- Gnso-rpm-data - lists.icann.org

RESPONSE REQUESTED: Doodle for 06 April Data Sub Team Call
by Julie Hedlund March 27, 2018

March 27, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team members, Please take the Doodle poll at: https://doodle.com/poll/xmiyregvemhgfxfk to help us determine the time of the next Data Sub Team call on 06 April. As a reminder, with the change to daylight saving time if we maintain the call at the usual time of 1700 UTC it will occur an hour later than previously – for example, at 1300 EDT/1000 PDT rather than at 1200 EDT/0900 PDT. The Doodle poll includes both the usual time of 1700 UTC, as well as 1600 UTC. Note that the times will automatically adjust for your time zone. Please take the poll no later than COB Thursday, 29 March. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Friday call
by Dorrain, Kristine March 27, 2018

March 27, 2018

Hi everyone! I know we discussed meeting again this Friday to do some final wrap-up, but did we discuss how to handle Daylight Savings Time? We're now an hour later. Which, if I recall, makes an already bad time even worse for Susan and anyone else in Europe and goes back into a conflict for me (I can do 9 pacific, but have a standing mtg at 10 am). Did I miss this discussion? If not, can we do a quick check-in regarding who can make it Friday and if 1600 or 1700 works for folks? I don't expect everyone to work around my schedule, but thought I can't be the only one who has sort of come to count on this time. Thanks, Kristine Kristine Dorrain Corp Counsel - IP | Amazon | 206.740.9339 dorraink(a)amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>

7 6

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Friday call
by Julie Hedlund March 26, 2018

March 26, 2018

Hi Kristine and all, Apologies for any confusion! It’s customary for Working Group meetings when the time changes to Daylight Saving Time to keep the same UTC time as before, but as you note, this does move the meeting one hour later for some attendees. It would be helpful as you suggest if Sub Team members could indicate their availability/preference for these two times in the following Doodle poll: https://doodle.com/poll/xmiyregvemhgfxfk. Please take the poll ASAP or at your earliest convenience. Thanks so much for pointing this out and we hope we can find a time that works for most if not everyone. Kind regards, Julie From: Gnso-rpm-data <gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-rpm-data" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink(a)amazon.com> Date: Monday, March 26, 2018 at 1:16 PM To: "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Friday call Hi everyone! I know we discussed meeting again this Friday to do some final wrap-up, but did we discuss how to handle Daylight Savings Time? We’re now an hour later. Which, if I recall, makes an already bad time even worse for Susan and anyone else in Europe and goes back into a conflict for me (I can do 9 pacific, but have a standing mtg at 10 am). Did I miss this discussion? If not, can we do a quick check-in regarding who can make it Friday and if 1600 or 1700 works for folks? I don’t expect everyone to work around my schedule, but thought I can’t be the only one who has sort of come to count on this time. Thanks, Kristine Kristine Dorrain Corp Counsel – IP | Amazon | 206.740.9339 dorraink(a)amazon.com

1 0

Action/Notes/Agenda: RPM Data Sub Team call on Friday, 30 March 2018
by Julie Hedlund March 22, 2018

March 22, 2018

Dear All, Please see attached and on the wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/6gC8B the notes and transcript from the presentation from the Data Sub Team meeting on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61. Please also see the following action items: Action Items: 1. Information from Jon Nevitt, Donuts: Review information obtained from Donuts during ICANN61. 2. Need for Data in Relation to the Additional Marketplace RPMs – Start next meeting with Question 2: Question 2: What information on the aspects of the operation of the TMCH is available and where can it be found. a) Ancillary services offered by the TMCH which are not mandated by the ICANN RPMs, including but not limited to: i. the post-90 days’ ongoing notification service; and ii. other services in support of registry-specific offerings b) With whom and under what arrangements does the TMCH share data, and for what non-mandated RPMs purposes? 1) Include this with questions to the TMCH, along with other questions from Berry. But this needs to be rephrased. 2) Start with this at the next meeting. Have as reference what we have previously asked them and links to related materials. Based on last week’s discussion the action for the Sub Team is to finalize the need for data in relation to the Additional Marketplace RPMs. (See attached document.) Thus, there is a need for at least one more meeting of the Sub Team, which is scheduled for the usual time of 17:00 UTC on Friday, 30 March. NOTE: By anchoring the time at UTC this advances the time of the meeting in the US following Daylight Saving Time by one hour to 10:00 PDT/13:00 EDT – please let us know ASAP if you have a conflict. Please see the draft agenda for the meeting below. NOTE: Adobe Connect will not be available for the call. We will use PGI for the teleconference and we’ll ask Sub Team members to reference the attached documents, which also will be on the wiki agenda at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Meetings%3A+RPM+WG+Sub+Tea…. Draft Agenda: Review agenda; Discussion on need for data in relation to Additional Marketplace RPMs – starting at Question 2 re: what information on the aspects of the operation of the TMCH is available and where can it be found. Next steps and timing of further meetings. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

PLEASE READ - NEW SESSION INFORMATION ICANN61
by Terri Agnew March 14, 2018

March 14, 2018

Dear all, Due to security difficulties, (see Goran's blog <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo g_issues-2Dwith-2Dadobe-2Dconnect-2Dat-2Dicann61&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwl l3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTB s0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=fxijpUJu6LmmroHN9tH8OL-ro_yRzrp5RcsF-DsRnHY&s=_RqTDbLxF ZWrmTMt09Hldqs9KQbB7-Kg-pZFjJw0ink&e=> here[icann.org]) the Adobe Connect room facilities will no longer be available to ICANN61 participants. In order to minimize disruption, we have the following steps we encourage you to follow: 1. TO JOIN THE AUDIO * Audio streaming will be available for all open, public meetings. Links can be find on the ICANN61 schedule meeting pages: <https://61.schedule.icann.org/> https://61.schedule.icann.org/ * The audio bridge is available for those who would like to ask questions or comment over the telephone. Dial in details for open GNSO sessions can be found here: <https://community.icann.org/x/3wC8B> https://community.icann.org/x/3wC8B 2. TO ACCESS THE PRESENTATIONS * All presentations and documents which were to be shown in the AC room will be uploaded to the corresponding page on the ICANN61 schedule meeting pages: <https://61.schedule.icann.org/> https://61.schedule.icann.org/ * Presentations and documents will also be circulated via email on demand 3. ASKING QUESTIONS AND COMMENTING IN WRITTEN FORMAT * These will be handed via live management of email comments and questions by the Remote Participation Manager. Please see list of meeting room email addresses here: <https://61.schedule.icann.org/pages/2350> https://61.schedule.icann.org/pages/2350 We apologize for the inconvenience caused. We encourage participants who have not already done so to download the ICANN61 mobile app by searching for "ICANN61" in your app stores. Please do not hesitate to email us at <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> gnso-secs(a)icann.org if you need a dial out specifying which meeting you would like to join and your preferred contact number. Kind regards, Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our i <applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses /gnso> nteractive courses and visiting the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn so.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DgM FAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUh becsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=-d9m4sr16OXloyLjz4TF6npbe51hgE0EH toX1U6WUOA&s=Bw2Uzbh2Pu1X0lObLtbwtN5ZNEP3ECdPAfcqzVvIOYE&e=> GNSO Newcomer pages

