TMCH Sub Team meeting on Friday 14 October
Dear all, Just resending David’s note from 5 October, outlining what staff suggests may be a useful framework for this Sub Team’s report back to the full Working Group (please see the bullet points below). Following the Sub Team’s discussion and, hopefully, sign off on the call tomorrow, staff will prepare a draft report for finalization by the Sub Team prior to forwarding it to the full Working Group. Regarding the various agreed questions to Registrars, Registries and the TMCH Providers, please note the following updates: · We have just learned from our GDD colleagues that the Analysis Group plans to ask for further data from both Registries and Registrars. From what we are told, their request to the Registries (of New gTLDs) will concern only wholesale pricing, so that should not overlap with anything that our Sub Team is planning to ask from these Registries. · For Registrars, however, the Analysis Group plans to ask for data that can shed more light on cart abandonment rate. As this was a substantial point of discussion for our Sub Team and also the full Working Group, we may wish to either hold off on sending the questions that Kathy and Kurt are working to finalize, or coordinate with the Analysis Group to avoid repeating the same question while getting the data that we need. We can discuss this further on the call tomorrow, but David and I thought it best to let you know ahead of time. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of David Tait <david.tait@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 06:26 To: "gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org" <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@icann.org www.icann.org
Hi All, With apologies, I may not be able to attend today's call. I support sending out our questions to Registries and probably to Registrars to (as edited). Question: what's the timeframe for the Analysis Group's questions and analysis? Does it fit within our timeframe? Would we even have access to their data? Would response to Analysis Group be confidential until compiled and anonymized? Basically, are we better off with our own path? Best, Kathy On 10/13/2016 7:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
Dear all,
Just resending David’s note from 5 October, outlining what staff suggests may be a useful framework for this Sub Team’s report back to the full Working Group (please see the bullet points below). Following the Sub Team’s discussion and, hopefully, sign off on the call tomorrow, staff will prepare a draft report for finalization by the Sub Team prior to forwarding it to the full Working Group.
Regarding the various agreed questions to Registrars, Registries and the TMCH Providers, please note the following updates:
·We have just learned from our GDD colleagues that the Analysis Group plans to ask for further data from both Registries and Registrars. From what we are told, their request to the Registries (of New gTLDs) will concern only wholesale pricing, so that should not overlap with anything that our Sub Team is planning to ask from these Registries.
·For Registrars, however, the Analysis Group plans to ask for data that can shed more light on cart abandonment rate. As this was a substantial point of discussion for our Sub Team and also the full Working Group, we may wish to either hold off on sending the questions that Kathy and Kurt are working to finalize, or coordinate with the Analysis Group to avoid repeating the same question while getting the data that we need.
We can discuss this further on the call tomorrow, but David and I thought it best to let you know ahead of time.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
Telephone: +1-603-5744889
*From: *<gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of David Tait <david.tait@icann.org> *Date: *Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 06:26 *To: *"gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org" <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@icann.org
www.icann.org
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch
Hello all, We understand that the Analysis Group will likely be asking for the data to be provided by mid-November or thereabouts. What may be more significant is that the raw data (as has been the case with all such requests) will be kept confidential. While I believe that means we would only have access to the final statistics that the Analysis Group will be publishing, we do not know when that will be – though we can and perhaps should certainly ask Greg Rafert for an estimated time frame. Our concern with sending very similar questions at the same time to the same registrars is, of course, that it creates confusion and may not result in as many registrars being willing to provide similar data to two different sets of requestors. As such, staff suggests that our group coordinate with Greg to, at a minimum, find out if and when the Analysis Group may be willing to share their findings with us. Once we know that, we can then decide whether to edit our questions accordingly (or not). Cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Friday, October 14, 2016 at 09:55 To: "gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] TMCH Sub Team meeting on Friday 14 October Hi All, With apologies, I may not be able to attend today's call. I support sending out our questions to Registries and probably to Registrars to (as edited). Question: what's the timeframe for the Analysis Group's questions and analysis? Does it fit within our timeframe? Would we even have access to their data? Would response to Analysis Group be confidential until compiled and anonymized? Basically, are we better off with our own path? Best, Kathy On 10/13/2016 7:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: Dear all, Just resending David’s note from 5 October, outlining what staff suggests may be a useful framework for this Sub Team’s report back to the full Working Group (please see the bullet points below). Following the Sub Team’s discussion and, hopefully, sign off on the call tomorrow, staff will prepare a draft report for finalization by the