Revised Questions Listing
Hi Everyone: Attached are several forms of the questions for registry operators, registrars, et.al. that has been augmented with the questions developed by Susan and Kristine after their review of the charter. This might be overkill, but I am sending the question list in three forms: + redlines to the last version of the question list that show: + new questions from the charter review, + a few question that were deleted where the group voiced concern, + a few grammatical edits + new comments + a version with those redlines accepted but comments remaining + a clean version. During the meeting, I recommend we can use the version with redlines accepted but with comments as they can form the basis of our discussion. I also included a stand-alone list of the questions that were developed from the review of the charter so that you can see the sources of the new questions. I hope you find this helpful. Thank you Susan and Kristine. Regards, Kurt
I'm sorry Kurt, but I have to object. I appreciate the work, but I don't understand the difference between the four documents I am looking at and I don't have time to cross-compare. I will have to revert back to the last version circulated by Staff. Best, Kathy On 9/15/2016 9:17 PM, kurt@kjpritz.com wrote:
Hi Everyone: Attached are several forms of the questions for registry operators, registrars, et.al. that has been augmented with the questions developed by Susan and Kristine after their review of the charter. This might be overkill, but I am sending the question list in three forms:
* redlines to the last version of the question list that show: o new questions from the charter review, o a few question that were deleted where the group voiced concern, o a few grammatical edits o new comments * a version with those redlines accepted but comments remaining * a clean version.
During the meeting, I recommend we can use the version with redlines accepted but with comments as they can form the basis of our discussion. I also included a stand-alone list of the questions that were developed from the review of the charter so that you can see the sources of the new questions. I hope you find this helpful. Thank you Susan and Kristine. Regards, Kurt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch
Quick note to the subgroup that I believe we are operating far beyond our scope, and far beyond our timeframe. David, could you kindly recirculate our document of the publicly-available data and the report generated by you and Mary? Tx, Kathy On 9/16/2016 10:12 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
I'm sorry Kurt, but I have to object. I appreciate the work, but I don't understand the difference between the four documents I am looking at and I don't have time to cross-compare. I will have to revert back to the last version circulated by Staff.
Best, Kathy
On 9/15/2016 9:17 PM, kurt@kjpritz.com wrote:
Hi Everyone: Attached are several forms of the questions for registry operators, registrars, et.al. that has been augmented with the questions developed by Susan and Kristine after their review of the charter. This might be overkill, but I am sending the question list in three forms:
* redlines to the last version of the question list that show: o new questions from the charter review, o a few question that were deleted where the group voiced concern, o a few grammatical edits o new comments * a version with those redlines accepted but comments remaining * a clean version.
During the meeting, I recommend we can use the version with redlines accepted but with comments as they can form the basis of our discussion. I also included a stand-alone list of the questions that were developed from the review of the charter so that you can see the sources of the new questions. I hope you find this helpful. Thank you Susan and Kristine. Regards, Kurt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch
With the greatest of respect Kathy, we are not at all outside of scope. This is what was agreed on the last call that we would do. We discussed last week the work Kristine and I had done looking at the charter question specifically to try to identify where they gave rise additional questions that we should ask the various groups - registries, registrars, DPML providers and the TMCH. As agreed on the call, Kristine, Kurt and I then revisited this during the course of this week to tidy-up those additional questions and add them to the list of questions this group was already working on (making sure not to duplicate something already there). That is the document Kurt has circulated. As he said, it is probably easier for everyone to read the clean copy with the comments rather than the composite redline (which gets very busy), but either could be used. The fourth document - the charter questions themselves with the questions they gave rise to - is only there so that anyone who wants transparency of our process can have it, we don't need to look at this if you do not want to. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 Please note I will be on holiday from 19 September, returning 3 October 2016 From: gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: 16 September 2016 15:15 To: gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] Revised Questions Listing Quick note to the subgroup that I believe we are operating far beyond our scope, and far beyond our timeframe. David, could you kindly recirculate our document of the publicly-available data and the report generated by you and Mary? Tx, Kathy On 9/16/2016 10:12 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: I'm sorry Kurt, but I have to object. I appreciate the work, but I don't understand the difference between the four documents I am looking at and I don't have time to cross-compare. I will have to revert back to the last version circulated by Staff. Best, Kathy On 9/15/2016 9:17 PM, kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote: Hi Everyone: Attached are several forms of the questions for registry operators, registrars, et.al. that has been augmented with the questions developed by Susan and Kristine after their review of the charter. This might be overkill, but I am sending the question list in three forms: * redlines to the last version of the question list that show: * new questions from the charter review, * a few question that were deleted where the group voiced concern, * a few grammatical edits * new comments * a version with those redlines accepted but comments remaining * a clean version. During the meeting, I recommend we can use the version with redlines accepted but with comments as they can form the basis of our discussion. I also included a stand-alone list of the questions that were developed from the review of the charter so that you can see the sources of the new questions. I hope you find this helpful. Thank you Susan and Kristine. Regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch
Agree, Susan! The original issue we raised was that we were finalizing a question list without making sure we grabbed all the low hanging fruit. All we did was use the charter questions to add more questions to the question list. It will reduce the number of times we need to return to the TMCH, the registries, and registrars. I have no idea how adding more questions on the same topics is outside the scope. Kristine Sent from my iPhone On Sep 16, 2016, at 7:25 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> wrote: With the greatest of respect Kathy, we are not at all outside of scope. This is what was agreed on the last call that we would do. We discussed last week the work Kristine and I had done looking at the charter question specifically to try to identify where they gave rise additional questions that we should ask the various groups - registries, registrars, DPML providers and the TMCH. As agreed on the call, Kristine, Kurt and I then revisited this during the course of this week to tidy-up those additional questions and add them to the list of questions this group was already working on (making sure not to duplicate something already there). That is the document Kurt has circulated. As he said, it is probably easier for everyone to read the clean copy with the comments rather than the composite redline (which gets very busy), but either could be used. The fourth document - the charter questions themselves with the questions they gave rise to - is only there so that anyone who wants transparency of our process can have it, we don't need to look at this if you do not want to. