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@icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org> Date: Friday, July 28, 2017 at 18:15 To: "gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-protection@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_agIhB&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=jrfytIimH-5nBVeOUvmUJ2pdqJmyM0Md6Q-usZ7OCxw&s=cDXA5FEyeUJ6iQewy6Uhro5lILEvZOR5M8L1wREfCo4&e=>. 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
Deletion of Question 2? As raised in the Subteam group last week, I still do not understand why question 2 has been deleted. Question 1 seems to be asking what services are being offered (a quantitative question). Question 2 (former Question 2) seems to be asking whether the public is in a position to understand the difference between services offered pursuant to ICANN Contract and pursuant to private offerings (a qualitative and transparency question). While I think the placement of the question is probably incorrect - it can certainly be moved later - the underlying issues of transparency, understandability and separation of additional marketplace services -- and the communication means by which they are shared with the public -- seems very valid. I note that others, from other SGs, agreed in the call last week. May I suggest that former #2 be moved to the end of the current questions to see whether, by the time we reach the end, the issue of what the Public knows about Additional Marketplace RPMs has been addressed. If not, this question, in some form, should remain in. Best regards, Kathy On 7/31/2017 5:10 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
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.
2. 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@icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org> *Date: *Friday, July 28, 2017 at 18:15 *To: *"gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-protection@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_a...>. 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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-protection mailing list Gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-protection
Hi Kathy - I favor deletion of question 2. Honestly, it struck me more as an effort in persuasive writing than a genuine pursuit of further information. It read: "How can TMCH services be much more transparent in terms of what is offered pursuant to ICANN contracts and policies and what services Deloitte and IBM provide to registries via private contract? Correspondingly, how can the Working Group and the public better understand what services Deloitte and IBM are offering to registries via private contract, e.g., private protections using the Trademark Clearinghouse database and special webinars about these private services? What changes might provide a clearer line?" (Emphasis supplied). The conclusion is clearly baked into the question here - that these mechanisms are not transparent and changes are needed to provide a clearer line. I don't think that has been established as a consensus position - certainly not of the subgroup, at least. The bias written into the question, to me, makes it inappropriate to include. Thanks, Brian Cimbolic Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| www.pir.org<http://www.pir.org/> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/PIRegistry> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/PIRegistry> | Instagram<http://instagram.com/PIRegistry> | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/PIRegistry> Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. From: gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 9:23 AM To: gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-protection] FOR REVIEW: Updated questions (re: Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 2017) Deletion of Question 2? As raised in the Subteam group last week, I still do not understand why question 2 has been deleted. Question 1 seems to be asking what services are being offered (a quantitative question). Question 2 (former Question 2) seems to be asking whether the public is in a position to understand the difference between services offered pursuant to ICANN Contract and pursuant to private offerings (a qualitative and transparency question). While I think the placement of the question is probably incorrect - it can certainly be moved later - the underlying issues of transparency, understandability and separation of additional marketplace services -- and the communication means by which they are shared with the public -- seems very valid. I note that others, from other SGs, agreed in the call last week. May I suggest that former #2 be moved to the end of the current questions to see whether, by the time we reach the end, the issue of what the Public knows about Additional Marketplace RPMs has been addressed. If not, this question, in some form, should remain in. Best regards, Kathy On 7/31/2017 5:10 PM, Mary Wong wrote: 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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org><mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org> Date: Friday, July 28, 2017 at 18:15 To: "gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org> <gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@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_agIhB&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=jrfytIimH-5nBVeOUvmUJ2pdqJmyM0Md6Q-usZ7OCxw&s=cDXA5FEyeUJ6iQewy6Uhro5lILEvZOR5M8L1wREfCo4&e=>. 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Brian, Tx for your response. Many subteams have started with questions that were deemed to be one-sided. Underlying this question, at least according to several people last week, was a genuine issue of transparency. Of course, please feel free to rewrite. That is indeed the purpose of the subteam! Best, Kathy On 8/4/2017 9:37 AM, Brian F. Cimbolic wrote:
Hi Kathy – I favor deletion of question 2. Honestly, it struck me more as an effort in persuasive writing than a genuine pursuit of further information. It read:
“How can TMCH services *_be much more transparent_* in terms of what is offered pursuant to ICANN contracts and policies and what services Deloitte and IBM provide to registries via private contract? Correspondingly, how can the Working Group and the public better understand what services Deloitte and IBM are offering to registries via private contract, e.g., private protections using the Trademark Clearinghouse database and special webinars about these private services? What changes *_might provide a clearer line_**_?”_*
(Emphasis supplied). The conclusion is clearly baked into the question here – that these mechanisms are not transparent and changes are needed to prPlovide a clearer line. I don’t think that has been established as a consensus position – certainly not of the subgroup, at least. The bias written into the question, to me, makes it inappropriate to include.
