Dear all, The action items from the last Sub Team call on Friday 11 August are listed below. In addition, please find attached for your review and further discussion an updated version of the Sub Team’s document, to which staff has made the edits from the Friday call, with comment balloons indicating the source of those edits. Action Items: * Kathy Kleiman to propose additional question building on Question 4 (as phrased) to address suggestion about “benefits and concerns” of extended Claims Service * Sub Team members to note at beginning of the next call that while edits to Question 5 have been minimal, should the question also include specific reference to quantifying the level of usage of Protected Marks List services (i.e. question from Claudio di Gangi) * Staff to update Q2 as follows: (1) retain suggested language from Phil Corwin regarding existing scope of TMCH policy and documentation while adding language from David McAuley and deleting question immediately preceding Phil’s language; (2) rephrase the question on costs in line with Jon Nevett’s suggestion and clarify that question is intended to also solicit feedback as to what the various additional costs may be * Staff to update Q3 to clarify example of registry use of SMD files in relation to the provision of Protected Marks List services * Staff to update Q4 to add registrars as a source of feedback, and to include examples of relevant experiences (e.g. registration volume and numbers of exact matches) Notes from the call will also be posted to the Sub Team wiki space shortly, as usual. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 18:29 To: "gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Additional Marketplace RPMs document Dear all, Please find attached an updated version of the Additional Marketplace RPMs document for your review and further discussion. The edits that have been made are based on the Sub Team’s suggestions, comments and discussion from the call last Friday (4 August), though, as noted in my email from yesterday, they have been made on top of the document that was circulated on 31 July rather than the document that was inadvertently displayed in the AC room on Friday. Please let us know if you have questions or comments, both on this updated document and on the issue about Question 2 (email below). Thank you! Cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Monday, August 7, 2017 at 15:59 To: "gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org> Subject: PLEASE READ: A different version of the Questions document was shown in AC on Friday Dear Paul and Sub Team members, We are very, very sorry, but we have discovered that the version of the document that was displayed in the AC room on the Sub Team call on Friday 4 August was not the version that had been circulated on Monday before the call (see email below). The good news is that this discrepancy only affects what is now Question 2, about whether and how registry operators may be relying on the TMCH for the Additional Marketplace RPMs they offer. Hopefully this means that we can sort out any confusion via email. I emphasize that this only concerns Question 2, and not any of the other questions that were subsequently discussed on the Sub Team call. To this end we have included a proposal for your consideration at the end of this email. The version of Question 2 that was discussed on the call reads as follows: Are registry operators using the TMCH database and its features (such as relying on the TMCH as a 3rd party validator as a source of information) for Additional Marketplace Mechanisms? If so, how? Does the current adopted policy allow this use? Could registry operators provide the same or similar additional marketplace services without access to the TMCH database? If so, would there be any increase in costs to brand owners? However, the version of Question 2 that was circulated before the call, and which is in fact a further staff update on the above language, is not quite the same and, perhaps more significantly, also includes an additional Explanatory Note that we inserted to address a suggestion from Kristine Dorrain from the previous week. I am highlighting the key differences in the two versions in bold and yellow, with the added Explanatory Note in bold: 2. ** Are registry operators relying on the results of the TMCH validation services, or accessing the TMCH database, to provide Additional Marketplace RPMs, and, if so, in what ways? Are these uses of the TMCH services or database by these registry operators permitted under ICANN’s current rules for the TMCH? Are registry operators able to provide the same or similar Additional Marketplace RPMs without relying on the TMCH validation services or access to the TMCH database? If so, would there be any increase in costs to brand owners? ** SUB TEAM EXPLANATORY NOTE ON QUESTION 2: The Sub Team’s discussion of this question resulted in agreement amongst most Sub Team members that the answer to the question as to whether, and how, some registry operators are relying on the TMCH validation services and/or accessing the TMCH database in order to provide Additional Marketplace RPMs is “Yes”. This is based on information provided by some registry operator members of the Sub Team as well as registry responses to a poll conducted by the Working Group in December 2016. The poll questions included the following: (1) Are you accessing data and records in the TMCH for purposes other than obtaining information necessary for the provision of Sunrise and Claims services in accordance with ICANN’s user manuals and technical requirements; and (2) Are you using any capabilities of the TMCH other than for Sunrise Periods and TM Claims Notices? Two registries (PIR and Afnic) responded “no” to both questions, while Donuts responded “Yes” to both (for (1), it was to verify Domains Protected Marks List (DPML) block request), and for (2), it was to leverage SMD files as qualifiers for the DPML service). The Sub Team is adding this Explanatory Note to provide information as to how the TMCH may be leveraged by some registry operators to offer Additional Marketplace RPMs, as it believes that even if the answer to the initial question is “Yes”, this is essential information for the rest of the Working Group. PROPOSAL FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION: To enable the Sub Team to continue to make progress, may we propose the following? 1. The Sub Team to discuss and agree via email whether the highlighted language above (especially the text of the question) addresses the concerns that Paul, Jeff, Rebecca and Phil had tried to address on Friday, regarding the language as to whether “current adopted policy allows this use”? Alternatively, do you prefer to use the language suggested by Phil on the call – i.e. “Is there language in the current adopted TMCH policy or related documents that expressly permits or prohibits [such use by registry operators]?” - to replace that entire sub-question (in either of the two formulations above)? 1. The Sub Team to discuss and agree via email on whether an Explanatory Note (as drafted or as appropriately revised by the Sub Team) should be included to Question 2. Thank you all, and please accept our deepest apologies for any confusion or additional review work that this oversight may have created. In the meantime, staff will continue to update the document to reflect the additional suggestions and discussions that took place on the call last Friday. We have since uploaded the 31 July document – as circulated prior to the 4 August call – to the Sub Team meeting wiki page, and we will use it as the basis for the further edits we will be sending to you before the call this Friday. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Monday, July 31, 2017 at 17:10 To: "gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-protection@icann.org> Subject: 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