August 2017 - Gnso-rpm-protection

Working Group Co-Chairs' response to question of Sub Team/Working Group scope regarding Additional Marketplace RPMs
by Mary Wong Aug. 28, 2017

Aug. 28, 2017

SENT ON BEHALF OF THE RPM WORKING GROUP CO-CHAIRS Dear Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team members, The Working Group co-chairs have discussed the question you raised regarding the remit of this Sub Team and how its work ties in to the overall scope of the Working Group’s RPMs review. We confirm that our understanding of the purpose and scope of this Sub Team is similar to that of the other two Sub Teams that were formed with respect to the Sunrise and Trademark Claims RPMs, i.e. to develop questions focusing on any data gathering needs. The other two Sub Teams were asked to review and refine a pre-determined set of questions from the Working Group Charter. What this Sub Team is doing is quite similar, in that you have been asked to review and refine a set of draft questions developed by the Co-Chairs with additional Working Group member input, that are intended to guide the Working Group’s discussions of the Additional Marketplace RPMs currently being offered by some registry operators. The scope of work for this Sub Team is therefore limited to finalizing, for Working Group review and discussion, a list of questions about the Additional Marketplace RPMs that suggest any data and other information that need to be collected, and to identify where such data may already exist and what data gaps may remain. We acknowledge that a broader question has been raised as to whether it is within scope for this Policy Development Process (PDP), and hence our Working Group, to perform a similar review of the Additional Marketplace RPMs as is being done for the mandatory RPMs. In this regard, please note that the scope of our PDP work is defined and set by our Charter. As such, while the Sub Team has determined that some proposed questions are of a qualitative/policy nature and therefore unrelated to data gathering, how the Working Group will deliberate on the Additional Marketplace RPMs will be a matter for the full Working Group to agree on, based upon the Charter framework. We expect this discussion to occur following the completion of the data collection exercise for all the questions that this Sub Team will present to the Working Group. We hope this note is helpful in clarifying the purpose and scope of this Sub Team’s work. Please let us know if you have any further questions. With best regards, Kathy, Phil and J. Scott

1 0

Action Items from Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 25 August 2017
by Amr Elsadr Aug. 28, 2017

Aug. 28, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Below are the action items from the Sub Team call on 25 August. The action items, notes, meeting document, recordings and transcripts have been posted on the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/NRohB Please note the language suggested by Greg Shatan during the Sub Team call (in bold + italics below) as a possible replacement for the text of Question 6, which was marked for proposed deletion. The action item on this question, as indicated below, was for the Sub Team members to consider this language as a potential replacement of the existing language of Question 6. Additionally, in follow-up of action item 2 below, Question 7 has been incorporated as a third bullet under Question 3 in the updated document attached to this email. The remaining Questions, 8 through 11, have been renumbered to Questions 7 through 10. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to circulate Greg Shatan’s suggested reformulation of Question 6 to the mailing list for Sub Team consideration (Which Additional Marketplace RPMs were submitted for RSEP approval, and which Additional Marketplace RPMs were submitted to ICANN for some other form of approval?) 2. Staff to incorporate Question 7 as an additional bullet point under Question 3 for review by the Sub Team 3. Sub Team to discuss whether Question 8 may be deleted from the main text but placed at the end of the Sub Team document, under the heading “Deleted as outside the remit of the group, but archived for WG information”

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat from Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs call on Friday, 25 August 2017 16:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Aug. 26, 2017