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 Please note I will be on holiday from 19 September, returning 3 October 2016 From: gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: 16 September 2016 15:15 To: gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] Revised Questions Listing Quick note to the subgroup that I believe we are operating far beyond our scope, and far beyond our timeframe. David, could you kindly recirculate our document of the publicly-available data and the report generated by you and Mary? Tx, Kathy On 9/16/2016 10:12 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: I'm sorry Kurt, but I have to object. I appreciate the work, but I don't understand the difference between the four documents I am looking at and I don't have time to cross-compare. I will have to revert back to the last version circulated by Staff. Best, Kathy On 9/15/2016 9:17 PM, kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote: Hi Everyone: Attached are several forms of the questions for registry operators, registrars, et.al. that has been augmented with the questions developed by Susan and Kristine after their review of the charter. This might be overkill, but I am sending the question list in three forms: * redlines to the last version of the question list that show: * new questions from the charter review, * a few question that were deleted where the group voiced concern, * a few grammatical edits * new comments * a version with those redlines accepted but comments remaining * a clean version. During the meeting, I recommend we can use the version with redlines accepted but with comments as they can form the basis of our discussion. I also included a stand-alone list of the questions that were developed from the review of the charter so that you can see the sources of the new questions. I hope you find this helpful. Thank you Susan and Kristine. Regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch
David, * Please find attached the Document with just the Questions in it. I have added my thoughts to it for the consideration of the team-Thanx; Kristine, Your additions in the document are very specific and thoughtful. I was able to frame some of mine on top of them. W.r.t. Susan¹s point, I think it the reply was in a rush. Lets appreciate that Kathy¹s point of getting confused is absolutely valid. I did get confused too. So I decided to stick to just one Document for more clarity and to my understanding, that¹s exactly what Kathy is saying. On Wednessday call, some of the Charter Questions itself are in discussion and the summary mail later as discussion points has been able to un-clutter some. Then we refer to the scope of the TMCH, there is a focus to be maintained. Infact, in the document above, (For e.g.) I requesting the team to assist me in understanding that why we cannot look at the way TMCH contract is given to Deloitte and IBM and not to other competitive service providers. Yes though it will have a direct impact on expanding the scope of the services provided, but I don¹t think that this may be discussed here. At this point, for the sake of clarity, Since Kurt has compiled these documents, If he reworks, and shares Only One (Probably this one) then it will be easer to cut on the TAT on the topic and deliver. Adding to this, My Apologies to the team, after a tiring golf session, in the heat, I have to step out for a meeting with guest from abroad. So won¹t be able to make it to the call today. Have a great weekend team. And I will catch up on the MP3. Will Miss you ! Regards, -Vaibhav Aggarwal From: <gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-rpm-tmch" <gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> Reply-To: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink@amazon.com> Date: Friday, September 16, 2016 at 8:03 PM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> Cc: "gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] Revised Questions Listing Agree, Susan! The original issue we raised was that we were finalizing a question list without making sure we grabbed all the low hanging fruit. All we did was use the charter questions to add more questions to the question list. It will reduce the number of times we need to return to the TMCH, the registries, and registrars. I have no idea how adding more questions on the same topics is outside the scope. Kristine Sent from my iPhone On Sep 16, 2016, at 7:25 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote: > With the greatest of respect Kathy, we are not at all outside of scope. This > is what was agreed on the last call that we would do. We discussed last week > the work Kristine and I had done looking at the charter question specifically > to try to identify where they gave rise additional questions that we should > ask the various groups registries, registrars, DPML providers and the TMCH. > As agreed on the call, Kristine, Kurt and I then revisited this during the > course of this week to tidy-up those additional questions and add them to the > list of questions this group was already working on (making sure not to > duplicate something already there). That is the document Kurt has circulated. > As he said, it is probably easier for everyone to read the clean copy with the > comments rather than the composite redline (which gets very busy), but either > could be used. The fourth document the charter questions themselves with > the questions they gave rise to is only there so that anyone who wants > transparency of our process can have it, we don¹t need to look at this if you > do not want to. > > > Susan Payne > Head of Legal Policy| Valideus Ltd > > E: susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> > D: +44 20 7421 8255 > T: +44 20 7421 8299 > M: +44 7971 661175 > > Please note I will be on holiday from 19 September, returning 3 October 2016 > > > From:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org] > On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman > Sent: 16 September 2016 15:15 > To: gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org > Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] Revised Questions Listing > > Quick note to the subgroup that I believe we are operating far beyond our > scope, and far beyond our timeframe. > > David, could you kindly recirculate our document of the publicly-available > data and the report generated by you and Mary? > > Tx, Kathy > > > > On 9/16/2016 10:12 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >> I'm sorry Kurt, but I have to object. I appreciate the work, but I don't >> understand the difference between the four documents I am looking at and I >> don't have time to cross-compare. I will have to revert back to the last >> version circulated by Staff. >> >> Best, Kathy >> >> On 9/15/2016 9:17 PM, kurt@kjpritz.com wrote: >>> >>> Hi Everyone: >>> >>> >>> >>> Attached are several forms of the questions for registry operators, >>> registrars, et.al. that has been augmented with the questions developed by >>> Susan and Kristine after their review of the charter. >>> >>> >>> >>> This might be overkill, but I am sending the question list in three forms: >>> * redlines to the last version of the question list that show: >>>> * new questions from the charter review, >>>> * a few question that were deleted where the group voiced concern, >>>> * a few grammatical edits >>>> * new comments >>> * a version with those redlines accepted but comments remaining >>> * a clean version. >>> During the meeting, I recommend we can use the version with redlines >>> accepted but with comments as they can form the basis of our discussion. >>> >>> >>> >>> I also included a stand-alone list of the questions that were developed from >>> the review of the charter so that you can see the sources of the new >>> questions. >>> >>> >>> >>> I hope you find this helpful. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you Susan and Kristine. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Kurt >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list >>> Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list >> Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list > Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch
Hi, Sharing this document it will help in answering some direct questions. Regards, -VA From: Vaibhav Aggarwal <va@bladebrains.com> Date: Friday, September 16, 2016 at 8:31 PM To: "gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] Revised Questions Listing David, * Please find attached the Document with just the Questions in it. I have added my thoughts to it for the consideration of the team-Thanx; Kristine, Your additions in the document are very specific and thoughtful. I was able to frame some of mine on top of them. W.r.t. Susan¹s point, I think it the reply was in a rush. Lets appreciate that Kathy¹s point of getting confused is absolutely valid. I did get confused too. So I decided to stick to just one Document for more clarity and to my understanding, that¹s exactly what Kathy is saying. On Wednessday call, some of the Charter Questions itself are in discussion and the summary mail later as discussion points has been able to un-clutter some. Then we refer to the scope of the TMCH, there is a focus to be maintained. Infact, in the document above, (For e.g.) I requesting the team to assist me in understanding that why we cannot look at the way TMCH contract is given to Deloitte and IBM and not to other competitive service providers. Yes though it will have a direct impact on expanding the scope of the services provided, but I don¹t think that this may be discussed here. At this point, for the sake of clarity, Since Kurt has compiled these documents, If he reworks, and shares Only One (Probably this one) then it will be easer to cut on the TAT on the topic and deliver. Adding to this, My Apologies to the team, after a tiring golf session, in the heat, I have to step out for a meeting with guest from abroad. So won¹t be able to make it to the call today. Have a great weekend team. And I will catch up on the MP3. Will Miss you ! Regards, -Vaibhav Aggarwal From: <gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-rpm-tmch" <gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> Reply-To: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink@amazon.com> Date: Friday, September 16, 2016 at 8:03 PM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> Cc: "gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] Revised Questions Listing Agree, Susan! The original issue we raised was that we were finalizing a question list without making sure we grabbed all the low hanging fruit. All we did was use the charter questions to add more questions to the question list. It will reduce the number of times we need to return to the TMCH, the registries, and registrars. I have no idea how adding more questions on the same topics is outside the scope. Kristine Sent from my iPhone On Sep 16, 2016, at 7:25 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote: > With the greatest of respect Kathy, we are not at all outside of scope. This > is what was agreed on the last call that we would do. We discussed last week > the work Kristine and I had done looking at the charter question specifically > to try to identify where they gave rise additional questions that we should > ask the various groups registries, registrars, DPML providers and the TMCH. > As agreed on the call, Kristine, Kurt and I then revisited this during the > course of this week to tidy-up those additional questions and add them to the > list of questions this group was already working on (making sure not to > duplicate something already there). That is the document Kurt has circulated. > As he said, it is probably easier for everyone to read the clean copy with the > comments rather than the composite redline (which gets very busy), but either > could be used. The fourth document the charter questions themselves with > the questions they gave rise to is only there so that anyone who wants > transparency of our process can have it, we don¹t need to look at this if you > do not want to. > > > Susan Payne > Head of Legal Policy| Valideus Ltd > > E: susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> > D: +44 20 7421 8255 > T: +44 20 7421 8299 > M: +44 7971 661175 > > Please note I will be on holiday from 19 September, returning 3 October 2016 > > > From:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org] > On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman > Sent: 16 September 2016 15:15 > To: gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org > Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] Revised Questions Listing > > Quick note to the subgroup that I believe we are operating far beyond our > scope, and far beyond our timeframe. > > David, could you kindly recirculate our document of the publicly-available > data and the report generated by you and Mary? > > Tx, Kathy > > > > On 9/16/2016 10:12 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >> I'm sorry Kurt, but I have to object. I appreciate the work, but I don't >> understand the difference between the four documents I am looking at and I >> don't have time to cross-compare. I will have to revert back to the last >> version circulated by Staff. >> >> Best, Kathy >> >> On 9/15/2016 9:17 PM, kurt@kjpritz.com wrote: >>> >>> Hi Everyone: >>> >>> >>> >>> Attached are several forms of the questions for registry operators, >>> registrars, et.al. that has been augmented with the questions developed by >>> Susan and Kristine after their review of the charter. >>> >>> >>> >>> This might be overkill, but I am sending the question list in three forms: >>> * redlines to the last version of the question list that show: >>>> * new questions from the charter review, >>>> * a few question that were deleted where the group voiced concern, >>>> * a few grammatical edits >>>> * new comments >>> * a version with those redlines accepted but comments remaining >>> * a clean version. >>> During the meeting, I recommend we can use the version with redlines >>> accepted but with comments as they can form the basis of our discussion. >>> >>> >>> >>> I also included a stand-alone list of the questions that were developed from >>> the review of the charter so that you can see the sources of the new >>> questions. >>> >>> >>> >>> I hope you find this helpful. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you Susan and Kristine. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Kurt >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list >>> Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list >> Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list > Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch
Kathy As requested, please use the attached link to access the tabular summary of the publicly-available data: Updated Tabular Summary. David From: <gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Friday, 16 September 2016 at 15:15 To: "gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] Revised Questions Listing Quick note to the subgroup that I believe we are operating far beyond our scope, and far beyond our timeframe. David, could you kindly recirculate our document of the publicly-available data and the report generated by you and Mary? Tx, Kathy On 9/16/2016 10:12 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: I'm sorry Kurt, but I have to object. I appreciate the work, but I don't understand the difference between the four documents I am looking at and I don't have time to cross-compare. I will have to revert back to the last version circulated by Staff. Best, Kathy On 9/15/2016 9:17 PM, kurt@kjpritz.com wrote: Hi Everyone: Attached are several forms of the questions for registry operators, registrars, et.al. that has been augmented with the questions developed by Susan and Kristine after their review of the charter. This might be overkill, but I am sending the question list in three forms: redlines to the last version of the question list that show: new questions from the charter review, a few question that were deleted where the group voiced concern, a few grammatical edits new comments a version with those redlines accepted but comments remaining a clean version. During the meeting, I recommend we can use the version with redlines accepted but with comments as they can form the basis of our discussion. I also included a stand-alone list of the questions that were developed from the review of the charter so that you can see the sources of the new questions. I hope you find this helpful. Thank you Susan and Kristine. Regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch
Hi Kurt and All, Tx you for our discussion last Friday and I look forward to continuing this Friday. I also had a chance to give the docs a close look and I've added some comments to the Charter Questions document. I've also reviewed the SubTeam's List of Questions - working off the redline to try to preserve the concerns raised in some of the deleted questions. I have to tell you that I comfortable with the Provider questions - which I think should go out immediately, and generally with the Registry questions (as edited). But the Registrar questions trouble me. We are asking for a huge amount of data and they are potentially very, very timeconsuming. Given that the TMCH Subgroup does not have any Registrar representatives (am I missing someone?), i strongly recommend that this set of questions. in draft, go back to the full WG for review with our Registrar members. I would like to hear their thoughts on how we might phrase these questions in a fair and balanced way - to encourage the best and fullest responses. Both files attached in Redline. Best, Kathy On 9/15/2016 9:17 PM, kurt@kjpritz.com wrote:
Hi Everyone: Attached are several forms of the questions for registry operators, registrars, et.al. that has been augmented with the questions developed by Susan and Kristine after their review of the charter. This might be overkill, but I am sending the question list in three forms:
* redlines to the last version of the question list that show: o new questions from the charter review, o a few question that were deleted where the group voiced concern, o a few grammatical edits o new comments * a version with those redlines accepted but comments remaining * a clean version.
