October 2016 - GNSO-RPM-WG - lists.icann.org

FOR INFORMATION: Phase Two economic study on Competitive Effects of the New gTLD Program published for public comment
by Mary Wong Oct. 12, 2016

Oct. 12, 2016

Dear all, In light of the Working Group discussions over pricing in new gTLDs, some members may be interested in the pricing data contained in the findings of the Analysis Group (see link below), who conducted this economic study for ICANN on the competitive effects of the 2012 New gTLD Program round on the domain name marketplace. Note that the study does not specifically deal with the TMCH or RPM issues, although there is a small section in both the Phase One and Phase Two reports on sunrise pricing. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 16:26 To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] FOR INFORMATION: Phase Two economic study on Competitive Effects of the New gTLD Program published for public comment Dear Councilors, The above-mentioned study, which is Phase Two of the economic study that the ICANN Board requested regarding the competitive effects of the 2012 New gTLD Program round, has just been published for public comment: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-11-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…>. The public comment period will close on 5 December 2016. You may recall that Phase One of the study was released in September 2015. This Phase Two report compares changes in the domain name marketplace since then, and includes an additional number of new gTLDs and registry/registrar-provided data in the sample. The final findings will be shared with the CCT Review Team. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

1 0

nvitation to participate in RPM TMCH Questions sub-team
by David Tait Oct. 10, 2016

Oct. 10, 2016

The email below is sent on behalf of RPMs Working Group co-chairs. Dear Working Group members, At the most recent meeting of the RPMs Working Group (WG) held on Monday 5 October 2016, it was determined to establish a small sub-team to undertake a review of the questions (from the WG Charter and various consultations including the Cross-Community session at ICANN56) relating to the Trademark Clearing House. The purpose of this review is to consider combining questions which are redundant or related, ensuring the neutrality of inquiries, and recommending questions that should be accorded low priority or not pursued. This group will be co-chaired by Kathy Kleiman and J Scott Evans. Two volunteers have kindly made themselves known already, Christine Farley and Paul Tattersfield. We would like to invited further participants (up to a maximum of 2 persons) to join this group. It is intended that this group will work to turn the questions around before the next meeting which is taking place on Wednesday, 5 October 2016. To assist you in deciding whether to participate the questions under review are listed below. Kind regards Phil Corwin, Kathy Kleiman and J Scott Evans Questions on the TMCH: >From the Charter 1. Should further guidance on verification guidelines for different categories of marks be considered? 2. Is the protection of the TMCH too broad? Is the TMCH providing too much protection for those with a trademark on a generic or descriptive dictionary word? 3. Should TM+50 be reversed? 4. Are legitimate noncommercial, commercial and individual registrants losing legitimate opportunities to register domain names in New gTLDs? 5. Should the TMCH scope be limited to apply to only the categories of goods and services in which the generic terms in a trademark are protected? If so, how? 6. Should the TMCH matching rules be expanded, e.g. to include plurals, ‘marks contained’ or ‘mark+keyword’, and/or common typos of a mark? 7. Should there be an additional or a different recourse mechanism to challenge rejected trademarks? 8. How quickly can a cancelled trademark be removed from the TMCH? 9. How can TMCH services be much more transparent in terms of what is offered pursuant to ICANN contracts and policies vs. what is offered to private New gTLD registries pursuant to private contracts? 10. Should there be a review on accessibility to TMCH for individuals, private trademark holders and trademark agents in developing countries? (Could this question be recast to also focus on small businesses/holders of limited numbers of mark holders. Could this may be a matter for the new gTLDs WG?) 11. How can the TMCH provide education services not only for trademark owners, but for the registrants and potential registrants who are equally impacted by their services? >From the community in Helsinki: 1. Does the TMCH provide avenues that are procedurally and substantively fair to effectively balance the rights of rights holders versus normal Internet users? 2. Does the TMCH create a tendency to perpetuate the status quo? 3. How accessible is the TMCH to reviewing accessibility for trademark agents in developing countries? 4. Should the TMCH remain a single provider or should we open it to different providers, of course with a central database that should be accessed by the different providers? Would it be practical to have more than one provider? 5. Are the costs of the TMCH, for rights holders, for ICANN, for the community, proportionate to the benefits it provides? 6. How do we determine what is “good chilling effect” and “bad chilling effect” in relation to RPMs?