Aug. 26, 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, 25 August 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance and recordings of the call are also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/NRohB MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-marketplace-rpm-25aug17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p2vuysoeblg/ 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, Michelle Adobe Connect chat transcript for 25 August 2017: Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs on Thursday, 25 August 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Paul McGrady:Dialing in now. Thanks! Mary Wong:Welcome back, Paul! Rebecca L Tushnet:I will be on audio only for the last half. Paul McGrady:Thanks Mary! On Audio now too. Greg Shatan:Hi all. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I have a new headset today, so if I use it, I'd appreciate feedback about how it sounds. I know I've been having problems with my mic. Paul McGrady:From Kristin Dorrain on the list this week: Question 6:The question should be deleted. It’s asking for a substantive review of the existence of Additional Marketplace RPMs, not data-gathering to support sunrise and claims statistics. It’s unclear from the recording what the proponents of keeping it think they’re getting at by asking this. Registry contracts (and what is required to be part of a registry contract) are a sensitive issue and this is not the forum to dig into that. Those requesting this information should provide a compelling reason for its inclusion. “Informational purposes” or “might be interesting” is not a compelling reason to dig into a contractual relationship that is NOT the subject of this PDP. Question 6 is a fishing expedition.Question 7:The question should be deleted. It’s asking for a substantive review of the existence of Additional Marketplace RPMs, not data-gathering to support sunrise and claims statistics. The answer will likely be obtained as part of Quest Paul McGrady:From Kurt from the list: I largely agree with Kristine that these question should be deleted. To elaborate slightly: Question 6: One test of whether a question should be deleted is whether the answer would affect our analysis and answer. I do not see how the answer to this question affects our analysis of existing and potential RPMs. These additional RPMs exist, regardless of how they have been approved. There is no reason to ask this question on the chance that it could lead to information that could be uncovered through a more direct, data-related question. I think we have asked these data-related questions above.Question 7: Similarly, if question 7 is deleted, I don’t think we would lose any data as it is already being collected elsewhere. Alternatively, this question might be narrowed and placed under question 3 as an additional bullet, e.g., what information do registries require for Additional Marketplace RPMs from the TMCH, trademark holders, other sources?Question 8: Similar to question 6, I donâ€ Greg Shatan:Happy to help! Philip Corwin:Hello all Mary Wong:We have pasted Kristine's and Kurt's comments on Question 6 into the Notes pod on the right. Mary Wong:We can do the same for Questions 7 & 8. Philip Corwin:Reinforcing what Kathy just stated, co-chairs have a one hour call at 2 pm today to deal with multiple issues, including scope of this work team's responsibilities. We will send a formal statement, but you should presume that the primary duties are question refinement and data availability and gap analysis, with policy issues reserved for discussion and decision at full WG level. This is the general practice we have had for other subteams. Hope that helps. Philip Corwin:Yes, data collection and question consolidation and refinement Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Why is that relevant, please? David McAuley:can hear, yes Mary Wong:Without opining, staff has attempted to rephrase the question for your consideration - see the bullet point under Q6. Greg Shatan:Volume is a little high, Kristine. David McAuley:@Kristine, germane to SSR considerations which seem relevant - I agree SSR is for ICANN as well but think we should note any such issues as we consider RPMs Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Buy why dig for them? Mary Wong:Clarifying to note that staff hasn't rephrased the question (pending Sub Team conclusion on whether the question as phrased is needed); we provided some language in the bullet point underneath to try to focus on any factual response that may be needed. Kathy Kleiman:Agree with Greg so I have lowered my hand. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:If we happen to encounter a concern, someone can raise it, but she should not be digging and investigating. Kathy Kleiman:What's the harm of asking this question? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:we, not she Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:The harm is interfereing with registry contracting. Kathy Kleiman:Agreed, the relationship of private RPMs to consensus RPMs is within our remit, and therefore this question is a good factual one to ask. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:The relationship with respect to data, yes. Greg Shatan:I thought we were just discussing 6 at the moment.... Greg Shatan:It's not in our remit to look forward and comment on what marketplace RPMs might be. That's not fact-gathering. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree with Greg. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:We should not ask "what if" questions. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I also think it's ok to be genuinely curious and interested in how things like DPML get started, but it's just not in scope here. Lillian Fosteris:I agree with Kristine. The work of this WG keeps getting side tracked and if there are larger issues about registry policies and the like, they belong in the subsequent procedures WG and not here. Steve Levy:Sorry for joining late! Kathy Kleiman:Glad you are here, Steve! Greg Shatan:Not our job to figure out whether marketplace RPMs are working.... Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Correct, Greg. Philip Corwin:Well, any possible concerns about potential future private RPMs might well be alleviated if we knew when RSEP review was required or advisable and what standards ICANN appplies in such a review. Again, I am surprised that asking such a basic factual question is so fiercely resisted, and I don't see what is gained by keeping the WG in the dark on this basic question. Getting it answered does not impy that we are going to propose regulation of private services, which I agree is beyond our remit. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Here are the rules for an RSEP https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource… Philip Corwin:I do see it as a question for ICANN. Mary, do you believe staff could recast it in a manner to yield useful data? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Phil...all of the data is at my link. Kathy Kleiman:==> any form of additional marketplace protections? Kathy Kleiman:Need to think about it... Kathy Kleiman:Please keep original Ques 6 too please. Kathy Kleiman:For comparison and review Amr Elsadr:@Greg: Would you mind putting your revised question in the chat? Thanks. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Also need to see it, think.... Philip Corwin:Greg's suggestion is useful Mary Wong:ACtually, staff didn't touch the question - we only offered a more limited rationale for he question :) David McAuley:ok - my mistake Mary Wong:No worries, David, I think I actuallly did say we rephrased the question earlier, so the mistake is mine. Sorry! David McAuley:it will be nice to see Greg's in text - thanks Mary Kathy Kleiman:Was I disconnected? Kathy Kleiman:Support adding 7 to 3 Kathy Kleiman:You were brilliant!! Mary Wong:@Kathy, did you mean the reformulated 7 as in the document? Mary Wong:This is question 7, as reformulated: "How much and what manner of use does each registry operator make of data from the TMCH [or the trademark holder] in providing its Additional Marketplace RPMs?" Greg Shatan:Still turning down my speakers when you speak, Kristine.... :-) Kathy Kleiman:@Mary, yes, the current version, as edited of 7, would be a good 3rd bullet point under 3 Kathy Kleiman:tx! Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Greg, I just turned it down. Let me know. Kathy Kleiman:Right! Greg Shatan:I'm turning you down less now, but that is still one heckuva microphone. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:It's very shiny Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Its at the lowest setting. Now moving the mic away from my face.... Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:(BTW thanks for the tech support help on this call!) David McAuley:It is robust Kristine, which is much better than very low Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes, last one, I had up to level 100 and was screaming into it. Mary Wong:How about we put this question at the end of the document under "Deleted as outside the remit of the group, but archived for WG information"? David McAuley:thanks Mary - I could support that Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:there is no charter for this subteam Greg Shatan:I don't think we need to send it up to the group. It can be raised ab initio. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:We created this because we wanted data for sunrise/claims. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:This doc came from the co-chairs David McAuley:This is a Latin-friendly group Mary Wong:This question was not in the PDP Charter. Kathy Kleiman:We would have to double check if it was in the charter Kathy Kleiman:Have a good weekend, All! Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks everyone for your patience with my sound issues! Steve Levy:Bye all David McAuley:good bye all Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks Paul Greg Shatan:Bye all! Vale!