1 0

UPDATE: RPM Data Sub Team meeting today
by Mary Wong March 10, 2018

March 10, 2018

Dear all, Jon Nevett (Donuts) has indicated that the NomCom meeting is likely to end by 1700, which means he should be able to attend the RPM Data Sub Team working meeting that starts at that time. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 23:17 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)valideus.com>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: FOLLOW UP (Re: Action & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team call on Friday, 02 March 2018) Thanks for following up, Susan! All, please note that Jon Nevett has responded to staff to say that while he will try to make himself available for the proposed Data Sub Team working session on Saturday 10 March at 17:00, the NomCom (which he is on) is having its meeting for most of the day so he cannot be certain he will be able to join, In addition, staff found the following information that we thought the Sub Team might find interesting and useful, about Deloitte’s new T-REx Service and its ntegration of Minds+Machines’ MPML Service: Under Deloitte’s new Trademark Registry Extension Service (T-REx), trademark owners with marks that have been validated by Deloitte can block registrations during General Availability across a number of domains. The service is offered as a package (bundle) across a number of gTLDs (currently it seems to be US$160 per label for a bundle of 40 gTLDs, renewable annually). At the moment, it appears that the T-REx service covers the following gTLDs: Geographic Generic .bayern .boston .capetown .cat .cologne .durban .eus .frl .gal .joburg .koeln .la .london .miami .nrw .osaka .quebec .ruhr .scot .tirol .wien .beer .casa .cooking .earth .fashion .fishing .fit .garden .horse .moe .rodeo .surf .tube .uno .vip .vodka .wedding .work .yoga You will see that the T-REx service INCLUDES MMX’s gTLDs that had been included in MMX’s MPML service – this means that there no longer is a standalone MPML service. Sub Team or Working Group members who work with the TMCH and trademark owners/agents may be able to either verify or correct the above-noted information, or may have additional input. We hope the above information is helpful. Thanks and cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)valideus.com> Date: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 11:22 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-data] FOLLOW UP Re: Action & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team call on Friday, 02 March 2018 Hi Mary On the last call I offered to contact Nominet, in case they could assist with information regarding the MMX protected marks list service. Their feedback, however, was that responsibility for the MPML does still sit with MMX and the Nominet attendees in Puerto Rico would not really in a position to assist. I’m afraid I don’t know who to suggest from MMX, except perhaps starting with Michael Salazar. regards 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 Mary Wong Sent: 06 March 2018 23:08 To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] FOLLOW UP Re: Action & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team call on Friday, 02 March 2018 Dear all, Staff has followed up on our remaining Action Items from the Data Sub Team call last Friday: 1. Check the three registry responses to the December 2016 Working Group survey, for information that may be relevant to this Additional Marketplace RPM question (Question 3): Are registry operators relying on the results of the TMCH validation services, or accessing the TMCH database, to provide Additional Marketplace RPMs, and, if so, in what ways? Is there language in the current adopted TMCH policy or related documents that expressly permits, prohibits or otherwise addresses such use by registry operators? Are registry operators able to provide the same or similar Additional Marketplace RPMs without relying on the TMCH validation services or access to the TMCH database? Will there be an increase in costs? If so, what will this be to stakeholders along the value chain (i.e. brand owners, registries, registrars, other registrants)? Three registry operators responded to that survey; Donuts is the only one that offered/s Additional Marketplace RPMs (the other two were PIR and Afnic). The following are the questions and Donuts’ responses from that survey that seemed most relevant to the current enquiry, in particular, the first two questions in Question 3. * Are you accessing data and records in the TMCH for purposes other than obtaining information necessary for the provision of sunrise and claims services in accordance with ICANN’s user manuals and technical requirements? DONUTS: Yes. We use the TMCH to verify Domains Protected Marks List (DPML) block requests. We also look at the SNL and TCN lists for business intelligence such as confirming if numbers reported in industry blogs and ICANN reports are accurate. * Are you using any capabilities of the TMCH other than for Sunrise Periods and TM Claims Notices? If so, what? DONUTS: Yes, we leverage the SMD files as qualifiers for our DPML service. * Do you make any other uses of the SMD file or TMCH Database? DONUTS: No. * A valid TMCH SMD file is required to use a blocking mechanism service (such as DPML). Was there push back from people who wanted to use a blocking mechanism service but not put their marks into the TMCH? DONUTS: Only a few registrars complained about the cost and effort required to acquire an SMD file to participate in the DPML program. * Did the various blocking mechanism services drive users to the TMCH – that is, are you aware of any brand owners that entered their TMs in to the TMCH just to be able to participate in blocking mechanism services, but not to make any Sunrise registrations? DONUTS: Yes 1. We have asked Jon Nevett (Donuts, which now also owns Rightside) if he will be available to join the Sub Team at its meeting at ICANN61. We are trying to find the appropriate contact at Minds & Machines – please let us know if you can provide a name. We have not approached anyone at Radix as we believe they do not themselves offer these additional RPMs. 1. We have updated the Sub Team wiki space with statistics on the Extended Claims periods: https://community.icann.org/x/UCG8B[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> As mentioned on the last Sub Team call, the page also contains the three registry responses to the December 2016 survey, and a summary of all the additional marketplace RPMs offered by several registry operators. Finally, as noted to the Working Group mailing list, this Sub Team is scheduled to hold a working session at ICANN61 on Saturday 10 March, from 1700-1830 Puerto Rico time. Thanks and cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Gnso-rpm-data <gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Date: Friday, March 2, 2018 at 13:35 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: [Gnso-rpm-data] Action & Notes: RPM Das Sub Team call on Friday, 02 March 2018 Dear All, Below are the action items and notes staff captured from the RPM Data Sub Team meeting today (02 March 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. Please note that these notes are not meant as a substitute for the recording and transcript. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ******* ACTION ITEMS: For Staff * Staff to check the responses from Additional Marketplace RPMs providers that took the survey, that may include relevant data for Question 3 (page 1) * Staff to invite Additional Marketplace RPMs Providers (Jon Nevett - Donuts, MMX, Radix, Nominet, etc.) to participate in the Data Sub Team’s working session at ICANN61. Staff to check what other providers would be good to invite to this working session. * Staff to confirm with the Co-Chairs about the timing and logistics of the Data Sub Team's working session in ICANN61 and then inform the Sub Team. * Staff to recirculate the information pertaining to Question 4 (page 1-2) that is listed here https://community.icann.org/x/UCG8B[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> – it includes a set of questions (which are the ones that an earlier Sub Team had sent to the full WG for discussion); the various registry responses to the previous survey; and the staff summary of all the Additional RPMs currently being offered. * Staff to include the list of ROs / TLDs that have extended trademark claims services beyond 90 days in the background & material wiki page https://community.icann.org/x/UCG8B[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. For Sub Team * Sub Team to revisit Question 1 (page 1) after reviewing the other questions. * Susan to inquire whether any representative from Nominet could participate in the Data Sub Team working session at ICANN61. * Sub Team to read through all information posted here https://community.icann.org/x/UCG8B[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> before the