7 6

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Notes and actions from RPMs meeting 5 October 2016
by J. Scott Evans Oct. 6, 2016

Oct. 6, 2016

Thanks David. J. Scott Evans | Associate General Counsel - Trademarks, Copyright, Domains & Marketing | Adobe 345 Park Avenue San Jose, CA 95110 408.536.5336 (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) jsevans(a)adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of David Tait <david.tait(a)icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 1:57 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Notes and actions from RPMs meeting 5 October 2016 Dear All Please find below the notes and actions arising from yesterday's meeting of the RPMs Working Group. The meeting focused on continuing the review of the Charter questions and those questions which arose at ICANN56 in Helsinki. TMCH Question 5: To begin "Should" rather than "How should"; and possibly a "If so, how?" be added at the end Question 10: Could be recast to also focus on small businesses/holders of limited numbers of mark holders. Consider that this may be a matter for the new gTLDs WG. Additional questions: Should the TMCH database be entirely public? Is it practical to have more than one TMCH provider? [ADD TO HELSINKI Q4] ACTION: Co-Chairs to discuss and propose mechanism for WG to work on clarifying the questions and where necessary expand into sub-components. Initial proposal for a sub-team led by J Scott Evans to lead this activity and Paul Tattersfield volunteered to participate. Kind regards, David David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait(a)icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org> www.icann.org ________________________________ <ACL>

1 0

**with updated AC Chat/ Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group 05 October 2016
by Terri Agnew Oct. 6, 2016

