July 2017 - Gnso-rpm-protection

FOR REVIEW: Updated questions (re: Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 2017)
by Mary Wong Aug. 4, 2017

Aug. 4, 2017

Dear all, Please find attached: 1. An updated document of the Sub Team’s questions, where the previous Question 2 has been deleted and the previous Question 3 (renumbered as Question 2 accordingly) has been re-worded by staff based on our understanding of the Sub Team’s discussions from the 28 July call. 1. The email sent by staff to the full Working Group containing the relevant documents that describe the functional scope and technical requirements of the TMCH, and outlining the mechanism of SMD files. As noted in the Sub Team Action Items below, staff will also try to both confirm the level of interest amongst Working Group members, and availability of our operational colleagues, for a tutorial on the TMCH workings and scope. Please let us know if you have any comments or suggestions on the documents. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-protection-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, July 28, 2017 at 18:15 To: "gnso-rpm-protection(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-protection(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-protection] Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 2017 Dear Sub Team Members, Please find the action items from today’s Sub Team call below. The action items, notes, meeting documents and recordings have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/agIhB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. The transcripts of today’s call will be posted on the same page, when available. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to delete question 2 from the reverse-redline document 2. Staff to redraft question 3 based on proposed text by Jeff Neuman, and edited by Paul McGrady, making specific reference to the additional marketplace RPMs, and link to existing information as proposed by Kristine Dorrain 3. Staff to recirculate email with information on functional/technical aspects of the TMCH, including the use of SMD files, and confirm interest from Working Group members in having a tutorial conducted for these topics within the next few weeks

7 8

Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 2017
by Amr Elsadr July 28, 2017

July 28, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please find the action items from today’s Sub Team call below. The action items, notes, meeting documents and recordings have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/agIhB. The transcripts of today’s call will be posted on the same page, when available. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to delete question 2 from the reverse-redline document 2. Staff to redraft question 3 based on proposed text by Jeff Neuman, and edited by Paul McGrady, making specific reference to the additional marketplace RPMs, and link to existing information as proposed by Kristine Dorrain 3. Staff to recirculate email with information on functional/technical aspects of the TMCH, including the use of SMD files, and confirm interest from Working Group members in having a tutorial conducted for these topics within the next few weeks

1 0

**revised** Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat for the Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs call on 28 July 2017
by Julie Bisland July 28, 2017

