January 2017 - GNSO-RPM-WG - lists.icann.org

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group
by Terri Agnew Jan. 11, 2017

Jan. 11, 2017

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, 04 January 2017 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/EZ3DAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-04jan17-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/wCWAAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Connect chat transcript for 04 January 2017: Terri Agnew:Happy New Year! Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 04 January 2017. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… George Kirikos:Hi folks. Happy New Year. Philip Corwin:Hello all and happy new year. I'll be stepping away until the call commences Paul Tattersfield:Hello everyone George Kirikos:Hey Paul. How's it going? Paul Tattersfield:Great Goerge and you? I see you had some snow https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-… George Kirikos:I'm doing fine, thanks. I'm cheering for global warning, to make our winters milder here. :-) Elizabeth Featherman:Happy new year! Sorry I have a client call coming up the same time. I hope to rejoin the meeting as soon as possible. GraceM:can hear you loud and clear Mary Wong:We will be starting shortly. J. Scott Evans:I can not dial in. Is 866.692.5726 the correct number? Mary Wong:J. Scott, yes George Kirikos:Be sure to have a 1 up front. J. Scott Evans:I only get a fast busy signal. George Kirikos:1-866-692-5726 George Kirikos:Have there been any new responses since December 13th? Mary Wong:@George, no George Kirikos:Only 3 respondents, and PIR/AFNIC are relatively small registry operators. Terri Agnew:documents are also attached on agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… George Kirikos:Mary has her hand up. Brian Cimbolic:well at PIR we do opreate .org, but fair point in the new TLD arena :) George Kirikos:@Brian: yes, that's what I meant, i.e. in relation to TMCH for new gTLDs. Brian Cimbolic:@george - yep absolutely George Kirikos:More than 3 registries have participants in this PDP, I believe. Kathy Kleiman:Agree with J. Scott that direct communication with New gTLD Registries may be more effective. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):I believe answers from the registrars for this question is going to be more dispositive. Registries only get access to the list of strings, but they do not get the full list of marks in the TMCH or the other data associated with the trademarks Robin Gross:Direct communication could be very helpful. Vinzenz Heussler:I agree with Kathy Brian Cimbolic:I think direct communication is a good idea - but also, perhaps asking the other Registries that are part of the PDP to respond George Kirikos:Sure, direct communication is fine, if the RySG isn't doing a good job getting the participation. GraceM:I wonder how many of the new gTLD registries responded...... Kathy Kleiman:GDD may be able to assist us - with emails or by sending the email for us (Global Domains Division) Petter Rindforth:Is there any admin / policy problems to reach out to both groups? Mary Wong:@Petter, policy staff can contact those WG members that are also registries for assistance. As Kathy noted, we will likely ask GDD staff for help in sending the email to all New gTLD Registires (although they will already have received the request and reminder from the RySG chair). Petter Rindforth:Thanks, Mary - just a quick 2nd q: What time do we have? (As we cannot spend too long time on this topic before we proceed) Kurt Pritz:We developed questions with each group in mind. There are two alternatives for improving participation. One is for ICANN to use its bully pulpit and strongly encourage participation. This is a vital part of the ICANN support role. If registries and registrars want a vote in the adjustments to policy, they must participate. A second approach that this group censures registries in further discussion if they haven't participated in this questionaire. Kurt Pritz:I would have Akram or the CEO write the letter. Mathieu Weill:as one of the registries who responded (AFNIC) I express strong reservations against direct outreach. the questions are tailored to registry service providers rather than the 1000 gtld. all these request will go straight to the back end Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Converting it to a survey format might help too... a mult-page word doc doesn't rise to the top of a busy person's to do list as quickly as a short survey. Robin Gross:Agree that we might get more responses if we send it as a survey. Mathieu Weill:maybe the limited number of responses is an information is itself Brian Cimbolic:+1 Jeff - good point Jon Nevett:Agree with Jeff Lillian Fosteris:I agree with Kristine that a survey may lead to an increase in responses Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:If many registries simply need to check "no" or "NA", they can speed through it. Beth Bacon:+1 Jeff George Kirikos:Is this PDP considered an "Economic Study"?? See Section 2.15 of the new gTLDs standard agreeement: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de… George Kirikos:2.15 Cooperation with Economic Studies. If ICANN initiates or commissions an economic study on the impact or functioning of new generic top-level domains on the Internet, the DNS or related matters, Registry Operator shall reasonably cooperate with such study, including..... Jeff Neuman (Valideus):@George no Robin Gross:staff couldn't develop a survey quickly? Jeff Neuman (Valideus):And I wouldnt go there Petter Rindforth:Definitely - make it simple but clear. We need no novels just a reply to a Q&A George Kirikos:I think it's open to interpretation....it's a policy study, and has economic impacts..... Jeff Neuman (Valideus):@George - Again, I would take the friendly approach and talk directly to them. More likely to respond as opposed to fighting whether this is the economic study or not George Kirikos:Agree that friendly approach is best. Kurt Pritz:I agree with Mary: the division of labor as I see it is the working group prepares the data regquired and fashions questions; ICANN staff formats them in a way to engender participation - whether that is a survey or some other form Jay Chapman:sorry - check :) Mary Wong:Note also that the questions encompass also Sunrise and Claims topics Terri Agnew:Next call: Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 11 January 2017 at 18:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Paul Tattersfield:Whats the reason for moving calls between 18:00 and 17:00 wouldn't a single time be more memorable? J. Scott Evans:Paul: We have people from all over the world. We move the time in order to accommodate our non-North American members. George Kirikos:Bye folks. Paul Tattersfield:I appreciate that JS but 1 hr! Philip Corwin:@Paul -- ,also I think there is a conflict with a regular RySG call Greg Shatan:First Wake Up Call of the New Year. :-) Greg Shatan:Bye all! Robin Gross:Thanks J. Scott and all. Bye. susan payne (valideus):bye Paul Tattersfield:thanks Phil Paul Tattersfield:Bye all