Oct. 6, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call held on Wednesday, 05 October 2016 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/rhC4Aw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-05oct16-en.mp3 The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/rhiOAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Connect chat transcript for 05 October 2016: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group hled on Wednesday, 05 October 2016 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/rhC4Aw George Kirikos:Hi folks. Jay Chapman:Hello all. Hi George. Exciting finish by your Jays last night :) Vaibhav Aggarwal (Blade-BRAINS Group):Greetings earthlings George Kirikos:Here's the video of the winning home run. :-) George Kirikos:http://m.mlb.com/news/article/204957478/blue-jays-beat-orioles-in-a… George Kirikos:How are you, Jay? George Kirikos:My blue font matches the Toronto Blue Jays colours. :-) Jay Chapman:Well done! George Kirikos:Edwin Encarnacion is a free agent at the end of the season (so is Jose Bautista). I hope Toronto can re-sign them. Paul Tattersfield:Hi all George Kirikos:Welcome, Paul. Paul Tattersfield:Thanks George how's things in sunny Canada? Philip Corwin:Hello all Steve Levy:Hi everyone George Kirikos:Fantastic here, Paul. How are you? George Kirikos:Welcome Phil & Steve. Paul Tattersfield:Good George, were having an Indian Summer and fall is just beginning to show in the trees Salvador Camacho Hernandez:Hello everybody! Mary Wong:The timeline indicates no meeting the week before HYD Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):hello All Terri Agnew:Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Mary Wong:Sorry Phil - I had audio/mic issues. Can you repeat your question? Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:I have no audio Vinzenz Heussler:Me neither Mary Wong:Re decisions on Charter questions - as far as staff can recall, no definitive decisions were made as to what to drop or language for refining any J. Scott Evans:Sorry to be late. Busy here. Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:I closed my browser and restarted and now have audio Kathy Kleiman:@Bret and Vinzenz: sound is coming in on both phone and adobe connection. Kathy Kleiman:Great! Vinzenz Heussler:Have audio again, thx! George Kirikos:I think we need to ask "What data do we need to answer each of these questions?", and then go out and get that data. Mary Wong:@George, the TMCH Sub Team is doing that and should report back soon. George Kirikos:Thanks, Mary. Perhaps this discussion is premature, then, if we've not heard back from them yet. Mary Wong:@George, the Sub Team has been careful to not analyze or edit the questions - they're using the questions as a baseline to figure out what data they might need, so hopefully the parallel discussions actually will align well. J. Scott Evans:i think so Mary Wong:All, if the questions are not clear, it may be helpful to try to refiine/edit them as part of the WG discussion as to whether to consider any particular question? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Question 5 is poorly worded - "how should". It presupposes a problem. As a WG we should start by asking if sunrise should be in some way limited by the the TM's G&S. The answer may be yes or no. If yes, then we need to discuss how we would do that. Marie Pattullo:Trying to limit by class (how?) would also be extremely difficult to enforce, not least because a word may be generic in language one and mean nothing in language two. Denise Michel:apologies for being late Mary Wong:@Kristine, maybe Q5 should start with "Should" rather than "How should"; and possibly a "If so, how?" be added at the end? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Marie, I think that is the gist of the questions. Paul Tattersfield:can here you here Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Mary, yes. Griffin Barnett:I could hear Greg Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Can hear Greg just fine. Laurie Anderson:Is anyone getting a bad echo? Griffin Barnett:Now I hear terrible echo Jeff Neuman (Valideus):We had this issue earlier with another group Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'm on the phone...no echo. Marie Pattullo:No echo and no Greg *sad*. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):the phone line cannot hear those using just the adobe room to participat Beth Allegretti:No echo and I couldn't hear Greg Mary Wong:The phone bridge is clearer - seems like a few people are having AC audio issues today Jeff Neuman (Valideus):The phone line is clear....but we cant hear some that participate through the adobe room only Marie Pattullo:But we should not be attempting to remove rights that TM owners have in law. Reg Levy - M+M:I heard Greg and now I'm getting Kathy through Greg's phone. Paul Tattersfield:Really bad echo here from Kathy Georges Nahitchevansky:I am hearing multiple people speaking and feedback Reg Levy - M+M:thanks, Greg :) George Kirikos:*6 to mute/unmute Mary Wong:All, please dial in on the phone bridge if you're having AC audio issues Greg Shatan:Audio problem dealt with. George Kirikos:+1 Kathy. The TMCH database should be entirely public. J. Scott Evans:Hey, don't talk bad about our product. ;-) George Kirikos:If the TMCH database should exist at all. In my view, it would be better to simply have an API (like TMView does) that interfaces with all the national TM databases. And then kill the sunrise special access. So, it would just be a "notice" database, without any gaming effects. Edward Morris:Agree with George and Kathy. With ICANN's new status anything we can do to allow light into all of our processes should be favoured in order to generate public confidence in our methods and processes. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):There were some very good arguments by the IPC prior to the 20912 round as to why the TMCH should not be public. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):I believe we should ask the IPC if the same rationale applies today George Kirikos:We shouldn't just "ask the IPC" -- we should determine it based on all input, not giving special input to the IPC. Edward Morris:I'd like to hear the arguments Jeff. Of course, we have to realise that the envoronment has changed. Still, I'd like to hear the rationale. Mary Wong:Note that our WG and the New gTLD WG each have liaisons to the other who are members of both WGs. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):@George - just giving you context, not making any judgments Jeff Neuman (Valideus):WE should also document why some believe it should be made public George Kirikos:The questions from 40,000 feet is simple "What are the costs and benefits of the TMCH? If the costs exceed the benefits, should the TMCH be discontinued, or be modified to correct the imbalance? Paul Tattersfield:I would guess 2 is amied at all new gTLDs ending up with existing rigths holders rather than new entrants (generic trems) George Kirikos:I obviously disagree with J. Scott on the prior point. It's like saying that new gTLDs should only be evaluated by talking to registry operators, rather than listening to registrants. Greg Shatan:We should discuss if we can prevent reverse engineering or other activities designed to thwart the non-public nature of the TMCH database. Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:As I mentioned on the liast last week, TMCH registrations leave footprints when they are used for sunrise preferences. See, e.g., http://www.thedomains.com/2016/07/06/new-gtld-tube-goes-live-thursday-less-… George Kirikos:(since new gTLDs were created for registry operators, by J. Scott's logic). TMCH impacts registrants, so their input should be equal to that of the IPC. Greg Shatan:+1 J Scott. Well said. Greg Shatan:Trademark owners ARE registrants. George Kirikos:@Greg: Sometimes they are --- sometimes they are not, i.e. they seek to BLOCK registrations, via the notices. Greg Shatan:That doesn Greg Shatan:'t mean they're not registrants. Marie Pattullo:@George û no, because new gTLDs were supposed to benefit all (clean) players; the TMCH is simply a repository for TMs allowing the TM owners to choose where and whether to register their TMs. Marie Pattullo:So - what Jeff said :-) Jeff Neuman (Valideus):Actually it is a Review of the "Effectiveness" of the RPMs, right? J. Scott Evans:@Jeff. Correct. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):ICANN profits a bit from TMCH , so they are in conflict of interests Greg Shatan:ICANN was always a private organization. George Kirikos:"Security by obscurity" doesn't work. TMCH can be easily reverse-engineered (and probably was). Just try registerting hundreds of thousands of domains, and see if you get a TMCH match. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Edward: a trademark protection mechanism that threatens trademark interests is, by definition, not effective. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):when not allowing competition Greg Shatan:There are good policy reasons for keeping the database confidential. George Kirikos:Or, run the entire USPTO database via automated registration attempts, and check against the TMCH matches that show up. Paul Tattersfield:@Greg +1 George Kirikos:@Greg: is this the same position when the IPC talks against WHOIS privacy? :-) Greg Shatan:Apples and oranges. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):I was on the STI as well Lori Schulman:Thats the point. The mechanisms are new. J. Scott Evans:A closed database is not a problem Lori Schulman:Many new gTLDs are not launched yet Lori Schulman:we want good, objective data George Kirikos:The folks who don't want to review the TMCH openly --- do they want to apply it to .com, though, as a "consensus" policy? Or do they want to keep it strictly limited to new gTLDs? J. Scott Evans:@Kathy. If we are going there, then I want to reserve the right to re-open all the issue wrt the PDDRP George Kirikos:If they simply want to keep the TMCH, etc. applicable only to new gTLDs, I think most folks won't care. George Kirikos:(well, "most folks" is general -- I bet the new gTLD registries will ask why they're singled out....) Lori Schulman:@George, thanks for the clarifying issues re: .com vs. new gTLDs Paul Tattersfield:yes David Tait:we can Griffin Barnett:can hear steve George Kirikos:*6 to mute/unmute Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Let's say we discuss an open TMCH. - what is the harm caused by a closed TMCH? I'm hearing complaints that a notice is generated. Most average domain name registrants aren't going to look up the legitimacy of their domain name registration before they register, so the notice is a "push" of TMCH information. I'm missing the reason why the clamor for an open TMCH? What problem is that going to address? Vinzenz Heussler:Hearing you Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George , .com for comoros islands and via country and territory policy :) Paul Tattersfield:fine in chat khouloud Dawahi:yes David Tait:yes Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:I can hear him Gary Saposnik:I can hear Laurie Anderson:I am hearing Steve Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I hear Steve Lori Schulman:there are delays with the telephone mute/unmute Marie Pattullo:Nope. George Kirikos:I can't hear him. Georges Nahitchevansky:I can hear him Terri Agnew:@Steve, please check your mute khouloud Dawahi:i can hear you Steve Levy:Sorry. Will dial in J. Scott Evans:yes khouloud Dawahi:yes Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):yes George Kirikos:I can hear him on Adobe. George Kirikos:Strange. Georges Nahitchevansky:There is now feedback Terri Agnew:checking on why J. Scott Evans:I can hear you thorough the speaker on computer Beth Allegretti:+1 Kristine open vs. closed TMCH Beth Allegretti:I can't hear at all Bradley Silver:cant hear anything Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Steve is only on the AC room audio....for some reason. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):I would be happy to have my company manage the TMCH Databases for much cheaper :) Denise Michel:Could we get a full transcript please Steve Levy:For those who couldn't hear me, +1 J. Scott. TMs are public but prioritization by registering in TMCH should be considered a trade secretSo far, havenÆt seen any uses of TMCH data (leaked or otherwise) which would be considered constructive and have only seen abuse in pricing of domainsHelsinki Q4: Valid in principle. But cost of operation? Would others jump into the market if operation is a money loser? Mary Wong:@Greg, that is the plan - but a date and topic hasn't been discussed or agreed Greg Shatan:We will need to deal with the issues of abuse of the TMCH database. While this would be exacerbated by opening the database, these should be dealt with regardless. Mary Wong:@Denise, the call transcript and AC chat history will be posted to the WG wiki for this meeting date. Greg Shatan:Thanks, Mary! Marie Pattullo:@Kristine - I was wondering the same: what benefit would an open DB bring? And if any, balanced against the TM owners' interests, would it be proportionate? J. Scott Evans:@Phil. We need a small drafting team to put forth some draft objective questions. Marina Lewis:+1 J.Scott and Steve L. David Tait:@Densie, further to Mary's comment this should be within the next 24-48 hours Jeff Neuman (Valideus):OUt of curiousity, why do we need a shorter list? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1,Google doc in comments mode Jeff Neuman (Valideus):Yes, we should make sure the questions are clear, but why cant we start with these J. Scott Evans:@Phil. Anything more than 5 becomes unweildy IMHO Paul Tattersfield:@ Jeff they are not mutually exclusive questions/issues Marina Lewis:Phil - I lost my phone connection. I'll respond in chat, Greg Shatan:or broadened... Marina Lewis:How about we send out this list as is to the group for quick and short feedback? (e.g., a 24 or 48 hour turnaround)? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'm going to suggest that the TMCH subteam has sort of started this. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):better not 48 hours of the weekend Marina Lewis:+1 Kristine - I'm on that subteam and I think we can include this in our work. Griffin Barnett:Probably no need to impose such artificially short turnaround for review, given 2 week break until next WG meeting Greg Shatan:Good point Griffin J. Scott Evans:+1 Phil. J. Scott Evans:I am happy to coordinate a team Greg Shatan:We may want to break this list up into sub parts. Greg Shatan:Right now it covers the waterfront. Kathy Kleiman:I would be happy to help J. Scott coordinate this new subgroup, if people want to volunteer for it. Paul Tattersfield:I'm haapy to help on a sub team George Kirikos:"Premium names" have higher renewal costs too, Phil. George Kirikos:So, that might have been the concern. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):Correct PHil, lets not offer opinions on Premium names at this poiint Greg Shatan:Premium names raise significant issues with regard to Sunrise. George Kirikos:(so, striking a name from the "premium names" list would reduce defensive registration costs) J. Scott Evans:I am going to have to sign off to join a work call. Again, I am happy to work to put a small drafting team together. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):@Greg - yes, which is why I am not sure Phil should editorialize on this. Greg Shatan:Stopping price gouging through abuse of premium names would also lower defensive registration costs, and be consistent with RPM goals. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all Lori Schulman:Sorry, thought I was on mute. Lori Schulman:I am on when I should be "off" "Off" when I should be on. mmmm..... George Kirikos:Bye folks. Lori Schulman:ciao Steve Levy:Bye all! Paul Tattersfield:bye all Mary Wong:Please remember - no call next week. Mary Wong:We resume on 19 Oct. Marie Pattullo:Have a great evening, all. Steve Levy:Thanks,Phil Darcy Southwell:Thanks, all, bye! Brian Winterfeldt (Mayer Brown):Thank you Phil! Brian Winterfeldt (Mayer Brown):By everyone. Marina Lewis:bye all Greg Shatan:Bye all! Georges Nahitchevansky:Bye everyone Salvador Camacho Hernandez:Bye!