1 0

Action items and updated document from Sub Team call on 18 August 2017
by Mary Wong Aug. 23, 2017

Aug. 23, 2017

Dear all, Please find attached an updated document of the questions being discussed by the Sub Team concerning Additional Marketplace RPMs. Staff has retained the edits made following the 11 August call (to Questions 2, 3 and 4) while adding new edits based on the last call of 18 August (i.e. Questions 6 & 7 – we have highlighted in yellow what the Sub Team’s discussion items are). You will see also that we have suggested some language for the Sub Team to consider and edit, based on the action items from the call as listed below. Action items: For Question 6: * Sub Team to consider whether to retain original question, delete it or revise it to limit its scope strictly to any data collection that may be needed * If a revision is preferred, Sub Team to propose, edit and finalize language for the rephrased question For Question 7: * Sub Team to consider suggestion to rephrase question as a broader topic (as shown in edited version, attached, based on language suggested on the call by Greg Shatan) * Sub Team to consider whether to delete references to “trademark holder” (currently square bracketed in the document) * If Sub Team wishes to retain a reference to “proprietary data” (whether sent to or received from the TMCH), Sub Team to consider proposing a definition. Two suggestions received so far, on the call: * "data that are kept confidential as between the TM holder and the TMCH Provider(s)" (from Rebecca Tushnet) * "data which is proprietary to a TM holder" (from Greg Shatan) For Question 8: * Sub Team to consider whether this is an appropriate question to ask, or if there is any data gathering component within it that should be rephrased to limit the question to information gathering only The recording, transcripts and notes from the call will all be posted to the Sub Team wiki space on the Working Group wiki. Thanks and cheers Mary

3 2

Recordings, attendance, AC Chat from Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs call on Friday, 18 August 2017 16:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Aug. 18, 2017