Sub Team prior to forwarding it to the full Working Group. Regarding the various agreed questions to Registrars, Registries and the TMCH Providers, please note the following updates: · We have just learned from our GDD colleagues that the Analysis Group plans to ask for further data from both Registries and Registrars. From what we are told, their request to the Registries (of New gTLDs) will concern only wholesale pricing, so that should not overlap with anything that our Sub Team is planning to ask from these Registries. · For Registrars, however, the Analysis Group plans to ask for data that can shed more light on cart abandonment rate. As this was a substantial point of discussion for our Sub Team and also the full Working Group, we may wish to either hold off on sending the questions that Kathy and Kurt are working to finalize, or coordinate with the Analysis Group to avoid repeating the same question while getting the data that we need. We can discuss this further on the call tomorrow, but David and I thought it best to let you know ahead of time. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of David Tait <david.tait@icann.org><mailto:david.tait@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 06:26 To: "gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> <gnso-rpm-tmch@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@icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org> www.icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DQMDaQ&c...> _______________________________________________ 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, Apologies, but I'll be joining our call about 15 minutes late. Talk to you all soon. Marina Marina A. Lewis marina@dns-law.com<mailto:marina@dns-law.com> (415) 290-1245 On Oct 14, 2016, at 7:14 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Hello all, We understand that the Analysis Group will likely be asking for the data to be provided by mid-November or thereabouts. What may be more significant is that the raw data (as has been the case with all such requests) will be kept confidential. While I believe that means we would only have access to the final statistics that the Analysis Group will be publishing, we do not know when that will be – though we can and perhaps should certainly ask Greg Rafert for an estimated time frame. Our concern with sending very similar questions at the same time to the same registrars is, of course, that it creates confusion and may not result in as many registrars being willing to provide similar data to two different sets of requestors. As such, staff suggests that our group coordinate with Greg to, at a minimum, find out if and when the Analysis Group may be willing to share their findings with us. Once we know that, we can then decide whether to edit our questions accordingly (or not). Cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Friday, October 14, 2016 at 09:55 To: "gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] TMCH Sub Team meeting on Friday 14 October Hi All, With apologies, I may not be able to attend today's call. I support sending out our questions to Registries and probably to Registrars to (as edited). Question: what's the timeframe for the Analysis Group's questions and analysis? Does it fit within our timeframe? Would we even have access to their data? Would response to Analysis Group be confidential until compiled and anonymized? Basically, are we better off with our own path? Best, Kathy On 10/13/2016 7:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: Dear all, Just resending David’s note from 5 October, outlining what staff suggests may be a useful framework for this Sub Team’s report back to the full Working Group (please see the bullet points below). Following the Sub Team’s discussion and, hopefully, sign off on the call tomorrow, staff will prepare a draft report for finalization by the Sub Team prior to forwarding it to the full Working Group. Regarding the various agreed questions to Registrars, Registries and the TMCH Providers, please note the following updates: · We have just learned from our GDD colleagues that the Analysis Group plans to ask for further data from both Registries and Registrars. From what we are told, their request to the Registries (of New gTLDs) will concern only wholesale pricing, so that should not overlap with anything that our Sub Team is planning to ask from these Registries. · For Registrars, however, the Analysis Group plans to ask for data that can shed more light on cart abandonment rate. As this was a substantial point of discussion for our Sub Team and also the full Working Group, we may wish to either hold off on sending the questions that Kathy and Kurt are working to finalize, or coordinate with the Analysis Group to avoid repeating the same question while getting the data that we need. We can discuss this further on the call tomorrow, but David and I thought it best to let you know ahead of time. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of David Tait <david.tait@icann.org><mailto:david.tait@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 06:26 To: "gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> <gnso-rpm-tmch@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@icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org> www.icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DQMDaQ&c...> _______________________________________________ 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
