June 2018 - Gnso-rpm-providers

FORUM's Supplemental Responses & Updated Slides for ICANN62
by Ariel Liang June 23, 2018

June 23, 2018

Dear Providers Sub Team Members, By COB Friday (22 June), FORUM submitted supplemental responses to the remaining 20 questions that were pending responses, as well as a few questions that they already responded previously. Staff have updated the spreadsheet<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I-qe_I4OkQT7IU_rjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1v…> of the consolidated responses (FORUM’s supplemental responses are highlighted in yellow). The presentation slide deck for ICANN62 working session have also been updated accordingly (please find attached). All responses and attachments submitted by Providers are uploaded on this page: https://community.icann.org/x/FBu8B. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, June 22, 2018 at 12:15 PM To: "gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: How to Structure ICANN62 Session (mailing list seems to experience significant delay in delivering messages, and staff are re-sending this message without attaching the presentation slide deck but including a download link) Dear Providers Sub Team Members, To facilitate the working session on Thursday at ICANN62, staff have prepared a slide deck for Option B (please download here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/RPM_URS_PDP_WG_Se…) . Hearing no input yet from the Sub Team about the structure of the session, staff would like to suggest that the Sub Team members focus on reviewing the questions with divergent responses, so that we could take advantage of the participation of all three URS Providers in the session. Please note that the slides only contain very high-level summary, key points, and quotes from Providers’ responses. The full responses should be referenced from the spreadsheet<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I-qe_I4OkQT7IU_rjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1v…>. In addition, the slide deck also includes the questions that Sub Team already reviewed, as well as the follow up questions; some questions that have not received completed responses from one or more Providers are also included in the deck. If there is no significant objection to this approach, staff will inform the Providers about the format of the session and share the slide deck with them as a heads-up. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 11:42 AM To: "gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org> Subject: How to Structure ICANN62 Session Dear Providers Sub Team Members, Staff touched based with Co-Chairs earlier today to discuss ICANN62 session planning. Per Co-Chairs’ direction, we are seeking advice on how you wish to structure the working session in Panama (Thu, 28 June at 10:30-12:00 local time). Again, all three Providers will be attending the session either in person or remotely. If we may, staff would like to propose some suggestions: * The session would use an interaction format, with Q&A between the Sub Team members and the Providers. * There would be no formal presentations from the URS Providers; they are expected to provide further information/clarification, if needed, as the Sub Team goes through their responses. * Option A: * Sub Team will first ask the Providers to address the follow up questions developed in the previous call; * Sub Team will then pick up from where we left and continue going through the responses based on the order in the spreadsheet (starting from row 20); * Staff will display the spreadsheet<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I-qe_I4OkQT7IU_rjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1v…> that contains the full responses from the Providers on the screen, with no additional slides. * Option B: * Sub Team will focus on reviewing the questions with divergent/different responses from the Providers (50 questions total); * Staff are happy to develop some slides (e.g., with high-level points summarizing the divergent responses for each question) to display on the screen to facilitate the discussions. However, Sub Team members should still reference the spreadsheet<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I-qe_I4OkQT7IU_rjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1v…> on their own laptops for the full responses. At your earliest convenience, please be so kind to provide your preference for Option A or Option B, as well as additional ideas if any, so staff could relay the information/expectations to the Providers to assist their participation in the Sub Team working session at ICANN62. Thank you for your input! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

