- Gnso-rpm-tmch - lists.icann.org

Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] [gnso-rpm-wg] Second table summarizing TMCH Charter questions, relevant input and potential follow up
by Kathy Kleiman Feb. 7, 2017

Feb. 7, 2017

Hi Mary, Tx you for preparing this week's materials. The materials quote extensively from a 2015 ICANN Staff report. Could you kindly circulate the link to the full paper? Also, could you provide more background on this report? Is it the one posted for public comment by Staff to help the GNSO Community identify issues of importance for consideration by our (then upcoming) WG? Best and tx, Kathy On 2/6/2017 9:50 AM, Mary Wong wrote: > > Dear all, > > Following on the circulation of the previous summary table of the > questions, input and discussions so far on TMCH Charter Questions > categories 1 and 2 (below), please find attached a similar summary > table for the remaining categories (3 – 6). As the Working Group has > yet to begin discussing these, staff has taken the liberty of adding > what we believe to be relevant background information from the > community comments to the TMCH that were provided for the 2015 RPM Paper. > > We will post both tables to the Working Group wiki for your easy > reference as well. > > Thanks and cheers > > Mary > > *From: *Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> > *Date: *Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 18:18 > *To: *"gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> > *Subject: *Table summarizing TMCH Charter questions, WG follow up > questions, and input from Deloitte and Registry Operators > > Dear all, > > As discussed at the end of the Working Group call yesterday, staff has > begun to compile a table that combines the agreed TMCH Charter > questions with the relevant Working Group follow up questions, > Deloitte response (if any), and (where applicable) input that was > received from various registry operators and the Registries > Stakeholder Group (note that the Registries SG is the only community > group so far that has provided us with a response to our initial > solicitation for input from all the various Supporting Organizations, > Advisory Committees and GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). > > Attached is the compilation we have done for TMCH Categories 1 > (Education) and 2 (Verification and Updating of TMCH Data). As Kathy > and others noted on the call, not all questions have direct responses, > and in some cases we have inserted what we thought might be relevant > information even if it is not an actual reply. Do let us know if you > spot any inaccuracies or omissions. > > We hope you find the document useful. If we may, we suggest that you > review it with a view toward identifying the following: > > ·*/What additional data or follow up input is needed, and from whom, > to complete our review of these aspects of the TMCH?/* > > ·*/What additional data or follow up input should we request from > Deloitte, including for our expected discussion with them at ICANN58?/* > > *//* > > Please note that we have not yet included any information from the > Analysis Group’s review of the TMCH, as we understand that a Final > Report will be forthcoming from them shortly, and possibly before > ICANN58. We will incorporate any relevant data once the Final Report > is out, and will in the meantime continue working on a table for the > remaining TMCH Charter categories and questions. > > The full Deloitte response to the TMCH Data Gathering questions and > the three responses we received to the set of Registry-directed > questions can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/_pHRAw. > > The full Registries Stakeholder Group response to our early > solicitation for overall input can be found here: > https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/59643854/RySG%20RPM%20Resp…. > > > Thanks and cheers > > Mary > > Mary Wong > > Senior Policy Director > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org > > Telephone: +1-603-5744889 > > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

2 2

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

REMINDER: Clarifications requested on RPM Sub Team questions to the TMCH Providers
by Mary Wong Nov. 29, 2016