ICANN61 session with the Providers. * Sub Team to develop additional guidance, especially for Question 4 (page 2) (e.g., What have been their experience about exact matches....), and to bring up during the consultation phase with the survey provider. * Sub Team to invite the TMCH Providers post ICANN61 to ask more targeted questions (related to Question 2 and 3, page 3) after the Sub Team has met with additional marketplace RPMs providers. NOTES: Question 1: How, and to what extent, does use of Protected Marks Lists (e.g. blocking services) affect the utilization of other RPMs, especially Sunrise registrations? ACTION ITEM: * Sub Team to revisit this question after reviewing the other questions ===== Question 3: Are registry operators relying on the results of the TMCH validation services, or accessing the TMCH database, to provide Additional Marketplace RPMs, and, if so, in what ways? Is there language in the current adopted TMCH policy or related documents that expressly permits, prohibits or otherwise addresses such use by registry operators? Are registry operators able to provide the same or similar Additional Marketplace RPMs without relying on the TMCH validation services or access to the TMCH database? Will there be an increase in costs? If so, what will this be to stakeholders along the value chain (i.e. brand owners, registries, registrars, other registrants)? - Extended Sunrise will rely on TMCH validation services. We don't really know whether there is increased cost of extended Sunrise. Extended Sunrise is not regarded additional marketplace RPM. Nothing in the rules refer to the maximum duration of the Sunrise Period. - We know the answer to the Sunrise portion, but we don't know the answer to the DPML portion. - Extended Claims may be one of the additional marketplace RPMs. They have to use the TMCH validation. The main question is that whether there is any increasing cost? Don't know anyone is offering the extended Claims service in some other way. - Don’t recall any extended Sunrise, but for sure several registries have extended or open-ended claims. - DPML type of things are being concerned in this question. - Challenge is to remember which additional RPMs we are talking about. One could ask question: if you have to run extended Claims, will using TMCH increase the costs? Can they offer extended Claims services without using the TMCH? But they may not be very useful questions that lead us onto a fruitful path. - Question is does Deloitte use the ICANN TMCH or the secondary system they stood up to offer other services. New as in a few years, but we have only heard about it, no other intel, but can’t say for certain. - Donuts (in its response to the WG near the beginning of our work) confirmed that it uses the TMCH, especially the SMD files, to provide DPML service. Staff have those responses. I believe we may have also prepared a list of all the DMPL-type services being offered by the various ROs. - Would be good to have mmx there too. likely someone will be at ICANN61. What about Radix (is that the other additional RPMs provider?) QUESTIONS for the Additional Marketplace RPMs Provider: * Does the extended claims service affect the cost? * If you have to run extended Claims services, will using TMCH increase the costs? Can you offer extended Claims services without using the TMCH? For the DMPL type of services, do you have to use TMCH? If so, how would that increase the cost? ACTION ITEMS: * Staff to check the responses from Additional Marketplace RPMs providers that took the survey, that may include relevant data for Question 3. * Staff to invite Additional Marketplace RPMs Providers (Jon Nevett - Donuts, MMX, Radix, Nominet, etc.) to participate in the Data Sub Team’s working session at ICANN61. Staff to check what other providers would be good to invite to this working session. * Susan to inquire whether any representative from Nominet could participate in the Data Sub Team working session at ICANN61. * Staff to confirm with the Co-Chairs about the timing and logistics of the Data Sub Team's working session in ICANN61 and then inform the Sub Team. ==== Question 4: What are each registry operator’s rules for each type of Additional Marketplace RPM it offers (noting that some new gTLD registry operators offer more than one version of a Protected Marks List service)? - This question should be rolled up to Question 3 and can be asked to the Providers during the ICANN61 working session. - Staff notes are important. Sub Team should read and study the materials noted in the Staff Notes before speaking with the providers. ACTION: * Staff to recirculate the information pertaining to Question 4 (page 1-2) that is listed here https://community.icann.org/x/UCG8B[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> – it includes a set of questions (which are the ones that an earlier Sub Team had sent to the full WG for discussion); the various registry responses to the previous survey; and the staff summary of all the Additional RPMs currently being offered; Sub Team to read through all documents before the ICANN61 session with the Providers. ====== Question 5: For registry operators that extended the Trademark Claims Service beyond the required 90 days, what has been their experience in terms of exact matches generated beyond the mandatory period? For example, in terms of registration volume and numbers of exact matches? - We have a list of RO / TLDs that have extended trademark claims services beyond 90 days. - We probably have gotten data needs covered for this as it is included in the survey data request. ACTION ITEM * Staff to include the list of ROs / TLDs that have extended trademark claims services beyond 90 days in the background & material wiki page. ====== Question 4, first bullet point (rephrased): Have you been blocked from registering a second level domain name matching your registered trademark in any of the gTLDs launched under the 2012 New gTLD Program? - Staff has copied/pasted this question into the TM owner section of the survey data request table. - Sub Team may need to provide the survey provider more guidance on this question, e.g. someone is blocked from registering a domain name because of the protected mark, not because it is on the reserved list or someone else has registered the domain name. - Don’t think in most cases the DPMLs have operated to block another brand owner, so we're not expecting many positive answers to this. - We may not be able to add to what is published in the RFP right now, but the proposed work plan does include an opportunity for the sub team to consult with the selected provider - What have been their experience about exact matches. This item needs to be clarified in the guidance to the survey provider. ACTION ITEM: * Sub Team to develop additional guidance to bring up during the consultation phase with the survey provider, especially for Question 4 (e.g., What have been their experience about exact matches....) ==== Question 2: What information on the following aspects of the operation of the TMCH is available and where can it be found? a) Ancillary services offered by the TMCH which are not mandated by the ICANN RPMs, including but not limited to: i. the post-90 days’ ongoing notification service; and ii. other services in support of registry-specific offerings b) With whom and under what arrangements does the TMCH share data, and for what non-mandated RPMs purposes? - We may want to learn from provider about the additional RPMs. Maybe all additional marketplace RPMs providers will say that they just use the SMD file and they may limit what we can go back to ask the TMCH providers for. Maybe it is putting the cart before the horse to ask the TMCH providers about our questions before talking to the additional marketplace RPMs providers. - We could tell the TMCH providers about the ICANN61 session of the Data Sub Team and they are welcome to attend. We may have some more targeted questions to the TMCH providers after the working session. - As we are thinking about the "how" to get data, Data Sub Team should do the homework about the additional marketplace RPMs as well as the TMCH website (what they are offering). Post ICANN61, we can invite the TMCH providers for a phone call to talk through the data and questions. - Good to talk to the additional marketplace RPMs providers first before talking to the TMCH providers. ACTION ITEM: * Sub Team/Staff to invite the TMCH Providers post ICANN61 to ask more targeted questions (related to Question 2 and 3, page 3) after the Sub Team has met with additional marketplace RPMs providers. ==== Question 6: What role does the TMCH Provider (front-end) play in “servicing” the Additional Marketplace RPMs? For example: • What services do you provide to ICANN Registry Operators? • Does the TMCH use any data from the Clearinghouse to provide these services? If so, please explain. • How are you compensated for the provision of these services? - Lumping it with Question 2