1 1

How to Structure ICANN62 Session
by Ariel Liang June 22, 2018

June 22, 2018

Dear Providers Sub Team Members, Staff touched based with Co-Chairs earlier today to discuss ICANN62 session planning. Per Co-Chairs’ direction, we are seeking advice on how you wish to structure the working session in Panama (Thu, 28 June at 10:30-12:00 local time). Again, all three Providers will be attending the session either in person or remotely. If we may, staff would like to propose some suggestions: * The session would use an interaction format, with Q&A between the Sub Team members and the Providers. * There would be no formal presentations from the URS Providers; they are expected to provide further information/clarification, if needed, as the Sub Team goes through their responses. * Option A: * Sub Team will first ask the Providers to address the follow up questions developed in the previous call; * Sub Team will then pick up from where we left and continue going through the responses based on the order in the spreadsheet (starting from row 20); * Staff will display the spreadsheet<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I-qe_I4OkQT7IU_rjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1v…> that contains the full responses from the Providers on the screen, with no additional slides. * Option B: * Sub Team will focus on reviewing the questions with divergent/different responses from the Providers (50 questions total); * Staff are happy to develop some slides (e.g., with high-level points summarizing the divergent responses for each question) to display on the screen to facilitate the discussions. However, Sub Team members should still reference the spreadsheet<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I-qe_I4OkQT7IU_rjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1v…> on their own laptops for the full responses. At your earliest convenience, please be so kind to provide your preference for Option A or Option B, as well as additional ideas if any, so staff could relay the information/expectations to the Providers to assist their participation in the Sub Team working session at ICANN62. Thank you for your input! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

1 2

Reminder: Meeting Next Week? & Divergent Responses
by Ariel Liang June 19, 2018

June 19, 2018

Dear Providers Sub Team members, Following up on the action items, does the Providers Sub Team plan to meet next week prior to ICANN62? Please provide your input on the mailing list. If the Sub Team would like to meet, perhaps we could use the same time (12:00 UTC on Wed 20 June), which seems to work well for different time zones (a bit early for PST). In addition, staff have identified the questions that we have received divergent Reponses from Providers (word document attached). Please note: * There are about 50 questions that we have received divergent responses from Providers. This number may change after we receive responses from FORUM for the remaining 20 questions; * Besides the questions that we just received responses from the Providers, staff also reviewed the responses received earlier during the ICANN61 Provider presentation and follow up emails; * Staff included some quote and key points mentioned in Providers’ responses for reference, but the full responses should be referenced in the spreadsheet (see PDF attached OR Google spreadsheet version<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I-qe_I4OkQT7IU_rjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1v…>); * While the responses to some questions are not divergent, staff included the additional, notable information from the Providers in the word document. * In the spreadsheet, the row number (column A) of questions with divergent responses are colored in red. Staff have followed up with the Providers on their availability to attend ICANN62 sessions and will let the Sub Team know their response. Thank you, and have a good weekend! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

1 1

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat | RPM Sub Team for URS Providers call on Wednesday, 13 June 2018
by Andrea Glandon June 18, 2018

June 18, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance & AC chat of the call attached, and the mp3 link & AC Recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) Sub Team for URS Providers call held Wednesday, 13 June 2018 at 12:00 UTC. Apologies for the tardiness of this email. MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-urs-providers-13jun18-en.mp3 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p1mucabk4tb/<https://participate.icann.org/p1mucabk4tb/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=1e2a71dba3e404a9…> Attendance and recordings of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/vSwFBQ The recording of the call is posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-providers/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Kind Regards, Andrea Glandon

1 0

Actions, Next Steps & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team 13 June 2018
by Ariel Liang June 13, 2018