Thanks,
*Brian Cimbolic*
Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry
Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871|
www.pir.org<http://www.pir.org/> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/PIRegistry>| Twitter<http://twitter.com/PIRegistry> | Instagram<http://instagram.com/PIRegistry> | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/PIRegistry>
*Confidentiality Note:*Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
*From:*gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman *Sent:* Friday, August 04, 2017 9:23 AM *To:* gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-rpm-protection] FOR REVIEW: Updated questions (re: Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 2017)
Deletion of Question 2?
As raised in the Subteam group last week, I still do not understand why question 2 has been deleted. Question 1 seems to be asking what services are being offered (a quantitative question). Question 2 (former Question 2) seems to be asking whether the public is in a position to understand the difference between services offered pursuant to ICANN Contract and pursuant to private offerings (a qualitative and transparency question).
While I think the placement of the question is probably incorrect - it can certainly be moved later - the underlying issues of transparency, understandability and separation of additional marketplace services -- and the communication means by which they are shared with the public -- seems very valid. I note that others, from other SGs, agreed in the call last week.
May I suggest that former #2 be moved to the end of the current questions to see whether, by the time we reach the end, the issue of what the Public knows about Additional Marketplace RPMs has been addressed. If not, this question, in some form, should remain in.
Best regards, Kathy
On 7/31/2017 5:10 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
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.
2. 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@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org> <mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org> *Date: *Friday, July 28, 2017 at 18:15 *To: *"gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org> <gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@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_a...>. 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
_______________________________________________
Gnso-rpm-protection mailing list
Gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org>
I think the other point was that once you tried to rewrite the question to take away the inherent bias Brian pointed out, the question was essentially a repeat of other questions already being asked. That is why I favored deletion as well. If I recall correctly, the decision to delete that question was unanimous on the call last week. I know you were not able to be on, and therefore it is completely appropriate for you to raise on email. But can you help us understand why you feel the question should be included and what information we hope to collect under this question that we wouldn't otherwise collect with the other questions. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 10:05 AM To: Brian F. Cimbolic <BCimbolic@pir.org>; gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-protection] FOR REVIEW: Updated questions (re: Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 2017) Hi Brian, Tx for your response. Many subteams have started with questions that were deemed to be one-sided. Underlying this question, at least according to several people last week, was a genuine issue of transparency. Of course, please feel free to rewrite. That is indeed the purpose of the subteam! Best, Kathy On 8/4/2017 9:37 AM, Brian F. Cimbolic wrote: Hi Kathy - I favor deletion of question 2. Honestly, it struck me more as an effort in persuasive writing than a genuine pursuit of further information. It read: "How can TMCH services be much more transparent in terms of what is offered pursuant to ICANN contracts and policies and what services Deloitte and IBM provide to registries via private contract? Correspondingly, how can the Working Group and the public better understand what services Deloitte and IBM are offering to registries via private contract, e.g., private protections using the Trademark Clearinghouse database and special webinars about these private services? What changes might provide a clearer line?" (Emphasis supplied). The conclusion is clearly baked into the question here - that these mechanisms are not transparent and changes are needed to prPlovide a clearer line. I don't think that has been established as a consensus position - certainly not of the subgroup, at least. The bias written into the question, to me, makes it inappropriate to include. Thanks, Brian Cimbolic Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| www.pir.org<http://www.pir.org/> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/PIRegistry> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/PIRegistry> | Instagram<http://instagram.com/PIRegistry> | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/PIRegistry> Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. From: gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 9:23 AM To: gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-protection] FOR REVIEW: Updated questions (re: Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 2017) Deletion of Question 2? As raised in the Subteam group last week, I still do not understand why question 2 has been deleted. Question 1 seems to be asking what services are being offered (a quantitative question). Question 2 (former Question 2) seems to be asking whether the public is in a position to understand the difference between services offered pursuant to ICANN Contract and pursuant to private offerings (a qualitative and transparency question). While I think the placement of