1 0

FOLLOW UP (Re: Action & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team call on Friday, 02 March 2018)
by Mary Wong March 8, 2018

March 8, 2018

Thanks for following up, Susan! All, please note that Jon Nevett has responded to staff to say that while he will try to make himself available for the proposed Data Sub Team working session on Saturday 10 March at 17:00, the NomCom (which he is on) is having its meeting for most of the day so he cannot be certain he will be able to join, In addition, staff found the following information that we thought the Sub Team might find interesting and useful, about Deloitte’s new T-REx Service and its ntegration of Minds+Machines’ MPML Service: Under Deloitte’s new Trademark Registry Extension Service (T-REx), trademark owners with marks that have been validated by Deloitte can block registrations during General Availability across a number of domains. The service is offered as a package (bundle) across a number of gTLDs (currently it seems to be US$160 per label for a bundle of 40 gTLDs, renewable annually). At the moment, it appears that the T-REx service covers the following gTLDs: Geographic Generic .bayern .boston .capetown .cat .cologne .durban .eus .frl .gal .joburg .koeln .la .london .miami .nrw .osaka .quebec .ruhr .scot .tirol .wien .beer .casa .cooking .earth .fashion .fishing .fit .garden .horse .moe .rodeo .surf .tube .uno .vip .vodka .wedding .work .yoga You will see that the T-REx service INCLUDES MMX’s gTLDs that had been included in MMX’s MPML service – this means that there no longer is a standalone MPML service. Sub Team or Working Group members who work with the TMCH and trademark owners/agents may be able to either verify or correct the above-noted information, or may have additional input. We hope the above information is helpful. Thanks and cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)valideus.com> Date: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 11:22 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-data] FOLLOW UP Re: Action & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team call on Friday, 02 March 2018 Hi Mary On the last call I offered to contact Nominet, in case they could assist with information regarding the MMX protected marks list service. Their feedback, however, was that responsibility for the MPML does still sit with MMX and the Nominet attendees in Puerto Rico would not really in a position to assist. I’m afraid I don’t know who to suggest from MMX, except perhaps starting with Michael Salazar. regards 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 Mary Wong Sent: 06 March 2018 23:08 To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] FOLLOW UP Re: Action & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team call on Friday, 02 March 2018 Dear all, Staff has followed up on our remaining Action Items from the Data Sub Team call last Friday: 1. Check the three registry responses to the December 2016 Working Group survey, for information that may be relevant to this Additional Marketplace RPM question (Question 3): Are registry operators relying on the results of the TMCH validation services, or accessing the TMCH database, to provide Additional Marketplace RPMs, and, if so, in what ways? Is there language in the current adopted TMCH policy or related documents that expressly permits, prohibits or otherwise addresses such use by registry operators? Are registry operators able to provide the same or similar Additional Marketplace RPMs without relying on the TMCH validation services or access to the TMCH database? Will there be an increase in costs? If so, what will this be to stakeholders along the value chain (i.e. brand owners, registries, registrars, other registrants)? Three registry operators responded to that survey; Donuts is the only one that offered/s Additional Marketplace RPMs (the other two were PIR and Afnic). The following are the questions and Donuts’ responses from that survey that seemed most relevant to the current enquiry, in particular, the first two questions in Question 3. * Are you accessing data and records in the TMCH for purposes other than obtaining information necessary for the provision of sunrise and claims services in accordance with ICANN’s user manuals and technical requirements? DONUTS: Yes. We use the TMCH to verify Domains Protected Marks List (DPML) block requests. We also look at the SNL and TCN lists for business intelligence such as confirming if numbers reported in industry blogs and ICANN reports are accurate. * Are you using any capabilities of the TMCH other than for Sunrise Periods and TM Claims Notices? If so, what? DONUTS: Yes, we leverage the SMD files as qualifiers for our DPML service. * Do you make any other uses of the SMD file or TMCH Database? DONUTS: No. * A valid TMCH SMD file is required to use a blocking mechanism service (such as DPML). Was there push back from people who wanted to use a blocking mechanism service but not put their marks into the TMCH? DONUTS: Only a few registrars complained about the cost and effort required to acquire an SMD file to participate in the DPML program. * Did the various blocking mechanism services drive users to the TMCH – that is, are you aware of any brand owners that entered their TMs in to the TMCH just to be able to participate in blocking mechanism services, but not to make any Sunrise registrations? DONUTS: Yes 1. We have asked Jon Nevett (Donuts, which now also owns Rightside) if he will be available to join the Sub Team at its meeting at ICANN61. We are trying to find the appropriate contact at Minds & Machines – please let us know if you can provide a name. We have not approached anyone at Radix as we believe they do not themselves offer these additional RPMs. 1. We have updated the Sub Team wiki space with statistics on the Extended Claims periods: https://community.icann.org/x/UCG8B[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> As mentioned on the last Sub Team call, the page also contains the three registry responses to the December 2016 survey, and a summary of all the additional marketplace RPMs offered by several registry operators. Finally, as noted to the Working Group mailing list, this Sub Team is scheduled to hold a working session at ICANN61 on Saturday 10 March, from 1700-1830 Puerto Rico time. Thanks and cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Gnso-rpm-data <gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Date: Friday, March 2, 2018 at 13:35 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: [Gnso-rpm-data] Action & Notes: RPM Das Sub Team call on Friday, 02 March 2018 Dear All, Below are the action items and notes staff captured from the RPM Data Sub Team meeting today (02 March 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. Please note that these notes are not meant as a substitute for the recording and transcript. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ******* ACTION ITEMS: For Staff * Staff to check the responses from Additional Marketplace RPMs providers that took the survey, that may include relevant data for Question 3 (page 1) * Staff to invite Additional Marketplace RPMs Providers (Jon Nevett - Donuts, MMX, Radix, Nominet, etc.) to participate in the Data Sub Team’s working session at ICANN61. Staff to check what other providers would be good to invite to this working session. * Staff to confirm with the Co-Chairs about the timing and logistics of the Data Sub Team's working session in ICANN61 and then inform the Sub Team. * Staff to recirculate the information pertaining to Question 4 (page 1-2) that is listed here https://community.icann.org/x/UCG8B[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> – it includes a set of questions (which are the ones that an earlier Sub Team had sent to the full WG for discussion); the various registry responses to the previous survey; and the staff summary of all the Additional RPMs currently being offered. * Staff to include the list of ROs / TLDs that have extended trademark claims services beyond 90 days in the background & material wiki page https://community.icann.org/x/UCG8B[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. For Sub Team * Sub Team to revisit Question 1 (page 1) after reviewing the other questions. * Susan to inquire whether any representative from Nominet could participate in the Data Sub Team working session at ICANN61. * Sub Team to read through all information posted here https://community.icann.org/x/UCG8B[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> before the ICANN61 session with the Providers. * Sub Team to develop additional guidance, especially for Question 4 (page 2) (e.g., What have been their experience about exact matches....), and to bring up during the