June 13, 2018

Dear Providers Sub Team members, Per direction from the Co-Chairs, staff are sending this email to provide a summary of the discussion today and the next steps. The Sub Team reviewed the responses from Providers through page 7 of the spreadsheet attached (row 19) and identified follow up questions to seek further information/clarification from the Providers. Staff have updated the spreadsheet with these follow up questions (colored in blue), as well as Sub Team comments (placed in the “additional notes” column). The spreadsheet has also been updated to include row numbers for easier reference. You may also access the spreadsheet via this Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I-qe_I4OkQT7IU_rjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1v… The Sub Team are tasked to review Providers’ responses and bring up points for discussions via the mailing list. By Friday, 15 June, the Sub Team will need to decide whether a call is needed prior to ICANN62. In addition, staff will circulate with the Sub Team questions that Providers’ responses are divergent by Friday, 15 June. We will check with the Providers and let the Sub Team know their availability to attend the ICANN62 RPM session. Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff. They have been posted to the wiki space at https://community.icann.org/x/vSwFBQ, which also publishes the recording, AC chat, and attendance records. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry ==== ACTION ITEMS * Staff to send an email by 13 June to the Sub Team summarizing the discussion today and the next steps. (DONE) * Staff to update/highlight the spreadsheet with the comments/follow up questions captured during the call. (DONE) * Staff to identity the divergent answers from providers and circulate with the Sub Team by Friday, 15 June. * Staff to let Sub Team know if the representatives from URS Providers would attend ICANN62. * Sub Team to review the spreadsheet and discuss via the mailing list; Sub Team to decide by the end of the week whether they need another call before ICANN62. COMMENTS ON PROVDER RESPONSES * ROW 7: * Delivering Notice of Complaint: Ask ADNDRC why they do not deliver the Notice of Complaint in hard copy. * Discuss potential difficulties created by GDPR. * ROW 12: * Note possible clerical issue concerning out of date email information. "1. Some Registry Operators communicate from email addresses different from the contacts present in ICANN's repository. In that case it is not possible to send them encrypted notifications with the PGP key." * ROW 14: * Follow up with ADNDRC about what they meant by "Yes". Incomplete complaints are not supposed to be accepted. * Ask the other two Providers (FORUM + ADNDRC) whether they accept the "Doe Complaint". * ROW 16: * Flag that FORUM seems to have confirmed that most of the data in the SMD file is difficult to read/remains encoded. Check further on jurisdiction of the trademark/ category of goods and services -- whether the examiners have those data. * ROW 18: * Follow up with FORUM on the suggested word limit. Look at the issue when we are discussing policy recommendations. * ROW 19: * Follow up with FORUM what triggers such suspicion. * Follow up with ADNDRC about how they conduct cross-checks. NOTES -- Received responses from URS Providers on 08 June by the deadline. -- Forum needs a bit more time to provide responses and will have them by ICANN62. -- The spreadsheet was circulated around 1200 UTC on 12 June. Concerns were expressed about not having more time to review the document. -- Light orange cells were questions sent to Providers, dark orange are responses with attachments, yellow is where Forum will provide additional responses. -- Could we use this meeting to do an overview to better understand what is in front of us. -- Prof. Tushnet can't be on the call today, but we circulated the 7 questions for which her data could provide answers. Prof. Tushnet provided answers and they are incorporated into the spreadsheet. Discussion of