items: Re: Section 3 of the Charter Questions, Survey of TM and Brand Owners Staff will find the purpose of the trademark claims notice; Staff will incorporate edits into the Google Document and PDF. Re: Document Management: Staff will send a reminder with agenda 24 hours before the call that the Google Document will be locked for edits 12 hours before the call; Staff will lock the Google Document 12 hours before the call; WG members will use comments rather than strike out except for very minor (non-substantive) edits; WG members will limit edits of questions already discussed to the lead and staff (with questions yet to be discussed reverting to action 1); Staff will research how to view the document in “clean” not redlined/commented form without accepting or rejecting comments/redlines. Notes: 1. Review Proposed Edits, Section 3, Survey of TM & Brand Owners, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcN… Page 18 (bottom): Obtain feedback on number of cease-and-desist letters sent -- (a) Does the Trademark Claims Notice to domain name applicants meet its intended purpose? -- Not sure how the question corresponds to the charter. Focus on the charter question is in the second from the left column -- focus on that language. -- For this point, the source suggested by the sub team was "Survey brand owners and/or registrants regarding cease and desist letters sent/received" and as Kristine noted, the language in this current document is what was presented to and approved by the Council. -- Switch to "What did you do in response to the claim notice/notices?" Data questions follow this format. Data question: "How many times did the applicant agree to abandon its application [as a result of a cease-and-desist-letter.]" -- Should be open to other possibilities -- the questions don't ask "did you leave it alone, if so why?" -- Also, the notice that comes from the TMCH data base, seems we are asking about both. In column 4 delete "cease and desist" with "what did you do in response?" Also ask, what was the domain name. -- Trademark Claims Notice = sent to potential registrants. Notice of Registered Name (NORN) = sent to TM holders. -- Suggestion: Change to "Is the Claims Notice inadequate and, if so, how might it be improved? -- Why are we asking Trademark owners this question? Or are we asking them if this is the right tool? Suggestion to Change to: "Do the communications you receive from the TMCH make sense? How have you reacted to them? Do you receive anything?" or "How many of these claims notices did you follow up with actions? What actions did you take? (possible multiple choice -- but could be complicated) -- Claims Notice is what is sent to potential registrants; NORN (Notice of Registered Name) to TM owners. This is the terminology used in all ICANN documentation about the Trademark Claims Service. -- Leave out the content of the claims notice and focus on the reaction. 2. Agree on document management methods: 1) Whether to continue to use the Google Doc as the authoritative document (with insertions and additions to be placed into it – staff can assist if you need us to); 2) Whether and when to “lock” the Google Doc prior to each Sub Team call, so that everyone is clear when we start the call about the exact version we are looking at for that day (note that staff has locked this particular document, since we are less than 2 hours away from the call)? -- We had the original question and then comments on the questions before they were discussed. -- Uncertain what revisions were captured or were some overwritten. -- Crash with Google Docs caused some changes to be lost, but staff was able to restore the edits and the version before the crash. -- Staff incorporated all edits as redline; the original text is still there. No edits were made by staff to the original text for both sections. -- Suggestion that a question drafter should be able to speak to original questions/draft. -- Suggest closing the document 12 hours before the meeting. -- Suggest one form of editing showing edits as comments instead of strikeout. -- Comments in Google doc -- you can also directly add the text but what you put in will be in a different color. -- Can view the original if you go back to the first version, but staff will look into whether there is an option to view as clean versus redline. -- Suggest that staff send a reminder 24 hours before the call that the document will be locked for editing 12 hours before the call. -- When we are done with a section we are done with it. 5. Timing for next call: Thursday, 11 January 22:00 UTC (Google document cut off will be 10:00 UTC on Thursday 11 January) The notes from the call are posted to the Sub Team 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 on Friday, 05 January 2018 at 19:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Jan. 5, 2018

Jan. 5, 2018

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, 05 January 2018 at 19:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YSByB MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-05jan18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p26oy322ht2/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** 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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Google Doc status for RPM Data Sub Team
by Mary Wong Jan. 5, 2018