consultation phase with the survey provider. * Sub Team to invite the TMCH Providers post ICANN61 to ask more targeted questions (related to Question 2 and 3, page 3) after the Sub Team has met with additional marketplace RPMs providers. NOTES: Question 1: How, and to what extent, does use of Protected Marks Lists (e.g. blocking services) affect the utilization of other RPMs, especially Sunrise registrations? ACTION ITEM: * Sub Team to revisit this question after reviewing the other questions ===== Question 3: Are registry operators relying on the results of the TMCH validation services, or accessing the TMCH database, to provide Additional Marketplace RPMs, and, if so, in what ways? Is there language in the current adopted TMCH policy or related documents that expressly permits, prohibits or otherwise addresses such use by registry operators? Are registry operators able to provide the same or similar Additional Marketplace RPMs without relying on the TMCH validation services or access to the TMCH database? Will there be an increase in costs? If so, what will this be to stakeholders along the value chain (i.e. brand owners, registries, registrars, other registrants)? - Extended Sunrise will rely on TMCH validation services. We don't really know whether there is increased cost of extended Sunrise. Extended Sunrise is not regarded additional marketplace RPM. Nothing in the rules refer to the maximum duration of the Sunrise Period. - We know the answer to the Sunrise portion, but we don't know the answer to the DPML portion. - Extended Claims may be one of the additional marketplace RPMs. They have to use the TMCH validation. The main question is that whether there is any increasing cost? Don't know anyone is offering the extended Claims service in some other way. - Don’t recall any extended Sunrise, but for sure several registries have extended or open-ended claims. - DPML type of things are being concerned in this question. - Challenge is to remember which additional RPMs we are talking about. One could ask question: if you have to run extended Claims, will using TMCH increase the costs? Can they offer extended Claims services without using the TMCH? But they may not be very useful questions that lead us onto a fruitful path. - Question is does Deloitte use the ICANN TMCH or the secondary system they stood up to offer other services. New as in a few years, but we have only heard about it, no other intel, but can’t say for certain. - Donuts (in its response to the WG near the beginning of our work) confirmed that it uses the TMCH, especially the SMD files, to provide DPML service. Staff have those responses. I believe we may have also prepared a list of all the DMPL-type services being offered by the various ROs. - Would be good to have mmx there too. likely someone will be at ICANN61. What about Radix (is that the other additional RPMs provider?) QUESTIONS for the Additional Marketplace RPMs Provider: * Does the extended claims service affect the cost? * If you have to run extended Claims services, will using TMCH increase the costs? Can you offer extended Claims services without using the TMCH? For the DMPL type of services, do you have to use TMCH? If so, how would that increase the cost? ACTION ITEMS: * Staff to check the responses from Additional Marketplace RPMs providers that took the survey, that may include relevant data for Question 3. * Staff to invite Additional Marketplace RPMs Providers (Jon Nevett - Donuts, MMX, Radix, Nominet, etc.) to participate in the Data Sub Team’s working session at ICANN61. Staff to check what other providers would be good to invite to this working session. * Susan to inquire whether any representative from Nominet could participate in the Data Sub Team working session at ICANN61. * Staff to confirm with the Co-Chairs about the timing and logistics of the Data Sub Team's working session in ICANN61 and then inform the Sub Team. ==== Question 4: What are each registry operator’s rules for each type of Additional Marketplace RPM it offers (noting that some new gTLD registry operators offer more than one version of a Protected Marks List service)? - This question should be rolled up to Question 3 and can be asked to the Providers during the ICANN61 working session. - Staff notes are important. Sub Team should read and study the materials noted in the Staff Notes before speaking with the providers. ACTION: * Staff to recirculate the information pertaining to Question 4 (page 1-2) that is listed here https://community.icann.org/x/UCG8B[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> – it includes a set of questions (which are the ones that an earlier Sub Team had sent to the full WG for discussion); the various registry responses to the previous survey; and the staff summary of all the Additional RPMs currently being offered; Sub Team to read through all documents before the ICANN61 session with the Providers. ====== Question 5: For registry operators that extended the Trademark Claims Service beyond the required 90 days, what has been their experience in terms of exact matches generated beyond the mandatory period? For example, in terms of registration volume and numbers of exact matches? - We have a list of RO / TLDs that have extended trademark claims services beyond 90 days. - We probably have gotten data needs covered for this as it is included in the survey data request. ACTION ITEM * Staff to include the list of ROs / TLDs that have extended trademark claims services beyond 90 days in the background & material wiki page. ====== Question 4, first bullet point (rephrased): Have you been blocked from registering a second level domain name matching your registered trademark in any of the gTLDs launched under the 2012 New gTLD Program? - Staff has copied/pasted this question into the TM owner section of the survey data request table. - Sub Team may need to provide the survey provider more guidance on this question, e.g. someone is blocked from registering a domain name because of the protected mark, not because it is on the reserved list or someone else has registered the domain name. - Don’t think in most cases the DPMLs have operated to block another brand owner, so we're not expecting many positive answers to this. - We may not be able to add to what is published in the RFP right now, but the proposed work plan does include an opportunity for the sub team to consult with the selected provider - What have been their experience about exact matches. This item needs to be clarified in the guidance to the survey provider. ACTION ITEM: * Sub Team to develop additional guidance to bring up during the consultation phase with the survey provider, especially for Question 4 (e.g., What have been their experience about exact matches....) ==== Question 2: What information on the following aspects of the operation of the TMCH is available and where can it be found? a) Ancillary services offered by the TMCH which are not mandated by the ICANN RPMs, including but not limited to: i. the post-90 days’ ongoing notification service; and ii. other services in support of registry-specific offerings b) With whom and under what arrangements does the TMCH share data, and for what non-mandated RPMs purposes? - We may want to learn from provider about the additional RPMs. Maybe all additional marketplace RPMs providers will say that they just use the SMD file and they may limit what we can go back to ask the TMCH providers for. Maybe it is putting the cart before the horse to ask the TMCH providers about our questions before talking to the additional marketplace RPMs providers. - We could tell the TMCH providers about the ICANN61 session of the Data Sub Team and they are welcome to attend. We may have some more targeted questions to the TMCH providers after the working session. - As we are thinking about the "how" to get data, Data Sub Team should do the homework about the additional marketplace RPMs as well as the TMCH website (what they are offering). Post ICANN61, we can invite the TMCH providers for a phone call to talk through the data and questions. - Good to talk to the additional marketplace RPMs providers first before talking to the TMCH providers. ACTION ITEM: * Sub Team/Staff to invite the TMCH Providers post ICANN61 to ask more targeted questions (related to Question 2 and 3, page 3) after the Sub Team has met with additional marketplace RPMs providers. ==== Question 6: What role does the TMCH Provider (front-end) play in “servicing” the Additional Marketplace RPMs? For example: • What services do you provide to ICANN Registry Operators? • Does the TMCH use any data from the Clearinghouse to provide these services? If so, please explain. • How are you compensated for the provision of these services? - Lumping it with Question 2