Aug. 18, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs call on Friday, 18 August 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance and recordings of the call are also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/DBghB MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-marketplace-rpm-18aug17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p18nw1ilrwy/ 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, Michelle Adobe Connect chat transcript for 18 August 2017: Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the RPM Working Group Sub Team for Additional Marketplace call on Friday, 18 August 2017 16:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… David McAuley:dialing in Michelle DeSmyter:thanks David J. Scott:I am joining. I am in open space, so muting. J. Scott:Super. thanks Greg. Philip Corwin:Hello all David McAuley:poor connection J. Scott:I disagree. I think we should know whether there is or is not an approval process. that is just information Kathy Kleiman:Online now. +1 David, Phil, J. Scott Kathy Kleiman:No :-) Survived the driving lesson :-) J. Scott:We could make a recommendation that an approval process should be put in place Rebecca L Tushnet:+1 J. Scott, given the interaction with the required RPMs Mary Wong:In this context (DPML and other services using the TMCH services), is J. Scott's last comment also related to Question 8 (which also has been proposed for deletion). Philip Corwin:I have to think about it, and this is a personal view, but I'm not sure that the WG has any authority (beyond noting the existence) to look into private protections that don't use the mandatory RPMs J. Scott: I am sorry. I am not sure I understand the question. J. Scott:Thanks Mary. J. Scott:There is judgment in making a statement that all additional RPMs that registries want to put in place need to go through some sort of formarl approval process J. Scott:That should read "no judgment." J. Scott:I am stepping away for two minutes. Mary Wong:Staff clarification, just in case - we're not opining on the WG charter scope or the advisability of these questions, was just noting a possible relationship between Q6 & Q8 for the Sub Team's consideration. David McAuley:Thanks Mary and I agree w/Jon that we need to keep charter in view David McAuley:But information gathering seems ok as we stated before J. Scott:I am back David McAuley:good summary Greg Kathy Kleiman:+1 Mary Wong:Noted, Greg Brian Cimbolic:sure Mary Wong:SP is Susan Payne, I believe. Rebecca L Tushnet:One question that may be part of this is whether there is a more public aspect Kathy Kleiman:good connection J. Scott:Loud and clear, rebecca Kathy Kleiman:Should we define "proprietary data"? David McAuley:probably a good idea @Kathy Kathy Kleiman:How would you phrase that, Greg? Rebecca L Tushnet:Data that are kept confidential as between TM owner & provider? Kathy Kleiman:@RT makes sense David McAuley:That makes sense Greg, agree with that David McAuley:i.e. data from TMCH David McAuley:rather than proprietary data from TMCH Kathy Kleiman:agreed! Mary Wong:Noted, Greg Kathy Kleiman:precisely! David McAuley:yes J. Scott:I am going to have to leave early. Mary Wong:We're taking notes :) Kathy Kleiman:Tx for chairing, Greg. David McAuley:Good luck with that Greg Kathy Kleiman:Still here David McAuley:nice phrase kathy - "possibilty for significant rephrasing" David McAuley:Kathy, that is Griffin Barnett:need to drop, bye all David McAuley:Thanks for filling in Greg, thanks all, good bye

1 0

Action items and updated Sub Team document from Friday 11 August call
by Mary Wong Aug. 15, 2017

