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

Action Items from 11 October Working Group Call
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 11, 2017

Oct. 11, 2017

Dear all, The action items noted by staff from the Working Group call held today, Wednesday, 11 October, are as follows: 1. Staff Compilation of Sunrise Data: -- WG to consider and to provide feedback to staff: Is the data helpful and is there a different way (or additional ways) it should be presented that would be more helpful? Are there other types of data on Sunrise that you were expecting that staff can provide (assuming the existing sources used by staff contain that data)? Staff action items (Berry Cobb): -- add page number to the data presentation document -- consider removing the spec13 sunrise information as it has no meaning (Chart 3) -- find out whether Donuts opted in all its 238 TLDs for End Date Sunrise (Kathy Kleiman's question) -- consider using scatter diagram for Chart 3 to identify mean and median -- revise the minimal End Day Sunrise period to 67 days (additional 60 days) in Chart 5 -- consider adding variables and correlations for Chart 7-8, including types of registration, number of registration, lengths of sunrise period, etc. Draw data from the column format or add to spreadsheet (Attachment 2) 2. Next Steps/Next Meeting: -- Staff to circulate to the mailing list of times/dates of the RPMs sessions at ICANN60, including remote participation details; in the next RPMs meeting on 18 Oct, preparation for ICANN60 sessions likely to be the main discussion item, including chairing logistics The notes from the call will be posted shortly to the Working Group wiki space, together with the call recording, transcript and Adobe Connect chat and attendance records. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Recordings, Attendance, AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 11 October 2017 17:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Oct. 11, 2017

Oct. 11, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Wednesday, 11 October 2017at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7IpEB MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-11oct17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p4yarjh9sq0/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=e7a3e0ad59e75812 eb19f72c46929374e3ff7948a26ef4dfdf6de2363e5902f4> https://participate.icann.org/p4yarjh9sq0/ 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/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: <https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw> https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Adobe Connect chat transcript for 11 October 2017: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Wednesday, 11 October 2017 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minute duration. Terri Agnew:agneda wiki page: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ 7IpEB&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=EQX2oP_h3dneSn5OhOUbr2L2gIRoGfHS_URDf2n8iWU &s=RtXnZB1mnV_CG37AgoFMSzu4maUqP_W22OP-mMRhGDM&e> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_7 IpEB&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIg mkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=EQX2oP_h3dneSn5OhOUbr2L2gIRoGfHS_URDf2n8iWU& s=RtXnZB1mnV_CG37AgoFMSzu4maUqP_W22OP-mMRhGDM&e= George Kirikos:Hi folks. Cyntia King:Hello, George! Poncelet Ileleji:Hello All George Kirikos:Hi Cyntia and Poncelet. Poncelet Ileleji:Hello George J. Scott Evans:Good morning, Good Afternoon, Good Evening all. Marie Pattullo:Bon soir! Cyntia King:Hey, J Scott! Philip Corwin:Welcome RPMers! Michael R Graham:Morning Ariel Liang:Hello everyone! Julie Hedlund:Hello everyone and glad to help! Scott Austin:Good afternoon. Cyntia King:Welcome Ariel & Julie! Hello Mary & Teri! Lori Schulman:Hi guys Lori Schulman:Can't wait to hear what I will voluntell for this week. :) George Kirikos:Doc is at: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20171010/fc173bd9/Sta ffcompilationreport-Sunrisedata-3Oct2017-0001.pdf> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20171010/fc173bd9/Staf fcompilationreport-Sunrisedata-3Oct2017-0001.pdf if folks want to load it in a separate window. Kurt Pritz:Thank you George Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All Terri Agnew:all can scroll themselves Mary Wong:Yes David McAuley:yes J. Scott Evans:yes Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ):notebook keeps reloading , trying a smartphone Mary Wong:As Berry is saying, we are using the word "generic" in the IANA sense, not as the word may be viewed in trademark law parlance. George Kirikos:(would be nice to add page numbers to a future PDF, in one of the corners) Mary Wong:Thanks, George, we will note this Mary Wong:We have added links to the definitiional documents for what is a Start Date and End Date Sunrise. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ):one of the versions - auctions and the other - first comes first served Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ):m name collisions was another story Mary Wong:We don't have the information available to know why some gTLDs don't have launch date information (as Berry said); note that Chart 1 listed them by date of delegation into the root zone. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):start date sunrsies = first comes first served, end date has auction as a method of resolution for situation, where two or more registrants wanted the same name George Kirikos:Some might have been cancelled, e.g. .doosan (which ICANN is using in its EBERO test). Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Spec13 sunrise info has no meaning, so I support Susan to excude this info Jonathan Frost (.CLUB):Agree J. Scott Evans:I agree with Susan. Susan Payne:thanks Berry Griffin Barnett:Spec 13 TLDs don;t need to run any Sunrise, so I agree - no reason to include Kathy Kleiman:@Barry, is the end date sunrise largely one registry owner? George Kirikos:.chloe was just cancelled recently, too, among others. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Kathy, end date for those who needed auctions instead of fast customers George Kirikos:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainincite.com _21767-2Drichemont-2Dkills-2Doff-2Dtwo-2Dmore-2Ddot-2Dbrands&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1 u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn -H4xR2EBk&m=EQX2oP_h3dneSn5OhOUbr2L2gIRoGfHS_URDf2n8iWU&s=Uz8hAX0J_OLPOErEdo gp0uA45cep3W_28CtTwjkqVa4&e= (.chloe and .montblanc terminations) Jonathan Frost (.CLUB):From a registry perspective, the reason to use an end date is to provide an allocation mechanism when more than one rights holder attempts to register the domain. Jonathan Frost (.CLUB):Rather than a race to register Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):end date sunrise and two TM owners in TMCH ... highest bidder wins , and in start-dte -fstest one George Kirikos:One would want to cross-reference this with the numbers from THe Analysis Group, e.g. perhaps one type leads to more sunrise registrations than the other, all else being equal. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):in both 60 days is the requirement for the period (30+30 or 60) Susan Payne:@George, the AG data is fairly old because of the time at which they did their work. so I think it would be difficult to do the cross-ref you suggest wouldn't it? Jon Nevett:all George Kirikos:@Susan: right, one would need to update it using the ICANN monthly reports. George Kirikos:(i.e. the monthly registry reports) Kathy Kleiman:Tx Barry Mary Wong:Registry operators had the discretion to decide which type of Sunrise to do. The End Date Sunrise is a mechanism that is more familiar to many, so while we do not have the data as to why registry operators chose one over the other, that may be another reason. Susan Payne:@Kathy, Donuts don't have 385 registries so plenty of other registries would also have done end date Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):only registries might answer questions about why start-date vs. end-date. other parties do not have info Kathy Kleiman:@Jon Nevett - rather than talking around you, can we ask how many Sunrises had End Date Sunrises? Kathy Kleiman:All interesting! George Kirikos:Do we know how many TMCH strings have multiple owners? (ie, that's where it would make a difference, if there were multiple potential sunrise registrants) Mary Wong:@Maxim, yes, exactly. We don't have the information to do more than suggest a number of reasons at the moment. Jon Nevett:we launched 195 I think George Kirikos:If each TMCH string had only 1 registrant, it wouldn't make a difference. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):It was business decision of a registry - not anything esle Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George it would lead to TMCH auctions:) George Kirikos:@Maxim: right, presumably fanciful marks like "Google", "Exxon" or "Verizon" wouldn't face that issue, though. Kathy Kleiman:@Jon: tx1 George Kirikos:@Jon: with the Rightside acquisition, "we" is a little bit larger now. :-) George Kirikos:238 for Donots (with Rightside) according to: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ntldstats.com_registry _group&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=EQX2oP_h3dneSn5OhOUbr2L2gIRoGfHS_URDf2n8iW U&s=g-BMcy2s8f1aLvbhe5353hfIAYzDfr1r0bj7lkFQMv4&e> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ntldstats.com_registry_ group&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=EQX2oP_h3dneSn5OhOUbr2L2gIRoGfHS_URDf2n8iWU &s=g-BMcy2s8f1aLvbhe5353hfIAYzDfr1r0bj7lkFQMv4&e= Jon Nevett:@ george donuts didn't launch the RS names George Kirikos:@Jon: right, but now Donuts is inclusive of Rightside, part of the same group. George Kirikos:i.e. the "new Donuts" = "the old Donuts" + "Rightside" Jon Nevett:I'm aware George, but the question was how many sunrises we did Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Delay = Digital archery + TMCH+Name collisons+Glitches ... Kurt Pritz:Thanks Berry - When redesigning: Chart 5 might be better as a scatter diagram - or identifying mean and median Berry Cobb:@Kurt - yes, good idea George Kirikos:I don't really think Amazon/Google's delays can be explained away that way, e.g. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ntldstats.com_registry _Charleston-2DRoad-2DRegistry-2DInc&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS 6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=EQX2oP_h3dneS n5OhOUbr2L2gIRoGfHS_URDf2n8iWU&s=8KuED27OqWpznzS8NThhdTgPTfx5hBuHfozzwKbXmYQ &e> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ntldstats.com_registry_ Charleston-2DRoad-2DRegistry-2DInc&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6 sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=EQX2oP_h3dneSn 5OhOUbr2L2gIRoGfHS_URDf2n8iWU&s=8KuED27OqWpznzS8NThhdTgPTfx5hBuHfozzwKbXmYQ& e= (Google) George Kirikos:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ntldstats.com_r egistry_group_Amazon-2DRegistry-2DServices-2DInc&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwl l3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m= EQX2oP_h3dneSn5OhOUbr2L2gIRoGfHS_URDf2n8iWU&s=LLU9Xk0QU-wMV5FiUzaQLpFGvkNPp5 d-F2-i6OPrsaQ&e= (Amazon's strings) Susan Payne:@George, what's your point? of relevance to a review of the RPMs Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):if we decide to have question about this chart - add "was the delay intentional ?" Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):*chart 5 Jonathan Frost (.CLUB):+1 to Maxim. The Working Group is behind its charter schedule. I think we have a duty not to delay at this point. George Kirikos:Once those 100+ TLDs actually launch, the numbers might change, perhaps markedly. Mary Wong:All, to the extent there is agreement to include a question about "time to sunrise launch (from delegation date)" to the registry operator survey, it will be really helpful to relate it to the specific Charter question(s) the group is going to be discussing. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):lots of .CORE GEO domains had almost year of waiting due to ALP not working ... it was delivered to WG during the previous F2F by Abril George Kirikos:@Susan: my point was that the data is still a work in progress. George Kirikos:And so that could change the numbers. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):.MADRID too Susan Payne:@George all data is a WIP where you have a moving marketplace Susan Payne:@Berry just to be clear my comment wasn't a criticism of your work, which is really useful. I just didn't want you to spend a great deal of time drilling deeper if it doesn't really advance the consideration of the RPM requirements Berry Cobb:@Susan - << wasn't taken that way. I enjoy all feedback Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):also some delays were due to 120 days of name collisions (minimal) George Kirikos:+1 Mary. It'll eventually have more columns to that spreadsheet. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):sorry, old hand George Kirikos:Number of registrars could be obtained from the ICANN monthly reports. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):number of registrars could be 0 to max number of registrars in IANA George Kirikos:How did they delegate nic.shabaka ? :-) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):there is no obligation to have a contract with the third party Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George - Registries have to delegate nic.TLD under RA Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):with 9998 or 9999 as IANA ID number in WHOIS Griffin Barnett:ie self-allocation George Kirikos:@Maxim: right, just wondering if they did that without a registrar to manage it through, or just put it directly into the root for themselves. Susan Payne:to go to Claudio's point - the RA has been amended to address this George Kirikos:Directly into the zone, rather. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George, Registry have right for this nic.TLD to put themself, and the same for up to 100 names Mary Wong:Thanks very much, Kurt, that is exactly it. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):in Charter 6 - 60 day of end date is minimum according to RPMs, and for start date - 30 days of notice in advance + 30 days mininum duration of sunrsie Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+ not all days were allowed to have start/end moments Susan Payne:I think it would be better to filter out the spec 13 for this as they skew the numbers a little Griffin Barnett:agree Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):they usefull info would be for SPEC13 - was SPEC 13 executed before the sunrise or after Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):to understand how many decided to change their mind George Kirikos:Berry answered the question I was going to ask. :-) Griffin Barnett:are there any new gTLDs that executed Spec 13 after launching as an open tld> Susan Payne:but Maxim if the registry allocated names to third parties they wouldn't be eligible to adopt spec 13 George Kirikos:Actually, new question (new hand). Susan Payne:so cannot have run an open sunrise Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):spec 13 was approved on 26mar2014, and some TLDs launched earlier Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann .org_en_announcements-2Dand-2Dmedia_announcement-2D14apr14-2Den&d=DwICaQ&c=F mY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0A Ign-H4xR2EBk&m=EQX2oP_h3dneSn5OhOUbr2L2gIRoGfHS_URDf2n8iWU&s=nQzKlTiAPDXWiRV z6Dw-KJc_SyUmK8iTpzMvyx9XoMw&e= Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Susan, they could have 0 registrars sunrise David McAuley:Nice presentation Berry Griffin Barnett:@maxim, just bc spec 13 was approved after some new gTLDs launched doesn't mean there were any that launched as open and later executed Spec 13... Susan Payne:but then they didn't really run a sunrise Maxim Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):formally 0 registrars sunrise was elegible Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Registries had to have sunrise, not RRA executed Griffin Barnett:might be interesting to see some data on new gTLDs that technically ran a sunrise but without any accredited registrars Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):also many registrars did not want to implement sunrise in their SRS Berry Cobb:I was just trying to fit it on as few pages for viewing. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and executed RRA only after end of sunrise Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):to avoid it Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):aand only after end of Claims (due to issues with integration) Berry Cobb:@George: Understood. It is that way in the raw spreadsheet. Kathy Kleiman:Tx you, Barry, for all of your work, and this discussion of these charts! George Kirikos:Thanks, Berry. Is the raw spreadsheet on the wiki? Berry Cobb:and as the WG wants to add more info from claims, etcs, other data sources we can add to that. George Kirikos:(and the raw wiki will continue to have more columns, as we get more data sources, presumably) George Kirikos:raw spreadsheet, rather Berry Cobb:@George: at this time, no it is not because it does contain information that the WG should not be revealed. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):that is why I refferenced to .zurich as not so good example Susan Payne:yes i think the graphs are helpful Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):charts and numbers were fine - simplified understanding Scott Austin:very helpful Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 Kurt Kurt Pritz:pretty much Poncelet Ileleji:The graphically data very helpful Terri Agnew:next meeting: Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 18 October 2017 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):the week after this week and after ICANN is going to be lost due to transit Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):*ICANN meeting Mary Wong:@Maxim, yes, as is customary. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):deputy co-chairs? claudio:what are our WG goals to accomplish during icann60? George Kirikos:Bye folks. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all Griffin Barnett:thanks all, bye J. Scott Evans:thanks berry. thanks all. Greg Shatan:Bye all. David McAuley:Good bye all, thanks Berry Ariel Liang:thank you all Susan Payne:thanks all. thanks Berry Scott Austin:thanks all

1 0

Document for RPM Working Group call on Wednesday 11 October
by Mary Wong Oct. 10, 2017

Oct. 10, 2017

Dear all, Picking up from where the last Working Group call ended, and pending any other instructions from the co-chairs, we are recirculating the attached staff compilation on Sunrise registration data that was sent last week, preparatory to it being presented and discussed on the call scheduled for this week. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 00:36 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Agenda and documents for RPM Working Group call on Wednesday 4 October Dear all, Here is the proposed agenda for the Working Group call scheduled for 1700 UTC on Wednesday 4 October 2017: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Complete discussion of Additional Marketplace RPM questions, and agree on next steps 3. Staff presentation and Working Group discussion of initial staff compilation of Sunrise registration data 4. Next steps/next meeting For Agenda Item #2, staff has updated the Additional Marketplace RPMs document from last week, based on the discussion on the last call – please see the attached document. We note that the Working Group discussion last week ended at Question 2 under Section V on Page 5. The call this week will continue to cover the following topic that was not addressed on the call last week due to lack of time: * The co-chairs’ suggestion of the creation of a small, fast-moving subgroup to: * Review the list of data wanted and needed for Additional Marketplace Protections Questions, with input of the WG meeting, looking at the information staff provided at the end of last week on the Additional Marketplace RPMs provided by Donuts, M+M and Rightside; and sharing with WG which questions these appear to address (in whole or in part); and * Review the approved data request in light of the Council’s additional direction for us to maximize the value of the data gathered with recommendations for the WG of revisions or changes. * Assuming there is general agreement on this approach, a Call for Volunteers will start following this call. The Working Group co-chairs would like to ask the chairs of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams (Lori Schulman, Kristine Dorrain and Michael Graham) to participate, and encourage Working Group members familiar with survey work to join as well. In addition, there was some discussion on the last call over where and how to find information on the Additional Marketplace RPMs currently being offered by some registry operators. The Working Group co-chairs have asked staff to recirculate the staff-prepared summary of that information. Please be sure to review the document for information on the current Additional Marketplace RPMs, which can be found here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/71598243/Current%20AddlMkt… Finally, for Agenda Item #3, please find attached a set of charts concerning Sunrise registration data that staff will take the Working Group through in detail on the call. Please note the following: * The document is lengthy, but for purposes of the presentation and discussion on the call, we will be focusing only on the eight charts on the first seven pages. The remainder of the document is the actual data for each new gTLD relating to its type, delegation date and Sunrise dates and duration. * This is only the initial results of staff compilation of data related to Sunrise registrations that is available in the form of the reports provided to ICANN by registries, registrars and IBM as the TMCH Database provider. We anticipate refining these results further, and possibly adding more informational charts, depending on the Working Group’s questions and suggestions following the staff presentation. * ICANN does not collect or require the reporting of Sunrise pricing or the launch dates, pricing and usage of Additional Marketplace RPMs such as Protected Marks List services. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Call for Additional Volunteers to join the new RPM Sub Team
by Mary Wong Oct. 6, 2017

Oct. 6, 2017