1 0

FOLLOW UP Re: Action & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team call on Friday, 02 March 2018
by Mary Wong March 7, 2018

March 7, 2018

Dear all, Staff has followed up on our remaining Action Items from the Data Sub Team call last Friday: 1. Check the three registry responses to the December 2016 Working Group survey, for information that may be relevant to this Additional Marketplace RPM question (Question 3): Are registry operators relying on the results of the TMCH validation services, or accessing the TMCH database, to provide Additional Marketplace RPMs, and, if so, in what ways? Is there language in the current adopted TMCH policy or related documents that expressly permits, prohibits or otherwise addresses such use by registry operators? Are registry operators able to provide the same or similar Additional Marketplace RPMs without relying on the TMCH validation services or access to the TMCH database? Will there be an increase in costs? If so, what will this be to stakeholders along the value chain (i.e. brand owners, registries, registrars, other registrants)? Three registry operators responded to that survey; Donuts is the only one that offered/s Additional Marketplace RPMs (the other two were PIR and Afnic). The following are the questions and Donuts’ responses from that survey that seemed most relevant to the current enquiry, in particular, the first two questions in Question 3. * Are you accessing data and records in the TMCH for purposes other than obtaining information necessary for the provision of sunrise and claims services in accordance with ICANN’s user manuals and technical requirements? DONUTS: Yes. We use the TMCH to verify Domains Protected Marks List (DPML) block requests. We also look at the SNL and TCN lists for business intelligence such as confirming if numbers reported in industry blogs and ICANN reports are accurate. * Are you using any capabilities of the TMCH other than for Sunrise Periods and TM Claims Notices? If so, what? DONUTS: Yes, we leverage the SMD files as qualifiers for our DPML service. * Do you make any other uses of the SMD file or TMCH Database? DONUTS: No. * A valid TMCH SMD file is required to use a blocking mechanism service (such as DPML). Was there push back from people who wanted to use a blocking mechanism service but not put their marks into the TMCH? DONUTS: Only a few registrars complained about the cost and effort required to acquire an SMD file to participate in the DPML program. * Did the various blocking mechanism services drive users to the TMCH – that is, are you aware of any brand owners that entered their TMs in to the TMCH just to be able to participate in blocking mechanism services, but not to make any Sunrise registrations? DONUTS: Yes 1. We have asked Jon Nevett (Donuts, which now also owns Rightside) if he will be available to join the Sub Team at its meeting at ICANN61. We are trying to find the appropriate contact at Minds & Machines – please let us know if you can provide a name. We have not approached anyone at Radix as we believe they do not themselves offer these additional RPMs. 1. We have updated the Sub Team wiki space with statistics on the Extended Claims periods: https://community.icann.org/x/UCG8B As mentioned on the last Sub Team call, the page also contains the three registry responses to the December 2016 survey, and a summary of all the additional marketplace RPMs offered by several registry operators. Finally, as noted to the Working Group mailing list, this Sub Team is scheduled to hold a working session at ICANN61 on Saturday 10 March, from 1700-1830 Puerto Rico time. Thanks and cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Gnso-rpm-data <gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, March 2, 2018 at 13:35 To: "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Action & Notes: RPM Das Sub Team call on Friday, 02 March 2018 Dear All, Below are the action items and notes staff captured from the RPM Data Sub Team meeting today (02 March 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. Please note that these notes are not meant as a substitute for the recording and transcript. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ******* ACTION ITEMS: For Staff * Staff to check the responses from Additional Marketplace RPMs providers that took the survey, that may include relevant data for Question 3 (page 1) * Staff to invite Additional Marketplace RPMs Providers (Jon Nevett - Donuts, MMX, Radix, Nominet, etc.) to participate in the Data Sub Team’s working session at ICANN61. Staff to check what other providers would be good to invite to this working session. * Staff to confirm with the Co-Chairs about the timing and logistics of the Data Sub Team's working session in ICANN61 and then inform the Sub Team. * Staff to recirculate the information pertaining to Question 4 (page 1-2) that is listed here https://community.icann.org/x/UCG8B[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> – it includes a set of questions (which are the ones that an earlier Sub Team had sent to the full WG for discussion); the various registry responses to the previous survey; and the staff summary of all the Additional RPMs currently being offered. * Staff to include the list of ROs / TLDs that have extended trademark claims services beyond 90 days in the background & material wiki page https://community.icann.org/x/UCG8B[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. For Sub Team * Sub Team to revisit Question 1 (page 1) after reviewing the other questions. * Susan to inquire whether any representative from Nominet could participate in the Data Sub Team working session at ICANN61. * Sub Team to read through all information posted here https://community.icann.org/x/UCG8B[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> before the ICANN61 session with the Providers. * Sub Team to develop additional guidance, especially for Question 4 (page 2) (e.g., What have been their experience about exact matches....), and to bring up during the consultation phase with the survey provider. * Sub Team to invite the TMCH Providers post ICANN61 to ask more targeted questions (related to Question 2 and 3, page 3) after the Sub Team has met with additional marketplace RPMs providers. NOTES: Question 1: How, and to what extent, does use of Protected Marks Lists (e.g. blocking services) affect the utilization of other RPMs, especially Sunrise registrations? ACTION ITEM: * Sub Team to revisit this question after reviewing the other questions ===== Question 3: Are registry operators relying on the results of the TMCH validation services, or accessing the TMCH database, to provide Additional Marketplace RPMs, and, if so, in what ways? Is there language in the current adopted TMCH policy or related documents that expressly permits, prohibits or otherwise addresses such use by registry operators? Are registry operators able to provide the same or similar Additional Marketplace RPMs without relying on the TMCH validation services or access to the TMCH database? Will there be an increase in costs? If so, what will this be to stakeholders along the value chain (i.e. brand owners, registries, registrars, other registrants)? - Extended Sunrise will rely on TMCH validation services. We don't really know whether there is increased cost of extended Sunrise. Extended Sunrise is not regarded additional marketplace