During the meeting, I recommend we can use the version with redlines accepted but with comments as they can form the basis of our discussion. I also included a stand-alone list of the questions that were developed from the review of the charter so that you can see the sources of the new questions. I hope you find this helpful. Thank you Susan and Kristine. Regards, Kurt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch
I agree with Kathy. We might scan the RPM Working Group list for registrars and schedule a call with just a few of the sub-group team to discuss a suitable data set. Do you think that might be an expeditious path forward. Kurt --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] Revised Questions Listing From: "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: 9/22/16 10:22 am To: gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org Hi Kurt and All, Tx you for our discussion last Friday and I look forward to continuing this Friday. I also had a chance to give the docs a close look and I've added some comments to the Charter Questions document. I've also reviewed the SubTeam's List of Questions - working off the redline to try to preserve the concerns raised in some of the deleted questions. I have to tell you that I comfortable with the Provider questions - which I think should go out immediately, and generally with the Registry questions (as edited). But the Registrar questions trouble me. We are asking for a huge amount of data and they are potentially very, very timeconsuming. Given that the TMCH Subgroup does not have any Registrar representatives (am I missing someone?), i strongly recommend that this set of questions. in draft, go back to the full WG for review with our Registrar members. I would like to hear their thoughts on how we might phrase these questions in a fair and balanced way - to encourage the best and fullest responses. Both files attached in Redline. Best, Kathy On 9/15/2016 9:17 PM, kurt@kjpritz.com wrote: Hi Everyone: Attached are several forms of the questions for registry operators, registrars, et.al. that has been augmented with the questions developed by Susan and Kristine after their review of the charter. This might be overkill, but I am sending the question list in three forms: + redlines to the last version of the question list that show: + new questions from the charter review, + a few question that were deleted where the group voiced concern, + a few grammatical edits + new comments + a version with those redlines accepted but comments remaining + a clean version. During the meeting, I recommend we can use the version with redlines accepted but with comments as they can form the basis of our discussion. I also included a stand-alone list of the questions that were developed from the review of the charter so that you can see the sources of the new questions. I hope you find this helpful. Thank you Susan and Kristine. Regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch
Dear sub team members, due to travel and a family emergency, neither David nor I will be available to support the sub team meeting today. We are sorry for the late notice. We suggest canceling the call today, and have the sub team continue discussions on the mailing list in preparation for next week. Alternatively, if the group wishes to continue with the call, the secretariat staff on that call will try their best to capture action items and David and I will of course follow up via the transcript and recording as soon as we can. Please let us know your preference. Thank you - and apologies for the late notice again! Cheers Mary Sent from my iPhone On Sep 23, 2016, at 06:03, "kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>" <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> wrote: I agree with Kathy. We might scan the RPM Working Group list for registrars and schedule a call with just a few of the sub-group team to discuss a suitable data set. Do you think that might be an expeditious path forward. Kurt --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] Revised Questions Listing From: "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: 9/22/16 10:22 am To: gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> Hi Kurt and All, Tx you for our discussion last Friday and I look forward to continuing this Friday. I also had a chance to give the docs a close look and I've added some comments to the Charter Questions document. I've also reviewed the SubTeam's List of Questions - working off the redline to try to preserve the concerns raised in some of the deleted questions. I have to tell you that I comfortable with the Provider questions - which I think should go out immediately, and generally with the Registry questions (as edited). But the Registrar questions trouble me. We are asking for a huge amount of data and they are potentially very, very timeconsuming. Given that the TMCH Subgroup does not have any Registrar representatives (am I missing someone?), i strongly recommend that this set of questions. in draft, go back to the full WG for review with our Registrar members. I would like to hear their thoughts on how we might phrase these questions in a fair and balanced way - to encourage the best and fullest responses. Both files attached in Redline. Best, Kathy On 9/15/2016 9:17 PM, kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote: Hi Everyone: Attached are several forms of the questions for registry operators, registrars, et.al. that has been augmented with the questions developed by Susan and Kristine after their review of the charter. This might be overkill, but I am sending the question list in three forms: * redlines to the last version of the question list that show: * new questions from the charter review, * a few question that were deleted where the group voiced concern, * a few grammatical edits * new comments * a version with those redlines accepted but comments remaining * a clean version. During the meeting, I recommend we can use the version with redlines accepted but with comments as they can form the basis of our discussion. I also included a stand-alone list of the questions that were developed from the review of the charter so that you can see the sources of the new questions. I hope you find this helpful. Thank you Susan and Kristine. Regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch
I think it will be better to cancel the call in this case but I will go for whatever the group decides. All best , Khouloud . On Sep 23, 2016 2:05 PM, "Mary Wong" <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear sub team members, due to travel and a family emergency, neither David nor I will be available to support the sub team meeting today. We are sorry for the late notice. We suggest canceling the call today, and have the sub team continue discussions on the mailing list in preparation for next week. Alternatively, if the group wishes to continue with the call, the secretariat staff on that call will try their best to capture action items and David and I will of course follow up via the transcript and recording as soon as we can.
Please let us know your preference. Thank you - and apologies for the late notice again!
Cheers Mary
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 23, 2016, at 06:03, "kurt@kjpritz.com" <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
I agree with Kathy.
