- Gnso-rpm-protection - lists.icann.org

Re: [Gnso-rpm-protection] [gnso-rpm-wg] Food for Thought: DMCA procedure at YouTube contrast with URS/UDRP
by claudio di gangi Jan. 8, 2018

Jan. 8, 2018

Paul, I don't have the exact numbers. Anecdotally, it appears a non-trivial portion of the suspended domains are being renewed by the losing registrant; see this blog article: https://domainnamewire.com/2016/11/18/strange-thing-happening-domain-names-… >From the domains I've researched, a much smaller subset are being put back into use by redelegating the Name Servers. I previously sent around reference to a domain that was suspended, and the registrant took back control and the domain is being offered for sale. Best regards, Claudio On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Has there ever been an instance where someone has made a nuisance of > themselves by re-registering and abusing names that they have had suspended > under a URS determination? > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 3:26 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> George, all, >> >> Thanks for this note. >> >> Just for clarification on the last point, as I understand the current >> remedies available under the URS does not include cancellation of the >> domain. >> >> As a result, upon expiry the suspended domain can be renewed and used >> (including for abusive purposes) by the losing registrant of the URS >> decision. >> >> To address this issue we can consider adding cancellation as a remedy (or >> otherwise modifying the URS) to minimize the need for repeated, serial >> enforcement against previously suspended domains. >> >> Best regards, >> Claudio >> >> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 8:09 AM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Paul, >>> >>> Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that they are different. Just >>> pointing out that there are other systems out there that don't have >>> that role reversal feature. >>> >>> Also, I believe some folks had mused about the possibility of a single >>> DRP that integrated the URS and UDRP. The issue of creation of a >>> "Notice of Dispute", that preceded the actual dispute, also has >>> arisen. If such a system also handled the high number of defaults >>> differently than today, then one result might be a much lower cost >>> procedure in the case of defaults (i.e. it could be very lightweight >>> like the YouTube procedure), and then reference to the courts for the >>> disputes when both sides show up and are heavily contesting the >>> matter. >>> >>> In terms of integration, one way to look at the URS is that it's very >>> similar to a UDRP where the Complainant (TM holder) asks only for >>> cancellation, albeit that the URS cancellation happens with a delay >>> (under the UDRP, the cancellation would happen almost immediately, >>> after allowing for the appeal to the courts) >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> George Kirikos >>> 416-588-0269 >>> http://www.leap.com/ >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 6:30 AM, Paul Keating <Paul(a)law.es> wrote: >>> > George, >>> > >>> > I know that a response has already been posted but I wanted to add my >>> > quick thoughts. >>> > >>> > I agree that the DMCA and the UDRP/URS are not identical. In fact the >>> > roles remain reversed throughout the UDRP/URS process. The DMCA merely >>> > provides a notice, take-down followed by the opportunity to revive the >>> > posting. Once reposting occurs the issue remains as it was before the >>> > notice - the copyright owner must proceed with litigation. The >>> UDRP/URS >>> > however, results in the domain being transferred/suspended or not. In >>> the >>> > case of transfer, it is the registrant that must file. In the case the >>> > complaint is denied then the trademark owner has that burden (like the >>> > copyright owner in the DMCA example). >>> > >>> > PRK >>> > >>> > On 1/6/18, 12:23 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos" >>> > <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of icann(a)leap.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >>Hi folks, >>> >> >>> >>There was an interesting article published today about a copyright >>> >>dispute involving "white noise" videos on YouTube: >>> >> >>> >>https://gizmodo.com/man-s-youtube-video-of-white-noise-hit >>> -with-five-copyr >>> >>i-1821804093 >>> >> >>> >>which linked to the dispute procedure that YouTube follows: >>> >> >>> >>https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454 >>> >> >>> >>Going through the various links, it was very interesting that they >>> >>even have a "Copyright School", see: >>> >> >>> >>https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000 >>> >> >>> >>(expand the "How to resolve a copyright strike" to see the link to >>> >>it), which is quite interesting, given how often the education aspect >>> >>for registrants has come up in our PDP's work. >>> >> >>> >>Also of interest is the section on "Counter Notification Basics": >>> >> >>> >>https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684 >>> >> >>> >>where importantly it says: >>> >> >>> >>"After we process your counter notification by forwarding it to the >>> >>claimant, the claimant has 10 business days to provide us with >>> >>evidence that they have initiated a court action to keep the content >>> >>down." >>> >> >>> >>and it's the content creator who posts the relevant jurisdiction: >>> >> >>> >>https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919 >>> >> >>> >>""I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the >>> >>district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside >>> >>of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is >>> >>located, and will accept service of process from the claimant." >>> >> >>> >>As noted in prior threads, various issues arise under the URS (and >>> >>UDRP) when the natural role of plaintiffs vs. defendants (had the >>> >>URS/UDRP not existed) gets reversed (e.g. the Yoyo.email UK "cause of >>> >>action issue", as well as IGO and other groups' claimed "sovereign >>> >>immunity"). >>> >> >>> >>With the dispute resolution procedure followed by YouTube, instead the >>> >>onus is on the copyright owner (the "claimant") to file the lawsuit, >>> >>in the same natural way that would exist had that dispute resolution >>> >>procedure not existed. Thus, none of the issues due to reversal of >>> >>plaintiff/defendant arise. >>> >> >>> >>I thought it would be of interest, especially as it also might also >>> >>give insights as to how "defaults" are handled. >>> >> >>> >>Food for thought. >>> >> >>> >>Sincerely, >>> >> >>> >>George Kirikos >>> >>416-588-0269 >>> >>http://www.leap.com/ >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>> >>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>> >>gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org >>> >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>> gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >> gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg >> > >