Nov. 29, 2016

Dear all, We have not received any interest in the suggestion of a call to be arranged between this Sub Team, the TMCH Providers, and our GDD colleagues who have been assisting us with interfacing with the TMCH Providers and other contractors (e.g. Analysis Group). Please let us know therefore if you have any comments concerning the suggested clarifications to the Sub Team’s original questions to the TMCH Providers – please see the emails below for these, which are indicated in red. As noted, the idea is to have all such comments or suggestions discussed by the Sub Team via this mailing list by tomorrow (Tuesday 29 November), so that a decision can be made as to whether it will be the original questions or amended ones that are sent to the TMCH Providers by the end of this week. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 01:55 To: "gnso-rpm-tmch(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-tmch(a)icann.org> Subject: PLEASE REVIEW & RESPOND: Clarifications requested on Sub Team questions to the TMCH Providers Dear all, The Working Group co-chairs have just held a planning meeting with staff, based on which they would like to request that Sub Team members please review the note and questions below, and respond with your views to this mailing list as soon as possible on the following points: - Whether you think a call with the TMCH Providers and GDD support staff to go through and clarify the questions is needed. If you believe a call should be done, please let us know by this Friday 25 November if possible. - If you do not think a call with the Providers is necessary, please indicate whether you think the questions should be sent to the Providers as drafted by the Sub Team, or if clarifications along the lines suggested by GDD staff (or other adjustments) should be made. If you believe clarifications or amendments are needed, please send suggested edits to this list by next Tuesday 29 November, to allow other Sub Team members time to comment and the finalized questions to be sent to the Providers by the end of the week if possible. Thanks and cheers, Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 02:36 To: "gnso-rpm-tmch(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-tmch(a)icann.org> Subject: Clarifications requested on Sub Team questions to the TMCH Providers Dear TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team members, We have received feedback from our GDD colleagues who we had asked to assist with forwarding the Sub Team’s questions to the TMCH Providers. As some of the clarifying questions seem to go toward substantive issues, we thought it preferable to send them back to the Sub Team for your confirmation and discussion. If it will help, we can arrange a call between the Sub Team, our GDD colleagues who are working with the Providers, and perhaps the Providers as well, to work through the questions so that the Providers have a good sense of what is being asked, and can tell us what they think they can provide in terms of data and input. Please review the initial feedback from GDD below (in red), and let us know if you would like us to go ahead to arrange the suggested call, perhaps for next week or the week following. * What is the rate of rejection of an attempted registration of a trademark into the TMCH by country/region? Is it safe to assume that the request here is referring to the country/region of the trademark holder? * What were the most frequently asked questions? (Note – not necessarily what made it to the website but, rather, what questions did you get the most?) Is this related to the use of the Trademark Clearinghouse (by trademark holders) or the Trademark Database (by Registries and Registrars)? * If you are able, please provide the number and/or percentages of SMD files that were used in Sunrise periods corresponding to specific time periods (e.g. Jan/June/Sept 2014; Apr/Sept 2015; Apr/Sept 2016). * Are the registration totals contained within the various monthly/quarterly reports made to ICANN cumulative? * What is meant by the term ‘expired marks’ in the various monthly/quarterly reports made to ICANN? * In relation to the statistics regarding the number of marks submitted to the TMCH, as noted in the various monthly/quarterly reports to ICANN, does this statistic relate to individual marks that are submitted, or the number of labels generated, or the number of SMD files created? * How are marks cancelled within national/regional registries handled at the TMCH level, if validation is only done annually? In other words, what is the TMCH process (if any) relating to marks that are cancelled or expire: reactive (e.g. TM owner/agent obligations) or proactive? * If it is possible, please provide a break down of where the corporate headquarters of those registrants using TM agents are located. Is this breakdown meant to be by country? * Some data has been provided regarding outreach efforts; if you can, please provide additional information on the precise nature of the activities undertaken and who was the audience for this? Were any outreach efforts made to potential registrants or trademark owners? - How much time and resources were expended on educating TM owners and/or registrants on the TMCH? - Was outreach and education part of the TMCH remit? What are the contractual obligations for education imposed by ICANN, if any? - In what regions/languages were outreach sessions held? * How many design marks have been submitted and validated? What is your criteria for validating these? How are you differentiating between design marks in the practical application of the TMCH guidelines? * In relation to Claims Notice statistics, can any discernible trends be noted in relation to: (i) registrar gaming and (ii) registrant turn-back as a result of a possible “chilling effect” resulting from the issuance of a Claims Notice? The question seems to ask about the effect of displaying a Claims Notice Information Service (CNIS) service to a potential registrant. Can the Sub Team provide a definition for “registrar gaming”? The TMDB has no visibility to whether a label is registered by a registrant or not – only the registrar would know that. The TMDB only logs that there has been a CNIS request for a label. Is additional clarity available for the second question? * How many contracts are there for private uses of the TMCH? How many of them involve