We might scan the RPM Working Group list for registrars and schedule a call with just a few of the sub-group team to discuss a suitable data set. Do you think that might be an expeditious path forward.
Kurt
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] Revised Questions Listing From: "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: 9/22/16 10:22 am To: gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org
Hi Kurt and All, Tx you for our discussion last Friday and I look forward to continuing this Friday. I also had a chance to give the docs a close look and I've added some comments to the Charter Questions document. I've also reviewed the SubTeam's List of Questions - working off the redline to try to preserve the concerns raised in some of the deleted questions.
I have to tell you that I comfortable with the Provider questions - which I think should go out immediately, and generally with the Registry questions (as edited).
But the Registrar questions trouble me. We are asking for a huge amount of data and they are potentially very, very timeconsuming. Given that the TMCH Subgroup does not have any Registrar representatives (am I missing someone?), i strongly recommend that this set of questions. in draft, go back to the full WG for review with our Registrar members. I would like to hear their thoughts on how we might phrase these questions in a fair and balanced way - to encourage the best and fullest responses.
Both files attached in Redline.
Best, Kathy
On 9/15/2016 9:17 PM, kurt@kjpritz.com wrote:
Hi Everyone:
Attached are several forms of the questions for registry operators, registrars, et.al. that has been augmented with the questions developed by Susan and Kristine after their review of the charter.
This might be overkill, but I am sending the question list in three forms:
- redlines to the last version of the question list that show: - new questions from the charter review, - a few question that were deleted where the group voiced concern, - a few grammatical edits - new comments - a version with those redlines accepted but comments remaining - a clean version.
During the meeting, I recommend we can use the version with redlines accepted but with comments as they can form the basis of our discussion.
I also included a stand-alone list of the questions that were developed from the review of the charter so that you can see the sources of the new questions.
I hope you find this helpful.
Thank you Susan and Kristine.
Regards,
Kurt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing listGnso-rpm-tmch@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/ listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch
Just canceled it. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad On Sep 23, 2016, at 10:15 AM, Dawahi Khouloud <khoulouddaouahi@gmail.com<mailto:khoulouddaouahi@gmail.com>> wrote: I think it will be better to cancel the call in this case but I will go for whatever the group decides. All best , Khouloud . On Sep 23, 2016 2:05 PM, "Mary Wong" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Dear sub team members, due to travel and a family emergency, neither David nor I will be available to support the sub team meeting today. We are sorry for the late notice. We suggest canceling the call today, and have the sub team continue discussions on the mailing list in preparation for next week. Alternatively, if the group wishes to continue with the call, the secretariat staff on that call will try their best to capture action items and David and I will of course follow up via the transcript and recording as soon as we can. Please let us know your preference. Thank you - and apologies for the late notice again! Cheers Mary Sent from my iPhone On Sep 23, 2016, at 06:03, "kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>" <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> wrote: I agree with Kathy. We might scan the RPM Working Group list for registrars and schedule a call with just a few of the sub-group team to discuss a suitable data set. Do you think that might be an expeditious path forward. Kurt --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] Revised Questions Listing From: "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: 9/22/16 10:22 am To: gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> Hi Kurt and All, Tx you for our discussion last Friday and I look forward to continuing this Friday. I also had a chance to give the docs a close look and I've added some comments to the Charter Questions document. I've also reviewed the SubTeam's List of Questions - working off the redline to try to preserve the concerns raised in some of the deleted questions. I have to tell you that I comfortable with the Provider questions - which I think should go out immediately, and generally with the Registry questions (as edited). But the Registrar questions trouble me. We are asking for a huge amount of data and they are potentially very, very timeconsuming. Given that the TMCH Subgroup does not have any Registrar representatives (am I missing someone?), i strongly recommend that this set of questions. in draft, go back to the full WG for review with our Registrar members. I would like to hear their thoughts on how we might phrase these questions in a fair and balanced way - to encourage the best and fullest responses. Both files attached in Redline. Best, Kathy On 9/15/2016 9:17 PM, kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote: Hi Everyone: Attached are several forms of the questions for registry operators, registrars, et.al<http://et.al>. that has been augmented with the questions developed by Susan and Kristine after their review of the charter. This might be overkill, but I am sending the question list in three forms: * redlines to the last version of the question list that show: * new questions from the charter review, * a few question that were deleted where the group voiced concern, * a few grammatical edits * new comments * a version with those redlines accepted but comments remaining * a clean version. During the meeting, I recommend we can use the version with redlines accepted but with comments as they can form the basis of our discussion. I also included a stand-alone list of the questions that were developed from the review of the charter so that you can see the sources of the new questions. I hope you find this helpful. Thank you Susan and Kristine. Regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch
Thank you so much; we appreciate your understanding! Sent from my iPhone On Sep 23, 2016, at 22:16, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: Just canceled it. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad On Sep 23, 2016, at 10:15 AM, Dawahi Khouloud <khoulouddaouahi@gmail.com<mailto:khoulouddaouahi@gmail.com>> wrote: I think it will be better to cancel the call in this case but I will go for whatever the group decides. All best , Khouloud . On Sep 23, 2016 2:05 PM, "Mary Wong" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Dear sub team members, due to travel and a family emergency, neither David nor I will be available to support the sub team meeting today. We are sorry for the late notice. We suggest canceling the call today, and have the sub team continue discussions on the mailing list in preparation for next week. Alternatively, if the group wishes to continue with the call, the secretariat staff on that call will try their best to capture action items and David and I will of course follow up via the transcript and recording as soon as we can. Please let us know your preference. Thank you - and apologies for the late notice again! Cheers Mary Sent from my iPhone On Sep 23, 2016, at 06:03, "kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>" <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> wrote: I agree with Kathy. We might scan the RPM Working Group list for registrars and schedule a call with just a few of the sub-group team to discuss a suitable data set. Do you think that might be an expeditious path forward. Kurt --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] Revised Questions Listing From: "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: 9/22/16 10:22 am To: gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> Hi Kurt and All, Tx you for our discussion last Friday and I look forward to continuing this Friday. I also had a chance to give the docs a close look and I've added some comments to the Charter Questions document. I've also reviewed the SubTeam's List of Questions - working off the redline to try to preserve the concerns raised in some of the deleted questions. I have to tell you that I comfortable with the Provider questions - which I think should go out immediately, and generally with the Registry questions (as edited). But the Registrar questions trouble me. We are asking for a huge amount of data and they are potentially very, very timeconsuming. Given that the TMCH Subgroup does not have any Registrar representatives (am I missing someone?), i strongly recommend that this set of questions. in draft, go back to the full WG for review with our Registrar members. I would like to hear their thoughts on how we might phrase these questions in a fair and balanced way - to encourage the best and fullest responses. Both files attached in Redline. Best, Kathy On 9/15/2016 9:17 PM, kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote: Hi Everyone: Attached are several forms of the questions for registry operators, registrars, et.al[et.al]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__et.al&d=DQMFAg&c=FmY1u3P...