4 6

Europol update - OPERATION IN OUR SITES (IOS) -20, 520 domains
by claudio di gangi Dec. 4, 2017

Dec. 4, 2017

All, Just sharing the link below for reference; haven't seen which TLD(s) had the most number of domains (of the 20K+) identified in this operation. Best regards, Claudio ---- See: https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/biggest-hit-against-online-pira… Joint investigations by Europol’s Intellectual Property Crime Coordinated Coalition <https://www.europol.europa.eu/about-europol/intellectual-property-crime-coo…> (IPC³), the US National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Centre and law enforcement authorities from 27 EU Member States and third parties , facilitated by INTERPOL, have seized over 20,520 domain names that were offering counterfeit goods, for example luxury products, sportswear, electronics, pharmaceuticals and online piracy on e-commerce platforms and social networks.

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs meeting on Friday, 15 September 2017 16:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 15, 2017

Sept. 15, 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, 15 September 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance and recordings of the call are also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/RSohB MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-marketplace-rpm-15sep17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p62cqznquig/<https://participate.icann.org/p62cqznquig/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=00c812ada3468bdb…> 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 15 September 2017: Julie Bisland:Welcome to the Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs call on Friday, 15 September 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:Hey there, Julie. Amr Elsadr::) Mary Wong:Having trouble with my mic, will call in Julie Bisland:ok, thnak you Julie Bisland:goodness, THANK you. :) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Are we live? Mary Wong:@Kristine, yes - are you able to hear? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Nope, i'll dial in. Philip Corwin:Hello all Steve Levy:Hi folks Jeff Neuman:I dont see the question in the document on adobe now Mary Wong:@Jeff, they are in the Agenda pod on the right Mary Wong:We did not add them into the document b/c it wasn't yet agreed language. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:OK, I'm on the phone now. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:(I know you were all worried!) Susan Payne:yes Mary Wong:Kristine suggested that it was an overarching question Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I support moving Q5 up. Julie Bisland:sorry looking for this line David McAuley:that would not be a 'preliminary' repiort then, would it? Paul McGrady:Greg - please mute David McAuley:agree with what Paul just said Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:what? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Can you please repeat the instructions? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I've maybe not had enough coffee. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I agree with deleting it. Paul McGrady:@Kristine - just an open queue about keeping it or not. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Ok thanks Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Kathy, you're muffled. Jeff Neuman:Which part of the question is needed Kathy Jeff Neuman:I support deleting as well Mary Wong:In case it is helpful, he first part of this question was initially part of the Charter questions for Trademark Claims. Jeff Neuman:Asking how something can be mre transparent implies that the TMCH is either not transparent at all or that it is not transparent enough. Very subjective Jeff Neuman:What does "sufficiently transparent" mean? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Phil, I don't oppose asking the question "are TMCH services transparent," but we are asking that on the Sunrise and Claims services subteams already... Kurt Pritz:I am in favor of deleting it, I have been trying to re-write it in a way that adds additional information compared to the questions already asked and haven't come up with a formulation that does that. Jeff Neuman:Also, what is the requirement that they be transparent? Jeff Neuman:Where can that be found? Jon Nevett:Agree with Kurt -- delete it Philip Corwin:@Jeff--generally, it would mean that information about the contracts, policies,and services is readily available. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Jeff, I took Phil's understanding of transparent...mostly accessible. Philip Corwin:To reiterate, I favor retaining only the first sentence in neutral format. David McAuley:I like Phil's modification but still think it is asked elsewhere Susan Payne:agree David - it's already covered Mary Wong:Yes that;;'s right Paul Philip Corwin:Thanks David Susan Payne:speak for yourself - nearly beer o'clock here Paul Kurt Pritz:Past beer o'clock Jeff Neuman:It would be easier to see final clean versions before deciding order Susan Payne:hear hera Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree with Jeff, seems fine so long as we move Q2 Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Q5 Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Sorry Mary Wong:That's right, Paul - so it should not take too long at all to review a clean version, which we will send shortly. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree with Paul, at this point it should be typos Amr Elsadr:Note that Question 6 is meant to be replaced by the questions suggested by Jeff. Susan Payne:that also works Mary Wong:Jeff's questions are on the right, in teh Agenda pod Jon Nevett:how about we leave question ordering to Mary/Amr? David McAuley:+1 @ Jon Mary Wong:The choice is between moving Q6 to follow either Q1 or Q3, yes? Susan Payne:honestly I don't have really strong views on this Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:5, 1, 4, 6, 2???? But also, not strong views, we'll get there either way Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:, 3 Philip Corwin:3 seems logical -- but not a major issue. All questions wil be addressed regardless Susan Payne:I'm wirthdrawing my suggstion :) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Only a strong view on Q5 Susan Payne:yep Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:good, just checking :) Mary Wong:OK, so only Q5 moves up, and everything else stays where it is Philip Corwin:Always take yes for an answer ;-) David McAuley:well done Paul, nice leadership Kathy Kleiman:Congratulations, General Paul! Mary Wong:Nothing from staff exept a thank you to Paul and everyone Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Thank you Paul Susan Payne:Yes, thanks Paul Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:We cats appreciate the good job herding Jon Nevett:Thanks Paul! Steve Levy:Thanks for all your great help and leadership, Paul! Mary Wong:Thanks everyone! David McAuley:QED Griffin Barnett:many thanks Paul, and all Steve Levy:Bye all! Greg Shatan:Thanks Paul!