RPM. Nothing in the rules refer to the maximum duration of the Sunrise Period. - We know the answer to the Sunrise portion, but we don't know the answer to the DPML portion. - Extended Claims may be one of the additional marketplace RPMs. They have to use the TMCH validation. The main question is that whether there is any increasing cost? Don't know anyone is offering the extended Claims service in some other way. - Don’t recall any extended Sunrise, but for sure several registries have extended or open-ended claims. - DPML type of things are being concerned in this question. - Challenge is to remember which additional RPMs we are talking about. One could ask question: if you have to run extended Claims, will using TMCH increase the costs? Can they offer extended Claims services without using the TMCH? But they may not be very useful questions that lead us onto a fruitful path. - Question is does Deloitte use the ICANN TMCH or the secondary system they stood up to offer other services. New as in a few years, but we have only heard about it, no other intel, but can’t say for certain. - Donuts (in its response to the WG near the beginning of our work) confirmed that it uses the TMCH, especially the SMD files, to provide DPML service. Staff have those responses. I believe we may have also prepared a list of all the DMPL-type services being offered by the various ROs. - Would be good to have mmx there too. likely someone will be at ICANN61. What about Radix (is that the other additional RPMs provider?) QUESTIONS for the Additional Marketplace RPMs Provider: * Does the extended claims service affect the cost? * If you have to run extended Claims services, will using TMCH increase the costs? Can you offer extended Claims services without using the TMCH? For the DMPL type of services, do you have to use TMCH? If so, how would that increase the cost? ACTION ITEMS: * Staff to check the responses from Additional Marketplace RPMs providers that took the survey, that may include relevant data for Question 3. * Staff to invite Additional Marketplace RPMs Providers (Jon Nevett - Donuts, MMX, Radix, Nominet, etc.) to participate in the Data Sub Team’s working session at ICANN61. Staff to check what other providers would be good to invite to this working session. * Susan to inquire whether any representative from Nominet could participate in the Data Sub Team working session at ICANN61. * Staff to confirm with the Co-Chairs about the timing and logistics of the Data Sub Team's working session in ICANN61 and then inform the Sub Team. ==== Question 4: What are each registry operator’s rules for each type of Additional Marketplace RPM it offers (noting that some new gTLD registry operators offer more than one version of a Protected Marks List service)? - This question should be rolled up to Question 3 and can be asked to the Providers during the ICANN61 working session. - Staff notes are important. Sub Team should read and study the materials noted in the Staff Notes before speaking with the providers. ACTION: * Staff to recirculate the information pertaining to Question 4 (page 1-2) that is listed here https://community.icann.org/x/UCG8B[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> – it includes a set of questions (which are the ones that an earlier Sub Team had sent to the full WG for discussion); the various registry responses to the previous survey; and the staff summary of all the Additional RPMs currently being offered; Sub Team to read through all documents before the ICANN61 session with the Providers. ====== Question 5: For registry operators that extended the Trademark Claims Service beyond the required 90 days, what has been their experience in terms of exact matches generated beyond the mandatory period? For example, in terms of registration volume and numbers of exact matches? - We have a list of RO / TLDs that have extended trademark claims services beyond 90 days. - We probably have gotten data needs covered for this as it is included in the survey data request. ACTION ITEM * Staff to include the list of ROs / TLDs that have extended trademark claims services beyond 90 days in the background & material wiki page. ====== Question 4, first bullet point (rephrased): Have you been blocked from registering a second level domain name matching your registered trademark in any of the gTLDs launched under the 2012 New gTLD Program? - Staff has copied/pasted this question into the TM owner section of the survey data request table. - Sub Team may need to provide the survey provider more guidance on this question, e.g. someone is blocked from registering a domain name because of the protected mark, not because it is on the reserved list or someone else has registered the domain name. - Don’t think in most cases the DPMLs have operated to block another brand owner, so we're not expecting many positive answers to this. - We may not be able to add to what is published in the RFP right now, but the proposed work plan does include an opportunity for the sub team to consult with the selected provider - What have been their experience about exact matches. This item needs to be clarified in the guidance to the survey provider. ACTION ITEM: * Sub Team to develop additional guidance to bring up during the consultation phase with the survey provider, especially for Question 4 (e.g., What have been their experience about exact matches....) ==== Question 2: What information on the following aspects of the operation of the TMCH is available and where can it be found? a) Ancillary services offered by the TMCH which are not mandated by the ICANN RPMs, including but not limited to: i. the post-90 days’ ongoing notification service; and ii. other services in support of registry-specific offerings b) With whom and under what arrangements does the TMCH share data, and for what non-mandated RPMs purposes? - We may want to learn from provider about the additional RPMs. Maybe all additional marketplace RPMs providers will say that they just use the SMD file and they may limit what we can go back to ask the TMCH providers for. Maybe it is putting the cart before the horse to ask the TMCH providers about our questions before talking to the additional marketplace RPMs providers. - We could tell the TMCH providers about the ICANN61 session of the Data Sub Team and they are welcome to attend. We may have some more targeted questions to the TMCH providers after the working session. - As we are thinking about the "how" to get data, Data Sub Team should do the homework about the additional marketplace RPMs as well as the TMCH website (what they are offering). Post ICANN61, we can invite the TMCH providers for a phone call to talk through the data and questions. - Good to talk to the additional marketplace RPMs providers first before talking to the TMCH providers. ACTION ITEM: * Sub Team/Staff to invite the TMCH Providers post ICANN61 to ask more targeted questions (related to Question 2 and 3, page 3) after the Sub Team has met with additional marketplace RPMs providers. ==== Question 6: What role does the TMCH Provider (front-end) play in “servicing” the Additional Marketplace RPMs? For example: • What services do you provide to ICANN Registry Operators? • Does the TMCH use any data from the Clearinghouse to provide these services? If so, please explain. • How are you compensated for the provision of these services? - Lumping it with Question 2