4 4

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Follow up from WG call this week
by Mary Wong Jan. 10, 2017

Jan. 10, 2017

Dear all, This is just a brief note to add the staff perspective that it may indeed be more appropriate to first ensure that the registries in question do not object to our contacting their back end providers. We can include this query in the cover note to be sent accompanying the survey, and either request that registries feel free to have their providers give us the feedback, or suggest we send the survey on to their providers with their permission. I’m not sure that in either case we will get many responses, given the additional step involved, but if we receive permission to contact the providers, ICANN staff should be able to assist with sending out the requests (though not without some additional work). Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Date: Monday, January 9, 2017 at 15:10 To: Paul Keating <Paul(a)law.es>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Follow up from WG call this week In many cases, the providers do not have the right to provide answers on behalf of the registries. I think reaching out to the registries themselves is the way to go with the explanation that these questions may need to be answered by their back end providers. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 8:08 AM To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>; Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Follow up from WG call this week Why not ensure that the survey is being sent to the providers as well? From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Date: Monday, January 9, 2017 at 12:44 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Follow up from WG call this week Dear Mary, Dear Colleagues, Thanks for putting together the survey. I believe this may somewhat help collect more responses, but would like to reiterate a comment I made in the chat (although it got no traction at the time, but my audio was limited) during the last call. My organization, Afnic, is one of the few who submitted a response to the survey so far. We did it on behalf of one of our clients, the City of Paris. I have significant concerns about reaching out directly to registries, for the following reasons : - The questions are extremely technical, and most of our clients would be completely lost - There is no clear benefit for registries to invest time in answering this survey. The TMCH is often “dealt with” by a partner / provider. I understand the need to collect data from registries, but would suggest either of two options : 1) Consider that the low level of responses is an information in itself, and leave it at that. 2) Reach out to registry service providers rather than registries to collect more meaningful data. Just my two cents as a respondent to the survey. Best Mathieu De : gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Mary Wong Envoyé : vendredi 6 janvier 2017 23:08 À : gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Objet : [gnso-rpm-wg] Follow up from WG call this week Dear all, As requested during the Working Group call held earlier this week, staff has put all the questions that were sent to the Registries Stakeholder Group by the TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team into a survey format. You can preview and test it here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=twhcvzt1lfNFkO_2BF7lNnr7iX41Ca6g…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r…>. Please note that while we have retained almost all of the text of the original questions, in a few places we have rearranged their order or converted a question into a statement inviting comment. However, we do not believe we have changed any of the scope or intent of the questions, and we have not otherwise edited, deleted or added any questions. Also as agreed on the call, staff will work with the co-chairs to transmit this survey to specific registry operators (especially those offering blocking mechanism services who have not yet responded to the original solicitation for feedback) and via the registry members of this Working Group. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