1 0

FOR FINAL REVIEW: Updated list of Additional Marketplace RPM Questions
by Mary Wong Sept. 15, 2017

Sept. 15, 2017

Dear Sub Team members, Please find attached a redlined and clean version of the list of questions concerning Additional Marketplace RPMs, which staff has updated following the call that just ended. You will see that we have also added a link to the wiki page on which the archived (deleted) questions have been listed. We hope we have captured all the agreements reached by the Sub Team. Please let us know if you spot any errors or omissions. As mentioned on the call, staff will proceed to circulate the document to the full Working Group on Monday for review and discussion on the Wednesday Working Group call. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Action items and updated document from 8 September RPM Sub Team call
by Mary Wong Sept. 11, 2017

Sept. 11, 2017

Dear all, Please find below the action items from the last Sub Team call held on Friday 8 September. In particular, note that staff has included the suggested rephrasing of Questions 7(a) & (b), proposed by Jeff Neuman, below. Please also find attached an updated version of the Sub Team’s Questions document that hopefully reflects the agreed actions as well as the action items below. 1. Sub Team to discuss alternative language for Question 7(a) & (b) (now renumbered as Question 6), suggested by Jeff Neuman: 6. What role does the TMCH Provider (front-end) play in “servicing” the Additional Marketplace RPMs? For example: * What services do you provide to ICANN Registry Operators? * Does the TMCH use any data from the Clearinghouse to provide these services? If so, please explain. * How are you compensated for the provision of these services? 1. Sub Team members to discuss the following topics on the Sub Team mailing list: * Should question 5 (as edited by Claudio) be moved to the top of the list of questions as an overarching question? * Should the Sub Team send a preliminary report with its conclusions to-date to the full WG? 1. Sub Team members to familiarize themselves with [Original Question 2], which will be a topic of discussion during next week’s Sub Team call (15 September). 1. Sub Team members to consider the order of questions, and whether reordering should be done before next week’s Sub Team call. 1. Staff to make the following edits: * incorporate proposed edit by Claudio on Question 5 * delete and archive questions 7c and 7d 1. Staff to create an archive page containing the rejected questions on the Sub Team wiki, to be noted via a link in the Sub Team report. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs meeting on Friday, 08 September 2017 16:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Sept. 8, 2017