>. that has been augmented with the questions developed by Susan and Kristine after their review of the charter. This might be overkill, but I am sending the question list in three forms: * redlines to the last version of the question list that show: * new questions from the charter review, * a few question that were deleted where the group voiced concern, * a few grammatical edits * new comments * a version with those redlines accepted but comments remaining * a clean version. During the meeting, I recommend we can use the version with redlines accepted but with comments as they can form the basis of our discussion. I also included a stand-alone list of the questions that were developed from the review of the charter so that you can see the sources of the new questions. I hope you find this helpful. Thank you Susan and Kristine. Regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch
Thanks for the heads up Mary. Due to the fact that both you and David are unavailable, and other key sub team members can't make the call, Kathy and I think it best to cancel and regroup next Friday. I have cc'd the GNSO Secretariat in the hope that one of them will send out an official cancelation notice. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad On Sep 23, 2016, at 9:05 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Dear sub team members, due to travel and a family emergency, neither David nor I will be available to support the sub team meeting today. We are sorry for the late notice. We suggest canceling the call today, and have the sub team continue discussions on the mailing list in preparation for next week. Alternatively, if the group wishes to continue with the call, the secretariat staff on that call will try their best to capture action items and David and I will of course follow up via the transcript and recording as soon as we can. Please let us know your preference. Thank you - and apologies for the late notice again! Cheers Mary Sent from my iPhone On Sep 23, 2016, at 06:03, "kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>" <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> wrote: I agree with Kathy. We might scan the RPM Working Group list for registrars and schedule a call with just a few of the sub-group team to discuss a suitable data set. Do you think that might be an expeditious path forward. Kurt --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] Revised Questions Listing From: "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: 9/22/16 10:22 am To: gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> Hi Kurt and All, Tx you for our discussion last Friday and I look forward to continuing this Friday. I also had a chance to give the docs a close look and I've added some comments to the Charter Questions document. I've also reviewed the SubTeam's List of Questions - working off the redline to try to preserve the concerns raised in some of the deleted questions. I have to tell you that I comfortable with the Provider questions - which I think should go out immediately, and generally with the Registry questions (as edited). But the Registrar questions trouble me. We are asking for a huge amount of data and they are potentially very, very timeconsuming. Given that the TMCH Subgroup does not have any Registrar representatives (am I missing someone?), i strongly recommend that this set of questions. in draft, go back to the full WG for review with our Registrar members. I would like to hear their thoughts on how we might phrase these questions in a fair and balanced way - to encourage the best and fullest responses. Both files attached in Redline. Best, Kathy On 9/15/2016 9:17 PM, kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote: Hi Everyone: Attached are several forms of the questions for registry operators, registrars, et.al. that has been augmented with the questions developed by Susan and Kristine after their review of the charter. This might be overkill, but I am sending the question list in three forms: * redlines to the last version of the question list that show: * new questions from the charter review, * a few question that were deleted where the group voiced concern, * a few grammatical edits * new comments * a version with those redlines accepted but comments remaining * a clean version. During the meeting, I recommend we can use the version with redlines accepted but with comments as they can form the basis of our discussion. I also included a stand-alone list of the questions that were developed from the review of the charter so that you can see the sources of the new questions. I hope you find this helpful. Thank you Susan and Kristine. Regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch
Hi Everyone: As I stated earlier, I agree with Kathy that we are asking registrars too many questions and also asking for analysis as well as data gathering. For convenience, here is the last version (Kathy's edits) of the registrar questions and, after that, is a condensed set that is restricted to data gathering, addresses the issues we (or at least I) care most about, and is avoids analysis or subjective staements. (I provide notice that I have put back the question about Sunrise registrations that Kathy deleted. I am pretty sure it goes right to one of the Charter question.) Current list: + Are you accessing data and records in the TMCH for purposes other than obtaining information necessary for the provision of sunrise and claims services in accordance with ICANN's user manuals and technical requirements (see https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/registries-regis... + The Analysis Group's Draft Report on the TMCH seemed to show a high number of Claims Notices issued resulting in a low number of actual consequent registrations. However, the Analysis Group's data did not include a breakdown of Claims Notices by registrar. Can you provide us with the number of Claims Notices sent by each of your accredited registrars for each new gTLD for which they sold registrations? + To assist us in understanding whether and how the existence and duration of the TM Claims period may have contributed to the low number of registrations, can each registrar tell us what is the rate of cart abandonment for new gTLDs when a potential registrant is exposed to a TM Claims Notice in comparison with the rate following the end of the Claims period? How do those numbers compare to [legacy] gTLDs? + Do you have any evidence to suggest why so many potential registrants apparently do not proceed further with a registration when they receive a TM Claims Notice? + What would you like to see improved about the Claims Notice that you believe will: + assist legitimate users to move forward with registrations and why? + deter cyber squatters and other so-called “bad actors” from proceeding further with the registration process? Or, is there any data or specific information you have that can help inform the Working Group's deliberations on this topic? Include feedback from registrants. + Can you describe the timing for which a Claims Notice is displayed to a potential registrant? Are there Potential Registrants who would not see a TM Claims Notice in realtime? + How many TM+50 claims notices were issued? How many resulted in abandoned registrations? Reduced list: + To assist us in understanding the effectiveness and potential effects of the TM Claims period + what percent of registrations during the claims period resulted in claims notices being sent + what is the rate of cart abandonment for new gTLDs when a potential registrant is exposed to a TM Claims Notice? + what is the rate of cart abandonment when a potential registrant is not exposed to a TM Claims Notice during the Claims period? + what is the rate of cart abandonment after theTM Claims Notice period? + Regarding TM+50 claims: + How many notices were issued? + What percent resulted in abandoned registrations? + What percent of attempted Sunrise registrations: + were denied because the name was reserved or blocked? + were abandoned? + Do you have any comments regarding Sunrise or Claims that you want this group to consider? I hope this is helpful. Kurt --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] Revised Questions Listing From: "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: 9/22/16 10:22 am To: gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org Hi Kurt and All, Tx you for our discussion last Friday and I look forward to continuing this Friday. I also had a chance to give the