Responses from Providers: ROW 7: Re: URS Rule 2(a), Procedure 4.2 -- delivering Notice of Complaint: -- ADNDRC has not engaged with the practice of delivering the Notice of Complaint in hard copy. etc. -- Might want to discuss the potential difficulties from GDPR. Questions for ADNDRC: -- Why do you not deliver the Notice of Complaint in hard copy? -- Do you not follow the same rules? Answer: We all use the same rules and we have the same panelists. When a complaint comes in it gets sent to the most appropriate office, depending on location. -- Which office answered the questions? Answer: Carrie Shang, HKIAC. Other offices reviewed and commented. Discussion: -- Requirement is for the original complaint to be delivered via three separate means, but not subsequent communications. -- Can staff highlight anything from Prof. Tushnet that doesn't gibe? Answer from staff: Prof. Tushnet's answers are included in the Additional Notes column. Also, her answers are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/FBu8B ROW 12 Re: difficulties in communicating with Registry Operators: -- MFSD response -- Using different email addresses. Not a policy issue, but could be a clerical issue concerning out of date email information. "1. Some Registry Operators communicate from email addresses different from the contacts present in ICANN's repository. In that case it is not possible to send them encrypted notifications with the PGP key." --Question: How does ADNDRC receive complaints? Is it via email or via online form? Answer: We receive the complaint via online forms. ROW 14 Re: Accepting Complaints that do not contain all the elements required in URS Rule 3(b): -- ADNDRC: accepts complaints that might be incomplete. -- MFSD: accepts complaints even if Complainant does not provide the contact details of the Respondent ("Doe Complaint") because they are not available in the publicly accessible Whois or not otherwise known to the Complainant." -- Might be worth checking with the other providers to see if they have changed their processes because of GDPR in this case. -- Follow up with ADNDRC about what they meant by "Yes". Incomplete complaints are not supposed to be accepted. -- Ask the other two Providers (FORUM + ADNDRC) whether they accept the "Doe Complaint". -- Understand the Forum have. But agree we should have a formal response to this from both, re GDPR/Doe complaint ROW 16 Re: URS Rule 3(b)(v) concerning SMD Proof of Use: -- Flag that FORUM seems to have confirmed that most of the data in the SMD file is difficult to read/remains encoded. Check further on jurisdiction of the trademark/ category of goods and services -- whether the examiners have those data. -- The SMD file is only for demonstrating that proof of use has been provided. Doesn't seem to be needed to identify the trademark. ROW 18 Re: URS Procedure 1.2.7: 500-word limit: -- Follow up with FORUM on the suggested word limit. Look at the issue when we are discussing policy issues. ROW 19 re: URS Rule 3 (g) checking a domain cited in a URS complaint: -- Follow up with FORUM what triggers such suspicion -- Follow up with ADNDRC about how they conduct cross-checks NOTE: The Sub Team could use the time in Panama to continue progressing on this work ACTIONS: -- Staff to identity the divergent answers from providers and circulate with the Sub Team ahead of time -- Staff to prepare an email to the Sub Team, indicating we reviewed responses through page 7 , identify the things that we want to follow up with Providers, and staff to go through the document pointing answers that there are significant divergent for responses, and decide by the end of the week whether we need another Sub Team call before ICANN62 (send the email today), take the from the notes the follow up questions/comments, review the document/discuss on the email. -- Staff to let Sub Team know if we will have representatives from Providers in ICANN62.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] [Ext] RE: Responses from URS Providers
by Ariel Liang June 13, 2018