blocking mechanism services? Is this asking about “Ancillary Services” that are allowed under Section 2.4 of the contract, or to services offered by the TMCH to third parties, i.e. contracts other than that with ICANN? - Are there contracts for other uses, and if so, how many? - If there are no such contracts, is the TMCH aware of other uses? * How many "court-validated" marks are there currently in the TMCH? * How many marks in the TMCH fall under the following category: "Other marks that constitute intellectual property and meet a registry's individual requirements"? Follow-up question: how would Deloitte keep these marks from being used in the Sunrise and Claims periods of other registries? * Did any trademarks that applied for entry into the TMCH fail in the “actual use” test? If so, how many? Did you receive any complaints of trademarks registered in the TMCH that they were not in actual use? * How many TMCH records include a TM+50 list; and how many are on this list on average? How many registrations were made for entries on the TM+50 list? * Have any gTLDs used the TMCH option to limit registrations by goods and services in a particular registration period? Does this refer to a given registry’s registration policies which are posted at https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/sunrise-claims-periods prior to the start of Sunrise, Claims or Limited Registration Periods? * How many marks were rejected? What is a breakdown of the reasons? This question appears to be a superset of the question above related to “actual use.” Can we consolidate these two questions into this one and then handle the additional question about trademark complaints and again perhaps provide a breakdown if one is available? * How many SMD files has the TMCH cancelled? How many TMCH disputes have been brought relating to SMD file validity for TMs that are cancelled/expired? On the TMCH page on the New gTLD microsite, the process of invalidating a trademark is described as below. Can the Sub Team clarify that this is what is being asked about and, if so, use the term “revocation?” SMD Revocation Revoking an SMD is the process of invalidating an SMD before its expiration date. The Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) may invalidate an SMD for several reasons, including security or data validation issues. The list (SMDRL) of revoked SMDs is maintained as part of the Trademark Database (TMCH) and published as specified in section 6.2 of the TMCH Functional Specifications<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec>. If your product uses SMDs, you must verify that the SMD has not been revoked as described in section 5.3.2 of the aforementioned Internet-draft. * Have there been any Sunrise DRPs relating to marks relied on at Sunrise which had already expired or been cancelled? The Dispute Resolution Process covers three types of disputes: · Disputes brought by Trademark<http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/lexicon/6/letter_t#Trademark> Holders or Trademark Agents<http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/lexicon/6/letter_t#Trademark_Agents> alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly rejected a Trademark Record<http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/lexicon/6/letter_t#Trademark_Record>; · Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly accepted a Trademark Record<http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/lexicon/6/letter_t#Trademark_Record>; and · Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that a Trademark Record<http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/lexicon/6/letter_t#Trademark_Record> is no longer valid based on new information (i.e. information not available to the Verification Provider at the time it reviewed the Trademark Record<http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/lexicon/6/letter_t#Trademark_Record>). Would it be preferable to get a list of disputes by type? Further clarity may also be needed regarding the “already been canceled” part of the question - the Registry is responsible for downloading the SMDRL every 24 hours and has to check against that prior to validating an SMD. Is the question related to the theoretical 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds during which that file is not refreshed by the registry? Or is the question asking about registries that did not check the SMDRL prior to issuing the sunrise registration? * How many DPML services are you supporting? Assuming that DPML stands for Donuts offering the service called Domains Protected Marks List, there is only one DPML service called that. Minds+Machines has a similar service called Minds + Machines Protected Marks List or MPML. Both of these services are very similar in that they require the trademark holder to have a valid SMD file. Does the Sub Team consider that as being supported by the TMCH, or is this a broader question about blocking services in general? * What is the geographic distribution of those who record marks in the TMCH – bearing in mind that TMCH agents may be in a different country to the TM owner and that TM owners may record a mark registered in a different country to the one they are based in? * What is the percentage of trademark registrations, Sunrise registrations and Claims Notices sent by country / region (bearing in mind that TMCH agents may be in a different country than the TM owner and that TM owners may record a mark registered in a different country from the one in which they are based)? There may be multiple questions here and perhaps a misunderstanding of terms. The first part of the question asks “What is the percentage of trademark registrations… by country/region?” By using the term “trademark registrations”, did the Sub Team mean a total of the Sunrise registrations and Claims registrations? The second part of the question asks for the percentage of Sunrise registrations… by country/region. Is this asking for the location of the registrant by country/region or the location of the trademark holder (or agent)? The third part of the question asks for Claims Notices sent. By the phrasing, can it be assumed that this does not mean Claims Notice Information Service (CNIS) notices displayed to potential registrants, but rather the Notice of Registered Domain Name (NORN) files sent to trademark holders? Thanks and cheers Mary and David