Jan. 5, 2018

Hello everyone, To recap, the group last stopped at Page 18 of the Google Doc (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcN…) meaning that there are two questions left to close out the Trademark/Brand Owner section (cease and desist letters, and brand owner experiences regarding evidence of harm – Pages 18-20 of the Google Doc). Staff therefore suggests first completing the discussion on this section, if Michael is able to lead us off today, and the group can then follow by discussing either the Registrant section (Kurt) or Registrars (Susan), which may depend on whether Susan will be on the call. On document control and status: Kurt, it appears that the Word document you circulated today contains a few edits that are not currently in the Google Doc, and does not (as you noted) include many of the edits that were put into the Google Doc up till now. For the purposes of today’s call (if we move on to the Registrant section): may staff suggest that we display Kurt’s document in AC, that Kurt note which parts of that document have not been inserted into the Google Doc (so that staff can make sure to sync both up after the call) and, following Kurt’s initial introduction, we switch to the Google Doc so others can present their comments and follow up? For general document management going forward: may we ask that the group agree on - * Whether to continue to use the Google Doc as the authoritative document (with insertions and additions to be placed into it – staff can assist if you need us to); * Whether and when to “lock” the Google Doc prior to each Sub Team call, so that everyone is clear when we start the call about the exact version we are looking at for that day (note that staff has locked this particular document, since we are less than 2 hours away from the call)? Thanks and cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel and Berry From: "Michael Graham (ELCA)" <migraham(a)expedia.com> Date: Friday, January 5, 2018 at 11:47 To: "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-data] Rotating Times for Meetings Beginning 05 January 2018 Mary: Could you distribute the latest copy of the proposed questions for review today? Also, since I took the holidays off mentally as well as physically, could you remind me where we left off? Michael R. From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 8:23 AM To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Rotating Times for Meetings Beginning 05 January 2018 And per our usual way of doing things, I would like to review them with the edits that came quickly upon the heels of Kurt's edits. On 1/5/2018 11:12 AM, Kurt Pritz wrote: Hi Everyone: If we get to Question 4, Survey of Domain Registrants, on the call, I wish to note that since I proposed the set of questions several weeks ago, there have been many edits to that on-line, shared set of questions. I don’t feel comfortable presenting the current set as I don’t understand the reasoning behind some of the suggested edits and others would be better suited to present those. I would like to briefly review the questions as I first intended them and my reasoning. (I admit to making a few edits based on some of the edits I saw to the shared list.) I have attached them here for reference. Let me know how you want to proceed - I am open to any approach. Best regards, Kurt On Dec 21, 2017, at 11:24 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Here is an update concerning the following action item from our last meeting: -- The call on 22 December will be canceled. Staff will send a Doodle poll to determine the preference to fix the recurring day and time for the meetings starting the first week in January, including times on Thursday and Friday. The 22 December call was canceled. The Doodle poll was conducted and based on the results it appeared that it was preferable to rotate the times of the meetings between Thursdays and Fridays. The preferred times are Thursdays at 2200 UTC and Fridays at 1900 UTC. We’ll start with Friday, 05 January 2018 at 1900 UTC, as you may have seen from the invitation. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-data mailing list Gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-data@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-data _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-data mailing list Gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-data@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-data

2 1

Rotating Times for Meetings Beginning 05 January 2018
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 5, 2018

Jan. 5, 2018

Dear all, Here is an update concerning the following action item from our last meeting: -- The call on 22 December will be canceled. Staff will send a Doodle poll to determine the preference to fix the recurring day and time for the meetings starting the first week in January, including times on Thursday and Friday. The 22 December call was canceled. The Doodle poll was conducted and based on the results it appeared that it was preferable to rotate the times of the meetings between Thursdays and Fridays. The preferred times are Thursdays at 2200 UTC and Fridays at 1900 UTC. We’ll start with Friday, 05 January 2018 at 1900 UTC, as you may have seen from the invitation. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

4 4