docs a close look and I've added some comments to the Charter Questions document. I've also reviewed the SubTeam's List of Questions - working off the redline to try to preserve the concerns raised in some of the deleted questions. I have to tell you that I comfortable with the Provider questions - which I think should go out immediately, and generally with the Registry questions (as edited). But the Registrar questions trouble me. We are asking for a huge amount of data and they are potentially very, very timeconsuming. Given that the TMCH Subgroup does not have any Registrar representatives (am I missing someone?), i strongly recommend that this set of questions. in draft, go back to the full WG for review with our Registrar members. I would like to hear their thoughts on how we might phrase these questions in a fair and balanced way - to encourage the best and fullest responses. Both files attached in Redline. Best, Kathy On 9/15/2016 9:17 PM, kurt@kjpritz.com wrote: Hi Everyone: Attached are several forms of the questions for registry operators, registrars, et.al. that has been augmented with the questions developed by Susan and Kristine after their review of the charter. This might be overkill, but I am sending the question list in three forms: + redlines to the last version of the question list that show: + new questions from the charter review, + a few question that were deleted where the group voiced concern, + a few grammatical edits + new comments + a version with those redlines accepted but comments remaining + a clean version. During the meeting, I recommend we can use the version with redlines accepted but with comments as they can form the basis of our discussion. I also included a stand-alone list of the questions that were developed from the review of the charter so that you can see the sources of the new questions. I hope you find this helpful. Thank you Susan and Kristine. Regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch
Hi everyone, I support this reduced list. I appreciate the effort to gather data only, Kurt. I think we can retain the more comprehensive list of questions to ruminate over as a larger group. My only question is for this question: --what is the rate of cart abandonment after the TM Claims Notice period? By “period” we mean, for all TLDs, new and legacy, right? Best, Kristine Kristine Dorrain Corp Counsel – IP | Amazon | 206.740.9339 dorraink@amazon.com<mailto:rosettek@amazon.com> From: gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of kurt@kjpritz.com Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 10:08 PM To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>; gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] Revised Questions Listing Hi Everyone: As I stated earlier, I agree with Kathy that we are asking registrars too many questions and also asking for analysis as well as data gathering. For convenience, here is the last version (Kathy's edits) of the registrar questions and, after that, is a condensed set that is restricted to data gathering, addresses the issues we (or at least I) care most about, and is avoids analysis or subjective staements. (I provide notice that I have put back the question about Sunrise registrations that Kathy deleted. I am pretty sure it goes right to one of the Charter question.) Current list: * Are you accessing data and records in the TMCH for purposes other than obtaining information necessary for the provision of sunrise and claims services in accordance with ICANN’s user manuals and technical requirements (see https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/registries-regis... * The Analysis Group’s Draft Report on the TMCH seemed to show a high number of Claims Notices issued resulting in a low number of actual consequent registrations. However, the Analysis Group’s data did not include a breakdown of Claims Notices by registrar. Can you provide us with the number of Claims Notices sent by each of your accredited registrars for each new gTLD for which they sold registrations? * To assist us in understanding whether and how the existence and duration of the TM Claims period may have contributed to the low number of registrations, can each registrar tell us what is the rate of cart abandonment for new gTLDs when a potential registrant is exposed to a TM Claims Notice in comparison with the rate following the end of the Claims period? How do those numbers compare to [legacy] gTLDs? * Do you have any evidence to suggest why so many potential registrants apparently do not proceed further with a registration when they receive a TM Claims Notice? * What would you like to see improved about the Claims Notice that you believe will: * assist legitimate users to move forward with registrations and why? * deter cyber squatters and other so-called “bad actors” from proceeding further with the registration process? Or, is there any data or specific information you have that can help inform the Working Group’s deliberations on this topic? Include feedback from registrants. * Can you describe the timing for which a Claims Notice is displayed to a potential registrant? Are there Potential Registrants who would not see a TM Claims Notice in realtime? * How many TM+50 claims notices were issued? How many resulted in abandoned registrations? Reduced list: * To assist us in understanding the effectiveness and potential effects of the TM Claims period * what percent of registrations during the claims period resulted in claims notices being sent * what is the rate of cart abandonment for new gTLDs when a potential registrant is exposed to a TM Claims Notice? * what is the rate of cart abandonment when a potential registrant is not exposed to a TM Claims Notice during the Claims period? * what is the rate of cart abandonment after theTM Claims Notice period? * Regarding TM+50 claims: * How many notices were issued? * What percent resulted in abandoned registrations? * What percent of attempted Sunrise registrations: * were denied because the name was reserved or blocked? * were abandoned? * Do you have any comments regarding Sunrise or Claims that you want this group to consider? I hope this is helpful. Kurt --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] Revised Questions Listing From: "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: 9/22/16 10:22 am To: gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> Hi Kurt and All, Tx you for our discussion last Friday and I look forward to continuing this Friday. I also had a chance to give the docs a close look and I've added some comments to the Charter Questions document. I've also reviewed the SubTeam's List of Questions - working off the redline to try to preserve the concerns raised in some of the deleted questions. I have to tell you that I comfortable with the Provider questions - which I think should go out immediately, and generally with the Registry questions (as edited). But the Registrar questions trouble me. We are asking for a huge amount of data and they are potentially very, very timeconsuming. Given that the TMCH Subgroup does not have any Registrar representatives (am I missing someone?), i strongly recommend that this set of questions. in draft, go back to the full WG for review with our Registrar members. I would like to hear their thoughts on how we might phrase these questions in a fair and balanced way - to encourage the best and fullest responses. Both files attached in Redline. Best, Kathy On 9/15/2016 9:17 PM, kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote: Hi Everyone: Attached are several forms of the questions for registry operators, registrars, et.al. that has been augmented with the questions developed by Susan and Kristine after their review of the charter. This might be overkill, but I am sending the question list in three forms: * redlines to the last version of the question list that show: * new questions from the charter review, * a few question that were deleted where the group voiced concern, * a few grammatical edits * new comments * a version with those redlines accepted but comments remaining * a clean version. During the meeting, I recommend we can use the version with redlines accepted but with comments as they can form the basis of our discussion. I also included a stand-alone list of the questions that were developed from the review of the charter so that you can see the sources of the new questions. I hope you find this helpful. Thank you Susan and Kristine. Regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch
To answer Kristine's question, the answer is yes and the question could be rephrased: "What is the cart abandonment rate for all TLDs (new and legacy) measured outside of the Claims period?" Or something like that. Kurt. Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 30, 2016, at 7:40 AM, Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I support this reduced list. I appreciate the effort to gather data only, Kurt. I think we can retain the more comprehensive list of questions to ruminate over as a larger group.