5 5

Notes and Outcomes from TMCH Sub-team meeting 23 November 2016
by David Tait Nov. 23, 2016

Nov. 23, 2016

Dear Sub-team participants The following is a brief summary of the notes and outcomes of today’s meeting. Additionally, an updated version of the tabular review of the TMCH Charter and Community questions based on today’s deliberations is included (please note that as a result of certain decisions the number and order of questions has therefore changed between this and the last version of this document circulated). Staff would kindly request any comments on this latest document be shared by Monday 28 November 2016 in order to all an up-to-date version to be shared with the full Working Group on Tuesday. Notes and Outcomes: · Guidance Q4: Agreed amendment intro to question: "How are design marks currently handled by the TMCH provider?" · Balance Q7: Proposal to add q8 as sub-questions to Q7? Additional proposal to include counter-parenthesis "are legitimate rights holders losing legitimate opportunities to register..." ACTION: Staff to revise appropriately. · Q9: Proposal to delete · Q10: Proposal to push this to the TM Claims Notice questions and deal with in those discussions. · Q11. No agreement yet. ST to come back to this. · Q12. Agreed to remain as a stand-alone question. Move to the Sunrise. Proposal to add "retained, modified, or expanded". · Q13. Further proposal to change order with Q12. Proposal to add explanation of TM+50 in foot note (ACTION STAFF). Proposed revision "Should the TM+50 be retained or removed?" · Q14. Agreed to delete. · Access and Accessibility Q15. Proposal to move to guidance section. "What information on TMCH Services is available and where can it be found?" or "Who does the TMCH share data with and for what purpose?". Include reference to contracts. ACTION: Staff to propose revised language for question. The next meeting of the sub-team will take place on Friday, 2 December 2016 at 1600 UTC for 60 minutes. Kind regards, David David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland, non-practicing) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait(a)icann.org www.icann.org

1 1

PLEASE REVIEW & RESPOND: Clarifications requested on Sub Team questions to the TMCH Providers
by Mary Wong Nov. 22, 2016