Aug. 15, 2017

Dear all, The action items from the last Sub Team call on Friday 11 August are listed below. In addition, please find attached for your review and further discussion an updated version of the Sub Team’s document, to which staff has made the edits from the Friday call, with comment balloons indicating the source of those edits. Action Items: * Kathy Kleiman to propose additional question building on Question 4 (as phrased) to address suggestion about “benefits and concerns” of extended Claims Service * Sub Team members to note at beginning of the next call that while edits to Question 5 have been minimal, should the question also include specific reference to quantifying the level of usage of Protected Marks List services (i.e. question from Claudio di Gangi) * Staff to update Q2 as follows: (1) retain suggested language from Phil Corwin regarding existing scope of TMCH policy and documentation while adding language from David McAuley and deleting question immediately preceding Phil’s language; (2) rephrase the question on costs in line with Jon Nevett’s suggestion and clarify that question is intended to also solicit feedback as to what the various additional costs may be * Staff to update Q3 to clarify example of registry use of SMD files in relation to the provision of Protected Marks List services * Staff to update Q4 to add registrars as a source of feedback, and to include examples of relevant experiences (e.g. registration volume and numbers of exact matches) Notes from the call will also be posted to the Sub Team wiki space shortly, as usual. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 18:29 To: "gnso-rpm-protection(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-protection(a)icann.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Additional Marketplace RPMs document Dear all, Please find attached an updated version of the Additional Marketplace RPMs document for your review and further discussion. The edits that have been made are based on the Sub Team’s suggestions, comments and discussion from the call last Friday (4 August), though, as noted in my email from yesterday, they have been made on top of the document that was circulated on 31 July rather than the document that was inadvertently displayed in the AC room on Friday. Please let us know if you have questions or comments, both on this updated document and on the issue about Question 2 (email below). Thank you! Cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, August 7, 2017 at 15:59 To: "gnso-rpm-protection(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-protection(a)icann.org> Subject: PLEASE READ: A different version of the Questions document was shown in AC on Friday Dear Paul and Sub Team members, We are very, very sorry, but we have discovered that the version of the document that was displayed in the AC room on the Sub Team call on Friday 4 August was not the version that had been circulated on Monday before the call (see email below). The good news is that this discrepancy only affects what is now Question 2, about whether and how registry operators may be relying on the TMCH for the Additional Marketplace RPMs they offer. Hopefully this means that we can sort out any confusion via email. I emphasize that this only concerns Question 2, and not any of the other questions that were subsequently discussed on the Sub Team call. To this end we have included a proposal for your consideration at the end of this email. The version of Question 2 that was discussed on the call reads as follows: Are registry operators using the TMCH database and its features (such as relying on the TMCH as a 3rd party validator as a source of information) for Additional Marketplace Mechanisms? If so, how? Does the current adopted policy allow this use? Could registry operators provide the same or similar additional marketplace services without access to the TMCH database? If so, would there be any increase in costs to brand owners? However, the version of Question 2 that was circulated before the call, and which is in fact a further staff update on the above language, is not quite the same and, perhaps more significantly, also includes an additional Explanatory Note that we inserted to address a suggestion from Kristine Dorrain from the previous week. I am highlighting the key differences in the two versions in bold and yellow, with the added Explanatory Note in bold: 2. ** 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? Are these uses of the TMCH services or database by these registry operators permitted under ICANN’s current rules for the TMCH? 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? If so, would there be any increase in costs to brand owners? ** SUB TEAM EXPLANATORY NOTE ON QUESTION 2: The Sub Team’s discussion of this question resulted in agreement amongst most Sub Team members that the answer to the question as to whether, and how, some registry operators are relying on the TMCH validation services and/or accessing the TMCH database in order to provide Additional Marketplace RPMs is “Yes”. This is based on information provided by some registry operator members of the Sub Team as well as registry responses to a poll conducted by the Working Group in December 2016. The poll questions included the following: (1) 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; and (2) Are you using any capabilities of the TMCH other than for Sunrise Periods and TM Claims Notices? Two registries (PIR and Afnic) responded “no” to both questions, while Donuts responded “Yes” to both (for (1), it was to verify Domains Protected Marks List (DPML) block request), and for (2), it was to leverage SMD files as qualifiers for the DPML service). The Sub Team is adding this Explanatory Note to provide information as to how the TMCH may be leveraged by some registry operators to offer Additional Marketplace RPMs, as it believes that even if the answer to the initial question is “Yes”, this is essential information for the rest of the Working Group. PROPOSAL FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION: To enable the Sub Team to continue to make progress, may we propose the following? 1. The Sub Team to discuss and agree via email whether the highlighted language above (especially the text of the question) addresses the concerns that Paul, Jeff, Rebecca and Phil had tried to address on Friday, regarding the language as to whether “current adopted policy allows this use”? Alternatively, do you prefer to use the language suggested by Phil on the call – i.e. “Is there language in the current adopted TMCH policy or related documents that expressly permits or prohibits [such use by registry operators]?” - to replace that entire sub-question (in either of the two formulations above)? 1. The Sub Team to discuss and agree via email on whether an Explanatory Note (as drafted or as appropriately revised by the Sub Team) should be included to Question 2. Thank you all, and please accept our deepest apologies for any confusion or additional review work that this oversight may have created. In the meantime, staff will continue to update the document to reflect the additional suggestions and discussions that took place on the call last Friday. We have since uploaded the 31 July document – as circulated prior to the 4 August call – to the Sub Team meeting wiki page, and we will use it as the basis for the further edits we will be sending to you before the call this Friday. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, July 31, 2017 at 17:10 To: "gnso-rpm-protection(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-protection(a)icann.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW: Updated questions (re: Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 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

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat for Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs call on Friday, 11 August 2017 16:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Aug. 11, 2017