Sept. 8, 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, 08 September 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance and recordings of the call are also posted on agenda wiki page: MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-marketplace-rpm-08sep17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p7vkrer4h6b/ 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 08 September 2017: Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs meeting on Friday, 08 September 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:Proposed Agenda: 1. Claudio's Proposed Changes to Q5 (from list); 2. Requesto to Archive Deleted Questions; 3. Finish Review of Remaining Questions Mary Wong:@Paul, thanks for the agenda - we have pasted it into the Agenda pod on the right. Mary Wong:Plus the text suggested by Claudio as well Steve Levy:Hi folks Mary Wong:Claudio's suggestion is in the Agenda pod on the right Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Addition was "and to what extent, " Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Original question: How does use of the Protected Marks Lists (e.g. blocking services) affect the utilization of other RPMs? Mary Wong:Because it (Q5) was agreed to be an overarching question Kathy:Edits fine Susan Payne:happy Brian Cimbolic:what is the point (generally) of archiving questions? Mary Wong:They would stay in the document, but not in the main text for consideration, just as FYI to the rest of the WG. Brian Cimbolic:thanks Paul Jon Nevett:I want to add some more questions if we are going to archive Susan Payne:strongly agree with Kristine. We will still have old versions of the document available in the wiki should anyone desire to look at it Jon Nevett:How wonderful are Additional Marketplace RPMs? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Phill, I think it elevates "rejected questions" above those of other questions. As you pointed out, people can always go back and compare. Jon Nevett:Kristine/Susan +1 Mary Wong:Will it help if staff archives all deleted questions from all sub teams on the wiki? Mary Wong:i.e. we can create a specific page for all questions that were discussed and agreed to be deleted from WG consideration. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Mary, I think it's a good offer, but it really dilutes the wheat with way too much chaff Philip Corwin:I presumed that "archived" would be a simple listing of rejected questions and a short note why would simply be to note the subteam's decison, not to keep them alive Mary Wong:All, note that there are two additional sections currently in the document - one is "deferred" (by sub team agreement at Kathy's request from a few weeks ago and its fate still needs to be determined); the second is "archived" (as in agreed that it is a deleted question). David McAuley:I agree w/Mary's idea and Jon's comment - seems a sensible middle ground Greg Shatan:Agree with Jon. David McAuley:But Kathy's point is also good if indeed we determined to send some Q's up to full group Philip Corwin:What Jon suggests seems reasonable -- so long as there is somewhere where WG members or others can see what the subteam discarded and a short rationale. Frankly I think it strengtnens the subteam's work product to do so. Mary Wong:Do you want them for all 3 sub teams or just this one? Philip Corwin:I support Jon's suggestion with his caveat that there be a link in the document to the wiki where the rejected questions are listed Greg Shatan:Agree with Jon's distinction. So let's not forget it when th doc is revised for public consumption. Susan Payne:+1 Greg jeff neuman:I dont really understand the questions Brian Cimbolic:+1 Kristine Mary Wong:As staff noted last week, ICANN doesn't support any of the Additional RPMs which are offered voluntarily by some ROs. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'll also reiterate my suggestion from last week that this is at least "related to" question 2. I won't dig into "is covered by" at this point, which I think as my original positition. Mary Wong:@Kristine, yes, one suggestion from last week was to move this question (possibly rephrased) into a subpart of Q2 Jon Nevett:No whammies, Greg Susan Payne:a good point Greg - although I don't think the TMCH provider does so does it? Didnt we ask them that months ago? Mary Wong:@Greg, if you meant the Ancillary Services that the TMCH provider can offer, that IS covered by their contract with ICANN. However, these do NOT mean or include the Additional Marketplace RPMs. At the moment, the only approved Ancillary Service is the ongoing claims service. jeff neuman:Wouldnt it be more simple to ask the TMCH provider if they provide other services and if so do you use the TMCH database as part of those services? Kathy:+1 J. Scott Greg Shatan:@Mary, no I was referring to something else but I don't have the primary text at my. fingertips. Greg Shatan:But if nobody know WTF the question means it should go on the reject pile. Susan Payne:couldn't agree more Greg. we need to make it clear what we are asking or delete Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree, Greg. In any case, I think Q2 gets at 7(c). J. Scott Evans:I tend to agree with Greg. If the question raises too many questions or is open to various interpretatons, I think the flaws have been point out and it should be eliminated. J. Scott Evans:This is the value and purpose of having a sub-team review and stress test these questions jeff neuman:i agree with Kristine...this is covered in question 2. I move to put this in the rejection pile David McAuley:Maybe cut it away with Occam's razor? David McAuley:that is what I meant David McAuley:yes Greg Shatan:(stepping away) Mary Wong:@Kathy, that was not the question that is being asked, is it? Whether ICANN thinks we are subsidizing or whether the fees are being used by the TMCH provider for Additional RPMs? Surely that is a question we (ICANN) cannot answer. Susan Payne:ICANN pays for it? I thought TMowners and Registries were the ones stuck with the costs :) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 Susan Jon Nevett:Susan is right and even when "ICANN "pays for it, it is out of application fees Mary Wong:@Jeff, it does - as to the TMDB etc., the requirements in the AGB follow the STI recommendations. J. Scott Evans:I agree with the points that Jeff is making here. I think has succintly revealed the reasons this question should go. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree Jeff, the question calls for a conclusion. jeff neuman:So the TMCP provider has agreed in its contract to follow the AGB? jeff neuman:If so, then it is a simple collection of facts: 1. What services does the TMCH provide, 2. How does it provide such services. 3. Does it use data from the TMCH database? Mary Wong:ICANN does not support or pay for voluntary RPMs offered by anyone, and we cannot opine on whether we are believed to be subsidizing these services. jeff neuman:Then based on the asnwers we make a conclusion Mary Wong:@Paul, give us a moment - we will look it up jeff neuman:you can even add a 4 and 5 to my questions. 4. Who are your customers? 5. How are the services paid for? Mary Wong:@Greg, is this more or less what you had in mind? From the final TMCH framework published in the final AGB: "The Clearinghouse will be required to separate its two primary functions: (i) authentication and validation of the trademarks in the Clearinghouse; and (ii) serving as a database to provide information to the new gTLD registries to support pre-launch Sunrise or Trademark Claims Services." Mary Wong:And "Trademark Clearinghouse Service Provider may provide ancillary services, as long as those services and any data used for those services are kept separate from the Clearinghouse database." Philip Corwin:To sum up, I think Q7 should be refined and clarified, not discarded J. Scott Evans:Query: Is an additional Registry Operator RPM an ancillary service of the TMCH? Mary Wong:@J Scott, no, not under its contract with ICANN Susan Payne:no Mary Wong:There is only one approved Ancillary Service at this time - the TMCH's provision of extended claims service. J. Scott Evans:It seems to me that those woulld be service offered directly to TMCH registrants and users from the TMCH provider jeff neuman:Is Ancillary Service a defined term in the contract? J. Scott Evans:IMHO, this just goes to show this questioh should be deleted J. Scott Evans:*question* Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree, J. Scott J. Scott Evans:Let's take a consensus vote on eliminating the c and d Mary Wong:@Jeff, I do not believe so but I can check. It is, however, clear that an ancillary service is something that the provider may offer (subject to ICANN approval) where TM owners have in fact opted for such services. The contract provides for a separate database for this purpose. Kathy:+ 1 Jeff Philip Corwin:If they are not ancilary services then what type of services are they? (this is a straightforward inquiry, not being argumentative) Mary Wong:To be clear, staff explanation of Ancillary Services is what is provided for in the contract with Deloitte - we have no opinion on what that phrase may mean outside that framework. jeff neuman:@Kathy - that is one interpretation of the term.... jeff neuman:but not everyones interpretation of what it means Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I think ancillary services are "anything other" than what ICANN hired the TMCH to operate. Kathy:Jeff - do you eant to give a short a rephrasing this question? Kathy:eant=> want Kathy:do you want to give a shot at rephrasing? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 Susan, I've been digging just not because I think we did ask and they did answer. I'm not finding it justnow. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:not=now Philip Corwin:I am going to support 7 c and d with the caveat that they need to be rephrased to be better focused jeff neuman:Questions to both Deloitte and IBM: 1. What services do you provide to ICANN Registry Operators? 2. Does TMCH use any data from the Clearinghouse for the provision of such services? IF so, please explain. 3. How are you compensation for the provision of such services. jeff neuman:3. How are you compensated for the provision of such services jeff neuman:Then we as a group determine whether their answers are in compliance with the requirements Kathy:Jeff has already provided a revision... Mary Wong:@Jeff, we will note your suggestions as a possible rephrasing. David McAuley:I can agree w/Phil J. Scott Evans:come on folks express an opinion David McAuley:My mark is as mentioned by Phil J. Scott Evans:Thanks Paul for your leadership today. Mary Wong:ok thanks Paul J. Scott Evans:ciao David McAuley:Thanks Paul, Mary, and all Susan Payne:thanks all Steve Levy:Thanks all!