Nov. 22, 2016

Dear all, The Working Group co-chairs have just held a planning meeting with staff, based on which they would like to request that Sub Team members please review the note and questions below, and respond with your views to this mailing list as soon as possible on the following points: - Whether you think a call with the TMCH Providers and GDD support staff to go through and clarify the questions is needed. If you believe a call should be done, please let us know by this Friday 25 November if possible. - If you do not think a call with the Providers is necessary, please indicate whether you think the questions should be sent to the Providers as drafted by the Sub Team, or if clarifications along the lines suggested by GDD staff (or other adjustments) should be made. If you believe clarifications or amendments are needed, please send suggested edits to this list by next Tuesday 29 November, to allow other Sub Team members time to comment and the finalized questions to be sent to the Providers by the end of the week if possible. Thanks and cheers, Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 02:36 To: "gnso-rpm-tmch(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-tmch(a)icann.org> Subject: Clarifications requested on Sub Team questions to the TMCH Providers Dear TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team members, We have received feedback from our GDD colleagues who we had asked to assist with forwarding the Sub Team’s questions to the TMCH Providers. As some of the clarifying questions seem to go toward substantive issues, we thought it preferable to send them back to the Sub Team for your confirmation and discussion. If it will help, we can arrange a call between the Sub Team, our GDD colleagues who are working with the Providers, and perhaps the Providers as well, to work through the questions so that the Providers have a good sense of what is being asked, and can tell us what they think they can provide in terms of data and input. Please review the initial feedback from GDD below (in red), and let us know if you would like us to go ahead to arrange the suggested call, perhaps for next week or the week following. * What is the rate of rejection of an attempted registration of a trademark into the TMCH by country/region? Is it safe to assume that the request here is referring to the country/region of the trademark holder? * What were the most frequently asked questions? (Note – not necessarily what made it to the website but, rather, what questions did you get the most?) Is this related to the use of the Trademark Clearinghouse (by trademark holders) or the Trademark Database (by Registries and Registrars)? * If you are able, please provide the number and/or percentages of SMD files that were used in Sunrise periods corresponding to specific time periods (e.g. Jan/June/Sept 2014; Apr/Sept 2015; Apr/Sept 2016). * Are the registration totals contained within the various monthly/quarterly reports made to ICANN cumulative? * What is meant by the term ‘expired marks’ in the various monthly/quarterly reports made to ICANN? * In relation to the statistics regarding the number of marks submitted to the TMCH, as noted in the various monthly/quarterly reports to ICANN, does this statistic relate to individual marks that are submitted, or the number of labels generated, or the number of SMD files created? * How are marks cancelled within national/regional registries handled at the TMCH level, if validation is only done annually? In other words, what is the TMCH process (if any) relating to marks that are cancelled or expire: reactive (e.g. TM owner/agent obligations) or proactive? * If it is possible, please provide a break down of where the corporate headquarters of those registrants using TM agents are located. Is this breakdown meant to be by country? * Some data has been provided regarding outreach efforts; if you can, please provide additional information on the precise nature of the activities undertaken and who was the audience for this? Were any outreach efforts made to potential registrants or trademark owners? - How much time and resources were expended on educating TM owners and/or registrants on the TMCH? - Was outreach and education part of the TMCH remit? What are the contractual obligations for education imposed by ICANN, if any? - In what regions/languages were outreach sessions held? * How many design marks have been submitted and validated? What is your criteria for validating these? How are you differentiating between design marks in the practical application of the TMCH guidelines? * In relation to Claims Notice statistics, can any discernible trends be noted in relation to: (i) registrar gaming and (ii) registrant turn-back as a result of a possible “chilling effect” resulting from the issuance of a Claims Notice? The question seems to ask about the effect of displaying a Claims Notice Information Service (CNIS) service to a potential registrant. Can the Sub Team provide a definition for “registrar gaming”? The TMDB has no visibility to whether a label is registered by a registrant or not – only the registrar would know that. The TMDB only logs that there has been a CNIS request for a label. Is additional clarity available for the second question? * How many contracts are there for private uses of the TMCH? How many of them involve blocking mechanism services? Is this asking about “Ancillary Services” that are allowed under Section 2.4 of the contract, or to services offered by the TMCH to third parties, i.e. contracts other than that with ICANN? - Are there contracts for other uses, and if so, how many? - If there are no such contracts, is the TMCH aware of other uses? * How many "court-validated" marks are there currently in the TMCH? * How many marks in the TMCH fall under the following category: "Other marks that constitute intellectual property and meet a registry's individual requirements"? Follow-up question: how would Deloitte keep these marks from being used in the Sunrise and Claims periods of other registries? * Did any trademarks that applied for entry into the TMCH fail in the “actual use” test? If so, how many? Did you receive any complaints of trademarks registered in the TMCH that they were not in actual use? * How many TMCH records include a TM+50 list; and how many are on this list on average? How many registrations were made for entries on the TM+50 list? * Have any gTLDs used the TMCH option to limit registrations by goods and services in a particular registration period? Does this refer to a given registry’s registration policies which are posted at https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/sunrise-claims-periods prior to the start of Sunrise, Claims or Limited Registration Periods? * How many marks were rejected? What is a breakdown of the reasons? This question appears to be a superset of the question above related to “actual use.” Can we consolidate these two questions into this one and then handle the additional question about trademark complaints and again perhaps provide a breakdown if one is available? * How many SMD files has the TMCH cancelled? How many TMCH disputes have been brought relating to SMD file validity for TMs that are cancelled/expired? On the TMCH page on the New gTLD microsite, the process of invalidating a trademark is described as below. Can the Sub Team clarify that this is what is being asked about and, if so, use the term “revocation?” SMD Revocation Revoking an SMD is the process of invalidating an SMD before its expiration date. The Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) may invalidate an SMD for several reasons, including security or data validation issues. The list (SMDRL) of revoked SMDs is maintained as part of the Trademark Database (TMCH) and published as specified in section 6.2 of the TMCH Functional Specifications<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec>. If your product uses SMDs, you must verify that the SMD has not been revoked as described in section 5.3.2 of the aforementioned Internet-draft. * Have there been any Sunrise DRPs relating to marks relied on at Sunrise which had already expired or been cancelled? The Dispute Resolution Process covers three types of disputes: · Disputes brought by Trademark<http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/lexicon/6/letter_t#Trademark> Holders or Trademark Agents<http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/lexicon/6/letter_t#Trademark_Agents> alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly rejected a Trademark Record<http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/lexicon/6/letter_t#Trademark_Record>; · Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly accepted a Trademark Record<http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/lexicon/6/letter_t#Trademark_Record>; and · Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that a Trademark Record<http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/lexicon/6/letter_t#Trademark_Record> is no longer valid based on new information (i.e. information not available to the Verification Provider at the time it reviewed the Trademark Record<http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/lexicon/6/letter_t#Trademark_Record>). Would it be preferable to get a list of disputes by type? Further clarity may also be needed regarding the “already been canceled” part of the question - the Registry is responsible for downloading the SMDRL every 24 hours and has to check against that prior to validating an SMD. Is the question related to the theoretical 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds during which that file is not refreshed by the registry? Or is the question asking about registries that did not check the SMDRL prior to issuing the sunrise registration? * How many DPML services are you supporting? Assuming that DPML stands for Donuts offering the service called Domains Protected Marks List, there is only one DPML service called that. Minds+Machines has a similar service called Minds + Machines Protected Marks List or MPML. Both of these services are very similar in that they require the trademark holder to have a valid SMD file. Does the Sub Team consider that as being supported by the TMCH, or is this a broader question about blocking services in general? * What is the geographic distribution of those who record marks in the TMCH – bearing in mind that TMCH agents may be in a different country to the TM owner and that TM owners may record a mark registered in a different country to the one they are based in? * What is the percentage of trademark registrations, Sunrise registrations and Claims Notices sent by country / region (bearing in mind that TMCH agents may be in a different country than the TM owner and that TM owners may record a mark registered in a different country from the one in which they are based)? There may be multiple questions here and perhaps a misunderstanding of terms. The first part of the question asks “What is the percentage of trademark registrations… by country/region?” By using the term “trademark registrations”, did the Sub Team mean a total of the Sunrise registrations and Claims registrations? The second part of the question asks for the percentage of Sunrise registrations… by country/region. Is this asking for the location of the registrant by country/region or the location of the trademark holder (or agent)? The third part of the question asks for Claims Notices sent. By the phrasing, can it be assumed that this does not mean Claims Notice Information Service (CNIS) notices displayed to potential registrants, but rather the Notice of Registered Domain Name (NORN) files sent to trademark holders? Thanks and cheers Mary and David