Aug. 11, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat are below for the Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs call on Friday, 11 August 2017 at 16:00 UTC. MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-marketplace-rpm-11aug17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p6e1uwsya4e/<https://participate.icann.org/p6e1uwsya4e/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=92ef84797cbc0a40…> 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/ChAhB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie Adobe Connect chat transcript for 11 August 2017: Julie Bisland:Welcome to the Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs on Friday, 11 August 2017 at 16:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Amr Elsadr::-) Amr Elsadr:Thanks Julie. Paul McGrady:Happy Friday Everyone (unless it is still Thursday where you are or if its already Saturday)! David McAuley:Hello all, just dialed in David McAuley:small group thus far Steve Levy:Hi all David McAuley:That makes sense Paul Kathy:+1 David Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'm sorry I'm late. David McAuley:good point Kathy Susan Payne:apologies for being late David McAuley:yes Susan Payne:hi - is there a new version of the document that we are working from or is it the same one as last week? Mary Wong:@Greg, that is why the language of previous sentence/question asks if the uses are currently permitted by the rules that apply to the TMCH. Mary Wong:@Susan, this is the document that was circulated earlier this week. Steve Levy:I favor keeping Greg Shatan:Mary do you think the question is redundant? Mary Wong:@Greg, staff was only trying to capture what was discussed by the Sub Team (not our place to opine :)) Susan Payne:got it Greg Shatan:I would get rid of the second question in question 2, on judginess grounds. David McAuley:would suggest adding "or otherwise addressed" Mary Wong:@David, noted! Greg Shatan:Agree with David. David McAuley:Thanks @Mary David McAuley:agree w/Jon about that Susan Payne:it's back down thanks David McAuley:OK - Kathy and Mary's point about keeping a question seems ok given that Mary Wong:@Paul, yes that is correct. Julie Bisland:Does anyone want to jump in while we try Paul McGrady:Call failed. Will call back in ASAP Julie Bisland:thank you Mary Philip Corwin:My main point is that restricting DPML services to marks registered in the TMCH limits their scope, and that if regsitries offering them could not use the SMD files they might well desire to use a form of trademark validation that significantly broadened the scope of marks eligible for such blocking services. Not a data issue, but a policy consideration for the full WG. David McAuley:yes Kurt Pritz:I like the reversion that Jon recommended Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Phil, registries can restrict eligibility based on TM rights, even if those TMs are not in the TMCH. I think .istanbul did something like that. Sunrise #1 was for TMCH sunrise files. Sunrise #2 was for local brand owners. Not sure who validated them...problaby the RO themselve or a 3P. David McAuley:sorry - I had to step away for a moment for a chat Mary Wong:@Jon, on that second bullet, maybe a better phrasing can be "Do all registry operators who offer Protected Marks Lists (e.g. blocking services) use a valid SMD file ... etc.?" Mary Wong:@Paul, all - I believe the Sub Team agreed last week that Q3 as a whole is a "fact gathering" simple exercise. Kathy:+1 Kurt Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes, Mary. I believe I suggested that this is data that is available on the websites of the ROs who offer these mechanisms. Philip Corwin:@Kristine--I think we agree. Other than in the unlikely context of prohibition of DPML services, registries can offer such services to any TM that meets its eligibility criteria -- which could be far broader than marks registered in the TMCH. Again, I am not making an argument for or agauinst anything -- just pointing out a policy consideration. David McAuley:no obj Kathy:Good point, Mary Kurt Pritz:Anyone who describes herself as, "horribly inarticulate," is not Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 Kurt Mary Wong:Aw geez thanks Steve Levy:+1 Kurt :-) Greg Shatan:Mary, you have the best words. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:That's Q5 Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Which I recommended we move to the front when we re-order them Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Because it's overarching Mary Wong:Q5 is what Kristine had identified as the main overarching question for this exercise. Mary Wong:Q4 has been rephrased to take into account Kristine's reformulation from last week, which people on the call seemed to agree with. Susan Payne:looks fine David McAuley:makes sense Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I think I pointed out last week, despite the more neutral re-write, that this data is likely to be hard to get because of confidential business information. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:(sorry bad mic today or I'd be raising my hand) Kathy:e.g. volumes of registrations?? Steve Levy:E.g., Numbers of exact matches? Kathy:I think to be balanced, shouldn't we say something about benefits or concerns about this extension? Kathy:Sorry, I was questioning that volumes of registration means?? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+ Susan. We're here to gather information, not make value judgments. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:No, this isn't a notice. This is about numbers. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:We're trying to figure out if these additional mechanisms took away from ICANN RPMs. I think this Q is trying to get at the bell curve over 30 vs 90 days Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:but I'm still trying to figure out if the data is positive or negative. It's just data. What's the bell curve? Kathy:Did they get additional matches? Did they get additional turnbacks (people not registering)? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:But your question is being asked in the Claims ST. Kurt Pritz:I am for the question 4 as that to which we agreed in the last meeting for the reason Kristine typed above. I think it would harvest the information Kathy is requesting also. Kathy:+1 Kurt Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:This ST is about the data we need to analyize how Additional Mechanisms affected the ICANN mechanisms. Susan Payne:@Kristine, honestly I'm not sure wat the value of seeking this info is either. since the permanent claim comes after the mandatory RPMs for a registry does it even impact? I suppose it might if a brand owner decided not to buy a sunrise because they knew there would be permanent claims Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Susan, I agree. I don't personally see the value either but I'm trying to keep an open mind about why someone wants it here. Susan Payne:no obj Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:no obj Lillian Fosteris 2:no objection David McAuley:question 6 is a good place to start as Mary suggests Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:We probably need to give Claudio a chance to see if he is ok with Q5. Jon Nevett:Thanks all! Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks all. Steve Levy:Thanks all! Susan Payne:thanks all David McAuley:thanks Paul and staff, good bye Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye.