June 13, 2018

Thanks for letting me know Smrithi! Hello Aditya, Thanks for participating in the call today, and answering some of the questions! As you have heard, the Sub Team have some comments/questions to follow up with ADNDRC as well as other Providers. We will circulate at the time the Sub Team deem appropriate. Best Regards, Ariel From: Smrithi Ramesh <smrithi(a)aiac.world> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:14 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Cc: Carrie Shu Shang <cshang(a)hkiac.org>, "gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org>, Puneeth Ganapathy <puneeth(a)aiac.world>, Aditya Pratap Singh <aditya(a)aiac.world> Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Responses from URS Providers Dear Ariel Yes , will be attending from The Kl office. I have copied my colleagues in as well for your ease of reference Thank you Sent from my iPhone On 13 Jun 2018, at 7:59 PM, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks for letting me know Carrie! Just want to check – is the secretariat member attending the call from the Kuala Lumpur office? Thank you, Ariel From: Carrie Shu Shang <cshang(a)hkiac.org<mailto:cshang@hkiac.org>> Date: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 9:23 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>> Cc: Smrithi Ramesh <smrithi(a)aiac.world<mailto:smrithi@aiac.world>> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Responses from URS Providers Dear Ariel/All, Apologize and it looks like my earlier message didn't go though. I will not be able to join the meeting tonight but at least one member from the ADNDRC-Secretariat will participate in the meeting. We have received the consolidated files and thanks for the arrangement. Regards, -Carrie From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 8:20 PM To: gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Responses from URS Providers Dear Providers Sub Team members, In preparation for tomorrow’s Sub Team call at 12:00 UTC, please find attached the compilation of responses from URS Providers to the questions from the Sub Team. All Providers have submitted their responses on time by the set deadline. Please note that ADNDRC and MFSD responded to all questions; FORUM responded to most questions, and they hope to provide responses to the 20 remaining questions prior to ICANN62. You may have noticed the color coding in the spreadsheet: * Light orange cell: questions sent to the Providers * Dark orange cell: responses that include attachments (links to the attachments are on the last page of the spreadsheet) * Bright yellow cell: remaining questions that FORUM aim to answer before ICANN62 Furthermore, Prof. Rebecca Tushnet provided written input to some of the questions staff identified previously, as we thought these questions may be answered or partially answered by her research data. You may find Prof. Tushnet’s comments in the last column of the spreadsheet (titled “Additional Notes”). As mentioned in the previous email, Prof. Tushnet has very limited availability tomorrow, so it is likely she would not be able to join the call. If you would like to review the individual responses from Providers and their attachments, as well as Prof. Tushnet’s written input separately, you may scroll to the bottom of this wiki page to find the documents: https://community.icann.org/x/FBu8B [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> The proposed agenda for tomorrow’s meeting is as follows: 1. Review agenda 2. Begin reviewing the responses from URS Providers and considering how best to use the relevant URS data 3. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 12:31 PM To: "gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>> Subject: URS Providers Sub Team on 13 June 12:00 UTC Dear Providers Sub Team members, Please note that per item 2a below, a meeting will be scheduled on 13 June at 12:00 UTC for 90 minutes for the URS Providers Sub Team to review the Provider survey results, as well as the research of Prof. Tushnet. With respect to the first task, staff will send the survey results to the Sub Team on 11 or 12 June after compiling the responses from the three Providers. With respect to the second task, as Prof. Tushnet has very limited availability on 13 June, staff thought it may be more efficient if she could provide written input to the seven (7) questions sent to the Providers (please see attachment). Through staff’s initial review of the data, we identified these questions that may be answered or partially answered by Prof. Tushnet’s research. Staff have communicated to Prof. Tushnet our view that the Sub Team would likely need relevant data from her research that may provide insight into these questions. If she could provide her written input, staff will circulate it to the Sub Team, and the Sub Team could spend some time during the meeting on 13 June to review, in conjunction with the survey results. Kind regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 10:53 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group June Schedule and Work Plan Dear RPM Working Group members, On behalf of the RPM Working Group (WG) Co-Chairs, here is a preview of the work anticipated for June relating to the various data collection exercises with additional details in the attached table: 1. Wednesday, 06 June: No Full Working Group meeting. Instead, the TMCH Data Sub Team will work with the Analysis Group on final questions for registries, registrars, trademark owners, registrants, and potential registrants. A second meeting is scheduled on 07 June if needed. * Analysis Group will preview the proposed final survey questions to the full WG by 13 June via mailing list * After pre-testing, Analysis Group launches surveys around 22 June on a rolling basis 1. Wednesday, 13 June: No Full Working Group meeting. Two URS Data Sub Teams will meet to review the research of Prof. Tushnet: * Providers Sub Team – 12:00 UTC * Documents Sub Team – 17:00 UTC * Both will consider how best to use the relevant URS data and will aim to present their recommendations to full WG on 20 June. * Practitioners Sub Team will receive the Practitioners survey results by 11 June – Staff will assist in setting up a time to meet, review and organize them 12 or 14 June. * Providers Sub Team should begin to review the Providers survey results on 13 June. 1. Wednesday, 20 June: Full Working Group meeting: Presentations by Providers and Documents Sub Teams about their recommendations for the use of relevant URS data from Prof. Tushnet’s compilation. 1. Panama City ICANN62: Face-to-Face Full WG Meetings (with remote participation): 1. Wednesday, 27 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – first RPM WG Meeting: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Practitioners Sub Team re: Survey Results 2. Thursday, 28 June, 9:00-10:15 am (local time) – second RPM WG Meeting: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Providers Sub Team re: Survey Results 3. Thursday, 28 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – third RPM WG Meeting: Discussion on Procedural Issues Staff have scheduled the meetings with the TMCH Data Sub Team this week, and will be coordinating with the Providers, Practitioners, and Documents URS Sub Teams concerning meetings the week of 11 June. In addition, staff will send to the WG the links to the three ICANN62 sessions (which will include details for remote participation – we expect to be back with Adobe Connect again). Please let us know if you have any questions about these plans. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] [Ext] RE: Responses from URS Providers
by Ariel Liang June 13, 2018