Great – thank you so much Marina! From: <gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marina Lewis <marina@dns-law.com<mailto:marina@dns-law.com>> Date: Friday, October 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] TMCH Sub Team meeting on Friday 14 October Hi Everyone, Apologies, but I'll be joining our call about 15 minutes late. Talk to you all soon. Marina Marina A. Lewis marina@dns-law.com<mailto:marina@dns-law.com> (415) 290-1245 On Oct 14, 2016, at 7:14 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Hello all, We understand that the Analysis Group will likely be asking for the data to be provided by mid-November or thereabouts. What may be more significant is that the raw data (as has been the case with all such requests) will be kept confidential. While I believe that means we would only have access to the final statistics that the Analysis Group will be publishing, we do not know when that will be – though we can and perhaps should certainly ask Greg Rafert for an estimated time frame. Our concern with sending very similar questions at the same time to the same registrars is, of course, that it creates confusion and may not result in as many registrars being willing to provide similar data to two different sets of requestors. As such, staff suggests that our group coordinate with Greg to, at a minimum, find out if and when the Analysis Group may be willing to share their findings with us. Once we know that, we can then decide whether to edit our questions accordingly (or not). Cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Friday, October 14, 2016 at 09:55 To: "gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] TMCH Sub Team meeting on Friday 14 October Hi All, With apologies, I may not be able to attend today's call. I support sending out our questions to Registries and probably to Registrars to (as edited). Question: what's the timeframe for the Analysis Group's questions and analysis? Does it fit within our timeframe? Would we even have access to their data? Would response to Analysis Group be confidential until compiled and anonymized? Basically, are we better off with our own path? Best, Kathy On 10/13/2016 7:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: Dear all, Just resending David’s note from 5 October, outlining what staff suggests may be a useful framework for this Sub Team’s report back to the full Working Group (please see the bullet points below). Following the Sub Team’s discussion and, hopefully, sign off on the call tomorrow, staff will prepare a draft report for finalization by the Sub Team prior to forwarding it to the full Working Group. Regarding the various agreed questions to Registrars, Registries and the TMCH Providers, please note the following updates: · We have just learned from our GDD colleagues that the Analysis Group plans to ask for further data from both Registries and Registrars. From what we are told, their request to the Registries (of New gTLDs) will concern only wholesale pricing, so that should not overlap with anything that our Sub Team is planning to ask from these Registries. · For Registrars, however, the Analysis Group plans to ask for data that can shed more light on cart abandonment rate. As this was a substantial point of discussion for our Sub Team and also the full Working Group, we may wish to either hold off on sending the questions that Kathy and Kurt are working to finalize, or coordinate with the Analysis Group to avoid repeating the same question while getting the data that we need. We can discuss this further on the call tomorrow, but David and I thought it best to let you know ahead of time. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of David Tait <david.tait@icann.org><mailto:david.tait@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 06:26 To: "gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org><gnso-rpm-tmch@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@icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org> www.icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DQMDaQ&c...> _______________________________________________ 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 all, Sorry to join so late - I jumped on the call a few minutes ago. Please feel free to volunteer me for any action items discussed so far. ;-) Marina Marina A. Lewis (415) 290-1245 marina@dns-law.com<mailto:marina@dns-law.com> On Oct 14, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Michelle DeSmyter <michelle.desmyter@icann.org<mailto:michelle.desmyter@icann.org>> wrote: Great – thank you so much Marina! From: <gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marina Lewis <marina@dns-law.com<mailto:marina@dns-law.com>> Date: Friday, October 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] TMCH Sub Team meeting on Friday 14 October Hi Everyone, Apologies, but I'll be joining our call about 15 minutes late. Talk to you all soon. Marina Marina A. Lewis marina@dns-law.com<mailto:marina@dns-law.com> (415) 290-1245 On Oct 14, 2016, at 7:14 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Hello all, We understand that the Analysis Group will likely be asking for the data to be provided by mid-November or thereabouts. What may be more significant is that the raw data (as has been the case with all such requests) will be kept confidential. While I believe that means we would only have access to the final statistics that the Analysis Group will be publishing, we do not know when that will be – though we can and perhaps should certainly ask Greg Rafert for an estimated time frame. Our concern with sending very similar questions at the same time to the same registrars is, of course, that it creates confusion and may not result in as many registrars being willing to provide similar data to two different sets of requestors. As such, staff suggests that our group coordinate with Greg to, at a minimum, find out if and when the Analysis Group may be willing to share their findings with us. Once we know that, we can then decide whether to edit our questions accordingly (or not). Cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Friday, October 14, 2016 at 09:55 To: "gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] TMCH Sub Team meeting on Friday 14 October Hi All, With apologies, I may not be able to attend today's call. I support sending out our questions to Registries and probably to Registrars to (as edited). Question: what's the timeframe for the Analysis Group's questions and analysis? Does it fit within our timeframe? Would we even have access to their data? Would response to Analysis Group be confidential until compiled and anonymized? Basically, are we better off with our own path? Best, Kathy On 10/13/2016 7:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: Dear all, Just resending David’s