the question is probably incorrect - it can certainly be moved later - the underlying issues of transparency, understandability and separation of additional marketplace services -- and the communication means by which they are shared with the public -- seems very valid. I note that others, from other SGs, agreed in the call last week. May I suggest that former #2 be moved to the end of the current questions to see whether, by the time we reach the end, the issue of what the Public knows about Additional Marketplace RPMs has been addressed. If not, this question, in some form, should remain in. Best regards, Kathy On 7/31/2017 5:10 PM, Mary Wong wrote: 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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org><mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org> Date: Friday, July 28, 2017 at 18:15 To: "gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org> <gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@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_agIhB&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=jrfytIimH-5nBVeOUvmUJ2pdqJmyM0Md6Q-usZ7OCxw&s=cDXA5FEyeUJ6iQewy6Uhro5lILEvZOR5M8L1wREfCo4&e=>. 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 _______________________________________________ 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
I think it's important for people to be able to distinguish the source of authority for different mechanisms--at a minimum, it lets them know to whom feedback should be directed and where responsibility lies. What about reformulating to ask whether different users of the system, including applicants and trademark claimants, can understand the source of the different mechanisms and whether they can easily identify the entities to whom feedback about the mechanisms should be directed? This goes beyond whether they can appeal any particular decision, to the structure of the various systems. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School 703 593 6759 ________________________________ From: gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org [gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of Jeff Neuman [jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 10:18 AM To: Kathy Kleiman; Brian F. Cimbolic; gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-protection] FOR REVIEW: Updated questions (re: Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 2017) I think the other point was that once you tried to rewrite the question to take away the inherent bias Brian pointed out, the question was essentially a repeat of other questions already being asked. That is why I favored deletion as well. If I recall correctly, the decision to delete that question was unanimous on the call last week. I know you were not able to be on, and therefore it is completely appropriate for you to raise on email. But can you help us understand why you feel the question should be included and what information we hope to collect under this question that we wouldn’t otherwise collect with the other questions. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 10:05 AM To: Brian F. Cimbolic <BCimbolic@pir.org>; gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-protection] FOR REVIEW: Updated questions (re: Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 2017) Hi Brian, Tx for your response. Many subteams have started with questions that were deemed to be one-sided. Underlying this question, at least according to several people last week, was a genuine issue of transparency. Of course, please feel free to rewrite. That is indeed the purpose of the subteam! Best, Kathy On 8/4/2017 9:37 AM, Brian F. Cimbolic wrote: Hi Kathy – I favor deletion of question 2. Honestly, it struck me more as an effort in persuasive writing than a genuine pursuit of further information. It read: “How can TMCH services be much more transparent in terms of what is offered pursuant to ICANN contracts and policies and what services Deloitte and IBM provide to registries via private contract? Correspondingly, how can the Working Group and the public better understand what services Deloitte and IBM are offering to registries via private contract, e.g., private protections using the Trademark Clearinghouse database and special webinars about these private services? What changes might provide a clearer line?” (Emphasis supplied). The conclusion is clearly baked into the question here – that these mechanisms are not transparent and changes are needed to prPlovide a clearer line. I don’t think that has been established as a consensus position – certainly not of the subgroup, at least. The bias written into the question, to me, makes it inappropriate to include. Thanks, Brian Cimbolic Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| www.pir.org<http://www.pir.org/> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/PIRegistry> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/PIRegistry> | Instagram<http://instagram.com/PIRegistry> | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/PIRegistry> Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. From: gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 9:23 AM To: gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-protection] FOR REVIEW: Updated questions (re: Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 2017) Deletion of Question 2? As raised in the Subteam group last week, I still do not understand why question 2 has been deleted. Question 1 seems to be asking what services are being offered (a quantitative question). Question 2 (former Question 2) seems to be asking whether the public is in a position to understand the difference between services offered pursuant to ICANN Contract and pursuant to private offerings (a qualitative and transparency question). While I think the placement of the question is probably incorrect - it can certainly be moved later - the underlying issues of transparency, understandability