June 13, 2018

Thanks for letting me know Carrie! Just want to check – is the secretariat member attending the call from the Kuala Lumpur office? Thank you, Ariel From: Carrie Shu Shang <cshang(a)hkiac.org> Date: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 9:23 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org> Cc: Smrithi Ramesh <smrithi(a)aiac.world> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Responses from URS Providers Dear Ariel/All, Apologize and it looks like my earlier message didn't go though. I will not be able to join the meeting tonight but at least one member from the ADNDRC-Secretariat will participate in the meeting. We have received the consolidated files and thanks for the arrangement. Regards, -Carrie From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 8:20 PM To: gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Responses from URS Providers Dear Providers Sub Team members, In preparation for tomorrow’s Sub Team call at 12:00 UTC, please find attached the compilation of responses from URS Providers to the questions from the Sub Team. All Providers have submitted their responses on time by the set deadline. Please note that ADNDRC and MFSD responded to all questions; FORUM responded to most questions, and they hope to provide responses to the 20 remaining questions prior to ICANN62. You may have noticed the color coding in the spreadsheet: * Light orange cell: questions sent to the Providers * Dark orange cell: responses that include attachments (links to the attachments are on the last page of the spreadsheet) * Bright yellow cell: remaining questions that FORUM aim to answer before ICANN62 Furthermore, Prof. Rebecca Tushnet provided written input to some of the questions staff identified previously, as we thought these questions may be answered or partially answered by her research data. You may find Prof. Tushnet’s comments in the last column of the spreadsheet (titled “Additional Notes”). As mentioned in the previous email, Prof. Tushnet has very limited availability tomorrow, so it is likely she would not be able to join the call. If you would like to review the individual responses from Providers and their attachments, as well as Prof. Tushnet’s written input separately, you may scroll to the bottom of this wiki page to find the documents: https://community.icann.org/x/FBu8B [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> The proposed agenda for tomorrow’s meeting is as follows: 1. Review agenda 2. Begin reviewing the responses from URS Providers and considering how best to use the relevant URS data 3. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 12:31 PM To: "gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>> Subject: URS Providers Sub Team on 13 June 12:00 UTC Dear Providers Sub Team members, Please note that per item 2a below, a meeting will be scheduled on 13 June at 12:00 UTC for 90 minutes for the URS Providers Sub Team to review the Provider survey results, as well as the research of Prof. Tushnet. With respect to the first task, staff will send the survey results to the Sub Team on 11 or 12 June after compiling the responses from the three Providers. With respect to the second task, as Prof. Tushnet has very limited availability on 13 June, staff thought it may be more efficient if she could provide written input to the seven (7) questions sent to the Providers (please see attachment). Through staff’s initial review of the data, we identified these questions that may be answered or partially answered by Prof. Tushnet’s research. Staff have communicated to Prof. Tushnet our view that the Sub Team would likely need relevant data from her research that may provide insight into these questions. If she could provide her written input, staff will circulate it to the Sub Team, and the Sub Team could spend some time during the meeting on 13 June to review, in conjunction with the survey results. Kind regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 10:53 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group June Schedule and Work Plan Dear RPM Working Group members, On behalf of the RPM Working Group (WG) Co-Chairs, here is a preview of the work anticipated for June relating to the various data collection exercises with additional details in the attached table: 1. Wednesday, 06 June: No Full Working Group meeting. Instead, the TMCH Data Sub Team will work with the Analysis Group on final questions for registries, registrars, trademark owners, registrants, and potential registrants. A second meeting is scheduled on 07 June if needed. * Analysis Group will preview the proposed final survey questions to the full WG by 13 June via mailing list * After pre-testing, Analysis Group launches surveys around 22 June on a rolling basis 1. Wednesday, 13 June: No Full Working Group meeting. Two URS Data Sub Teams will meet to review the research of Prof. Tushnet: * Providers Sub Team – 12:00 UTC * Documents Sub Team – 17:00 UTC * Both will consider how best to use the relevant URS data and will aim to present their recommendations to full WG on 20 June. * Practitioners Sub Team will receive the Practitioners survey results by 11 June – Staff will assist in setting up a time to meet, review and organize them 12 or 14 June. * Providers Sub Team should begin to review the Providers survey results on 13 June. 1. Wednesday, 20 June: Full Working Group meeting: Presentations by Providers and Documents Sub Teams about their recommendations for the use of relevant URS data from Prof. Tushnet’s compilation. 1. Panama City ICANN62: Face-to-Face Full WG Meetings (with remote participation): 1. Wednesday, 27 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – first RPM WG Meeting: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Practitioners Sub Team re: Survey Results 2. Thursday, 28 June, 9:00-10:15 am (local time) – second RPM WG Meeting: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Providers Sub Team re: Survey Results 3. Thursday, 28 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – third RPM WG Meeting: Discussion on Procedural Issues Staff have scheduled the meetings with the TMCH Data Sub Team this week, and will be coordinating with the Providers, Practitioners, and Documents URS Sub Teams concerning meetings the week of 11 June. In addition, staff will send to the WG the links to the three ICANN62 sessions (which will include details for remote participation – we expect to be back with Adobe Connect again). Please let us know if you have any questions about these plans. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