1 0

FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Additional Marketplace RPMs document
by Mary Wong Aug. 8, 2017

Aug. 8, 2017

Dear all, Please find attached an updated version of the Additional Marketplace RPMs document for your review and further discussion. The edits that have been made are based on the Sub Team’s suggestions, comments and discussion from the call last Friday (4 August), though, as noted in my email from yesterday, they have been made on top of the document that was circulated on 31 July rather than the document that was inadvertently displayed in the AC room on Friday. Please let us know if you have questions or comments, both on this updated document and on the issue about Question 2 (email below). Thank you! Cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, August 7, 2017 at 15:59 To: "gnso-rpm-protection(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-protection(a)icann.org> Subject: PLEASE READ: A different version of the Questions document was shown in AC on Friday Dear Paul and Sub Team members, We are very, very sorry, but we have discovered that the version of the document that was displayed in the AC room on the Sub Team call on Friday 4 August was not the version that had been circulated on Monday before the call (see email below). The good news is that this discrepancy only affects what is now Question 2, about whether and how registry operators may be relying on the TMCH for the Additional Marketplace RPMs they offer. Hopefully this means that we can sort out any confusion via email. I emphasize that this only concerns Question 2, and not any of the other questions that were subsequently discussed on the Sub Team call. To this end we have included a proposal for your consideration at the end of this email. The version of Question 2 that was discussed on the call reads as follows: Are registry operators using the TMCH database and its features (such as relying on the TMCH as a 3rd party validator as a source of information) for Additional Marketplace Mechanisms? If so, how? Does the current adopted policy allow this use? Could registry operators provide the same or similar additional marketplace services without access to the TMCH database? If so, would there be any increase in costs to brand owners? However, the version of Question 2 that was circulated before the call, and which is in fact a further staff update on the above language, is not quite the same and, perhaps more significantly, also includes an additional Explanatory Note that we inserted to address a suggestion from Kristine Dorrain from the previous week. I am highlighting the key differences in the two versions in bold and yellow, with the added Explanatory Note in bold: 2. ** 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? Are these uses of the TMCH services or database by these registry operators permitted under ICANN’s current rules for the TMCH? 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? If so, would there be any increase in costs to brand owners? ** SUB TEAM EXPLANATORY NOTE ON QUESTION 2: The Sub Team’s discussion of this question resulted in agreement amongst most Sub Team members that the answer to the question as to whether, and how, some registry operators are relying on the TMCH validation services and/or accessing the TMCH database in order to provide Additional Marketplace RPMs is “Yes”. This is based on information provided by some registry operator members of the Sub Team as well as registry responses to a poll conducted by the Working Group in December 2016. The poll questions included the following: (1) 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; and (2) Are you using any capabilities of the TMCH other than for Sunrise Periods and TM Claims Notices? Two registries (PIR and Afnic) responded “no” to both questions, while Donuts responded “Yes” to both (for (1), it was to verify Domains Protected Marks List (DPML) block request), and for (2), it was to leverage SMD files as qualifiers for the DPML service). The Sub Team is adding this Explanatory Note to provide information as to how the TMCH may be leveraged by some registry operators to offer Additional Marketplace RPMs, as it believes that even if the answer to the initial question is “Yes”, this is essential information for the rest of the Working Group. PROPOSAL FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION: To enable the Sub Team to continue to make progress, may we propose the following? 1. The Sub Team to discuss and agree via email whether the highlighted language above (especially the text of the question) addresses the concerns that Paul, Jeff, Rebecca and Phil had tried to address on Friday, regarding the language as to whether “current adopted policy allows this use”? Alternatively, do you prefer to use the language suggested by Phil on the call – i.e. “Is there language in the current adopted TMCH policy or related documents that expressly permits or prohibits [such use by registry operators]?” - to replace that entire sub-question (in either of the two formulations above)? 1. The Sub Team to discuss and agree via email on whether an Explanatory Note (as drafted or as appropriately revised by the Sub Team) should be included to Question 2. Thank you all, and please accept our deepest apologies for any confusion or additional review work that this oversight may have created. In the meantime, staff will continue to update the document to reflect the additional suggestions and discussions that took place on the call last Friday. We have since uploaded the 31 July document – as circulated prior to the 4 August call – to the Sub Team meeting wiki page, and we will use it as the basis for the further edits we will be sending to you before the call this Friday. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, July 31, 2017 at 17:10 To: "gnso-rpm-protection(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-protection(a)icann.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW: Updated questions (re: Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 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

1 0

Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 4 August 2017
by Amr Elsadr Aug. 7, 2017