Dear Working Group members, As noted in the action items from the last call, staff is hereby circulating a call for additional volunteers to join Lori Schulman, Kristine Dorrain and Michael Graham (the co-chairs of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams), Kiran Malanchandruvil, Susan Payne and Kurt Pritz on the new Sub Team that is forming to perform the following tasks (our Working Group co-chairs Kathy, Phil and J. Scott will be “ex officio”, as they have been to the other Sub Teams): * Review the list of data identified as needed to answer the Additional Marketplace RPM questions as approved by the Working Group, including looking at the information staff has compiled on the Additional Marketplace RPMs currently provided by Donuts, M+M and Rightside, and sharing with the Working Group which questions these appear to address (in whole or in part); and * Review the Working Group’s Council-approved data request relating to Sunrise and Trademark Claims in light of the Council’s additional direction for us to maximize the value of the data gathered, with recommendations for the Working Group of any revisions or changes. As noted previously, it will be particularly helpful to get volunteers who have had experience and/or expertise in designing and running surveys. The first meeting of the new Sub Team is tentatively scheduled for Friday 13 October at 1400 UTC. Although it is fine if you are not able to attend this particular meeting, please note that the Sub Team meetings are more than likely to take place on Fridays at either 1400 or 1600 UTC as you consider whether you wish to volunteer at this time. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 16:00 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Action items from 4 October Working Group call Dear all, The action items noted by staff from the Working Group call held yesterday, Wednesday 4 October, are as follows: * Staff to check with ICANN Legal, to see if a redacted version of ICANN's contracts with the TMCH Providers can be provided. * Staff to recirculate the summaries of those contracts, previously posted to the WG wiki space. PLEASE SEE THESE LINKS FOR THE SUMMARIES: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/validation-fram… (Deloitte contract); https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/database-framew… (IBM contract, with these supplementary Statements of Work: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/database-platfo… and https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/sunrise-claims-…) * Staff to find out what information Analysis Group has about the Ancillary Services and what they analyzed. * Staff to put out call for additional volunteers to the Sub Team being formed to review the data requests for Sunrise and Trademark Claims on the mailing list. The notes from the call will be posted shortly to the Working Group wiki space, together with the call recording, transcript and Adobe Connect chat and attendance records. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Action items from 4 October Working Group call
by Mary Wong Oct. 5, 2017

Oct. 5, 2017

Dear all, The action items noted by staff from the Working Group call held yesterday, Wednesday 4 October, are as follows: * Staff to check with ICANN Legal, to see if a redacted version of ICANN's contracts with the TMCH Providers can be provided. * Staff to recirculate the summaries of those contracts, previously posted to the WG wiki space. PLEASE SEE THESE LINKS FOR THE SUMMARIES: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/validation-fram… (Deloitte contract); https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/database-framew… (IBM contract, with these supplementary Statements of Work: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/database-platfo… and https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/sunrise-claims-…) * Staff to find out what information Analysis Group has about the Ancillary Services and what they analyzed. * Staff to put out call for additional volunteers to the Sub Team being formed to review the data requests for Sunrise and Trademark Claims on the mailing list. The notes from the call will be posted shortly to the Working Group wiki space, together with the call recording, transcript and Adobe Connect chat and attendance records. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Recordings, Attendance, AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 04 October 2017 17:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 5, 2017

Oct. 5, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Wednesday, 04 October 2017at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/U4ZEB MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-04oct17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p19dews6acg/<https://participate.icann.org/p19dews6acg/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=0555d3b4d0c723a6…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://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/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Adobe Connect chat transcript for 04 October 2017: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Wednesday, 04 October 2017 at 17:00UTC for 90 minute duration. Terri Agnew:agneda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… George Kirikos:Hi folks. George Kirikos:We've got Berry, Merry, and Terry. It seems ICANN only hires people with the "-airy" sound at the end of their name, based on these 3 observations. :-) George Kirikos:Oops, I meant *Mary. George Kirikos:OOps, and Terri. George Kirikos:lol Mary Wong:It's ok George, Starbucks baristas are even more creative with spelling! Philip Corwin:Hello all (and noting that Mary is almost always merry ;-) J. Scot EVans:I am dialing in. Mary Wong:Kathy, J. Scott, Phil - please let us know which version of the document you'd like us to upload. We have