1 0

Clarifications requested on Sub Team questions to the TMCH Providers
by Mary Wong Nov. 21, 2016

Nov. 21, 2016

Dear TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team members, We have received feedback from our GDD colleagues who we had asked to assist with forwarding the Sub Team’s questions to the TMCH Providers. As some of the clarifying questions seem to go toward substantive issues, we thought it preferable to send them back to the Sub Team for your confirmation and discussion. If it will help, we can arrange a call between the Sub Team, our GDD colleagues who are working with the Providers, and perhaps the Providers as well, to work through the questions so that the Providers have a good sense of what is being asked, and can tell us what they think they can provide in terms of data and input. Please review the initial feedback from GDD below (in red), and let us know if you would like us to go ahead to arrange the suggested call, perhaps for next week or the week following. * What is the rate of rejection of an attempted registration of a trademark into the TMCH by country/region? Is it safe to assume that the request here is referring to the country/region of the trademark holder? * What were the most frequently asked questions? (Note – not necessarily what made it to the website but, rather, what questions did you get the most?) Is this related to the use of the Trademark Clearinghouse (by trademark holders) or the Trademark Database (by Registries and Registrars)? * If you are able, please provide the number and/or percentages of SMD files that were used in Sunrise periods corresponding to specific time periods (e.g. Jan/June/Sept 2014; Apr/Sept 2015; Apr/Sept 2016). * Are the registration totals contained within the various monthly/quarterly reports made to ICANN cumulative? * What is meant by the term ‘expired marks’ in the various monthly/quarterly reports made to ICANN? * In relation to the statistics regarding the number of marks submitted to the TMCH, as noted in the various monthly/quarterly reports to ICANN, does this statistic relate to individual marks that are submitted, or the number of labels generated, or the number of SMD files created? * How are marks cancelled within national/regional registries handled at the TMCH level, if validation is only done annually? In other words, what is the TMCH process (if any) relating to marks that are cancelled or expire: reactive (e.g. TM owner/agent obligations) or proactive? * If it is possible, please provide a break down of where the corporate headquarters of those registrants using TM agents are located. Is this breakdown meant to be by country? * Some data has been provided regarding outreach efforts; if you can, please provide additional information on the precise nature of the activities undertaken and who was the audience for this? Were any outreach efforts made to potential registrants or trademark owners? - How much time and resources were expended on educating TM owners and/or registrants on the TMCH? - Was outreach and education part of the TMCH remit? What are the contractual obligations for education imposed by ICANN, if any? - In what regions/languages were outreach sessions held? * How many design marks have been submitted and validated? What is your criteria for validating these? How are you differentiating between design marks in the practical application of the TMCH guidelines? * In relation to Claims Notice statistics, can any discernible trends be noted in relation to: (i) registrar gaming and (ii) registrant turn-back as a result of a possible “chilling effect” resulting from the issuance of a Claims Notice? The question seems to ask about the effect of displaying a Claims Notice Information Service (CNIS) service to a potential registrant. Can the Sub Team provide a definition for “registrar gaming”? The TMDB has no visibility to whether a label is registered by a registrant or not – only the registrar would know that. The TMDB only logs that there has been a CNIS request for a label. Is additional clarity available for the second question? * How many contracts are there for private uses of the TMCH? How many of them involve blocking mechanism services? Is this asking about “Ancillary Services” that are allowed under Section 2.4 of the contract, or to services offered by the TMCH to third parties, i.e. contracts other than that with ICANN? - Are there contracts for other uses, and if so, how many? - If there are no such contracts, is the TMCH aware of other uses? * How many "court-validated" marks are there currently in the TMCH? * How many marks in the TMCH fall under the following category: "Other marks that constitute intellectual property and meet a registry's individual requirements"? Follow-up question: how would Deloitte keep these marks from being used in the Sunrise and Claims periods of other registries? * Did any trademarks that applied for entry into the TMCH fail in the “actual use” test? If so, how many? Did you receive any complaints of trademarks registered in the TMCH that they were not in actual use? * How many TMCH records include a TM+50 list; and how many are on this list on average? How many registrations were made for entries on the TM+50 list? * Have any gTLDs used the TMCH option to limit registrations by goods and services in a particular registration period? Does this refer to a given registry’s registration policies which are posted at https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/sunrise-claims-periods prior to the start of Sunrise, Claims or Limited Registration Periods? * How many marks were rejected? What is a breakdown of the reasons? This question appears to be a superset of the question above related to “actual use.” Can we consolidate these two questions into this one and then handle the additional question about trademark complaints and again perhaps provide a breakdown if one is available? * How many SMD files has the TMCH cancelled? How many TMCH disputes have been brought relating to SMD file validity for TMs that are cancelled/expired? On the TMCH page on the New gTLD microsite, the process of invalidating a trademark is described as below. Can the Sub Team clarify that this is what is being asked about and, if so, use the term “revocation?” SMD Revocation Revoking an SMD is the process of invalidating an SMD before its expiration date. The Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) may invalidate an SMD for several reasons, including security or data validation issues. The list (SMDRL) of revoked SMDs is maintained as part of the Trademark Database (TMCH) and published as specified in section 6.2 of the TMCH Functional Specifications<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec>. If your product uses SMDs, you must verify that the SMD has not been revoked as described in section 5.3.2 of the aforementioned Internet-draft. * Have there been any Sunrise DRPs relating to marks relied on at Sunrise which had already expired or been cancelled? The Dispute Resolution Process covers three types of disputes: · Disputes brought by Trademark<http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/lexicon/6/letter_t#Trademark> Holders or Trademark Agents<http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/lexicon/6/letter_t#Trademark_Agents> alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly rejected a Trademark Record<http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/lexicon/6/letter_t#Trademark_Record>; · Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly accepted a Trademark Record<http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/lexicon/6/letter_t#Trademark_Record>; and · Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that a Trademark Record<http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/lexicon/6/letter_t#Trademark_Record> is no longer valid based on new information (i.e. information not available to the Verification Provider at the time it reviewed the Trademark Record<http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/lexicon/6/letter_t#Trademark_Record>). Would it be preferable to get a list of disputes by type? Further clarity may also be needed regarding the “already been canceled” part of the question - the Registry is responsible for downloading the SMDRL every 24 hours and has to check against that prior to validating an SMD. Is the question related to the theoretical 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds during which that file is not refreshed by the registry? Or is the question asking about registries that did not check the SMDRL prior to issuing the sunrise registration? * How many DPML services are you supporting? Assuming that DPML stands for Donuts offering the service called Domains Protected Marks List, there is only one DPML service called that. Minds+Machines has a similar service called Minds + Machines Protected Marks List or MPML. Both of these services are very similar in that they require the trademark holder to have a valid SMD file. Does the Sub Team consider that as being supported by the TMCH, or is this a broader question about blocking services in general? * What is the geographic distribution of those who record marks in the TMCH – bearing in mind that TMCH agents may be in a different country to the TM owner and that TM owners may record a mark registered in a different country to the one they are based in? * What is the percentage of trademark registrations, Sunrise registrations and Claims Notices sent by country / region (bearing in mind that TMCH agents may be in a different country than the TM owner and that TM owners may record a mark registered in a different country from the one in which they are based)? There may be multiple questions here and perhaps a misunderstanding of terms. The first part of the question asks “What is the percentage of trademark registrations… by country/region?” By using the term “trademark registrations”, did the Sub Team mean a total of the Sunrise registrations and Claims registrations? The second part of the question asks for the percentage of Sunrise registrations… by country/region. Is this asking for the location of the registrant by country/region or the location of the trademark holder (or agent)? The third part of the question asks for Claims Notices sent. By the phrasing, can it be assumed that this does not mean Claims Notice Information Service (CNIS) notices displayed to potential registrants, but rather the Notice of Registered Domain Name (NORN) files sent to trademark holders? Thanks and cheers Mary and David

