Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs call on 21 July 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance and recordings of the call are also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/q3jwAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-marketplace-rpm-21jul17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p7m07p3h1vy/<https://participate.icann.org/p7m07p3h1vy/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=b560bc8bdbc53ab354fcb9a3e62cf7c94ff489404776d85c72fdf4fc779b54a0> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-protection/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/q3jwAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie Adobe Connect chat transcript for 21 July 2017: Julie Bisland:Welcome to the Sub Team for Additional Marketplace RPMs on Friday, 21 July 2017 at 16:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_q... Paul McGrady:Waiting for the operator to connect me. David McAuley:is there a phone in passcode Amr Elsadr:LOL!! Greg Shatan:The password is "swordfish." Paul McGrady:It is "Protection" David McAuley:thanks Paul Brian Cimbolic:to confirm you, we need the Password Paul Jon Nevett:ok -- i'm on Adobe now -- thanks Julie Bisland:thank you, Jon Philip Corwin:I thought the password was covfefe ;-) David McAuley:Good one Phil - that is an alternative (fact) password David McAuley:Good clarification Phil Steve Levy:I was having a very hectic day and so am enjoying the quiet and solitude of this call ;-) Steve Levy:Oops. Just took myself off mute. Sorry! Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:As I understand it, we're not ADOPTING this doc as edited, but we're just deciding that we can start with this edited draft and decide to accept the deletions or not. Did I miss something/ Paul McGrady:@Kristine - correct Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 jon Amr Elsadr:Sure Paul. Give me a minute. Brian Cimbolic:the RPMs are specifically listed as "the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS); the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) and the associated availability through the TMCH of Sunrise periods and the Trademark Claims notification service; and the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (PDDRPs)." Philip Corwin:agree with Kristine's understanding, which Paul clarified when I asked my question Steve Levy:Here's the quote from the Charter "As a result of the New gTLD Program, severalnew rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) were developed to mitigate potential risks and coststo trademark rights holders that could arise in the expansion of the gTLD namespace, whichincluded certain safeguards to protect registrants who engage in legitimate uses of domainnames: the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS); the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) andthe associated availability through the TMCH of Sunrise periods and the Trademark Claimsnotification service; and the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (PDDRPs)." Steve Levy:I feel the definition of RPM may not specifically include marketplace RPMs but I also don't feel it can be read to exclude them Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I think the use of the colon is clear that this is the complete list. Jon Nevett:sorry Steve -- disagree with you Amr Elsadr:To add to Steve's post above, this was specified in the WG Charter: This PDP Working Group is being chartered to conduct a review of all RPMs in all gTLDs in two phases: Phase One will focus on a review of all the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program, and Phase Two will focus on a review of the UDRP. Amr Elsadr:Apologies about formatting. Philip Corwin:Paul, I always indulge you Jon Nevett:private RPMs were not developed for the New gTLD Program Jon Nevett:They were developed for individual registries Paul McGrady:@Phil - thanks man! Brian Cimbolic:I think we need to note that not all voluntary RPMs are TMCH-centric Brian Cimbolic:they will vary depending on each registry policy and model Steve Levy:I concede this is a fine point, and I'll respect the group consensus, but I view use of the word "include" in the definition as leaving open the scope of what RPMs are within our scope. In any event, as we are currrently in an information gathering phase, I feel we should err on the side of being over-inclusive and then later sort out what, if anything, the WG wants to do with that information. Jon Nevett:let's go back to the GNSO if you want to push such an extraorinarily expansive view of our charter Susan Payne:let's actually look at the document, I don't think the propsed deletions delete anything which is in scope but let's talk about the actual text rather than in generalities Brian Cimbolic:I agree, Susan - they also seem to editorialize/comment on the mechanisms unecessarily Jon Nevett:Phil, whether there was an RSEP review is rrelevant to our purpose and charter Jon Nevett:irrelevant Jon Nevett:when we do an RSEP PDP, we could do that Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 Jon Jon Nevett:absolutely David -- info is ok Philip Corwin:I forgot to note in my oral comment just now that