the version that staff circulated about 12 hours ago, and the one Kathy just circulated to the mailing list about 30 minutes ago. Paul Tattersfield:Hi everyone J. Scot EVans:Let's put up the document Staff circulated earlier. Paul McGrady:Hey fellow nerds. Mary Wong:Amr has resigned from ICANN staff. Colin O'Brien:Was this capture based on a review of the transcript? George Kirikos:@Colin: maybe it was from the "Notes" pod? (bottom right) [from last week] Mary Wong:Yes we have both Colin O'Brien:I'm a little confused Kathy is impliing that Amr might not have been taking the best notes and she tried to capture the comments. Was this capture based on a review of last week's transcript? Mary Wong:The AC room is displaying the version circulated by staff. Lori Schulman:Hello. Sorry to be late. susan payne:Yes - why don't we stick with the version Mary circulated, rather than something none of us have looked at and agreed to as it came around less than an hour ago Bradley Silver:+1 Susan Sara Bockey:Just wanted to note that I will need to drop at the top of the hour for another meeting. Marie Pattullo:+1 Susan too Lori Schulman:Agree with Susan Payne. Terri Agnew:thank you for this notice Sara Mary Wong:We have circulated the summary and links to the different RO's Additional Marketplace RPMs information, and posted it to the wiki. Louise Marie Hurel:However, we also have to critically assess the quality of the data we are going to gather. Noting that there might be challenges to having more info from registries, we should consider incorporating registrants and other sources. Its not only about increase in costs but about the whole. Lori Schulman:Per the notes from last year, my understanding is that Martin's suggestions had not been agreed to from the group. I think reflecting suggestions in meeting minutes is one thing. Changing the discussion document is another. Cyntai King:+1 Lori Lori Schulman:I meant last week. Not last year. My apologies for the typo. susan payne:+1 Lori Greg Shatan:+1 Lori. George Kirikos:Conceivably a DIDP request could be made, to receive a copy of the contract (perhaps redacted). George Kirikos:That would set out any restrictions, in writing. George Kirikos:Loud and clear, Louise. susan payne:to what purpose George. surely ICANN has an incentive to enforce if the TMCH provider were in breach Greg Shatan:I have not looked at Kathy's notes. Was my suggestion that certain questions should be directed to consumers/end-users? Greg Shatan:captured in the notes? Mary Wong:I can explain the cost issue if appropriate. George Kirikos:See question 2(b), Susan. It helps answer not just what arrangements exist, but what *could* exist. Mary Wong:@Greg, all - here are the notes from the call that Kathy is reading from: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Lori Schulman:How will registrants be identified? George Kirikos:@Lori: perhaps like the WHOIS study, a random sample of domains? Cyntai King:@George - why would we need to know what arrangements could exist? This isn't a theorectical exercise; this is an assessment of the mechanisms. We are not tasked to assess mechanisms that don't exist. George Kirikos:(statistically significant in size, of course) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:First, I think we're already proposing to ask Registrants about their interactions with claims (regardless of pre- or post- 90 days). Lori Schulman:ok, I would want to understand the pool and a way to cost effectively identify willing registrants Cyntai King:Lsat week we briefly discussed Registrant surveys, at which time it was noted that to do a statistically relevent survey would increase the budget by an order of magnitude Lori Schulman:Yes, I also had raised the point of prioritizing the date that we need and we don't seem to be doing that. Mary Wong:@Lori, the cost issue relates to the scope of the target group. Reaching out to registry operators, brand owners and service providers is a relatively closed universe, the broader, bigger and less defined the group means that there is a massive increase in cost that we may not have the budget for. George Kirikos:I already posted a link to a registrant study ICANN had already done, last week. Martin:I thin we SHOULD ask registrants because if we don't we might loose a very different, and relevant perspective, maybe we don't find something usefull, but the point of view is, and that's what neutral data collection is about Mary Wong:@George, if that is the CCT global survey, that survey alone cost about 200,000 dollars Lori Schulman:@George, do you happen to know how the pool was identified? Cyntai King:Yes, @George, you did. At which point I noted that the study was conducted by Nielsen at significant cost. George Kirikos:@Greg: It's already been done, see: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann… George Kirikos:"The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) today published [PDF, 2.85 MB] findings of its Phase Two Global Registrant Survey. The study, conducted by Nielsen, examines domain name registrants’ perceived sense of trust, choice and experience in the current domain name landscape." susan payne:my point is not that we shouldn't ask a registrant anything, necessarily, but why are we asking them THIS question. Read it, it's irrelevant George Kirikos:@Mary: doesn't ICANN have roughly $500 million in the bank? George Kirikos:$200K is how many days of bank interest? :-) Michael R Graham:Agree with Susan. Both the universe and scope of the questions would be nebulous and would only enable us to identify new questions/areas of inquiry, rather than answering the question. We are trying to identify Ancillary Services and their utility I think, but asking