3 2

Proposed agenda and documents for RPM Review Working Group call this week
by Mary Wong Jan. 10, 2017

Jan. 10, 2017

Dear all, The proposed agenda for our next RPM Working Group members’ call this Wednesday at 1800 UTC is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review and agree on re-ordered list of final TMCH Charter questions (see attached document) 3. Discuss whether and how to consider the existence of additional voluntary RPMs (e.g. blocking mechanisms and other additional services provided using the TMCH) during WG review of the TMCH (see co-chairs’ statement, attached for re-circulation) 4. Next steps/next meeting For Agenda Item #2, the document shows a proposed re-arrangement of the WG-agreed, final TMCH Charter questions that will frame the WG’s review of the TMCH. Please note that while some questions have been moved, none of the language of any of the agreed questions has been modified, nor have new questions been added or existing ones amended or deleted. The purpose of the re-ordering is merely to suggest a more logical and coherent approach to the TMCH review that we are now embarking on. For ease of review, the updated document is attached in both redlined (against the list of questions discussed in December) and clean format. 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

2 1

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Follow up from WG call this week
by Paul Keating Jan. 9, 2017

Jan. 9, 2017

Why not ensure that the survey is being sent to the providers as well? From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr> Date: Monday, January 9, 2017 at 12:44 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Follow up from WG call this week > Dear Mary, Dear Colleagues, > > Thanks for putting together the survey. I believe this may somewhat help > collect more responses, but would like to reiterate a comment I made in the > chat (although it got no traction at the time, but my audio was limited) > during the last call. > > My organization, Afnic, is one of the few who submitted a response to the > survey so far. We did it on behalf of one of our clients, the City of Paris. I > have significant concerns about reaching out directly to registries, for the > following reasons : > - The questions are extremely technical, and most of our clients > would be completely lost > > - There is no clear benefit for registries to invest time in > answering this survey. The TMCH is often ³dealt with² by a partner / provider. > > > I understand the need to collect data from registries, but would suggest > either of two options : > 1) Consider that the low level of responses is an information in itself, > and leave it at that. > > 2) Reach out to registry service providers rather than registries to > collect more meaningful data. > > > Just my two cents as a respondent to the survey. > > Best > Mathieu > > > De : gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] De > la part de Mary Wong > Envoyé : vendredi 6 janvier 2017 23:08 > À : gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > Objet : [gnso-rpm-wg] Follow up from WG call this week > > Dear all, > > As requested during the Working Group call held earlier this week, staff has > put all the questions that were sent to the Registries Stakeholder Group by > the TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team into a survey format. You can preview and > test it here: > https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=twhcvzt1lfNFkO_2BF7lNnr7iX41Ca6g… > 2BEqGy7WKuGCzlJFTYJqbEcIQPe6n2COQ. > > Please note that while we have retained almost all of the text of the original > questions, in a few places we have rearranged their order or converted a > question into a statement inviting comment. However, we do not believe we have > changed any of the scope or intent of the questions, and we have not otherwise > edited, deleted or added any questions. > > Also as agreed on the call, staff will work with the co-chairs to transmit > this survey to specific registry operators (especially those offering blocking > mechanism services who have not yet responded to the original solicitation for > feedback) and via the registry members of this Working Group. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary > > > Mary Wong > > Senior Policy Director > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org > > Telephone: +1-603-5744889 > > > _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