2 1

Attendance, AC chat & recordings from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call on Friday, 02 March 2018 17:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter March 2, 2018

March 2, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC Chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call held Friday, 02 March 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/6By8B MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-02mar18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p3ae6amyu5g/ 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 & Notes: RPM Das Sub Team call on Friday, 02 March 2018
by Ariel Liang March 2, 2018

March 2, 2018

Dear All, Below are the action items and notes staff captured from the RPM Data Sub Team meeting today (02 March 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. Please note that these notes are not meant as a substitute for the recording and transcript. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ******* ACTION ITEMS: For Staff * Staff to check the responses from Additional Marketplace RPMs providers that took the survey, that may include relevant data for Question 3 (page 1) * Staff to invite Additional Marketplace RPMs Providers (Jon Nevett - Donuts, MMX, Radix, Nominet, etc.) to participate in the Data Sub Team’s working session at ICANN61. Staff to check what other providers would be good to invite to this working session. * Staff to confirm with the Co-Chairs about the timing and logistics of the Data Sub Team's working session in ICANN61 and then inform the Sub Team. * Staff to recirculate the information pertaining to Question 4 (page 1-2) that is listed here https://community.icann.org/x/UCG8B – it includes a set of questions (which are the ones that an earlier Sub Team had sent to the full WG for discussion); the various registry responses to the previous survey; and the staff summary of all the Additional RPMs currently being offered. * Staff to include the list of ROs / TLDs that have extended trademark claims services beyond 90 days in the background & material wiki page https://community.icann.org/x/UCG8B. For Sub Team * Sub Team to revisit Question 1 (page 1) after reviewing the other questions. * Susan to inquire whether any representative from Nominet could participate in the Data Sub Team working session at ICANN61. * Sub Team to read through all information posted here https://community.icann.org/x/UCG8B before the ICANN61 session with the Providers. * Sub Team to develop additional guidance, especially for Question 4 (page 2) (e.g., What have been their experience about exact matches....), and to bring up during the consultation phase with the survey provider. * Sub Team to invite the TMCH Providers post ICANN61 to ask more targeted questions (related to Question 2 and 3, page 3) after the Sub Team has met with additional marketplace RPMs providers. NOTES: Question 1: How, and to what extent, does use of Protected Marks Lists (e.g. blocking services) affect the utilization of other RPMs, especially Sunrise registrations? ACTION ITEM: * Sub Team to revisit this question after reviewing the other questions ===== Question 3: Are registry operators relying on the results of the TMCH validation services, or accessing the TMCH database, to provide Additional Marketplace RPMs, and, if so, in what ways? Is there language in the current adopted TMCH policy or related documents that expressly permits, prohibits or otherwise addresses such use by registry operators? Are registry operators able to provide the same or similar Additional Marketplace RPMs without relying on the TMCH validation services or access to the TMCH database? Will there be an increase in costs? If so, what will this be to stakeholders along the value chain (i.e. brand owners, registries, registrars, other registrants)? - Extended Sunrise will rely on TMCH validation services. We don't really know whether there is increased cost of extended Sunrise. Extended Sunrise is not regarded additional marketplace RPM. Nothing in the rules refer to the maximum duration of the Sunrise Period. - We know the answer to the Sunrise portion, but we don't know the answer to the DPML portion. - Extended Claims may be one of the additional marketplace RPMs. They have to use the TMCH validation. The main question is that whether there is any increasing cost? Don't know anyone is offering the extended Claims service in some other way. - Don’t recall any extended Sunrise, but for sure several registries have extended or open-ended claims. - DPML type of things are being concerned in this question. - Challenge is to remember which additional RPMs we are talking about. One could ask question: if you have to run extended Claims, will using TMCH increase the costs? Can they offer extended Claims services without using the TMCH? But they may not be very useful questions that lead us onto a fruitful path. - Question is does Deloitte use the ICANN TMCH or the secondary system they stood up to offer other services. New as in a few years, but we have only heard about it, no other intel, but can’t say for certain. - Donuts (in its response to the WG near the beginning of our work) confirmed that it uses the TMCH, especially the SMD files, to provide DPML service. Staff have those responses. I believe we may have also prepared a list of all the DMPL-type services being offered by the various ROs. - Would be good to have mmx there too. likely someone will be at ICANN61. What about Radix (is that the other additional RPMs provider?) QUESTIONS for the Additional Marketplace RPMs Provider: * Does the extended claims service affect the cost? * If you have to run extended Claims services, will using TMCH increase the costs? Can you offer extended Claims services without using the TMCH? For the DMPL type of services, do you have to use TMCH? If so, how would that increase the cost? ACTION ITEMS: * Staff to check the responses from Additional Marketplace RPMs providers that took the survey, that may include relevant data for Question 3. * Staff to invite Additional Marketplace RPMs Providers (Jon Nevett - Donuts, MMX, Radix, Nominet, etc.) to participate in the Data Sub Team’s working session at ICANN61. Staff to check what other providers would be good to invite to this working session. * Susan to inquire whether any representative from Nominet could participate in the Data Sub Team working session at ICANN61. * Staff to confirm with the Co-Chairs about the timing and logistics of the Data Sub Team's working session in ICANN61 and then inform the Sub Team. ==== Question 4: What are each registry operator’s rules for each type of Additional Marketplace RPM it offers (noting that some new gTLD registry operators offer more than one version of a Protected Marks List service)? - This question should be rolled up to Question 3 and can be asked to the Providers during the ICANN61 working session. - Staff notes are important. Sub Team should read and study the materials noted in the Staff Notes before speaking with the providers. ACTION: * Staff to recirculate the information pertaining to Question 4 (page 1-2) that is listed here https://community.icann.org/x/UCG8B – it includes a set of questions (which are the ones that an earlier Sub Team had sent to the full WG for discussion); the various registry responses to the previous survey; and the staff summary of all the Additional RPMs currently being offered; Sub Team to read through all documents before the ICANN61 session with the Providers. ====== Question 5: For registry operators that extended the Trademark Claims Service beyond the required 90 days, what has been their experience in terms of exact matches generated beyond the mandatory period? For example, in terms of registration volume and numbers of exact matches? - We have a list of RO / TLDs that have extended trademark claims services beyond 90 days. - We probably have gotten data needs covered for this as it is included in the survey data request. ACTION ITEM * Staff to include the list of ROs / TLDs that have extended trademark claims services beyond 90 days in the background & material wiki page. ====== Question 4, first bullet point (rephrased): Have you been blocked from registering a second level domain name matching your registered trademark in any of the gTLDs launched under the 2012 New gTLD Program? - Staff has copied/pasted this question into the TM owner section of the survey data request table. - Sub Team may need to provide the survey provider more guidance on this question, e.g. someone is blocked from registering a domain name because of the protected mark, not because it is on the reserved list or someone else has registered the domain name. - Don’t think in most cases the DPMLs have operated to block another brand owner, so we're not expecting many positive answers to this. - We may not be able to add to what is published in the RFP right now, but the proposed work plan does include an opportunity for the sub team to consult with the selected provider - What have been their experience about exact matches. This item needs to be clarified in the guidance to the survey provider. ACTION ITEM: * Sub Team to develop additional guidance to bring up during the consultation phase with the survey provider, especially for Question 4 (e.g., What have been their experience about exact matches....) ==== Question 2: What information on the following aspects of the operation of the TMCH is available and where can it be found? a) Ancillary services offered by the TMCH which are not mandated by the ICANN RPMs, including but not limited to: i. the post-90 days’ ongoing notification service; and ii. other services in support of registry-specific offerings b) With whom and under what arrangements does the TMCH share data, and for what non-mandated RPMs purposes? - We may want to learn from provider about the additional RPMs. Maybe all additional marketplace RPMs providers will say that they just use the SMD file and they may limit what we can go back to ask the TMCH providers for. Maybe it is putting the cart before the horse to ask the TMCH providers about our questions before talking to the additional marketplace RPMs providers. - We could tell the TMCH providers about the ICANN61 session of the Data Sub Team and they are welcome to attend. We may have some more targeted questions to the TMCH providers after the working session. - As we are thinking about the "how" to get data, Data Sub Team should do the homework about the additional marketplace RPMs as well as the TMCH website (what they are offering). Post ICANN61, we can invite the TMCH providers for a phone call to talk through the data and questions. - Good to talk to the additional marketplace RPMs providers first before talking to the TMCH providers. ACTION ITEM: * Sub Team/Staff to invite the TMCH Providers post ICANN61 to ask more targeted questions (related to Question 2 and 3, page 3) after the Sub Team has met with additional marketplace RPMs providers. ==== Question 6: What role does the TMCH Provider (front-end) play in “servicing” the Additional Marketplace RPMs? For example: • What services do you provide to ICANN Registry Operators? • Does the TMCH use any data from the Clearinghouse to provide these services? If so, please explain. • How are you compensated for the provision of these services? - Lumping it with Question 2

1 0