July 28, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs call on Friday, 28 July 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance and recordings of the call are also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/agIhB MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-marketplace-rpm-28jul17-en.mp3[audio.ican…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p5kzgm091pj/<https://participate.icann.org/p5kzgm091pj/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=e2259dfccc4b8e68…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-protection/ Thank you. Kind regards, Julie Adobe Connect chat transcript for 28 July 2017: Julie Bisland:Welcome to the Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs on Friday, 28 July 2017 at 16:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… David McAuley:Seems a small group so far David McAuley:Hi Mary - my phone battery is dead though Susan Payne:hello all David McAuley:wonderful - Paul and I were just about to decide everything David McAuley:was a dream only Mary Steve Levy:Hey gang Brian Cimbolic:hi Everyone David McAuley:I thought my phone was charging but alas i had mis-connected it Amr Elsadr:@Paul: That's awesome!! :D Brian Cimbolic:Agreed Paul - makes a lot of sense to me Steve Levy:Agree on gathering info, Paul Brian Cimbolic:completely agree with Susan the "be much more transparent" and "What changes might provide a clearer line" are problematic. The conclusion is baked in to the quesiton. David McAuley:revise makes sense\ Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Delete. David McAuley:my red x is for revised David McAuley:cant on phone - no phone right now David McAuley:dead battery David McAuley:I can see am outvoted - no problem Mary Wong:@David, do you have a proposed revision you can type into chat? David McAuley:not now - don't see it as critical point Brian Cimbolic:3 doesn't make sense w/o 2. Seems to build off the other. If we strike, don't think 3 can stand alone Jon Nevett:it related to additional marketplace protections Steve Levy:Asuming it means that RO's would need to gather and verify TM info on their own? David McAuley:I tend to agree w/Jon - my concern is that enough information be available about these add'l services to assess potential impact on DNS Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:It's dangerous to have a question with a purpose, I think, because we spend a lot of time arguing about "interesting" topics that are irrelevant. I think if no one can articulate WHY we need to know this to determine how effective the TMCH, etc, is. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:*without* NOT with Paul McGrady:Could registry operators provide the same or similar Additional Marketplace Protections without the TMCH? If so, would there be any increase in costs to brand owners? Steve Levy:Good point, Kristine. I'm curious to hear an example or two of what marketplace RPMs are possible without reference to the TMCH or independent (and duplicative?) TM rights verification Jon Nevett:i'm ok with Paul's revision Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:And Steve, how does answering your question further our undertanding of how the Sunrise and Claims services are working? David McAuley:With respect to Paul's first Q, I would suggest another Q - what information regarding such services need be disclosed to assure an appropriate assessment of impact, if any, on DNS Kathy Kleiman:Where is the proposed revision of #3 written? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:(or even the value of the TMCH) Steve Levy:If it's going to raise costs I expect customers would react and reject a particular marketplace RPM Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:then it's a free market and they can. Amr Elsadr:@Kristine: Paul put the proposed rewording in the chat, and it is also in the notes pod now. Amr Elsadr:Sorry..., that was for Kathy, not Kristine. Steve Levy:Sorry, Paul Kathy Kleiman:Addition to question: is use of the TMCH database allowed under CURRENT rules? Kathy Kleiman:What way? Mary Wong:@Kathy, I believe the current TMCH Functional Spec and Requirements specifcy how the TMDB can be accessed. Mary Wong:We can check for completeness but I believe what Jon is saying was also what Donuts and other ROs responded when the WG first polled them on their additional RPMs. Mary Wong:Following up on Jeff's and Jon's exchange, the ROs' responses essentially were that they do not have additional arrangements with Deloitte, nor do they have heightened or extra access to the TMDB to offer the additional services. Jon Nevett:i would strongly object to Kathy's wording David McAuley:I think Kathy's "how" question is important Kathy Kleiman:Are registry operators using the TMCH database and its features for Additional Marketplace Mechanisms? If so, how? Do the current adopted policy allow this use? Could registry operators provide the same or similar Additional Marketplace Protections without access to the TMCH database? If so, would there be any increase in costs to brand owners? Brian Cimbolic:whether or not something violates a policy - I'm not sure that's something for this group to determine - that seems to be more of a Compliance question Mary Wong:I'll type the poll questions here; they include: "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?" Mary Wong:And "Are you using any capabilities of the TMCH other than for Sunrise Periods and TM Claims Notices?" Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1Susan Jeff Neuman:Could registries provide the same or similar services without relying on the validation services performed by the TMCH? Jeff Neuman:(But as susan said, the answer is yes) Brian Cimbolic:asking a question we know the answer to doesn't seem like the best use of time or output Jon Nevett:i'm ok keeping it or deleting it -- the fact that the answer is yes was not universally understood before this discussion Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:In other subteams we have added a note/link to the answer when it's been discovered through the course of discussion Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:That just keeps that information on record and prevents this particular rabbit hole from appearing later. Susan Payne:Actually I suppose it is relevant to know how many registries have relied on the validation services performed by the TMCH . So to the extent that isn't captured by Q1 it seems useful info when considering the "landscape" Jeff Neuman:@Paul - yes, i was just doing shorthand Jon Nevett:Kathy -- that is in Question 1, no? Jeff Neuman:There is othing in the existing plicy that states that registry operators may not rely on the validation services of the TMCH Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Kathy, what specific policy are you referring to? Registry services are not governed by the STI. Jeff Neuman:sorry, nothin Jeff Neuman:nothing Steve Levy:+1 Kathy David McAuley:Kathy is making an fair point and if it is in #1 then good but I think we need to be sure - perhaps in final overall wrap up f the questions. It gets confusing at times as we fine tune any one question Jeff Neuman:But, the issue is what does it mean to "use" the TMCH services? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree with Kathy and Susan that we should keep the data (see my comment above to add a note like we did for other subteams) David McAuley:losing audio - anyoneelse? Mary Wong:To Susan's point, staff had sent around the relevant documentation describing how SMD files and the TMCH works. We are happy to arrange an actual tutorial (as discussed by the Sunrise Sub Team) as well if that is still deemed useful. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:there is an echo David McAuley:Thanks Mary - I think that would be a good idea Susan Payne:Oh thank you Mary - perhaps then all we need is for people need to be encouraged to read them again Mary Wong:@Susan, @David - we will resend that information and query if there is interest in a follow up tutorial, thank you. Steve Levy:Agree Jeff but it sound duplicative (and expensive) to me Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:That information could be linked in this doc. Jeff Neuman:@Steve - perhaps, but if a source dries up, you find another source Kathy Kleiman:Not asked and answered - just asked Susan Payne:good idea kristine Jeff Neuman:@Steve - I am not saying that the TMCH shouldnt be relied upon for its validation services, but just stating that it may not be the only one. David McAuley:Agree, link makes sense. Jeff Neuman:And it by no means violates any policy to rely on the TMCH Validation services Brian Cimbolic:I disagree - this is not an ICANN enforcement agency Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 Brian Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:This subteam is to gather information about how other services are affecting ICANN RPMs. Steve Levy:All good points, Jeff. I suppose it's not certain that Deloit and IBM will want to operate and maintain the TMCH forever. Especially if they're not seeing a significant profit. Jeff Neuman:This is from the STI report: "There should be no bar on theTC Service Provider or otherthird party service providersproviding ancillary services ona non-exclusive basis. " Jon Nevett:thanks Jeff Kathy Kleiman:Section 2.3 STI Report: Segregation of TC Database - The TC Service Provider should be required to maintain a separate TC database, and my not sotre any data in the TC database related to its provision of ancillary services, if any. Jeff Neuman:@kathy - as we said, it is not being USED in that way. Jon Nevett:1. it doesn't; 2. we aren't talking about ancillary services IT provides. Kathy Kleiman:bye all! David McAuley:thanks all, good bye Jon Nevett:Thhanks all Steve Levy:Thanks all. Have a good weekend! Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:good job herding the cats, Paul! Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye.

