Gnso-rpm-tmch

Download

gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org

December 2016

2 participants
2 discussions

Initial Registry responses to Data Gathering questions
by Mary Wong Dec. 12, 2016

Dec. 12, 2016

Dear TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team members, Please find attached the initial responses we have received so far to the questions that were sent to New gTLD Registries via the Chair of the Registries Stakeholder Group. So far, we have received responses from Public Interest Registry and Donuts. These responses along with the final questions have also been uploaded to the Sub Team wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/VAmsAw. We have not yet received any responses from Registrars to the questions that were sent via the Chair of the Registrars Stakeholder Group. FYI both Stakeholder Group chairs had noted to staff that their members have been receiving a number of requests for input from various quarters, so it is not clear what level of responses we will receive. Both chairs have graciously agreed to remind their members of our request – and all Working Group members who are representatives of registries or registrars were cc’d on the correspondence between staff and the chairs. Finally, the finalized, edited set of questions to the TMCH Providers were sent out last week. We will let you know once we hear back from the Providers about setting up a call with them to walk through the questions and their initial feedback. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) TMCH Sub Team Call on Friday, 02 December 2016
by Michelle DeSmyter Dec. 2, 2016

Dec. 2, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance, MP3 recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) TMCH Sub Team call held on Friday, 02 December 2016 at 16:00 UTC. MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-tmch-02dec16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-tmch-02dec16-en.mp3> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the Sub Team wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/f5XDAw Attendees: Kathy Kleiman Kristine Dorrain Kurt Pritz Paul Tattersfield Phil Corwin Vaibhav Aggarwal Apologies: Susan Payne ICANN staff: David Tait Mary Wong Michelle DeSmyter ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-tmch/ Sub Team Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/f5XDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 02 December 2016: Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) - TMCH Sub Team Meeting on Friday, 02 December 2016 at 16:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Meeting page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… David Tait:Hello all David Tait:I'm still trying to get in on the audio bridge Kathy:me too Michelle DeSmyter:I will let the operator know to watch for your lines Michelle DeSmyter:dialing in Kathy:I'm in Kristine Dorrain:I'm on the mobile app. tell me if you hear background noise. Kurt Pritz:I agree with using the Tabulated Version - I just bring up the Word version on my laptop so I can see it more easily. @Kristine, the Mobile app works great but the smaller scree makes it tough to follow printed matters Kathy:Tx Kurt. I have it up on my laptop in Word too. David Tait:The document is just coming up now Phil Corwin:Good day all. Regrets for the slightly late arrival. Kristine Dorrain:I can't Paul Tattersfield:just says upload in progress here Kristine Dorrain:I see it Paul Tattersfield:Could we extend the question to include marks protected by statute or treaty? Kathy:How accessible is the TMCH database and RPM Rights Protection Actions and Defenses to individuals, orgs, trademar owners and tm agents in developing countries? Phil Corwin:Agree with Kurt and Kathy on #13 Paul Tattersfield:Sorry I'm not on the call will type it into the chat Kristine Dorrain:I support Kathys wording above. Phil Corwin:And 14 as well, as it is related/combining might be advisable Kurt Pritz:@ Paul: I think marks protected by statute and treaty would already be included. Should we take off the word ""private" ? Paul Tattersfield:Governments and IGOs may not have trademarks but still have protections and the dicussions should cover these cases Phil Corwin:Suggested wording sounds ok to me Kathy:yes Kristine Dorrain:thanks David. Kristine Dorrain:I support the restatement Vaibhav Aggarwal 2:+ 1 KK Kathy:can hear you Kathy:What concerns are being raised about the TMCH being closed, and should the TMCH Database remain closed or become open? Vaibhav Aggarwal 2:Open Paul Tattersfield:It would be useful to include a discussion on the uses the public data can be put to - eg. bulk data Vaibhav Aggarwal 2:+1 Kathy Kathy: What concerns are being raised about the TMCH being closed, what are the reasons for having/keeping the TMCH Database private, and should the TMCH