2 1

Follow up from WG call this week
by Mary Wong Jan. 9, 2017

Jan. 9, 2017

Dear all, As requested during the Working Group call held earlier this week, staff has put all the questions that were sent to the Registries Stakeholder Group by the TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team into a survey format. You can preview and test it here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=twhcvzt1lfNFkO_2BF7lNnr7iX41Ca6g…. Please note that while we have retained almost all of the text of the original questions, in a few places we have rearranged their order or converted a question into a statement inviting comment. However, we do not believe we have changed any of the scope or intent of the questions, and we have not otherwise edited, deleted or added any questions. Also as agreed on the call, staff will work with the co-chairs to transmit this survey to specific registry operators (especially those offering blocking mechanism services who have not yet responded to the original solicitation for feedback) and via the registry members of this Working Group. 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

2 1

FW: Largest URS Filing/Decision in History
by Phil Corwin Jan. 4, 2017

Jan. 4, 2017

FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing. For more background see http://www.circleid.com/posts/20161223_heres_the_largest_urs_complaint_ever… and http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1703352D.htm Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

13 24

Proposed agenda and documents for RPM Review WG call on 4 January 2017
by Mary Wong Jan. 3, 2017

Jan. 3, 2017

Dear all, The proposed agenda and documents for the first Working Group call this year – scheduled for 4 January 2017 at 1700 UTC – is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect/phone bridge only) and updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review responses to TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team questions received to date from New gTLD Registries (see document attached) 3. Agree on approach to final TMCH Charter questions (see document attached) 4. Next steps/next meeting Wishing you all a happy new year, and looking forward to resuming our work this week, Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 18:42 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW: Updated TMCH Charter questions Dear all, Please find attached an updated table of the proposed list of TMCH Charter questions, edited following the Working Group call of 21 December. For ease of reference, in addition to the redlined table (which shows changes made on the last two calls), a second document showing the full list of final questions, numbered chronologically, is also attached. As agreed on the call, and for the attention of those Working Group members who were not able to be on the call - please review the proposed final list of questions, and send any comments you may have to this mailing list, no later than 31 December 2016. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 18:08 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on Wednesday 21 December Dear all, The proposed agenda for the Working Group call on Wednesday 21 December at 2200 UTC, which will be the final call for this calendar year, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only) and updates to Statements of Interest 2. Complete review of proposed TMCH Charter questions (see document circulated on 15 December) 3. [if time permits] review registry responses received to date on questions sent by TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team (see document circulated on 13 December) 4. Co-chairs’ recommendation for new rotating meeting time 5. Next steps / next meeting Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 13:35 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated table of TMCH Charter Questions Dear all, Please find attached an updated version of the TMCH Charter Questions table, which staff has prepared based on the Working Group discussion during the Working Group call this past Wednesday. In addition to the updates made to Category 1 Question 4 (on design marks), Category 2 Questions 1 and 2 (rejection of TMCH submissions and handling of cancelled trademarks), and Category 3 Questions 1, 2 and 3 (balancing of rights, the generic/scope issue, and TM+50), we have retained in this version the changes made last week to Category 1 Questions 1-3 so that you can review all the agreed changes to date. Please note that a few Working Group member comments remain to be either considered or responses finalized – we have retained these in the document as well for your easy reference. We have yet to discuss and finalize the following remaining questions: Category 3 Question 4, and the questions in Category 4 and Category 5. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 01:31 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Proposed agenda and documents for RPM Working Group call on 14 December Dear all, The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, scheduled for 14 December at 1700 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect/phone bridge only) and updates to Statements of Interest 2. Continue discussion of proposed TMCH Charter questions (see attached document) 3. [If time permits] Review responses received to TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team list of questions sent to New gTLD Registry Operators (see attached) 4. Next steps/next meeting For Agenda Item #2: the attached document contains updates made by staff based on the Working Group’s discussions on the call last week. It also includes the co-chairs’ proposed compromise language on the “generic terms” issue (Category 3, Question 2) that was circulated to the mailing list earlier today, and a few additional suggestions made to the mailing list since the last call and as of today (13 December). For Agenda Item #3: the attached document is a compilation of responses received so far from three registry operators (Public Interest Registry, Donuts, and Afnic) to the list of questions for New gTLD Registry Operators that was prepared by the TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team. Staff will continue to update the document as and when we receive any additional responses from other registries. 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