Aug. 7, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Below are the action items from the Sub Team call on 4 August. The action items, notes, meeting documents, recordings and transcripts are all available on the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/ZwkhB Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to rephrase the relevant parts of question 2 based on suggestions from Kurt P. on question of costs – cost to parties in the value chain (e.g., brand owners, registrars, registries, registrants) – and from Phil C. on the framework of rules applicable to the TMCH 2. Staff to place deleted question 2 at the end of the document as a placeholder to review what issues may have been dropped as a result of its deletion, once revision of other questions is complete 3. Staff to review document and replace previous usages of “blocking services”, “private protections” etc. with the phrase "Additional Marketplace RPMs" for consistency, where appropriate 4. Staff to replace question 4 with proposed alternative wording: “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?” 5. Staff to replace question 5 with proposed alternative wording: “How does use of Protected Marks Lists (e.g.: blocking services) affect the utilization of other RPMs, especially Sunrise Registrations?” 6. Staff to move question 7 to become a sub-question to question 3 7. Staff to split question 8, and move the first and second parts of it to become sub-questions to questions 3 and 2 respectively

1 0

PLEASE READ: A different version of the Questions document was shown in AC on Friday
by Mary Wong Aug. 7, 2017

Aug. 7, 2017

Dear Paul and Sub Team members, We are very, very sorry, but we have discovered that the version of the document that was displayed in the AC room on the Sub Team call on Friday 4 August was not the version that had been circulated on Monday before the call (see email below). The good news is that this discrepancy only affects what is now Question 2, about whether and how registry operators may be relying on the TMCH for the Additional Marketplace RPMs they offer. Hopefully this means that we can sort out any confusion via email. I emphasize that this only concerns Question 2, and not any of the other questions that were subsequently discussed on the Sub Team call. To this end we have included a proposal for your consideration at the end of this email. The version of Question 2 that was discussed on the call reads as follows: Are registry operators using the TMCH database and its features (such as relying on the TMCH as a 3rd party validator as a source of information) for Additional Marketplace Mechanisms? If so, how? Does the current adopted policy allow this use? Could registry operators provide the same or similar additional marketplace services without access to the TMCH database? If so, would there be any increase in costs to brand owners? However, the version of Question 2 that was circulated before the call, and which is in fact a further staff update on the above language, is not quite the same and, perhaps more significantly, also includes an additional Explanatory Note that we inserted to address a suggestion from Kristine Dorrain from the previous week. I am highlighting the key differences in the two versions in bold and yellow, with the added Explanatory Note in bold: 2. ** 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? Are these uses of the TMCH services or database by these registry operators permitted under ICANN’s current rules for the TMCH? 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? If so, would there be any increase in costs to brand owners? ** SUB TEAM EXPLANATORY NOTE ON QUESTION 2: The Sub Team’s discussion of this question resulted in agreement amongst most Sub Team members that the answer to the question as to whether, and how, some registry operators are relying on the TMCH validation services and/or accessing the TMCH database in order to provide Additional Marketplace RPMs is “Yes”. This is based on information provided by some registry operator members of the Sub Team as well as registry responses to a poll conducted by the Working Group in December 2016. The poll questions included the following: (1) 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; and (2) Are you using any capabilities of the TMCH other than for Sunrise Periods and TM Claims Notices? Two registries (PIR and Afnic) responded “no” to both questions, while Donuts responded “Yes” to both (for (1), it was to verify Domains Protected Marks List (DPML) block request), and for (2), it was to leverage SMD files as qualifiers for the DPML service). The Sub Team is adding this Explanatory Note to provide information as to how the TMCH may be leveraged by some registry operators to offer Additional Marketplace RPMs, as it believes that even if the answer to the initial question is “Yes”, this is essential information for the rest of the Working Group. PROPOSAL FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION: To enable the Sub Team to continue to make progress, may we propose the following? 1. The Sub Team to discuss and agree via email whether the highlighted language above (especially the text of the question) addresses the concerns that Paul, Jeff, Rebecca and Phil had tried to address on Friday, regarding the language as to whether “current adopted policy allows this use”? Alternatively, do you prefer to use the language suggested by Phil on the call – i.e. “Is there language in the current adopted TMCH policy or related documents that expressly permits or prohibits [such use by registry operators]?” - to replace that entire sub-question (in either of the two formulations above)? 1. The Sub Team to discuss and agree via email on whether an Explanatory Note (as drafted or as appropriately revised by the Sub Team) should be included to Question 2. Thank you all, and please accept our deepest apologies for any confusion or additional review work that this oversight may have created. In the meantime, staff will continue to update the document to reflect the additional suggestions and discussions that took place on the call last Friday. We have since uploaded the 31 July document – as circulated prior to the 4 August call – to the Sub Team meeting wiki page, and we will use it as the basis for the further edits we will be sending to you before the call this Friday. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, July 31, 2017 at 17:10 To: "gnso-rpm-protection(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-protection(a)icann.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW: Updated questions (re: Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 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

1 0