1 0

Notes and actions from RPMs meeting 5 October 2016
by David Tait Oct. 6, 2016

Oct. 6, 2016

Dear All Please find below the notes and actions arising from yesterday’s meeting of the RPMs Working Group. The meeting focused on continuing the review of the Charter questions and those questions which arose at ICANN56 in Helsinki. TMCH Question 5: To begin "Should" rather than "How should"; and possibly a "If so, how?" be added at the end Question 10: Could be recast to also focus on small businesses/holders of limited numbers of mark holders. Consider that this may be a matter for the new gTLDs WG. Additional questions: Should the TMCH database be entirely public? Is it practical to have more than one TMCH provider? [ADD TO HELSINKI Q4] ACTION: Co-Chairs to discuss and propose mechanism for WG to work on clarifying the questions and where necessary expand into sub-components. Initial proposal for a sub-team led by J Scott Evans to lead this activity and Paul Tattersfield volunteered to participate. Kind regards, David David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait(a)icann.org www.icann.org

1 0

Please RSVP Pre-ICANN 57 Policy Update Webinar Announcement
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 5, 2016

Oct. 5, 2016

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-05-en Please RSVP via this form<https://goo.gl/forms/LTVbnZ8zXIBp5fFm1> by 14 October 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 17 October 2016. The ICANN Policy Development Support Team will provide a Policy Update Webinar on Thursday, 20 October 2016 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC, in preparation for the upcoming ICANN Annual General Meeting in Hyderabad. The purpose of the webinar is to summarize policy activities across the ICANNpolicy development community and briefing the community on the Cross-Community sessions taking place in Hyderabad. Cross-Community Sessions Briefings: * New generic Top Level Domain Auction Proceeds Drafting Team * Cross-Community Working Group for Framework of Cross-Community Working Group Principles * Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country/Territory Names as Top Level Domains Community Engagement Team Update: * Community Recognition at ICANN57 and Multistakeholder Ethos Award 2017 Process Launch * Supporting Organizations/Advisory Committees Work Effort Inventory/Snapshot Update * Policy Staff Support in Community Charter Amendment Processes Supporting Organizations & Advisory Committee Updates: * Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and Regional Internet Registries (RIR) Policy Development * Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Update * Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) * New generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (PDP) * Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms in all Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) Policy Development Process (PDP) * Next-Generation Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS Policy Development Process (PDP) * IGO/INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms Policy Development Process (PDP) * At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and At-Large Community Update * Government Advisory Committee (GAC) * Adaptation of Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Processes to the new ICANN Bylaws * Government Advisory Committee Vice-Chairs Elections taking place in Hyderabad * Capacity Building Session for the Asia Pacific Region organized by the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Working Group for Underserved Regions * The Government Advisory Committee developing further input for ongoing Policy Development Processes on Registration Directory Services and Future new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) * Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Update * Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Update The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session runs for 90 minutes and will be run in English. The webinar will be conducted in Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function in Adobe Connect. Recordings of the webinars will be made available here<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/presentations-2012-08-27-en>. The Policy Development Support Team is always available to answer any questions via email at policyinfo(a)icann.org<mailto:policyinfo@icann.org>. Please RSVP via this form<https://goo.gl/forms/LTVbnZ8zXIBp5fFm1> by 14 October 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 17 October 2016.

1 0

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group 05 October 2016
by Terri Agnew Oct. 5, 2016