1 0

Proposed Agenda for Additional Marketplace RPMs call
by Mary Wong Sept. 5, 2017

Sept. 5, 2017

Dear Sub Team members, Following consultation with Paul, our chair, here is the proposed agenda for the Sub Team call coming up in a few hours: 1. Discuss language proposed by Greg Shatan for Question 6: “Which Additional Marketplace RPMs were submitted for RSEP approval, and which Additional Marketplace RPMs were submitted to ICANN for some other form of approval?” 1. Agree on whether to move former Question 8 (now renumbered as Question 7 following incorporation of the previous Question 7 into a new bullet point under Question 3) out of the main text and into an archived portion of the same document, under the heading “Deleted as outside the remit of the Sub Team but archived for Working Group information” 2. Discuss remaining questions 3. [If time permits] Agree on moving Question 5 (identified previously as primary overarching issue) to the top of the questions list, and finalize ordering of questions 4. Next steps – completion of work and submission of final list of questions to the full Working Group For your convenient reference during the call, I attach an updated version of the Questions document – all the older comments for which no further edits or suggestions were received have been removed, leaving only the most recent unresolved comments and notes from the call last week for discussion. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-protection-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>> Date: Monday, August 28, 2017 at 18:13 To: "gnso-rpm-protection(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-protection(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-protection] Action Items from Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 25 August 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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> 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” ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.

4 3

Action Items - and request for further Sub Team input - following 1 September call
by Mary Wong Sept. 2, 2017