1 0

Responses from URS Providers
by Ariel Liang June 13, 2018

June 13, 2018

Dear Providers Sub Team members, In preparation for tomorrow’s Sub Team call at 12:00 UTC, please find attached the compilation of responses from URS Providers to the questions from the Sub Team. All Providers have submitted their responses on time by the set deadline. Please note that ADNDRC and MFSD responded to all questions; FORUM responded to most questions, and they hope to provide responses to the 20 remaining questions prior to ICANN62. You may have noticed the color coding in the spreadsheet: * Light orange cell: questions sent to the Providers * Dark orange cell: responses that include attachments (links to the attachments are on the last page of the spreadsheet) * Bright yellow cell: remaining questions that FORUM aim to answer before ICANN62 Furthermore, Prof. Rebecca Tushnet provided written input to some of the questions staff identified previously, as we thought these questions may be answered or partially answered by her research data. You may find Prof. Tushnet’s comments in the last column of the spreadsheet (titled “Additional Notes”). As mentioned in the previous email, Prof. Tushnet has very limited availability tomorrow, so it is likely she would not be able to join the call. If you would like to review the individual responses from Providers and their attachments, as well as Prof. Tushnet’s written input separately, you may scroll to the bottom of this wiki page to find the documents: https://community.icann.org/x/FBu8B The proposed agenda for tomorrow’s meeting is as follows: 1. Review agenda 2. Begin reviewing the responses from URS Providers and considering how best to use the relevant URS data 3. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 12:31 PM To: "gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org> Subject: URS Providers Sub Team on 13 June 12:00 UTC Dear Providers Sub Team members, Please note that per item 2a below, a meeting will be scheduled on 13 June at 12:00 UTC for 90 minutes for the URS Providers Sub Team to review the Provider survey results, as well as the research of Prof. Tushnet. With respect to the first task, staff will send the survey results to the Sub Team on 11 or 12 June after compiling the responses from the three Providers. With respect to the second task, as Prof. Tushnet has very limited availability on 13 June, staff thought it may be more efficient if she could provide written input to the seven (7) questions sent to the Providers (please see attachment). Through staff’s initial review of the data, we identified these questions that may be answered or partially answered by Prof. Tushnet’s research. Staff have communicated to Prof. Tushnet our view that the Sub Team would likely need relevant data from her research that may provide insight into these questions. If she could provide her written input, staff will circulate it to the Sub Team, and the Sub Team could spend some time during the meeting on 13 June to review, in conjunction with the survey results. Kind regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 10:53 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group June Schedule and Work Plan Dear RPM Working Group members, On behalf of the RPM Working Group (WG) Co-Chairs, here is a preview of the work anticipated for June relating to the various data collection exercises with additional details in the attached table: 1. Wednesday, 06 June: No Full Working Group meeting. Instead, the TMCH Data Sub Team will work with the Analysis Group on final questions for registries, registrars, trademark owners, registrants, and potential registrants. A second meeting is scheduled on 07 June if needed. * Analysis Group will preview the proposed final survey questions to the full WG by 13 June via mailing list * After pre-testing, Analysis Group launches surveys around 22 June on a rolling basis 1. Wednesday, 13 June: No Full Working Group meeting. Two URS Data Sub Teams will meet to review the research of Prof. Tushnet: * Providers Sub Team – 12:00 UTC * Documents Sub Team – 17:00 UTC * Both will consider how best to use the relevant URS data and will aim to present their recommendations to full WG on 20 June. * Practitioners Sub Team will receive the Practitioners survey results by 11 June – Staff will assist in setting up a time to meet, review and organize them 12 or 14 June. * Providers Sub Team should begin to review the Providers survey results on 13 June. 1. Wednesday, 20 June: Full Working Group meeting: Presentations by Providers and Documents Sub Teams about their recommendations for the use of relevant URS data from Prof. Tushnet’s compilation. 1. Panama City ICANN62: Face-to-Face Full WG Meetings (with remote participation): 1. Wednesday, 27 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – first RPM WG Meeting: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Practitioners Sub Team re: Survey Results 2. Thursday, 28 June, 9:00-10:15 am (local time) – second RPM WG Meeting: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Providers Sub Team re: Survey Results 3. Thursday, 28 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – third RPM WG Meeting: Discussion on Procedural Issues Staff have scheduled the meetings with the TMCH Data Sub Team this week, and will be coordinating with the Providers, Practitioners, and Documents URS Sub Teams concerning meetings the week of 11 June. In addition, staff will send to the WG the links to the three ICANN62 sessions (which will include details for remote participation – we expect to be back with Adobe Connect again). Please let us know if you have any questions about these plans. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