note from 5 October, outlining what staff suggests may be a useful framework for this Sub Team’s report back to the full Working Group (please see the bullet points below). Following the Sub Team’s discussion and, hopefully, sign off on the call tomorrow, staff will prepare a draft report for finalization by the Sub Team prior to forwarding it to the full Working Group. Regarding the various agreed questions to Registrars, Registries and the TMCH Providers, please note the following updates: · We have just learned from our GDD colleagues that the Analysis Group plans to ask for further data from both Registries and Registrars. From what we are told, their request to the Registries (of New gTLDs) will concern only wholesale pricing, so that should not overlap with anything that our Sub Team is planning to ask from these Registries. · For Registrars, however, the Analysis Group plans to ask for data that can shed more light on cart abandonment rate. As this was a substantial point of discussion for our Sub Team and also the full Working Group, we may wish to either hold off on sending the questions that Kathy and Kurt are working to finalize, or coordinate with the Analysis Group to avoid repeating the same question while getting the data that we need. We can discuss this further on the call tomorrow, but David and I thought it best to let you know ahead of time. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of David Tait <david.tait@icann.org><mailto:david.tait@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 06:26 To: "gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org><gnso-rpm-tmch@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@icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org> www.icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DQMDaQ&c...> _______________________________________________ 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 very much, Marina – at the moment, we are asking that everyone be sure to review the updated documents that David and I will send around next week. These would be: (1) the updated questions to registrars; (2) the updated questions to TMCH providers; and (3) a draft Sub Team report to the full Working Group. Ideally we will send off all the questions to registries and providers next week as well, and will agree on a time frame for sending the questions to registrars following feedback from the Analysis Group, if any, and sign-off on the updated questions by the Sub Team. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Marina Lewis <marina@dns-law.com> Date: Friday, October 14, 2016 at 11:48 To: Michelle DeSmyter <michelle.desmyter@icann.org> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] TMCH Sub Team meeting on Friday 14 October Hi all, Sorry to join so late - I jumped on the call a few minutes ago. Please feel free to volunteer me for any action items discussed so far. ;-) Marina Marina A. Lewis (415) 290-1245 marina@dns-law.com<mailto:marina@dns-law.com> On Oct 14, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Michelle DeSmyter <michelle.desmyter@icann.org<mailto:michelle.desmyter@icann.org>> wrote: Great – thank you so much Marina! From: <gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marina Lewis <marina@dns-law.com<mailto:marina@dns-law.com>> Date: Friday, October 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] TMCH Sub Team meeting on Friday 14 October Hi Everyone, Apologies, but I'll be joining our call about 15 minutes late. Talk to you all soon. Marina Marina A. Lewis marina@dns-law.com<mailto:marina@dns-law.com> (415) 290-1245 On Oct 14, 2016, at 7:14 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Hello all, We understand that the Analysis Group will likely be asking for the data to be provided by mid-November or thereabouts. What may be more significant is that the raw data (as has been the case with all such requests) will be kept confidential. While I believe that means we would only have access to the final statistics that the Analysis Group will be publishing, we do not know when that will be – though we can and perhaps should certainly ask Greg Rafert for an estimated time frame. Our concern with sending very similar questions at the same time to the same registrars is, of course, that it creates confusion and may not result in as many registrars being willing to provide similar data to two different sets of requestors. As such, staff suggests that our group coordinate with Greg to, at a minimum, find out if and when the Analysis Group may be willing to share their findings with us. Once we know that, we can then decide whether to edit our questions accordingly (or not). Cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Friday, October 14, 2016 at 09:55 To: "gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] TMCH Sub Team meeting on Friday 14 October Hi All, With apologies, I may not be able to attend today's call. I support sending out our questions to Registries and probably to Registrars to (as edited). Question: what's the timeframe for the Analysis Group's questions and analysis? Does it fit within our timeframe? Would we even have access to their data? Would response to Analysis Group be confidential until compiled and anonymized? Basically, are we better off with our own path? Best, Kathy On 10/13/2016 7:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: Dear all, Just resending David’s note from 5 October, outlining what staff suggests may be a useful framework for this Sub Team’s report back to the full Working Group (please see the bullet points below). Following the Sub Team’s discussion and, hopefully, sign off on the call tomorrow, staff will prepare a draft report for finalization by the Sub Team prior to forwarding it to the full Working Group. Regarding the various agreed questions to Registrars, Registries and the TMCH Providers, please note the following updates: ? We have just learned from our GDD colleagues that the Analysis Group plans to ask for further data from both Registries and Registrars. From what we are told, their request to the Registries (of New gTLDs) will concern only wholesale pricing, so that should not overlap with anything that our Sub Team is planning to ask from these Registries. ? For Registrars, however, the Analysis Group plans to ask for data that can shed more light on cart abandonment rate. As this was a substantial point of discussion for our Sub Team and also the full Working Group, we may wish to either hold off on sending the questions that Kathy and Kurt are working to finalize, or coordinate with the Analysis Group to avoid repeating the same question while getting the data that we need. We can discuss this further on the call tomorrow, but David and I thought it best to let you know ahead of time. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of David Tait <david.tait@icann.org><mailto:david.tait@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 06:26 To: "gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org><gnso-rpm-tmch@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@icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org> www.icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DQMDaQ&c...> _______________________________________________ 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
Regarding the registrar questions I think there was some work underway to run these past some registrars on the main WG and see if they are reasonable – is that correct. Perhaps we can pick that up on the call? Registry Questions I support sending these. However I do think that there is a duplication in a couple of the questions relating to blocking mechanisms, and that to minimise registry fatigue it would be preferable to address this rather than asking the same thing twice. I also thought that this was what we had agreed on the calls: Bullet 3: · Did the various blocking mechanism services drive users to the TMCH – that is, are you aware of any brand owners that entered their TMs in to the TMCH just to be able to participate? Bullet 5: · How many trademark owners are using the TMCH solely to be able to participate in the Blocking Mechanism Service, but NOT to make any Sunrise Registrations? -- or -- What are number of DPML-type registrations that are in each of the registries that offer them, vs the number of sunrise registrations? The first part of bullet 5 is the same as bullet 3 although less well phrased since bullet 3 asks the registry for information they do have whereas bullet 5 asks them for information they do not. I thought this was being deleted from bullet 5 and that we were just keeping the alternate question (after the or) TMCH Provider Questions I also support sending these, although again I note there are duplicates that, preferably, should be removed: Bullet 7: * How are marks cancelled within national/regional registries handled at the TMCH level? Bullet 19: · What is the TMCH process (if any) relating to marks that are cancelled or expire: reactive (e.g. TM owner/agent obligations) and proactive, if any. If there is a view that these are not duplicates I would suggest grouping them together so that the TMCH provider appreciates this. Bullet 12: * How many contracts are there for private uses of the TMCH? How many of them involve the Blocking Mechanism Services? - Are there contracts for other uses, and if so, how many? - If there are no such contracts, is the TMCH aware of other uses? And bullet 22: · How many DPML services are you supporting? Suggest we just delete 22. If others think it is not preferable to remove unnecessary duplications I am not going to fight over this 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 From: gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: 14 October 2016 14:56 To: gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] TMCH Sub Team meeting on Friday 14 October Hi All, With apologies, I may not be able to attend today's call. I support sending out our questions to Registries and probably to Registrars to (as edited). Question: what's the timeframe for the Analysis Group's questions and analysis? Does it fit within our timeframe? Would we even have access to their data? Would response to Analysis Group be confidential until compiled and anonymized? Basically, are we better off with our own path? Best, Kathy On 10/13/2016 7:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote: Dear all, Just resending David’s note from 5 October, outlining what staff suggests may be a useful framework for this Sub Team’s report back to the full Working Group (please see the bullet points below). Following the Sub Team’s discussion and, hopefully, sign off on the call tomorrow, staff will prepare a draft report for finalization by the Sub Team prior to forwarding it to the full Working Group. Regarding the various agreed questions to Registrars, Registries and the TMCH Providers, please note the following updates: · We have just learned from our GDD colleagues that the Analysis Group plans to ask for further data from both Registries and Registrars. From what we are told, their request to the Registries (of New gTLDs) will concern only wholesale pricing, so that should not overlap with anything that our Sub Team is planning to ask from these Registries. · For Registrars, however, the Analysis Group plans to ask for data that can shed more light on cart abandonment rate. As this was a substantial point of discussion for our Sub Team and also the full Working Group, we may wish to either hold off on sending the questions that Kathy and Kurt are working to finalize, or coordinate with the Analysis Group to avoid repeating the same question while getting the data that we need. We can discuss this further on the call tomorrow, but David and I thought it best to let you know ahead of time. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of David Tait <david.tait@icann.org><mailto:david.tait@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 06:26 To: "gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org> <gnso-rpm-tmch@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@icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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
participants (5)
-
Kathy Kleiman -
Marina Lewis -
Mary Wong -
Michelle DeSmyter -
Susan Payne