Sept. 2, 2017

Dear all, Please find below the action items from the Sub Team call held yesterday, as well as an attached updated document where the requested changes have been made. In addition, we have highlighted the action items in yellow as comments for your easy reference and continuing discussion. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Claudio di Gangi to send proposed revised language for Question 5 to the mailing list for Sub Team discussion – DONE (see Claudio’s suggested text below) 1. Sub Team to discuss on the mailing list before the next call: * Claudio’s suggested language for Question 5 (see below). * Possible rephrasing of Question 9 (now renumbered as Question 7) to make it less loaded, especially sub-points (c) and (d). Please see attached document for the current text. * Whether to delete, but archive at the end of the document, Question 9 (now Question 7), possibly along with original Question 8 (now deleted). Please see the highlighted comments in the attached document, including the alternative suggestions for handling the original Question 8 that were proposed by Sub Team members on the Friday call. 1. Staff to delete original Question 7 but archive it at the end of the document – DONE. In particular, Sub Team members who were not able to be on the call on Friday are encouraged to put their views on the above action items to the list. Thank you. Cheers Mary From: icannlists <icannlists(a)winston.com> Date: Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 09:13 To: claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi(a)gmail.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-protection(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-protection(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-protection] Proposed Agenda for Additional Marketplace RPMs call Thank you Claudio! All, can we please have some reaction to Claudio’s comments on this list, with the hope of having this squared away on the list before our next call? Best, Paul From: gnso-rpm-protection-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of claudio di gangi Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 4:42 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>; gnso-rpm-protection(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-protection] Proposed Agenda for Additional Marketplace RPMs call As promised on the call, here are my comments on question # 5, "How does use of the Protected Marks Lists (e.g. blocking services) affect the utilization of other RPMs?" 1. Are we asking this question for a) data collection or b) functional purposes? If just to understand things better from a functional level, I can envision an answer along the approximate lines of: Use of blocking services for a particular string prevents the registration of the corresponding domain name by the trademark owner or by a prospective 3rd party registrant (unless there is an "DPML override"), across all TLDs operated by the registry providing the service. As a result, use of blocking services has the effect of reducing the utilization rate of the mandatory RPMs, such as Sunrise or Claims, for strings that remain in a blocked status. 2. If for data collection purposes, should we tweak this to ask, "How, and to what extent, does use of the Protected Marks List affect the utilization of other RPMs", in order to quantify the impact of these services? To provide an example, if we discovered that 1,000 marks are collectively blocked through these services in 200 TLDs, that will add meaning and context to the overall number of Sunrise registrations. In theory, 1,000 blocked strings in 300 TLDs means up to 300,000 domains that may have otherwise been registered during Sunrise, do not get registered in Sunrise because those strings are in a blocked status. I understand it may be difficult to obtain this data in practice, but we may want to just get that on the record to ensure the final report is comprehensive and covers all the bases. Sorry for the long note, and please let me know of any questions. Hope everyone in the States has a great Holiday weekend! Best, Claudio On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:37 AM Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Sub Team members, Following consultation with Paul, our chair, here is the proposed agenda for the Sub Team call coming up in a few hours: 1. Discuss language proposed by Greg Shatan for Question 6: “Which Additional Marketplace RPMs were submitted for RSEP approval, and which Additional Marketplace RPMs were submitted to ICANN for some other form of approval?” 1. Agree on whether to move former Question 8 (now renumbered as Question 7 following incorporation of the previous Question 7 into a new bullet point under Question 3) out of the main text and into an archived portion of the same document, under the heading “Deleted as outside the remit of the Sub Team but archived for Working Group information” 2. Discuss remaining questions 3. [If time permits] Agree on moving Question 5 (identified previously as primary overarching issue) to the top of the questions list, and finalize ordering of questions 4. Next steps – completion of work and submission of final list of questions to the full Working Group For your convenient reference during the call, I attach an updated version of the Questions document – all the older comments for which no further edits or suggestions were received have been removed, leaving only the most recent unresolved comments and notes from the call last week for discussion. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-protection-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>> Date: Monday, August 28, 2017 at 18:13 To: "gnso-rpm-protection(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-protection(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-protection] Action Items from Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 25 August 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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> 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” ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-protection mailing list Gnso-rpm-protection(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-protection

1 0

UPDATED Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs call on Friday, 01 September 2017 16:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Sept. 1, 2017