1 0

Updated/amended list of questions to Registries, Registrars and the TMCH Providers
by Mary Wong Oct. 18, 2016

Oct. 18, 2016

Dear all, Staff has updated the above-mentioned list of questions based on the Sub Team call of Friday 14 October. We will be very grateful if you can let us know of any inaccuracies or omissions as soon as possible. As agreed by the Sub Team, staff will send the list of proposed questions to the registrars to Greg Rafert of the Analysis Group, for feedback on any overlaps and similarities with what the Analysis Group is seeking data for (as well as enquire as to whether and when we might hope to see the Analysis Group’s findings on the new registrar data). For the registries and provider questions, we will aim to send those out before the week is out, unless anyone has any further corrections. Finally, please note that we are aiming to have a draft report from this Sub Team out to you for your review within the next day or two. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: David Tait <david.tait(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, October 14, 2016 at 12:38 To: "gnso-rpm-tmch(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-tmch(a)icann.org> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Subject: Notes and Actions from RPMs TMCH sub-team call 14 Oct 2016 Dear All Please find below the notes and actions from today’s RPMs TMCH sub-team call. 1. The meeting began with a review of the questions being sent by the Analysis group to the TMCH providers. An additional question suggested: What is the "base-line" abandonment rate? 2. A review of the feedback from received from Registrars to the sub-team’s questions took place. The following amendments were suggested: Q1 stop at "displayed". Q2 - 4 remove term "cart" and revise to "what is the rate of attempted registration abandonment" Q Re: TM+50, add general question at the end and remove specific question The following actions we agreed: · Staff to share questions with Analysis Group · Staff to review transcript for proposed revisions to questions to registrars. · Consider geting TMCH data on their clients registering in new gTLDs (to factor into possibility that a TM owner may be buying their own name, and getting a claims notice - Susan P to check if TMCH clients buying their own name get a notice at all, or if that depends on which registrar they use) · Add question for Providers re: Compare reg TMCH entries vs. the TMCH +50 designations · Staff to review registrar questions regarding TM+50 to fold in conclusion of discussions · ST to provide further suggestions on sunrise questions. Add 'or if you have no data please [insert SB proposed redraft] Kind regards, David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait(a)icann.org www.icann.org

1 0

TMCH Sub team report outline
by Susan Payne Oct. 17, 2016

Oct. 17, 2016

Hi David I put in the chat that I was happy with the outline below, but thought I’d repeat on the list too. Regarding · Proposed further data gathering from key-stakeholders. Am I right in understanding this to refer to a summary of the information we are seeking from the various parties in the questions we are sending out – it’s not a reference to future data gathering? Susan Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne(a)valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of David Tait Sent: 10 October 2016 19:31 To: gnso-rpm-tmch(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] TMCH Sub team meeting Friday, 7 October 2016 Dear Sub-team members Further to my previous email (below), just a reminder that while the call did not progress on Friday, staff are still seeking input on the proposed outline of the report to the WG group on the sub-team’s activities. We would therefore be grateful for any comments you had in advance of the next sub-team call, scheduled to take place Friday, 14 October 2016 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Any comments would be gratefully received. Kind regards, David From: <gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of David Tait <david.tait(a)icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, 5 October 2016 at 11:26 To: "gnso-rpm-tmch(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-tmch(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] TMCH Sub team meeting Friday, 7 October 2016 Dear Sub-team members Just a brief reminder that at our last meeting a final draft of questions related to the TMCH was prepared. Should you have any final comments on these we would be grateful to receive them asap. In relation to the meeting for this week, scheduled for Friday, 7 October 2016 at 15:00 UTC, staff would suggest that this would provide an opportune time to discuss the report to be sent to the Working Group. Tentatively we would suggest that the report could cover the following items: · Overview of activities to date; · Publicly available data obtained by the ST (i.e. the tabular summary prepared by staff); · Outcome of meetings with analysis group; and · Proposed further data gathering from key-stakeholders. We would be grateful to receive any comments you had on this outline. Kind regards, David David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait(a)icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