another reason for us to understand the private protections is that they are almost surely impacting use (actually, disuse) of sunrise registrations, and that may impact decisions we make in regard to sunrise Jon Nevett:agree with Phil here -- understanding info and impacts make sense David McAuley:also agree on info and impacts Steve Levy:I don't want this to devolve into a battle over fine definitions (ex. Jon suggesting going back to the GNSO). Too much of a distraction to our sub-team's larger goals Susan Payne:Phil, the RSEP is used where a registry wants to adopt a new registry service. Some rvoluntary protections may be a new registry services, some may not. That would be why there is a difference Susan Payne:I think I did :) Brian Cimbolic:+1 Susan Brian Cimbolic:these mechanisms are necessarily not concensus policies - they are registry specific policies Amr Elsadr:Note that ancillary services by the TMCH are not the same as the Additional Marketplace RPMs provided by ROs. Ancillary services of the TMCH need to be approved by ICANN, and to my knowledge, only include the ongoing 90-days ongoing notification service. This does not preclude the need to review how this is done, however, just wanted to point out that these services are not the same as the ones provided by ROs independently. Jon Nevett:I don't think that #7 would provide relevant information -- all questions could be viewed are "informational" David McAuley:maybe just deleting "much" would take care of the loaded part of that quusion #2 Brian Cimbolic:agreed, e.g "how can TMCH services be MUCH MORE transparent ..." David McAuley:question #2 that is Brian Cimbolic:that already has the conclusion baked in the question - they are not transparent enough Greg Shatan:The STI is not our guiding document. It was superseded by subsequent events, decisions and documents. Susan Payne:I wil;l raise at the end Jon Nevett:or delete them later Amr Elsadr:Note that Susan's suggestions on Q1 have been pasted in the agenda pod. Paul McGrady:@Susan - please introduce it for us Kathy Kleiman:@Greg: the STI created Consensus Policy. Jon Nevett:@Kathy -- I don't think that is right -- STI wasn't Consensus Policy or the staff wouldn't have been able to overrule it in the AGB Kathy Kleiman:Is there wording of what Susan is suggesting? David McAuley:I think Susan's suggestions make sense Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Kathy, I think staff included it in the Agenda box. David McAuley:I am using Susan's wording in agenda box on upper right Kathy Kleiman:@Jon, Staff tweaked the agreed upon policy, and its our job to review it Amr Elsadr:@Kathy: Susan's suggestion is in the agenda pod. You should be able to see it in the top right of your screen. Jon Nevett:@kathy -- it's not listed in the list of Consensus Policies -- don't get me wrong, I probably would have preferred that it was Consensus Policy David McAuley:as ritten I assumed TMCH included the database, Deloitte and IBM David McAuley:written, that is Amr Elsadr:@Phil: Would you mind putting any proposed edits in the chat? Thanks. Susan Payne:sound ok to me David McAuley:me too Kathy Kleiman:TMCH -> TMCH Providers Kathy Kleiman:? Philip Corwin:With whom and under what arrangements does the TMCH share data and for what non-mandated RPM purposes? Jon Nevett:Like using Amr's definition of TMCH Ancillary Services throughout as well Kathy Kleiman:good point! Philip Corwin:My edit is above Susan Payne:database Kathy Kleiman:provider, I think Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:If we don't know, why don't we ask them which arm contracts with 3Ps? Philip Corwin:Agree that Amr's definition/distinction is useful Susan Payne:ok Jon Nevett:yes! Jon Nevett:Amr Elsadr: Note that ancillary services by the TMCH are not the same as the Additional Marketplace RPMs provided by ROs. Ancillary services of the TMCH need to be approved by ICANN, and to my knowledge, only include the ongoing 90-days ongoing notification service. This does not preclude the need to review how this is done, however, just wanted to point out that these services are not the same as the ones provided by ROs independently. Greg Shatan:I thought we had a definition of Ancillary Services.... Kathy Kleiman:According to the STI, section 2.3 "The TC Service Provider should be required to maintain a separate TC database, and may not store any data in the TC database related to its provision of ancillary services, if any." Julie Bisland:yes, will do David McAuley:aug 28 is a monday, no? Jon Nevett:july 28 Julie Bisland:July 28 at 16:oo UTC David McAuley:ok - sorry Philip Corwin:Regrets -I shall miss next week's meeting as I'll be driving north to Maine to vacate ;-) Julie Bisland:thank you , Phil, i'll note this Greg Shatan:Bottom up is a fundamental tenet of the multistakeholder process, is it not? Susan Payne:Lovely, thank you. Jon Nevett:i asked that the scope issue be dealt with before we started our work David McAuley:well-led Paul, thanks Steve Levy:Thank you all for your time today. Hope you have a relaxing weekend. David McAuley:Good bye Jon Nevett:thanks all Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks Payl Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Paul