My only question is for this question: --what is the rate of cart abandonment after the TM Claims Notice period?
By “period” we mean, for all TLDs, new and legacy, right?
Best,
Kristine
Kristine Dorrain Corp Counsel – IP | Amazon | 206.740.9339 dorraink@amazon.com
From: gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of kurt@kjpritz.com Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 10:08 PM To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>; gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] Revised Questions Listing
Hi Everyone:
As I stated earlier, I agree with Kathy that we are asking registrars too many questions and also asking for analysis as well as data gathering. For convenience, here is the last version (Kathy's edits) of the registrar questions and, after that, is a condensed set that is restricted to data gathering, addresses the issues we (or at least I) care most about, and is avoids analysis or subjective staements. (I provide notice that I have put back the question about Sunrise registrations that Kathy deleted. I am pretty sure it goes right to one of the Charter question.)
Current list: Are you accessing data and records in the TMCH for purposes other than obtaining information necessary for the provision of sunrise and claims services in accordance with ICANN’s user manuals and technical requirements (see https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/registries-regis... The Analysis Group’s Draft Report on the TMCH seemed to show a high number of Claims Notices issued resulting in a low number of actual consequent registrations. However, the Analysis Group’s data did not include a breakdown of Claims Notices by registrar. Can you provide us with the number of Claims Notices sent by each of your accredited registrars for each new gTLD for which they sold registrations? To assist us in understanding whether and how the existence and duration of the TM Claims period may have contributed to the low number of registrations, can each registrar tell us what is the rate of cart abandonment for new gTLDs when a potential registrant is exposed to a TM Claims Notice in comparison with the rate following the end of the Claims period? How do those numbers compare to [legacy] gTLDs? Do you have any evidence to suggest why so many potential registrants apparently do not proceed further with a registration when they receive a TM Claims Notice? What would you like to see improved about the Claims Notice that you believe will: assist legitimate users to move forward with registrations and why? deter cyber squatters and other so-called “bad actors” from proceeding further with the registration process? Or, is there any data or specific information you have that can help inform the Working Group’s deliberations on this topic? Include feedback from registrants. Can you describe the timing for which a Claims Notice is displayed to a potential registrant? Are there Potential Registrants who would not see a TM Claims Notice in realtime? How many TM+50 claims notices were issued? How many resulted in abandoned registrations? Reduced list: To assist us in understanding the effectiveness and potential effects of the TM Claims period what percent of registrations during the claims period resulted in claims notices being sent what is the rate of cart abandonment for new gTLDs when a potential registrant is exposed to a TM Claims Notice? what is the rate of cart abandonment when a potential registrant is not exposed to a TM Claims Notice during the Claims period? what is the rate of cart abandonment after theTM Claims Notice period? Regarding TM+50 claims: How many notices were issued? What percent resulted in abandoned registrations? What percent of attempted Sunrise registrations: were denied because the name was reserved or blocked? were abandoned? Do you have any comments regarding Sunrise or Claims that you want this group to consider?
I hope this is helpful.
Kurt
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] Revised Questions Listing From: "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: 9/22/16 10:22 am To: gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org
Hi Kurt and All, Tx you for our discussion last Friday and I look forward to continuing this Friday. I also had a chance to give the docs a close look and I've added some comments to the Charter Questions document. I've also reviewed the SubTeam's List of Questions - working off the redline to try to preserve the concerns raised in some of the deleted questions.
I have to tell you that I comfortable with the Provider questions - which I think should go out immediately, and generally with the Registry questions (as edited).
But the Registrar questions trouble me. We are asking for a huge amount of data and they are potentially very, very timeconsuming. Given that the TMCH Subgroup does not have any Registrar representatives (am I missing someone?), i strongly recommend that this set of questions. in draft, go back to the full WG for review with our Registrar members. I would like to hear their thoughts on how we might phrase these questions in a fair and balanced way - to encourage the best and fullest responses.
Both files attached in Redline.
Best, Kathy
On 9/15/2016 9:17 PM, kurt@kjpritz.com wrote: Hi Everyone:
Attached are several forms of the questions for registry operators, registrars, et.al. that has been augmented with the questions developed by Susan and Kristine after their review of the charter.
This might be overkill, but I am sending the question list in three forms: redlines to the last version of the question list that show: new questions from the charter review, a few question that were deleted where the group voiced concern, a few grammatical edits new comments a version with those redlines accepted but comments remaining a clean version. During the meeting, I recommend we can use the version with redlines accepted but with comments as they can form the basis of our discussion.
I also included a stand-alone list of the questions that were developed from the review of the charter so that you can see the sources of the new questions.
I hope you find this helpful.
Thank you Susan and Kristine.
Regards,
Kurt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch
participants (10)
-
Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal -
David Tait -
Dawahi Khouloud -
Dorrain, Kristine -
Kathy Kleiman -
Kurt Pritz -
kurt＠kjpritz.com
-
Mary Wong -
Phil Corwin -
Susan Payne