1 0

Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat for the Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs call on 28 July 2017
by Julie Bisland July 28, 2017

July 28, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs call on Friday, 28 July 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance and recordings of the call are also posted on agenda wiki page: MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-marketplace-rpm-28jul17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p5kzgm091pj/<https://participate.icann.org/p5kzgm091pj/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=e2259dfccc4b8e68…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-protection/ Thank you. Kind regards, Julie Adobe Connect chat transcript for 28 July 2017: Julie Bisland:Welcome to the Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs on Friday, 28 July 2017 at 16:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… David McAuley:Seems a small group so far David McAuley:Hi Mary - my phone battery is dead though Susan Payne:hello all David McAuley:wonderful - Paul and I were just about to decide everything David McAuley:was a dream only Mary Steve Levy:Hey gang Brian Cimbolic:hi Everyone David McAuley:I thought my phone was charging but alas i had mis-connected it Amr Elsadr:@Paul: That's awesome!! :D Brian Cimbolic:Agreed Paul - makes a lot of sense to me Steve Levy:Agree on gathering info, Paul Brian Cimbolic:completely agree with Susan the "be much more transparent" and "What changes might provide a clearer line" are problematic. The conclusion is baked in to the quesiton. David McAuley:revise makes sense\ Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Delete. David McAuley:my red x is for revised David McAuley:cant on phone - no phone right now David McAuley:dead battery David McAuley:I can see am outvoted - no problem Mary Wong:@David, do you have a proposed revision you can type into chat? David McAuley:not now - don't see it as critical point Brian Cimbolic:3 doesn't make sense w/o 2. Seems to build off the other. If we strike, don't think 3 can stand alone Jon Nevett:it related to additional marketplace protections Steve Levy:Asuming it means that RO's would need to gather and verify TM info on their own? David McAuley:I tend to agree w/Jon - my concern is that enough information be available about these add'l services to assess potential impact on DNS Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:It's dangerous to have a question with a purpose, I think, because we spend a lot of time arguing about "interesting" topics that are irrelevant. I think if no one can articulate WHY we need to know this to determine how effective the TMCH, etc, is. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:*without* NOT with Paul McGrady:Could registry operators provide the same or similar Additional Marketplace Protections without the TMCH? If so, would there be any increase in costs to brand owners? Steve Levy:Good point, Kristine. I'm curious to hear an example or two of what marketplace RPMs are possible without reference to the TMCH or independent (and duplicative?) TM rights verification Jon Nevett:i'm ok with Paul's revision Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:And Steve, how does answering your question further our undertanding of how the Sunrise and Claims services are working? David McAuley:With respect to Paul's first Q, I would suggest another Q - what information regarding such services need be disclosed to assure an appropriate assessment of impact, if any, on DNS Kathy Kleiman:Where is the proposed revision of #3 written? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:(or even the value of the TMCH) Steve Levy:If it's going to raise costs I expect customers would react and reject a particular marketplace RPM Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:then it's a free market and they can. Amr Elsadr:@Kristine: Paul put the proposed rewording in the chat, and it is also in the notes pod now. Amr Elsadr:Sorry..., that was for Kathy, not Kristine. Steve Levy:Sorry, Paul Kathy Kleiman:Addition to question: is use of the TMCH database allowed under CURRENT rules? Kathy Kleiman:What way? Mary Wong:@Kathy, I believe the current TMCH Functional Spec and Requirements specifcy how the TMDB can be accessed. Mary Wong:We can check for completeness but I believe what Jon is saying was also what Donuts and other ROs responded when the WG first polled them on their additional RPMs. Mary Wong:Following up on Jeff's and Jon's exchange, the ROs' responses essentially were that they do not have additional arrangements with Deloitte, nor do they have heightened or extra access to the TMDB to offer the additional services. Jon Nevett:i would strongly object to Kathy's wording David McAuley:I think Kathy's "how" question is important Kathy Kleiman:Are registry operators using the TMCH database and its features for Additional Marketplace Mechanisms? If so, how? Do the current adopted policy allow this use? Could registry operators provide the same or similar Additional Marketplace Protections without access to the TMCH database? If so, would there be any increase in costs to brand owners? Brian Cimbolic:whether or not something violates a policy - I'm not sure that's something for this group to determine - that seems to be more of a Compliance question Mary Wong:I'll type the poll questions here; they include: "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?" Mary Wong:And "Are you using any capabilities of the TMCH other than for Sunrise Periods and TM Claims Notices?" Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1Susan Jeff Neuman:Could registries provide the same or similar services without relying on the validation services performed by the TMCH? Jeff Neuman:(But as susan said, the answer is yes) Brian Cimbolic:asking a question we know the answer to doesn't seem like the best use of time or output Jon Nevett:i'm ok keeping it or deleting it -- the fact that the answer is yes was not universally understood before this discussion Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:In other subteams we have added a note/link to the answer when it's been discovered through the course of discussion Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:That just keeps that information on record and prevents this particular rabbit hole from appearing later. Susan Payne:Actually I suppose it is relevant to know how many registries have relied on the validation services performed by the TMCH . So to the extent that isn't captured by Q1 it seems useful info when considering the "landscape" Jeff Neuman:@Paul - yes, i was just doing shorthand Jon Nevett:Kathy -- that is in Question 1, no? Jeff Neuman:There is othing in the existing plicy that states that registry operators may not rely on the validation services of the TMCH Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Kathy, what specific policy are you referring to? Registry services are not governed by the STI. Jeff Neuman:sorry, nothin Jeff Neuman:nothing Steve Levy:+1 Kathy David McAuley:Kathy is making an fair point and if it is in #1 then good but I think we need to be sure - perhaps in final overall wrap up f the questions. It gets confusing at times as we fine tune any one question Jeff Neuman:But, the issue is what does it mean to "use" the TMCH services? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree with Kathy and Susan that we should keep the data (see my comment above to add a note like we did for other subteams) David McAuley:losing audio - anyoneelse? Mary Wong:To Susan's point, staff had sent around the relevant documentation describing how SMD files and the TMCH works. We are happy to arrange an actual tutorial (as discussed by the Sunrise Sub Team) as well if that is still deemed useful. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:there is an echo David McAuley:Thanks Mary - I think that would be a good idea Susan Payne:Oh thank you Mary - perhaps then all we need is for people need to be encouraged to read them again Mary Wong:@Susan, @David - we will resend that information and query if there is interest in a follow up tutorial, thank you. Steve Levy:Agree Jeff but it sound duplicative (and expensive) to me Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:That information could be linked in this doc. Jeff Neuman:@Steve - perhaps, but if a source dries up, you find another source Kathy Kleiman:Not asked and answered - just asked Susan Payne:good idea kristine Jeff Neuman:@Steve - I am not saying that the TMCH shouldnt be relied upon for its validation services, but just stating that it may not be the only one. David McAuley:Agree, link makes sense. Jeff Neuman:And it by no means violates any policy to rely on the TMCH Validation services Brian Cimbolic:I disagree - this is not an ICANN enforcement agency Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 Brian Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:This subteam is to gather information about how other services are affecting ICANN RPMs. Steve Levy:All good points, Jeff. I suppose it's not certain that Deloit and IBM will want to operate and maintain the TMCH forever. Especially if they're not seeing a significant profit. Jeff Neuman:This is from the STI report: "There should be no bar on theTC Service Provider or otherthird party service providersproviding ancillary services ona non-exclusive basis. " Jon Nevett:thanks Jeff Kathy Kleiman:Section 2.3 STI Report: Segregation of TC Database - The TC Service Provider should be required to maintain a separate TC database, and my not sotre any data in the TC database related to its provision of ancillary services, if any. Jeff Neuman:@kathy - as we said, it is not being USED in that way. Jon Nevett:1. it doesn't; 2. we aren't talking about ancillary services IT provides. Kathy Kleiman:bye all! David McAuley:thanks all, good bye Jon Nevett:Thhanks all Steve Levy:Thanks all. Have a good weekend! Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:good job herding the cats, Paul! Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye.