Sept. 1, 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, 01 September 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance and recordings of the call are also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/bCAhB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-marketplace-rpm-01sep17-en.mp3[audio.icann…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn…> [audio.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn…> Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p9if2qr3ata/ 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 01 September 2017: Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs call on Friday, 01 September 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Stepping away for 2 min. David McAuley:dialing in Mary Wong:Question 6, with a comment noting Greg's suggestion, is on Page 3 of the document on screen. Amr Elsadr:Language proposed by Greg for Q6: “Which Additional Marketplace RPMs were submitted for RSEP approval, and which Additional Marketplace RPMs were submitted to ICANN for some other form of approval?” David McAuley:poor connection Griffin Barnett:Kristine, sound very blown out, may need to back away fromm your mic Jon Nevett:I agree with Kristine, but not as loudly! Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Sorry about the audio. I can't seem to get it right.... Greg Shatan:Way too loud, Kristine! That is the headset of the century! Can pick up a pin drop.... Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Actually, this is the old crappy one, I think something happened when I upgraded to Windows 10 Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:<sigh> David McAuley:oh, the dreaded upgrade Greg Shatan:Better check system levels in W10. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Sound is perfect Greg David McAuley:Agree with how Greg just said it David McAuley:if there is a question good to be fact-based Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:No one has indicated why how these get approved is relevant. Brian Cimbolic:that's where I am too, Kristine - I'm not sure why that information is helpful J. Scott Evans:I think I always understood that mandated RPMs were a floor, not a ceiling and that the marketplace would provide additional protections. I tend to agree with Kristen and Greg here Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:We're here to get data about Sunrise. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:We are not here to review the Add'tl Mechanisms though Kathy. We're here to get Sunrise data. David McAuley:I agree that we should take advantage of work that Sub Pro WT4 is doing J. Scott Evans:Let's take a poll on the Connect to see where the wind is blowing David McAuley:I'm in the middle as well Kathy:Let's count Phil C as a yes (green check mark) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks for the reminder, Mary. David McAuley:Good point Mary - may be a question that can't be answered Mary Wong:@Paul, we can also bring the question to the mailing list, to see if anyone not present on this call wants to weigh in. Kathy:Rebecca's hand is raised David McAuley:I was in middle but seriously leaning toward deletion Rebecca L Tushnet:Even if you don't use the word "consensus," you've decided to delete without a majority in favor of that Rebecca L Tushnet:That's a standard for proceeding that at the very least we would want to be consistent about Brian Cimbolic:people abstained - the Nays more than doubled the Yeas Brian Cimbolic:not sure that theres any legitimate complaint about that process, and Paul noted it can be brought up at the WG level Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I won't speak and blow everyone out of the water. I still don't see the point of moving [now] Q7, but I won't oppose it. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Aren't 8 and 9 essentially included in Q 3 Mary Wong:Apologies, it may actually be Q2 that is more relevant/applicable, possibly in combination with Q3 Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes, I'm sorry, I misspoke on that. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I do think Q8 is already addressed in Q2 Mary Wong:@Paul, all, staff was just suggesting what seemed to be an overlap for consideration/discussion by the group (we don't have an opinion either way) :) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:The first sentence of Q2 says "Are ROs relying on the results of TMCH validation services...." Kathy:How about #8 follows #2? Mary Wong::) Mary Wong:The other suggestion was from David, yes David McAuley:that was mine Paul, correct David McAuley:no strong feelings about it Kathy:Can we talke about Ques 9 first??? Kathy:a what? David McAuley:step away from the RPM Greg Shatan:Please restate. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'm going to suggest that since it's a repeated question, if the point is not to delete it, then it doesn't matter where it goes. :) J. Scott Evans:agnostic Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:We'll organize by topic later... Griffin Barnett:Apologies, had to step away for a moment Rebecca L Tushnet:I agree w/ Kristine here Brian Cimbolic:+1 Kristine Jon Nevett:i haven't said this in a while, but I think Kathy is right -- we should discuss 9 first. David McAuley:these kinds of polls are so hard to frame on the fly Greg Shatan:Which option is delete question 8? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 Greg Greg Shatan:Still confused sorry. Rebecca L Tushnet:Step away b/c I agree w/Kristine and we should move on Griffin Barnett:no strong prefernece either way Mary Wong:Green check - David M's suggestion (modified and put at end of Q2); Red cross - place Q8 as standalong question after Q2 (i.e. new Q3); Step away - leave it where it is. Mary Wong:Slow down - delete. Brian Cimbolic:the slow dwon pops away after a few seconds Amr Elsadr:Turtles are faster than I'm used to. Greg Shatan:Heiroglyphics? Brian Cimbolic:how about we ask first if people want to delete? David McAuley:I think the turtles end authomatically after a few seconds Brian Cimbolic:then if people want to keep it, we decide where to put it? Greg Shatan:My turtle is more persistent, probably because I'm on iPad. Brian Cimbolic:delete Greg Shatan:Doesn't AC have a poll option? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:delete Greg Shatan:Delete. Greg Shatan:Plain English would be good. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree Brian David McAuley:I like the notion of dealing with #2, 8, and 9 in one effort, not sure we can get there Kathy:X is keep Kathy:+1 David J. Scott Evans:unfortunately, I have to drop early in order to make another meeting. Thanks Paul for you leadership here. David McAuley:Also can support the idea of archiving deleted questions so the WG can see them Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@David, any member who thinks the question is not being asked can bring it up in the WG at any time. David McAuley:agreed - but an archive is (I think) a list at bottom of questions for convenience Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I strongly disagree with archiving questions determined to be outside the scope. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks Paul! Brian Cimbolic:have a great weekend, all David McAuley:Thanks all Greg Shatan:Bye all. Have a great weekend!

1 0

Recordings, Attendanc & AC Chat from Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs call on Friday, 01 September 2017 16:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Sept. 1, 2017