Database remain closed or become open? Kristine Dorrain:+1 Kathy Paul Tattersfield:LIke Kathy's question Kristine Dorrain:I can see them now, so no need to read it out unless someone else requires it. Kristine Dorrain:so to restate Vaibhav's point in a neutral manner: what community issues exist that could be resolved by permitting additional TMCH interfaces. Kristine Dorrain:^ needs work but trying to capture the point? Vaibhav Aggarwal 2:Thanx Kristine - May be add "What & Which & How" in the rephrasing and give it a direction for us to dive in Vaibhav Aggarwal 2:right Kathy:What are the concerns re: theTMCH Dababase remaining with a single provider? Phil Corwin:We should aim for neutral questions that are as brief as possible and that invite a full range of potential resposes. Vaibhav Aggarwal 2:The Idea is to facilitate MORE domain name registration for Digital Penetration rather than making it a costly affair as it becomes a Entry barrier for a lot many Vaibhav Aggarwal 2:Make it available to all Vaibhav Aggarwal 2:Could be monitored Vaibhav Aggarwal 2:Automate it Kathy:What are the concerns re: theTMCH Dababase remaining with a single provider and how might those concerns be addressed? Kristine Dorrain:I think I like that Phil! can we see it written out? maybe from the transcript Kristine Dorrain:I propose we start with what Phil just said David Tait:Thanks Kristine Phil Corwin:Does the present structuring of the TMCH optimize such operationsl considerations as cost, reliablity, global reach, and service diversity and consistency, or should significant changes such as multiple providers be considered? Kurt Pritz:I would also like to see Phil's question in writing. It sounds like a clear approach Phil Corwin:That's my proposed wording. Kathy:@Phil: I am afraid we could spend years answering your quesstion Kurt Pritz:To keep the question neutral - I'd like to see multiple providers out or additional changes included Phil Corwin:No more time than any other iteration that raises the same issues ;-) Kristine Dorrain:agree Kurt Phil Corwin:should be "operational" Kristine Dorrain:I strongly oppose listing out our suggested solutions. we want the group to identify problems and solutions. we will assuredly miss something. Kristine Dorrain:yes, concerns first, invite brainstorming, don't list solutions (like regional offices) Vaibhav Aggarwal 2:right Kathy:What are the concerns with the TMCH Database being provided by a single Provider - and how might those concerns be addressed? Kristine Dorrain:+1 Kathy Kathy:Accessibility is now the merged Qusetion 13/14. Perhaps we can put them together Kathy:Not merged, but closer together in the list. Vaibhav Aggarwal 2:YEs as tey would become a large part Paul Tattersfield:@Kurt re: quickly jumping back to question Q13 Yes removing the word private would be a good improvement. Kristine Dorrain:I don't think we need it again either. adding it here again presupposes accessibility is a problem (it maybe is, but let's not assume that) Kathy:what's the edit? Vaibhav Aggarwal 2::-O Vaibhav Aggarwal 2::-) Vaibhav Aggarwal 2:13-14 are Accesibility in terms of Security & 16 would be from a reach perspective Kristine Dorrain:Kurt, can you support Kathys more general version? I think I can Kristine Dorrain:looks like there are just formatting changes in rewrite 2 Kurt Pritz:@ Kristine: I think Phil's question is the best with the edit you and I agreed to: Does the present structuring of the TMCH optimize such operationsl considerations as cost, reliablity, global reach, and service diversity and consistency, or should significant changes be considered? Kathy:Ed Morris wrote to me privately about concerns that are the same as Phil's Kristine Dorrain:agree that we don't presuppose the goal of the TMCh Kristine Dorrain:simplicity was a key driver Phil Corwin:Just noting that I have to drop off in 3 minutes Paul Tattersfield:Agree with Phil Kathy:Have the benefits outweighed the costs for ICANN and the Community? Vaibhav Aggarwal 2:Does that mean that we are getting closer to doing a Economic Analysis of TMCH ? Kristine Dorrain:can we leave the original? Kristine Dorrain:seems fairly clear and neutral? Paul Tattersfield:Would "Are the costs and benefits of the TMCH, for rights holders, for ICANN, for the community, proportionate?" be slightly more neutral? Kathy:I like it Kristine Dorrain:seems good Vaibhav Aggarwal 2:Can V add Community / Individuals Phil Corwin:Paul's language seems good Vaibhav Aggarwal 2:There are three stake holders Phil Corwin:Must depart. Bye all Kristine Dorrain:thanks Kathy Vaibhav Aggarwal 2:Thnks Kathy:Tx All! Vaibhav Aggarwal 2:Have a great rest of your days Vaibhav Aggarwal 2:I just finished my Pizza Vaibhav Aggarwal 2:& now coke Kristine Dorrain:thanks all Vaibhav Aggarwal 2:;-) Paul Tattersfield:thanks all bye Vaibhav Aggarwal 2:ciao

1 0