1 0

FOR REVIEW: Updated Question 1/"reverse redline" document (Re: Action Items for Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 21 July 2017)
by Mary Wong July 26, 2017

July 26, 2017

Dear Sub Team members, As noted in the Action Items from the Friday Sub Team call (below), please find attached an updated version of the “reverse redline” document with new edits to Question 1, based on the Sub Team’s discussion on the call. In summary, the changes/updates are: * Rewording of what is now Question 1(a) and 1(b), based on suggestions from Susan Payne, Phil Corwin and Jon Nevett; and * Additional considerations for Question 1 inserted, to note the need to minimize overlap with other TMCH work being done by the overall Working Group and, where appropriate, distinguish between the TMCH database versus the services of the TMCH validator/provider; and * Addition of a footnote to clarify that “additional marketplace RPMs” are not the same as TMCH “ancillary services”, and with a note and reference to what “ancillary services” are in the context of the TMCH. We have not otherwise edited the other questions, and therefore those original questions that are marked “proposed for deletion” remain highlighted in grey for further Sub Team discussion. We hope these capture the intent and gist of the Sub Team discussions from last Friday. Thanks and cheers mary From: <gnso-rpm-protection-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, July 21, 2017 at 18:12 To: "gnso-rpm-protection(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-protection(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-protection] Action Items for Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 21 July 2017 Dear Sub Team Members, Below are the action items from today’s Sub Team call. The action items, notes, documents and recording from today’s call can be found on the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/q3jwAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. The call transcripts will be posted on the same wiki page, when they are ready. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to refer the question of scope of the WG regarding Additional Marketplace RPMs to the full Working Group Co-Chairs 2. Staff to capture current proposed edits to Question 1 by Susan Payne, Jon Nevett and Phil Corwin, and provide a reworded Question 1 to be revised by the Sub Team

2 1

Action Items for Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 21 July 2017
by Amr Elsadr July 21, 2017

July 21, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Below are the action items from today’s Sub Team call. The action items, notes, documents and recording from today’s call can be found on the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/q3jwAw. The call transcripts will be posted on the same wiki page, when they are ready. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to refer the question of scope of the WG regarding Additional Marketplace RPMs to the full Working Group Co-Chairs 2. Staff to capture current proposed edits to Question 1 by Susan Payne, Jon Nevett and Phil Corwin, and provide a reworded Question 1 to be revised by the Sub Team

1 0

Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat for the Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs call on 21 July 2017
by Julie Bisland July 21, 2017