2 1

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for RPM TMCH Sub Team
by Michelle DeSmyter Oct. 14, 2016

Oct. 14, 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, 14 October 2016 at 15:00 UTC. MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-tmch-14oct16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-tmch-16sep16-en.mp3> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the Sub Team wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/_Rm4Aw Attendees: Kathy Kleiman Khouloud Dawahi Kristine Dorrain Kurt Pritz Marina Lewis Philip Corwin Sarah Clayton Susan Payne Apologies: ICANN staff: Mary Wong Antonietta Mangiacotti David Tait Berry Cobb 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/_Rm4Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 14 October 2016: Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) - TMCH Sub Team Meeting on Friday, 14 October 2016 at 15:00 UTC. Susan Payne:hi all Mary Wong:Hello! Mary Wong:@Susan, we have a copy of your questions and email from this morning as well - we can upload that too Philip Corwin:Apologies for late arrival/computer issues Mary Wong:Me Mary Wong:We're told the Analysis Group questions will go out next week Mary Wong:And will have a mid-Nov deadline David Tait:I told him questions are going out next week David Tait:yeah Mary Wong:So the timing is very close - just about the same - as ours David Tait:Was that correct? David Tait:Thats the first set of questions up now Mary Wong:@Kurt, that's very helpful Susan Payne:fine Philip Corwin:Agree that getting base abandonment rate for registrations of non-TMCH domains would be useful data to measure meaning of the 94% rate David Tait:document uploaded now Susan Payne:sounds fine Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree with Q1 change. Susan Payne:yes to kurt Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I was agreeing! Berry Cobb:As I have encountered, you add the name to the cart, and in the payment process is when you are presented with the notice. Upon successful acknowledgement of the notice, then you complete the registration process by completing the payment. Philip Corwin:It's really abandonment of a specific requested domain name, but perhaps not the entire cart -- there may be other names in the cart that go through to completion even if one is deleted after receipt of the claims notice Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree, Phil, maybe that's really what GoDaddy meant as well. Kathy K:Hi All, Apologies for joining late. Susan Payne:agree, plus the rate at which they didn't proceed during the claims but for names not subject to a claims notice. Susan Payne:no Kurt Pritz:i m ight have to rejoin Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes, Susan, this is a piece of the puzzle Kurt Pritz:mic not working Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Can't hear Kurt Kurt Pritz:dont wait! Kathy K:Tx Mary! David Tait:all good Sarah:surely results will be skewed by rights owners (TMCH clients) buying their own name, receiving a notice, and continuing with registration? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes, I think that's definitely going to be a factor... David Tait:ye David Tait:*yes Susan Payne:ah, ok. I will check David Tait:Kurt it should be free to scroll Kathy K:If the TMCH keeps track of the number of TM Owner domain name registrations, that seems like a number to collect from the TMCH and subtract from the data we received from the registrars. Kathy K:@Kurt, if she does not understand TM+50, shouldn't we explain it? Susan Payne:yes that makes sense Susan Payne:to kurt's comment Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Kathy, do you think it would be confusing? The registrar doesn't really know how a string gets on the TMCH list. Mary Wong:Yes, that is the problem, I think, Kristine Susan Payne:I don't this it's necessarily a problem - suspect Sarah Bickey is not the person at GD who deals with registrants Susan Payne:Bockey Berry Cobb:They won't be able to distinguish from a Regular TMCH entry vs. one that was allowed into the TMCH due to the +50 rule. Mary Wong:That's what I was saying, thanks Berry Philip Corwin:Agree that registrar may not know whether a name that generates a claims notice is a trademark or a TM+50 term Berry Cobb:+1 Kristine Berry Cobb:And the notice itself (what is presented to potential Rt) is the same regardless. Mary Wong:Yes Berry Cobb:I'd say the best source will be for IBM/Deloitte to compare reg TMCH entries vs. the TMCH +50 designations, but they would need hyper-active registration details from Registrars, which may be difficult and likely not retained for very long. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree that the catch-all could help. Agree to see what the TMCH might know. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:does the TMCH track registrations, either TM+50 or otherwise? I didn't think so.... Kathy K:@Mary and David, could you take a fast look and let us know the current TM+50 Question to Providers? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Oooh, that would be good then, thanks Kurt! Kathy K:@David: did any Registrars answer that they could answer the TM+50 question? Mary Wong:@Kathy, no Susan Payne:Very happy with the framework Kathy K:sounds good Kurt Pritz:thanks Kathy K:tx! Philip Corwin:bye all Susan Payne:thanks

1 0