Oct. 5, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call held on Wednesday, 05 October 2016 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/rhC4Aw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-05oct16-en.mp3 The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/rhiOAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew **Due to a technical issue the AC chat is only the partial chat, missing the beginning portion. We are working with our vendor to retrieve the full chat and will send an update once received. **Partial Chat (see note above) Adobe Connect chat transcript for 05 October 2016: Phil Marano (Mayer Brown): Can hear Greg just fine. Laurie Anderson: Is anyone getting a bad echo? Griffin Barnett: Now I hear terrible echo Jeff Neuman (Valideus): We had this issue earlier with another group Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services: I'm on the phone...no echo. Marie Pattullo: No echo and no Greg *sad*. Jeff Neuman (Valideus): the phone line cannot hear those using just the adobe room to participat Beth Allegretti: No echo and I couldn't hear Greg Mary Wong: The phone bridge is clearer - seems like a few people are having AC audio issues today Jeff Neuman (Valideus): The phone line is clear....but we cant hear some that participate through the adobe room only Marie Pattullo: But we should not be attempting to remove rights that TM owners have in law. Reg Levy - M+M: I heard Greg and now I'm getting Kathy through Greg's phone. Paul Tattersfield: Really bad echo here from Kathy Georges Nahitchevansky: I am hearing multiple people speaking and feedback Reg Levy - M+M: thanks, Greg :) George Kirikos: *6 to mute/unmute Mary Wong: All, please dial in on the phone bridge if you're having AC audio issues Greg Shatan: Audio problem dealt with. George Kirikos: +1 Kathy. The TMCH database should be entirely public. J. Scott Evans: Hey, don't talk bad about our product. ;-) George Kirikos: If the TMCH database should exist at all. In my view, it would be better to simply have an API (like TMView does) that interfaces with all the national TM databases. And then kill the sunrise special access. So, it would just be a "notice" database, without any gaming effects. Edward Morris: Agree with George and Kathy. With ICANN's new status anything we can do to allow light into all of our processes should be favoured in order to generate public confidence in our methods and processes. Jeff Neuman (Valideus): There were some very good arguments by the IPC prior to the 20912 round as to why the TMCH should not be public. Jeff Neuman (Valideus): I believe we should ask the IPC if the same rationale applies today George Kirikos: We shouldn't just "ask the IPC" -- we should determine it based on all input, not giving special input to the IPC. Edward Morris: I'd like to hear the arguments Jeff. Of course, we have to realise that the envoronment has changed. Still, I'd like to hear the rationale. Mary Wong: Note that our WG and the New gTLD WG each have liaisons to the other who are members of both WGs. Jeff Neuman (Valideus): @George - just giving you context, not making any judgments Jeff Neuman (Valideus): WE should also document why some believe it should be made public George Kirikos: The questions from 40,000 feet is simple "What are the costs and benefits of the TMCH? If the costs exceed the benefits, should the TMCH be discontinued, or be modified to correct the imbalance? Paul Tattersfield: I would guess 2 is amied at all new gTLDs ending up with existing rigths holders rather than new entrants (generic trems) George Kirikos: I obviously disagree with J. Scott on the prior point. It's like saying that new gTLDs should only be evaluated by talking to registry operators, rather than listening to registrants. Greg Shatan: We should discuss if we can prevent reverse engineering or other activities designed to thwart the non-public nature of the TMCH database. Bret Fausett, Uniregistry: As I mentioned on the liast last week, TMCH registrations leave footprints when they are used for sunrise preferences. See, e.g., http://www.thedomains.com/2016/07/06/new-gtld-tube-goes-live-thursday-less-… George Kirikos: (since new gTLDs were created for registry operators, by J. Scott's logic). TMCH impacts registrants, so their input should be equal to that of the IPC. Greg Shatan: +1 J Scott. Well said. Greg Shatan: Trademark owners ARE registrants. George Kirikos: @Greg: Sometimes they are --- sometimes they are not, i.e. they seek to BLOCK registrations, via the notices. Greg Shatan: That doesn Greg Shatan: 't mean they're not registrants. Marie Pattullo: @George - no, because new gTLDs were supposed to benefit all (clean) players; the TMCH is simply a repository for TMs allowing the TM owners to choose where and whether to register their TMs. Marie Pattullo: So - what Jeff said :-) Jeff Neuman (Valideus): Actually it is a Review of the "Effectiveness" of the RPMs, right? J. Scott Evans: @Jeff. Correct. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): ICANN profits a bit from TMCH , so they are in conflict of interests Greg Shatan: ICANN was always a private organization. George Kirikos: "Security by obscurity" doesn't work. TMCH can be easily reverse-engineered (and probably was). Just try registerting hundreds of thousands of domains, and see if you get a TMCH match. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services: @Edward: a trademark protection mechanism that threatens trademark interests is, by definition, not effective. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): when not allowing competition Greg Shatan: There are good policy reasons for keeping the database confidential. George Kirikos: Or, run the entire USPTO database via automated registration attempts, and check against the TMCH matches that show up. Paul Tattersfield: @Greg +1 George Kirikos: @Greg: is this the same position when the IPC talks against WHOIS privacy? :-) Greg Shatan: Apples and oranges. Jeff Neuman (Valideus): I was on the STI as well Lori Schulman: Thats the point. The mechanisms are new. J. Scott Evans: A closed database is not a problem Lori Schulman: Many new gTLDs are not launched yet Lori Schulman: we want good, objective data George Kirikos: The folks who don't want to review the TMCH openly --- do they want to apply it to .com, though, as a "consensus" policy? Or do they want to keep it strictly limited to new gTLDs? J. Scott Evans: @Kathy. If we are going there, then I want to reserve the right to re-open all the issue wrt the PDDRP George Kirikos: If they simply want to keep the TMCH, etc. applicable only to new gTLDs, I think most folks won't care. George Kirikos: (well, "most folks" is general -- I bet the new gTLD registries will ask why they're singled out....) Lori Schulman: @George, thanks for the clarifying issues re: .com vs. new gTLDs Paul Tattersfield: yes David Tait: we can Griffin Barnett: can hear steve George Kirikos: *6 to mute/unmute Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services: Let's say we discuss an open TMCH. - what is the harm caused by a closed TMCH? I'm hearing complaints that a notice is generated. Most average domain name registrants aren't going to look up the legitimacy of their domain name registration before they register, so the notice is a "push" of TMCH information. I'm missing the reason why the clamor for an open TMCH? What problem is that going to address? Vinzenz Heussler: Hearing you Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @George , .com for comoros islands and via country and territory policy :) Paul Tattersfield: fine in chat khouloud Dawahi: yes David Tait: yes Bret Fausett, Uniregistry: I can hear him Gary Saposnik: I can hear Laurie Anderson: I am hearing Steve Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I hear Steve Lori Schulman: there are delays with the telephone mute/unmute Marie Pattullo: Nope. George Kirikos: I can't hear him. Georges Nahitchevansky: I can hear him Terri Agnew: @Steve, please check your mute khouloud Dawahi: i can hear you Steve Levy: Sorry. Will dial in J. Scott Evans: yes khouloud Dawahi: yes Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): yes George Kirikos: I can hear him on Adobe. George Kirikos: Strange. Georges Nahitchevansky: There is now feedback Terri Agnew: checking on why J. Scott Evans: I can hear you thorough the speaker on computer Beth Allegretti: +1 Kristine open vs. closed TMCH Beth Allegretti: I can't hear at all Bradley Silver: cant hear anything Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services: Steve is only on the AC room audio....for some reason. Jeff Neuman (Valideus): I would be happy to have my company manage the TMCH Databases for much cheaper :) Denise Michel: Could we get a full transcript please Steve Levy: For those who couldn't hear me, +1 J. Scott. TMs are public but prioritization by registering in TMCH should be considered a trade secretSo far, haven't seen any uses of TMCH data (leaked or otherwise) which would be considered constructive and have only seen abuse in pricing of domainsHelsinki Q4: Valid in principle. But cost of operation? Would others jump into the market if operation is a money loser? Mary Wong: @Greg, that is the plan - but a date and topic hasn't been discussed or agreed Greg Shatan: We will need to deal with the issues of abuse of the TMCH database. While this would be exacerbated by opening the database, these should be dealt with regardless. Mary Wong: @Denise, the call transcript and AC chat history will be posted to the WG wiki for this meeting date. Greg Shatan: Thanks, Mary! Marie Pattullo: @Kristine - I was wondering the same: what benefit would an open DB bring? And if any, balanced against the TM owners' interests, would it be proportionate? J. Scott Evans: @Phil. We need a small drafting team to put forth some draft objective questions. Marina Lewis: +1 J.Scott and Steve L. David Tait: @Densie, further to Mary's comment this should be within the next 24-48 hours Jeff Neuman (Valideus): OUt of curiousity, why do we need a shorter list? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): +1,Google doc in comments mode Jeff Neuman (Valideus): Yes, we should make sure the questions are clear, but why cant we start with these J. Scott Evans: @Phil. Anything more than 5 becomes unweildy IMHO Paul Tattersfield: @ Jeff they are not mutually exclusive questions/issues Marina Lewis: Phil - I lost my phone connection. I'll respond in chat, Greg Shatan: or broadened... Marina Lewis: How about we send out this list as is to the group for quick and short feedback? (e.g., a 24 or 48 hour turnaround)? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services: I'm going to suggest that the TMCH subteam has sort of started this. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): better not 48 hours of the weekend Marina Lewis: +1 Kristine - I'm on that subteam and I think we can include this in our work. Griffin Barnett: Probably no need to impose such artificially short turnaround for review, given 2 week break until next WG meeting Greg Shatan: Good point Griffin J. Scott Evans: +1 Phil. J. Scott Evans: I am happy to coordinate a team Greg Shatan: We may want to break this list up into sub parts. Greg Shatan: Right now it covers the waterfront. Kathy Kleiman: I would be happy to help J. Scott coordinate this new subgroup, if people want to volunteer for it. Paul Tattersfield: I'm haapy to help on a sub team George Kirikos: "Premium names" have higher renewal costs too, Phil. George Kirikos: So, that might have been the concern. Jeff Neuman (Valideus): Correct PHil, lets not offer opinions on Premium names at this poiint Greg Shatan: Premium names raise significant issues with regard to Sunrise. George Kirikos: (so, striking a name from the "premium names" list would reduce defensive registration costs) J. Scott Evans: I am going to have to sign off to join a work call. Again, I am happy to work to put a small drafting team together. Jeff Neuman (Valideus): @Greg - yes, which is why I am not sure Phil should editorialize on this. Greg Shatan: Stopping price gouging through abuse of premium names would also lower defensive registration costs, and be consistent with RPM goals. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): bye all Lori Schulman: Sorry, thought I was on mute. Lori Schulman: I am on when I should be "off" "Off" when I should be on. mmmm..... George Kirikos: Bye folks. Lori Schulman: ciao Steve Levy: Bye all! Paul Tattersfield: bye all Mary Wong: Please remember - no call next week. Mary Wong: We resume on 19 Oct. Marie Pattullo: Have a great evening, all. Steve Levy: Thanks,Phil Darcy Southwell: Thanks, all, bye! Brian Winterfeldt (Mayer Brown): Thank you Phil! Brian Winterfeldt (Mayer Brown): By everyone. Marina Lewis: bye all Greg Shatan: Bye all! Georges Nahitchevansky: Bye everyone Salvador Camacho Hernandez: Bye!