2 1

URS Providers Sub Team on 13 June 12:00 UTC
by Ariel Liang June 5, 2018

June 5, 2018

Dear Providers Sub Team members, Please note that per item 2a below, a meeting will be scheduled on 13 June at 12:00 UTC for 90 minutes for the URS Providers Sub Team to review the Provider survey results, as well as the research of Prof. Tushnet. With respect to the first task, staff will send the survey results to the Sub Team on 11 or 12 June after compiling the responses from the three Providers. With respect to the second task, as Prof. Tushnet has very limited availability on 13 June, staff thought it may be more efficient if she could provide written input to the seven (7) questions sent to the Providers (please see attachment). Through staff’s initial review of the data, we identified these questions that may be answered or partially answered by Prof. Tushnet’s research. Staff have communicated to Prof. Tushnet our view that the Sub Team would likely need relevant data from her research that may provide insight into these questions. If she could provide her written input, staff will circulate it to the Sub Team, and the Sub Team could spend some time during the meeting on 13 June to review, in conjunction with the survey results. Kind regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 10:53 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group June Schedule and Work Plan Dear RPM Working Group members, On behalf of the RPM Working Group (WG) Co-Chairs, here is a preview of the work anticipated for June relating to the various data collection exercises with additional details in the attached table: 1. Wednesday, 06 June: No Full Working Group meeting. Instead, the TMCH Data Sub Team will work with the Analysis Group on final questions for registries, registrars, trademark owners, registrants, and potential registrants. A second meeting is scheduled on 07 June if needed. * Analysis Group will preview the proposed final survey questions to the full WG by 13 June via mailing list * After pre-testing, Analysis Group launches surveys around 22 June on a rolling basis 1. Wednesday, 13 June: No Full Working Group meeting. Two URS Data Sub Teams will meet to review the research of Prof. Tushnet: * Providers Sub Team – 12:00 UTC * Documents Sub Team – 17:00 UTC * Both will consider how best to use the relevant URS data and will aim to present their recommendations to full WG on 20 June. * Practitioners Sub Team will receive the Practitioners survey results by 11 June – Staff will assist in setting up a time to meet, review and organize them 12 or 14 June. * Providers Sub Team should begin to review the Providers survey results on 13 June. 1. Wednesday, 20 June: Full Working Group meeting: Presentations by Providers and Documents Sub Teams about their recommendations for the use of relevant URS data from Prof. Tushnet’s compilation. 1. Panama City ICANN62: Face-to-Face Full WG Meetings (with remote participation): 1. Wednesday, 27 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – first RPM WG Meeting: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Practitioners Sub Team re: Survey Results 2. Thursday, 28 June, 9:00-10:15 am (local time) – second RPM WG Meeting: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Providers Sub Team re: Survey Results 3. Thursday, 28 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – third RPM WG Meeting: Discussion on Procedural Issues Staff have scheduled the meetings with the TMCH Data Sub Team this week, and will be coordinating with the Providers, Practitioners, and Documents URS Sub Teams concerning meetings the week of 11 June. In addition, staff will send to the WG the links to the three ICANN62 sessions (which will include details for remote participation – we expect to be back with Adobe Connect again). Please let us know if you have any questions about these plans. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

1 0