and separation of additional marketplace services -- and the communication means by which they are shared with the public -- seems very valid. I note that others, from other SGs, agreed in the call last week. May I suggest that former #2 be moved to the end of the current questions to see whether, by the time we reach the end, the issue of what the Public knows about Additional Marketplace RPMs has been addressed. If not, this question, in some form, should remain in. Best regards, Kathy On 7/31/2017 5:10 PM, Mary Wong wrote: 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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org><mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org> Date: Friday, July 28, 2017 at 18:15 To: "gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org> <gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@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_agIhB&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=jrfytIimH-5nBVeOUvmUJ2pdqJmyM0Md6Q-usZ7OCxw&s=cDXA5FEyeUJ6iQewy6Uhro5lILEvZOR5M8L1wREfCo4&e=>. 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 _______________________________________________ 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
When I proposed deleting this question on 5 June (ie 2 months ago), I set out my reasoning as follows: I believe this question 2 should be deleted for the following reasons: The language of sentence one is loaded, in that it assumes that there is an unacceptable lack of transparency that needs to be addressed. The language of this first sentence was in the original form of the TMCH charter questions and the subgroup dealing with these questions revised it for neutrality. I believe that this revision exercise led to the language used at Q 1 above. The second sentence appears to be new, but again somewhat lacks neutrality, implying a lack of necessary information. It would be possible to redraft this Q2 to make it neutral, but in doing so I believe it would essentially duplicate what is being asked in Q1, namely what information is available and where is it? Granted, it's not terribly detailed, but I think it's pretty clear, and we then discussed this first on the call on 21 July and again on the call last week. I don't think you had joined us for this part of the discussion on 28 July you were on the 21 July call Kathy. I believe there was a suggestion on the 21 July call that if you wanted to propose a redraft for neutrality we would look at it on the list and on the 28 July call (although since we don't have transcripts I cannot check my recollection without listening back to the audio and I'm afraid I don't have time to do that). If you would still like to propose a redraft I imagine we'd be open to considering it when available, but I'm extremely reluctant to spend any more time discussing the reasoning for the deletion again on today's call. We must be able to make decisions and move on or we will never get through the questions. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: 04 August 2017 15:18 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>; Brian F. Cimbolic <BCimbolic@pir.org>; gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-protection] FOR REVIEW: Updated questions (re: Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 2017) I think the other point was that once you tried to rewrite the question to take away the inherent bias Brian pointed out, the question was essentially a repeat of other questions already being asked. That is why I favored deletion as well. If I recall correctly, the decision to delete that question was unanimous on the call last week. I know you were not able to be on, and therefore it is completely appropriate for you to raise on email. But can you help us understand why you feel the question should be included and what information we hope to collect under this question that we wouldn't otherwise collect with the other questions. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 10:05 AM To: Brian F. Cimbolic <BCimbolic@pir.org<mailto:BCimbolic@pir.org>>; gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-protection] FOR REVIEW: Updated questions (re: Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 2017) Hi Brian, Tx for your response. Many subteams have started with questions that were deemed to be one-sided. Underlying this question, at least according to several people last week, was a genuine issue of transparency. Of course, please feel free to rewrite. That is indeed the purpose of the subteam! Best, Kathy On 8/4/2017 9:37 AM, Brian F. Cimbolic wrote: Hi Kathy - I favor deletion of question 2. Honestly, it struck me more as an effort in persuasive writing than a genuine pursuit of further information. It read: "How can TMCH services be much more transparent in terms of what is offered pursuant to ICANN contracts and policies and what services Deloitte and IBM provide to registries via private contract? Correspondingly, how can the Working Group and the public better understand what services Deloitte and IBM are offering to registries via private contract, e.g., private protections using the Trademark Clearinghouse database and special webinars about these private services? What changes might provide a clearer line?" (Emphasis supplied). The conclusion is clearly baked into the question here - that these mechanisms are not transparent and changes are needed to prPlovide a clearer line. I don't think that has been established as a consensus position - certainly not of the subgroup, at least. The bias written into the question, to me, makes it inappropriate to include. Thanks, Brian Cimbolic Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| www.pir.org<http://www.pir.org/> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/PIRegistry> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/PIRegistry> | Instagram<http://instagram.com/PIRegistry> | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/PIRegistry> Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. From: gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 9:23 AM To: gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-protection] FOR REVIEW: Updated questions (re: Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 2017) Deletion of Question 2? As raised in the Subteam group last week, I still do not understand why question 2 has been deleted. Question 1 seems to be asking what services are being offered (a quantitative question). Question 2 (former Question 2) seems to be asking whether the public is in a position to understand the difference between services offered pursuant to ICANN Contract and pursuant to private offerings (a qualitative and transparency question). While I think the placement of the question is probably incorrect - it can certainly be moved later - the underlying issues of transparency, understandability and separation of additional marketplace services -- and the communication means by which they are shared with the public -- seems very valid. I note that others, from other SGs, agreed in the call last week. May I suggest that former #2 be moved to the end of the current questions to see whether, by the time we reach the end, the issue of what the Public knows about Additional Marketplace RPMs has been addressed. If not, this question, in some form, should remain in. Best regards, Kathy On 7/31/2017 5:10 PM, Mary Wong wrote: 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. (2) 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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org><mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org> Date: Friday, July 28, 2017 at 18:15 To: "gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org> <gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@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_agIhB&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=jrfytIimH-5nBVeOUvmUJ2pdqJmyM0Md6Q-usZ7OCxw&s=cDXA5FEyeUJ6iQewy6Uhro5lILEvZOR5M8L1wREfCo4&e=>. 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Hi, Would like to note that transcripts, as well as recordings and copies of the AC room chat are available for each Sub Team call. The transcripts for the 28 July call have been posted on the wiki page for that meeting here: https://community.icann.org/x/agIhB I hope this helps. Thanks. Amr From: <gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> Date: Friday, August 4, 2017 at 5:19 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>, "Brian F. Cimbolic" <BCimbolic@pir.org>, "gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-protection] FOR REVIEW: Updated questions (re: Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 2017) When I proposed deleting this question on 5 June (ie 2 months ago), I set out my reasoning as follows: I believe this question 2 should be deleted for the following reasons: The language of sentence one is loaded, in that it assumes that there is an unacceptable lack of transparency that needs to be addressed. The language of this first sentence was in the original form of the TMCH charter questions and the subgroup dealing with these questions revised it for neutrality. I believe that this revision exercise led to the language used at Q 1 above. The second sentence appears to be new, but again somewhat lacks neutrality, implying a lack of necessary information. It would be possible to redraft this Q2 to make it neutral, but in doing so I believe it would essentially duplicate what is being asked in Q1, namely what information is available and where is it? Granted, it’s not terribly detailed, but I think it’s pretty clear, and we then discussed this first on the call on 21 July and again on the call last week. I don’t think you had joined us for this part of the discussion on 28 July you were on the 21 July call Kathy. I believe there was a suggestion on the 21 July call that if you wanted to propose a redraft for neutrality we would look at it on the list and on the 28 July call (although since we don’t have transcripts I cannot check my recollection without listening back to the audio and I’m afraid I don’t have time to do that). If you would still like to propose a redraft I imagine we’d be open to considering it when available, but I’m extremely reluctant to spend any more time discussing the reasoning for the deletion again on today’s call. We must be able to make decisions and move on or we will never get through the questions. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: 04 August 2017 15:18 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>; Brian F. Cimbolic <BCimbolic@pir.org>; gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-protection] FOR REVIEW: Updated questions (re: Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 2017) I think the other point was that once you tried to rewrite the question to take away the inherent bias Brian pointed out, the question was essentially a repeat of other questions already being asked. That is why I favored deletion as well. If I recall correctly, the decision to delete that question was unanimous on the call last week. I know you were not able to be on, and therefore it is completely appropriate for you to raise on email. But can you help us understand why you feel the question should be included and what information we hope to collect under this question that we wouldn’t otherwise collect with the other questions. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 10:05 AM To: Brian F. Cimbolic <BCimbolic@pir.org<mailto:BCimbolic@pir.org>>; gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-protection] FOR REVIEW: Updated questions (re: Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 2017) Hi Brian, Tx for your response. Many subteams have started with questions that were deemed to be one-sided. Underlying this question, at least according to several people last week, was a genuine issue of transparency. Of course, please feel free to rewrite. That is indeed the purpose of the subteam! Best, Kathy On 8/4/2017 9:37 AM, Brian F. Cimbolic wrote: Hi Kathy – I favor deletion of question 2. Honestly, it struck me more as an effort in persuasive writing than a genuine pursuit of further information. It read: “How can TMCH services be much more transparent in terms of what is offered pursuant to ICANN contracts and policies and what services Deloitte and IBM provide to registries via private contract? Correspondingly, how can the Working Group and the public better understand what services Deloitte and IBM are offering to registries via private contract, e.g., private protections using the Trademark Clearinghouse database and special webinars about these private services? What changes might provide a clearer line?” (Emphasis supplied). The conclusion is clearly baked into the question here – that these mechanisms are not transparent and changes are needed to prPlovide a clearer line. I don’t think that has been established as a consensus position – certainly not of the subgroup, at least. The bias written into the question, to me, makes it inappropriate to include. Thanks, Brian Cimbolic Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| www.pir.org[pir.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.pir.org_&d=DwMFAg&c=...> | Facebook[facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_PIRegis...> | Twitter[twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_PIRegistry&d...> | Instagram[instagram.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__instagram.com_PIRegistry...> | YouTube[youtube.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.youtube.com_PIRegist...> Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. From: gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 9:23 AM To: gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-protection] FOR REVIEW: Updated questions (re: Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 2017) Deletion of Question 2? As raised in the Subteam group last week, I still do not understand why question 2 has been deleted. Question 1 seems to be asking what services are being offered (a quantitative question). Question 2 (former Question 2) seems to be asking whether the public is in a position to understand the difference between services offered pursuant to ICANN Contract and pursuant to private offerings (a qualitative and transparency question). While I think the placement of the question is probably incorrect - it can certainly be moved later - the underlying issues of transparency, understandability and separation of additional marketplace services -- and the communication means by which they are shared with the public -- seems very valid. I note that others, from other SGs, agreed in the call last week. May I suggest that former #2 be moved to the end of the current questions to see whether, by the time we reach the end, the issue of what the Public knows about Additional Marketplace RPMs has been addressed. If not, this question, in some form, should remain in. Best regards, Kathy On 7/31/2017 5:10 PM, Mary Wong wrote: 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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org><mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org> Date: Friday, July 28, 2017 at 18:15 To: "gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org> <gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@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_agIhB&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=jrfytIimH-5nBVeOUvmUJ2pdqJmyM0Md6Q-usZ7OCxw&s=cDXA5FEyeUJ6iQewy6Uhro5lILEvZOR5M8L1wREfCo4&e=>. 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Thank you so much Amr! I completely forgot Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: 04 August 2017 16:24 To: gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-protection] FOR REVIEW: Updated questions (re: Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 2017) Hi, Would like to note that transcripts, as well as recordings and copies of the AC room chat are available for each Sub Team call. The transcripts for the 28 July call have been posted on the wiki page for that meeting here: https://community.icann.org/x/agIhB I hope this helps. Thanks. Amr From: <gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> Date: Friday, August 4, 2017 at 5:19 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>, "Brian F. Cimbolic" <BCimbolic@pir.org<mailto:BCimbolic@pir.org>>, "gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-protection] FOR REVIEW: Updated questions (re: Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 2017) When I proposed deleting this question on 5 June (ie 2 months ago), I set out my reasoning as follows: I believe this question 2 should be deleted for the following reasons: The language of sentence one is loaded, in that it assumes that there is an unacceptable lack of transparency that needs to be addressed. The language of this first sentence was in the original form of the TMCH charter questions and the subgroup dealing with these questions revised it for neutrality. I believe that this revision exercise led to the language used at Q 1 above. The second sentence appears to be new, but again somewhat lacks neutrality, implying a lack of necessary information. It would be possible to redraft this Q2 to make it neutral, but in doing so I believe it would essentially duplicate what is being asked in Q1, namely what information is available and where is it? Granted, it’s not terribly detailed, but I think it’s pretty clear, and we then discussed this first on the call on 21 July and again on the call last week. I don’t think you had joined us for this part of the discussion on 28 July you were on the 21 July call Kathy. I believe there was a suggestion on the 21 July call that if you wanted to propose a redraft for neutrality we would look at it on the list and on the 28 July call (although since we don’t have transcripts I cannot check my recollection without listening back to the audio and I’m afraid I don’t have time to do that). If you would still like to propose a redraft I imagine we’d be open to considering it when available, but I’m extremely reluctant to spend any more time discussing the reasoning for the deletion again on today’s call. We must be able to make decisions and move on or we will never get through the questions. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: 04 August 2017 15:18 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; Brian F. Cimbolic <BCimbolic@pir.org<mailto:BCimbolic@pir.org>>; gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-protection] FOR REVIEW: Updated questions (re: Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 2017) I think the other point was that once you tried to rewrite the question to take away the inherent bias Brian pointed out, the question was essentially a repeat of other questions already being asked. That is why I favored deletion as well. If I recall correctly, the decision to delete that question was unanimous on the call last week. I know you were not able to be on, and therefore it is completely appropriate for you to raise on email. But can you help us understand why you feel the question should be included and what information we hope to collect under this question that we wouldn’t otherwise collect with the other questions. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 10:05 AM To: Brian F. Cimbolic <BCimbolic@pir.org<mailto:BCimbolic@pir.org>>; gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-protection] FOR REVIEW: Updated questions (re: Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 2017) Hi Brian, Tx for your response. Many subteams have started with questions that were deemed to be one-sided. Underlying this question, at least according to several people last week, was a genuine issue of transparency. Of course, please feel free to rewrite. That is indeed the purpose of the subteam! Best, Kathy On 8/4/2017 9:37 AM, Brian F. Cimbolic wrote: Hi Kathy – I favor deletion of question 2. Honestly, it struck me more as an effort in persuasive writing than a genuine pursuit of further information. It read: “How can TMCH services be much more transparent in terms of what is offered pursuant to ICANN contracts and policies and what services Deloitte and IBM provide to registries via private contract? Correspondingly, how can the Working Group and the public better understand what services Deloitte and IBM are offering to registries via private contract, e.g., private protections using the Trademark Clearinghouse database and special webinars about these private services? What changes might provide a clearer line?” (Emphasis supplied). The conclusion is clearly baked into the question here – that these mechanisms are not transparent and changes are needed to prPlovide a clearer line. I don’t think that has been established as a consensus position – certainly not of the subgroup, at least. The bias written into the question, to me, makes it inappropriate to include. Thanks, Brian Cimbolic Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| www.pir.org[pir.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.pir.org_&d=DwMFAg&c=...> | Facebook[facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_PIRegis...> | Twitter[twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_PIRegistry&d...> | Instagram[instagram.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__instagram.com_PIRegistry...> | YouTube[youtube.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.youtube.com_PIRegist...> Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. From: gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 9:23 AM To: gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-protection] FOR REVIEW: Updated questions (re: Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 2017) Deletion of Question 2? As raised in the Subteam group last week, I still do not understand why question 2 has been deleted. Question 1 seems to be asking what services are being offered (a quantitative question). Question 2 (former Question 2) seems to be asking whether the public is in a position to understand the difference between services offered pursuant to ICANN Contract and pursuant to private offerings (a qualitative and transparency question). While I think the placement of the question is probably incorrect - it can certainly be moved later - the underlying issues of transparency, understandability and separation of additional marketplace services -- and the communication means by which they are shared with the public -- seems very valid. I note that others, from other SGs, agreed in the call last week. May I suggest that former #2 be moved to the end of the current questions to see whether, by the time we reach the end, the issue of what the Public knows about Additional Marketplace RPMs has been addressed. If not, this question, in some form, should remain in. Best regards, Kathy On 7/31/2017 5:10 PM, Mary Wong wrote: 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. (2) 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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org><mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org> Date: Friday, July 28, 2017 at 18:15 To: "gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org> <gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-protection@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_agIhB&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=jrfytIimH-5nBVeOUvmUJ2pdqJmyM0Md6Q-usZ7OCxw&s=cDXA5FEyeUJ6iQewy6Uhro5lILEvZOR5M8L1wREfCo4&e=>. 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 _______________________________________________ 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
participants (7)
-
Amr Elsadr -
Brian F. Cimbolic -
Jeff Neuman -
Kathy Kleiman -
Mary Wong -
Rebecca Tushnet -
Susan Payne