1 0

Agenda and documents for the next Working Group call
by Mary Wong Oct. 4, 2016

Oct. 4, 2016

Dear all, The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, scheduled for 5 October at 1700 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect/phone bridge only); updates to SOI 2. Continue review of Charter and community questions for TMCH, Sunrise and Claims – the aim being to finalize which questions the WG agrees to review, which need to be synthesized with others, and which are to be postponed or not considered 3. Next steps / next meeting For agenda item #2, we hope that the consolidated list of Charter and community questions that was compiled by staff, and reattached for your convenience, will be helpful. In addition, we refer you to the mailing list discussions that have been going on for further background: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/. We are pleased also to report that both the FORUM and WIPO have very kindly submitted their feedback on the additional questions regarding the TM-PDDRP that we had sent to them last month. These will be posted to the Working Group wiki space along with the responses that were received to the Community Survey on the TM-PDDRP. Subject to the co-chairs’ decision, we expect that these will be taken up by the Working Group at its next meeting, on 19 October, in preparation for ICANN57 in Hyderabad. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

1 0

GNSO Working Group Communication Tools Classroom | 10 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 4, 2016

Oct. 4, 2016

GNSO Working Group Communication Tools Classroom | October 10 2016 | 20:00 UTC Please RSVP via <https://goo.gl/forms/rGI0HvuV8eT00FJ53> this form<https://goo.gl/forms/rGI0HvuV8eT00FJ53> by 7 October 2016. Are you a new GNSO Working Group Member? Do you have questions you never asked about Adobe Connect or other participation tools that are used to facilitate Working Group deliberations? The upcoming Communication Tools Classroom is the place to look for answers to these and any other questions you may have in relation to Working Group tools. Please join the SO/AC Support team on October 10, 2016 at 20:00 UTC for the Communication Tools Classroom. In an informal setting, new Working Group members will be familiarized with the communication tools they will be using when taking part in GNSO Working Groups. Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. Introduction to the SO/AC Support team & Policy Support Staff 3. Where to find relevant information: a. GNSO Master Calendar b. Individual Working Group Wiki pages. 4. Working Group Mailing lists: a. Difference between statuses (Observer/ Member) 5. Working Group Members a. Statements of Interests b. Email invitations c. Calendar invitations 6. Adobe Connect room 7. Questions This session will be recorded and the recordings will be made available on the GNSO Calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar>. We look forward to your participation! Please RSVP via this form<https://goo.gl/forms/rGI0HvuV8eT00FJ53> by 7 October 2016.

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] "free speech"
by J. Scott Evans Oct. 1, 2016

Oct. 1, 2016

Rebecca: Thanks for weighing in here. First, I do not use Wikipedia as a definitive source for anything related to the law. It is interesting reading and may require that I go to more definitive sources to verify, but I do not put much stock in it as the absolute "truth" on any subject. Second, many countries have almost an exact replica of the US Constitution, but don't recognize the provision related to free speech. Likewise, many jurisdictions do not recognize the concept of "fair use." My only point our call was that there are many non-lawyers participating. I think many time views are put forth on our calls that could be seen as misleading. It is one thing to hold the US concept of free speech up as the standard bearer that we should aspire to in our work (I could also argue that US concept of IP protection should also be held up as an appropriate standard). However, in my experiences at ICANN since we originally drafted, it has constantly been pointed out that we SHOULD NOT apply US-like trademark protections to the ICANN RPMs since different jurisdictions view trademarks differently. I can theoretically see the rationale behind this argument. Unfortunately for me, however, I fail to see how the concept of US free speech should be universally applied, but US-like trademark protections should not. I think that is intellectually inconsistent. As for the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its signatories, I think the same position could be taken with regard to the Paris Convention and its signatories. J. Scott J. Scott Evans | Associate General Counsel - Trademarks, Copyright, Domains & Marketing | Adobe 345 Park Avenue San Jose, CA 95110 408.536.5336 (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) jsevans(a)adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26(a)law.georgetown.edu<mailto:rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>> Date: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 10:34 AM Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] "free speech" Just to correct a misstatement on the call earlier: Most nations don't have a US-style First Amendment. Most nations with a rule of law do, however, recognize freedom of speech in some form, including the right to criticize private companies. As this Wikipedia entry notes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country, implementation can be inconsistent on the ground, but I expect that inconsistent enforcement of trademark rights on the ground doesn't mean that trademark owners want ICANN to ignore the law on the books; freedom of speech is equally a principle worth honoring. In addition, I don't know how many countries whose nationals participate in the ICANN process have signed on to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which includes freedom of speech, http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/, but I doubt we want to make policy based on the countries that don't recognize any freedom of speech at all. Also, you can't have it both ways: if domain names can facilitate infringement, which they absolutely can, then they convey meaning; if they convey meaning, they can also facilitate noninfringing conduct or affirmatively protected freedom of speech. It is just as true, or untrue, that a trademark owner can register a different string if it can't have the one that it wants as it is that a person making fair or otherwise noninfringing use can do so. This is especially so if we've given trademark owners the ability to jump the line in many circumstances. Freedom of speech principles may help tell us when preclusion of a domain name to a speaker-whether a trademark owner or a non-owner-is of particular importance. That is, they can help us identify the important false positives (notifications generated in response to domain names that wouldn't infringe). Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759 ________________________________ <ACL>

7 11