Sept. 1, 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, 01 September 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance and recordings of the call are also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/bCAhB MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-marketplace-rpm-01sep17-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-marketplace-rpm-01sep17-en.mp3> Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p9if2qr3ata/ 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 01 September 2017: Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs call on Friday, 01 September 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Stepping away for 2 min. David McAuley:dialing in Mary Wong:Question 6, with a comment noting Greg's suggestion, is on Page 3 of the document on screen. Amr Elsadr:Language proposed by Greg for Q6: “Which Additional Marketplace RPMs were submitted for RSEP approval, and which Additional Marketplace RPMs were submitted to ICANN for some other form of approval?” David McAuley:poor connection Griffin Barnett:Kristine, sound very blown out, may need to back away fromm your mic Jon Nevett:I agree with Kristine, but not as loudly! Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Sorry about the audio. I can't seem to get it right.... Greg Shatan:Way too loud, Kristine! That is the headset of the century! Can pick up a pin drop.... Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Actually, this is the old crappy one, I think something happened when I upgraded to Windows 10 Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:<sigh> David McAuley:oh, the dreaded upgrade Greg Shatan:Better check system levels in W10. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Sound is perfect Greg David McAuley:Agree with how Greg just said it David McAuley:if there is a question good to be fact-based Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:No one has indicated why how these get approved is relevant. Brian Cimbolic:that's where I am too, Kristine - I'm not sure why that information is helpful J. Scott Evans:I think I always understood that mandated RPMs were a floor, not a ceiling and that the marketplace would provide additional protections. I tend to agree with Kristen and Greg here Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:We're here to get data about Sunrise. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:We are not here to review the Add'tl Mechanisms though Kathy. We're here to get Sunrise data. David McAuley:I agree that we should take advantage of work that Sub Pro WT4 is doing J. Scott Evans:Let's take a poll on the Connect to see where the wind is blowing David McAuley:I'm in the middle as well Kathy:Let's count Phil C as a yes (green check mark) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks for the reminder, Mary. David McAuley:Good point Mary - may be a question that can't be answered Mary Wong:@Paul, we can also bring the question to the mailing list, to see if anyone not present on this call wants to weigh in. Kathy:Rebecca's hand is raised David McAuley:I was in middle but seriously leaning toward deletion Rebecca L Tushnet:Even if you don't use the word "consensus," you've decided to delete without a majority in favor of that Rebecca L Tushnet:That's a standard for proceeding that at the very least we would want to be consistent about Brian Cimbolic:people abstained - the Nays more than doubled the Yeas Brian Cimbolic:not sure that theres any legitimate complaint about that process, and Paul noted it can be brought up at the WG level Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I won't speak and blow everyone out of the water. I still don't see the point of moving [now] Q7, but I won't oppose it. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Aren't 8 and 9 essentially included in Q 3 Mary Wong:Apologies, it may actually be Q2 that is more relevant/applicable, possibly in combination with Q3 Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes, I'm sorry, I misspoke on that. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I do think Q8 is already addressed in Q2 Mary Wong:@Paul, all, staff was just suggesting what seemed to be an overlap for consideration/discussion by the group (we don't have an opinion either way) :) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:The first sentence of Q2 says "Are ROs relying on the results of TMCH validation services...." Kathy:How about #8 follows #2? Mary Wong::) Mary Wong:The other suggestion was from David, yes David McAuley:that was mine Paul, correct David McAuley:no strong feelings about it Kathy:Can we talke about Ques 9 first??? Kathy:a what? David McAuley:step away from the RPM Greg Shatan:Please restate. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'm going to suggest that since it's a repeated question, if the point is not to delete it, then it doesn't matter where it goes. :) J. Scott Evans:agnostic Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:We'll organize by topic later... Griffin Barnett:Apologies, had to step away for a moment Rebecca L Tushnet:I agree w/ Kristine here Brian Cimbolic:+1 Kristine Jon Nevett:i haven't said this in a while, but I think Kathy is right -- we should discuss 9 first. David McAuley:these kinds of polls are so hard to frame on the fly Greg Shatan:Which option is delete question 8? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 Greg Greg Shatan:Still confused sorry. Rebecca L Tushnet:Step away b/c I agree w/Kristine and we should move on Griffin Barnett:no strong prefernece either way Mary Wong:Green check - David M's suggestion (modified and put at end of Q2); Red cross - place Q8 as standalong question after Q2 (i.e. new Q3); Step away - leave it where it is. Mary Wong:Slow down - delete. Brian Cimbolic:the slow dwon pops away after a few seconds Amr Elsadr:Turtles are faster than I'm used to. Greg Shatan:Heiroglyphics? Brian Cimbolic:how about we ask first if people want to delete? David McAuley:I think the turtles end authomatically after a few seconds Brian Cimbolic:then if people want to keep it, we decide where to put it? Greg Shatan:My turtle is more persistent, probably because I'm on iPad. Brian Cimbolic:delete Greg Shatan:Doesn't AC have a poll option? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:delete Greg Shatan:Delete. Greg Shatan:Plain English would be good. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree Brian David McAuley:I like the notion of dealing with #2, 8, and 9 in one effort, not sure we can get there Kathy:X is keep Kathy:+1 David J. Scott Evans:unfortunately, I have to drop early in order to make another meeting. Thanks Paul for you leadership here. David McAuley:Also can support the idea of archiving deleted questions so the WG can see them Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@David, any member who thinks the question is not being asked can bring it up in the WG at any time. David McAuley:agreed - but an archive is (I think) a list at bottom of questions for convenience Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I strongly disagree with archiving questions determined to be outside the scope. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks Paul! Brian Cimbolic:have a great weekend, all David McAuley:Thanks all Greg Shatan:Bye all. Have a great weekend!

1 0