July 21, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs call on 21 July 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance and recordings of the call are also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/q3jwAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-marketplace-rpm-21jul17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p7m07p3h1vy/<https://participate.icann.org/p7m07p3h1vy/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=b560bc8bdbc53ab3…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-protection/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/q3jwAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie Adobe Connect chat transcript for 21 July 2017: Julie Bisland:Welcome to the Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs on Friday, 21 July 2017 at 16:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Paul McGrady:Waiting for the operator to connect me. David McAuley:is there a phone in passcode Amr Elsadr:LOL!! Greg Shatan:The password is "swordfish." Paul McGrady:It is "Protection" David McAuley:thanks Paul Brian Cimbolic:to confirm you, we need the Password Paul Jon Nevett:ok -- i'm on Adobe now -- thanks Julie Bisland:thank you, Jon Philip Corwin:I thought the password was covfefe ;-) David McAuley:Good one Phil - that is an alternative (fact) password David McAuley:Good clarification Phil Steve Levy:I was having a very hectic day and so am enjoying the quiet and solitude of this call ;-) Steve Levy:Oops. Just took myself off mute. Sorry! Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:As I understand it, we're not ADOPTING this doc as edited, but we're just deciding that we can start with this edited draft and decide to accept the deletions or not. Did I miss something/ Paul McGrady:@Kristine - correct Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 jon Amr Elsadr:Sure Paul. Give me a minute. Brian Cimbolic:the RPMs are specifically listed as "the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS); the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) and the associated availability through the TMCH of Sunrise periods and the Trademark Claims notification service; and the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (PDDRPs)." Philip Corwin:agree with Kristine's understanding, which Paul clarified when I asked my question Steve Levy:Here's the quote from the Charter "As a result of the New gTLD Program, severalnew rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) were developed to mitigate potential risks and coststo trademark rights holders that could arise in the expansion of the gTLD namespace, whichincluded certain safeguards to protect registrants who engage in legitimate uses of domainnames: the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS); the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) andthe associated availability through the TMCH of Sunrise periods and the Trademark Claimsnotification service; and the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (PDDRPs)." Steve Levy:I feel the definition of RPM may not specifically include marketplace RPMs but I also don't feel it can be read to exclude them Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I think the use of the colon is clear that this is the complete list. Jon Nevett:sorry Steve -- disagree with you Amr Elsadr:To add to Steve's post above, this was specified in the WG Charter: This PDP Working Group is being chartered to conduct a review of all RPMs in all gTLDs in two phases: Phase One will focus on a review of all the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program, and Phase Two will focus on a review of the UDRP. Amr Elsadr:Apologies about formatting. Philip Corwin:Paul, I always indulge you Jon Nevett:private RPMs were not developed for the New gTLD Program Jon Nevett:They were developed for individual registries Paul McGrady:@Phil - thanks man! Brian Cimbolic:I think we need to note that not all voluntary RPMs are TMCH-centric Brian Cimbolic:they will vary depending on each registry policy and model Steve Levy:I concede this is a fine point, and I'll respect the group consensus, but I view use of the word "include" in the definition as leaving open the scope of what RPMs are within our scope. In any event, as we are currrently in an information gathering phase, I feel we should err on the side of being over-inclusive and then later sort out what, if anything, the WG wants to do with that information. Jon Nevett:let's go back to the GNSO if you want to push such an extraorinarily expansive view of our charter Susan Payne:let's actually look at the document, I don't think the propsed deletions delete anything which is in scope but let's talk about the actual text rather than in generalities Brian Cimbolic:I agree, Susan - they also seem to editorialize/comment on the mechanisms unecessarily Jon Nevett:Phil, whether there was an RSEP review is rrelevant to our purpose and charter Jon Nevett:irrelevant Jon Nevett:when we do an RSEP PDP, we could do that Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 Jon Jon Nevett:absolutely David -- info is ok Philip Corwin:I forgot to note in my oral comment just now that another reason for