Action items and updated document from Sub Team call on 18 August 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
Thanks Mary. Hi Everyone, I apologize that I missed the call last week, I had a conflict arise suddenly. I’ve listened to the recording. My thoughts are below. 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 Question 3, and Question 3 is the right context because Question 3 asks background questions about how these services operate, to the extent those that offer them are willing to provide that information as an educational service to the ICANN community. Question 8: This question should be deleted. Again, it’s asking for a substantive review of the existence of Additional Marketplace RPMs, not data-gathering to support sunrise and claims statistics. Thanks, Kristine From: gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 12:22 PM To: gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-protection] Action items and updated document from Sub Team call on 18 August 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: o "data that are kept confidential as between the TM holder and the TMCH Provider(s)" (from Rebecca Tushnet) o "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
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 don’t see how the answer to this question affects our analysis and can be eliminated. There are two other points here. First, the GPML and the Additional Marketplace mechanisms as currently offered are two different animals and should not be held out as equals in the premise to the question. (The GPML targeted the top 100 / 500 brands, granting them automatic protections. The Additional Marketplace protections provide protections to any brand wishing to purchase them.) Second, question 8 is easily answered and does not require data collection. Adoption of services by individual registries do not upset or create new policies. In order for additional, individually adopted RPMs to be violative of policy, the existing policy must prohibit them. The he opposite is the case. I believe the Protection of Rights working group recommended that new TLDs adopt RPMs that were not required: "That regardless of other authentication of Legal Rights, all new gTLDs should institute measures to deter abuse of the RPMs and clearly false submissions.” https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/GNSO-PRO-WG-final-01Jun07.pdf <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/GNSO-PRO-WG-final-01Jun07.pdf> Not as eloquent as Kristine, but I agree. Thank you everyone, Kurt
On Aug 21, 2017, at 6:28 PM, Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-rpm-protection <gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks Mary.
Hi Everyone, I apologize that I missed the call last week, I had a conflict arise suddenly. I’ve listened to the recording. My thoughts are below.
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 Question 3, and Question 3 is the right context because Question 3 asks background questions about how these services operate, to the extent those that offer them are willing to provide that information as an educational service to the ICANN community.
Question 8: This question should be deleted. Again, it’s asking for a substantive review of the existence of Additional Marketplace RPMs, not data-gathering to support sunrise and claims statistics.
Thanks,
Kristine
From: gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 12:22 PM To: gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-protection] Action items and updated document from Sub Team call on 18 August 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: o "data that are kept confidential as between the TM holder and the TMCH Provider(s)" (from Rebecca Tushnet) o "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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-protection mailing list Gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-protection <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-protection>
participants (3)
-
Dorrain, Kristine -
Kurt Pritz -
Mary Wong