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@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@icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr < amr.elsadr@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, August 28, 2017 at 18:13 *To: *"gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org" <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_N...>
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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-protection