us to understand the private protections is that they are almost surely impacting use (actually, disuse) of sunrise registrations, and that may impact decisions we make in regard to sunrise Jon Nevett:agree with Phil here -- understanding info and impacts make sense David McAuley:also agree on info and impacts Steve Levy:I don't want this to devolve into a battle over fine definitions (ex. Jon suggesting going back to the GNSO). Too much of a distraction to our sub-team's larger goals Susan Payne:Phil, the RSEP is used where a registry wants to adopt a new registry service. Some rvoluntary protections may be a new registry services, some may not. That would be why there is a difference Susan Payne:I think I did :) Brian Cimbolic:+1 Susan Brian Cimbolic:these mechanisms are necessarily not concensus policies - they are registry specific policies Amr Elsadr:Note that ancillary services by the TMCH are not the same as the Additional Marketplace RPMs provided by ROs. Ancillary services of the TMCH need to be approved by ICANN, and to my knowledge, only include the ongoing 90-days ongoing notification service. This does not preclude the need to review how this is done, however, just wanted to point out that these services are not the same as the ones provided by ROs independently. Jon Nevett:I don't think that #7 would provide relevant information -- all questions could be viewed are "informational" David McAuley:maybe just deleting "much" would take care of the loaded part of that quusion #2 Brian Cimbolic:agreed, e.g "how can TMCH services be MUCH MORE transparent ..." David McAuley:question #2 that is Brian Cimbolic:that already has the conclusion baked in the question - they are not transparent enough Greg Shatan:The STI is not our guiding document. It was superseded by subsequent events, decisions and documents. Susan Payne:I wil;l raise at the end Jon Nevett:or delete them later Amr Elsadr:Note that Susan's suggestions on Q1 have been pasted in the agenda pod. Paul McGrady:@Susan - please introduce it for us Kathy Kleiman:@Greg: the STI created Consensus Policy. Jon Nevett:@Kathy -- I don't think that is right -- STI wasn't Consensus Policy or the staff wouldn't have been able to overrule it in the AGB Kathy Kleiman:Is there wording of what Susan is suggesting? David McAuley:I think Susan's suggestions make sense Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Kathy, I think staff included it in the Agenda box. David McAuley:I am using Susan's wording in agenda box on upper right Kathy Kleiman:@Jon, Staff tweaked the agreed upon policy, and its our job to review it Amr Elsadr:@Kathy: Susan's suggestion is in the agenda pod. You should be able to see it in the top right of your screen. Jon Nevett:@kathy -- it's not listed in the list of Consensus Policies -- don't get me wrong, I probably would have preferred that it was Consensus Policy David McAuley:as ritten I assumed TMCH included the database, Deloitte and IBM David McAuley:written, that is Amr Elsadr:@Phil: Would you mind putting any proposed edits in the chat? Thanks. Susan Payne:sound ok to me David McAuley:me too Kathy Kleiman:TMCH -> TMCH Providers Kathy Kleiman:? Philip Corwin:With whom and under what arrangements does the TMCH share data and for what non-mandated RPM purposes? Jon Nevett:Like using Amr's definition of TMCH Ancillary Services throughout as well Kathy Kleiman:good point! Philip Corwin:My edit is above Susan Payne:database Kathy Kleiman:provider, I think Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:If we don't know, why don't we ask them which arm contracts with 3Ps? Philip Corwin:Agree that Amr's definition/distinction is useful Susan Payne:ok Jon Nevett:yes! Jon Nevett:Amr Elsadr: Note that ancillary services by the TMCH are not the same as the Additional Marketplace RPMs provided by ROs. Ancillary services of the TMCH need to be approved by ICANN, and to my knowledge, only include the ongoing 90-days ongoing notification service. This does not preclude the need to review how this is done, however, just wanted to point out that these services are not the same as the ones provided by ROs independently. Greg Shatan:I thought we had a definition of Ancillary Services.... Kathy Kleiman:According to the STI, section 2.3 "The TC Service Provider should be required to maintain a separate TC database, and may not store any data in the TC database related to its provision of ancillary services, if any." Julie Bisland:yes, will do David McAuley:aug 28 is a monday, no? Jon Nevett:july 28 Julie Bisland:July 28 at 16:oo UTC David McAuley:ok - sorry Philip Corwin:Regrets -I shall miss next week's meeting as I'll be driving north to Maine to vacate ;-) Julie Bisland:thank you , Phil, i'll note this Greg Shatan:Bottom up is a fundamental tenet of the multistakeholder process, is it not? Susan Payne:Lovely, thank you. Jon Nevett:i asked that the scope issue be dealt with before we started our work David McAuley:well-led Paul, thanks Steve Levy:Thank you all for your time today. Hope you have a relaxing weekend. David McAuley:Good bye Jon Nevett:thanks all Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks Payl Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Paul

1 0

Discussion items for next call of the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team
by Mary Wong July 21, 2017

July 21, 2017

Dear all, Following consultation with Paul McGrady, the interim chair for this RPM Sub Team, staff is pleased to confirm the next call for the Sub Team as well as to request, on Paul’s behalf, that Sub Team members provide input and responses to the action items noted below before Friday 21 July 2017. 1. Next Sub Team meeting The next Sub Team call is being planned for next Friday, 21 July 2017, at 1600 UTC for one hour. Please look out for the calendar invitation and call details in your Inbox shortly. 1. Action items/topics for mailing list discussion before the next call Please be so kind as to take time before next Friday to do the following: * Review the action items from our first call (from 14 June): https://community.icann.org/x/UU3wAw * Review the “reverse redline” prepared by staff at the Sub Team’s request, showing all the proposed deletions, comments and suggestions made – with a view toward providing your feedback on the proposed deletions, suggested edits, and questions noted in the Comment Boxes in the document before next Friday: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66080081/Additional%20Mark… Finally, we note that the Sub Team had agreed to keep open the call for volunteers for co-chair for this team at the last call. As it has been several weeks since that call, please make sure that you nominate anyone who may wish to serve alongside Paul as co-chair of the Sub Team by the end of this week. If no other co-chair is named, staff will proceed to confirm Paul’s position as Sub Team chair with the Working Group co-chairs. Thanks and cheers Mary

5 8