registrants or others these questions would be far too open-ended and (as noted) expensive to be truly valuable or provide useful information -- and no metrics. Lori Schulman:Perhaps we need to agree to certain principles and then focus on a narrow and prioritized set of questions be developed by a subteam after we understand cost parameters? Cyntai King:@George Enough. No matter how much money ICANN has/doesn't have, we've been given a budget Martin:adittional RPMs are VERY relevant to registrants since they can become blocks for the civil use Lori Schulman:That is how I view subteam questions: principles but we need to be practical as to how we get objective data Martin:or non-com Martin:And what's the cost of NOT asking REgistrants about Ancillary Services, if we DO have information! George Kirikos:Well said, Martin. Lori Schulman:Agree, we have to trust the work product of the sub teams or why have sub teams? Mary Wong:Please note that staff is NOT taking a position on who, how or what should be asked. We are only noting some feasibility issues. George Kirikos:@Lori: actually, we decided very early on in this PDP that subteams would NOT be making final decisions on anything. It's always to go through the entire membership. Lori Schulman:BTW, registrants includes everyone including TM owners which is why I have difficulty with that term Lori Schulman:@George, agree that plenary needs to agree but it seems that we are spending too much time on reworking susan payne:not harsh at all Paul Brian Cimbolic (PIR):+1 Paul George Kirikos:LOL @ PaulM; Straw man. Cyntia King:GNSO is already unhappy we are so far behind in our task. We will never move forward if we continue to re-litigate the work of each sub-group Greg Shatan:The job was to inform ourselves of how the marketplace protections work, not to evaluate their efficacy, etc. George Kirikos:No one suggested surveying 7 Billion people. Lori Schulman:@Mary, understand about staff role. Keeping us in our lanes on the logistics not substance. Thank you. George Kirikos:It's always a statistically siginificant SAMPLE. George Kirikos:@PaulM: who, other than yourself, is suggesting surveying 7 billion people???!!??? George Kirikos:(classic strawman faulty argument) Kurt Pritz:I am NOT for changing the direction now. But a sample size of 1300 will give you a +/- 5% error on a population of billions Michael R Graham:@George -- And entire group did agree on these questions upon the report by the subcommittees. Paul McGrady:@George, if it is a survey to registrants or potential registrants, that would be anyone over 18 years old. George Kirikos:@PaulM: are you serious? We do statistical sampling so that we don't have to survey everyone. George Kirikos:That's the entire reason we sample. susan payne:louise please explain what benefit you get from asking this Q 2 Paul McGrady:@George - imagine the cost of survey sampling in 200+ jurisdictions. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:We're getting so far away from the purpose of these questions....we want to find out how SUNRISE REGISTRATIONS were impacted. Lori Schulman:are we surveying SGs? George Kirikos:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". Lori Schulman:Now I am confused. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Digging into the impact of Addtional Mechanisms on registrants is WHOLLY UNRELATED to how many Sunrise Registrations were impacted. Cyntia King:Agreed Kristine Brian Cimbolic (PIR):+1 Kristine susan payne:totally Kristine Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:We are rapidly falling down a rabbit hole here. Marie Pattullo:Agreed also - I'm not sure what the point of this is? Lori Schulman:Paul was using rhetoric to make a point about scope. Greg Shatan:What Kathy said now was not what was suggested on the call last week regarding reaching "registrants". Lori Schulman:That is all. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:there are proposed survey questions for claims subteam that target registrants... Kiran Malancharuvil:Obviously Paul's comments were hyperbole with a purpose of demonstrating the ridiculousnes of the sample size arguments that have been made. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:It's not appropriate for THIS subteam. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:For these questions. George Kirikos:Maybe we should survey 33 registrants, given INTA claims that is good enough. :-) George Kirikos:(that was a joke, for the humour-impaired) Greg Shatan:There must be a name for mischaracterizing hyperbole for rhetorical purposes. Martin:straw man fallacy Kurt Pritz:Isn't hyperbole already mischaracterization? Greg Shatan:George, a lot more than 33 trademark owners were surveyed. You seem to be confusing survey size and response size. Georges Nahitchevansky:Or maybe George K we can speculate with anecdotal evidence given some prior claims made by others with no real evidence Greg Shatan:@Kurt, no it is a rhetorical device. Pretending that a hyperbolic statement is a literal statement is a nice tactic for needling your opposite number. Kathy Kleiman:There were no data gathering questions discussed in subteam Kathy Kleiman:J. Scott, it did not Greg Shatan:If we weren't discussing data gathering what were we discussing? Cyntia King:My connection has been reset twice now. We must be working REALLY hard today. Michael R Graham:+1 Kristine Greg Shatan:Maybe we should send this back to the Subgroup. Paul Tattersfield:greg +1 Brian Cimbolic (PIR):very well said, Susan Rebecca L Tushnet:I appreciate the clarification, J. Scott. Greg Shatan:Some s/ in that point.... Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks for making that point on audio Susan! Michael R Graham:@Kathy -- I do believe we did discuss data gathering questions in the Claims subteam. Am I right, Kristine? Rebecca L Tushnet:I can't stay in Adobe long but I didn't want to interrupt the main discussion w/my thanks. Cyntia King:@Susan agree on analysis of Q2 Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes, Michael. I've said it twice in the chat....we do propose gathing data on claims. Philip Corwin:Noting that only about 3 billion, not 7 billion, currently have Internet access Rebecca L Tushnet:So wait, are you opposing surveying registrants/potential registrants in assessing the claims process? David McAuley:sorry to be so late Brian Cimbolic (PIR):this exercise seems like running down a rabbit hole intentionally, simply for the fun of it. The information gathered seems to fall well outside the scope of the review of the additional marketplace RPMs George Kirikos:https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-09-15-en "In Phase Two, Nielsen surveyed 3,349 domain name registrants aged 18+. The survey was administered in 18 languages in June 20-July 11, 2016. Participants were drawn from 24 countries across Africa, Asia, Europe, North America and South America. Domain name registrants were selected based on their having registered at least one domain name and being a decision maker in domain name registration. Significance testing was performed at a 95 percent confidence level throughout the report." Greg Shatan:How many unique registrants are there across all gTLDs? Cyntia King:@Rebecca - the purpose would be to survey registrants w/ questions taht pertain to them Mary Wong:@George, I think that was the survey that cost 200,000 dollars, I think Paul McGrady:Unique registrants AND potential registrants. Rebecca L Tushnet:Cyntia, I agree. But the objection "there are 7 billion potential survey respondents" seems to go to whether we will survey them at all Lori Schulman:@Georges humor noted. INTA survey 1000 participants. Nearly 100 responded. 33 completed. Feedback was that questions were complex and took too much time to prepare for and answer. We need to take lessons from this as survey was developed in close consultation with CCTRT team. We need a reality check about what we ask and how we ask it. Lori Schulman:I meant @George K. Humor noted. Paul McGrady:@Mary - Yikes! $$$$$$$ George Kirikos:@Lori: The ICANN survey above had responses from 3349. George Kirikos:INTA's survey had 33 responses. QED John McElwaine:This is under the Section "Questions Directed to the TMCH Providers" Cyntia King:@Rebecca Thinking 7B would blow our budget for sure......... Greg Shatan:@Brian C., I agree with you completely. Lori Schulman:Did we get a final number from ICANN org for survey budget? Mary Wong:We have more work to do on the Sunrise and Claims data request, bearing in mind the Council's direction for us to maximize the value of the responses that we expect to get. Some of that work will be to refine and define exactly what we need to ask so that we can instruct the professional survey designer accordingly. This may involve being more specific in identifying the target groups of respondents. George Kirikos:@Lori: It was asked publicly for INTA to have Nielsen provide the margin of error behind the INTA survey. No response so far. Paul McGrady:+1 - Mission drift! We have lots to get done to get the full Phase 1 done before the launch of Round 2. We still have the URS to tackle. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+ 1 to mission drift Brian Cimbolic (PIR):+1, Cyntia Greg Shatan:I think that saying "you are hearing X from the Working Group" when talking about a particular viewpoint within the WG is neither accurate nor is useful. Paul McGrady:@Greg - +1 Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Mission: what is the impact on participation in ICANN RPMs? Mary Wong:@Lori, we will need to do that work I just referenced before getting a final number. Realistically, though, I do not know where in the budget we will be able to find a substantially larger amount than what the Council approved. Paul Tattersfield:@Greg https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ntldstats.com_registra… might be less than 330 million Verisign have mentioned Lori Schulman:@George: thank you for reminder about questions for Nielsen. Will follow up. Greg Shatan:Especially when coming from a Co-Chair. (Unless I missed a hat-change.) Georges Nahitchevansky:Agree that mission drift is becoming a major issue and impediment to our work. We need to move forward Kathy, Jay and Phil Greg Shatan:Mission veer is probably more accurate.... Georges Nahitchevansky:I meant J Scott not Jay Cyntia King:*** Can staff & the co-chairs create/provide a timeline our work w/ major milestones identified? I believe our group needs to have deadlines & a view of our objectives to keep from wandering off as we are. Paul McGrady:"Hit by URS" isn't very neutral. :) Paul McGrady:Smily face Phil. Sara Bockey:Excellent idea @Cyntia Brian Cimbolic (PIR):Cyntia - that is a very helpful request. The voluntary marketplace RPM group does not and cannot say which RPMs are " Mary Wong:@Cyntia, we need to figure out the extent and timeline for the data effort first. Hopefully by ICANN60 we will have a better idea. Brian Cimbolic (PIR):"proper or not" and it feels like thats where this is going susan payne:+100 Cyntia Brian Cimbolic (PIR):we need to move on George Kirikos:Subgroups don't decide anything, though. It doesn't matter if "the battle" took place in a subgroup. Cyntia King:@George Respectfully, you are mistaken. Sub-groups do the work we approve/disapprove. If necessary we remand back to the sub-group. George Kirikos:@Cyntia: no, it all goes through the "plenary". Lori Schulman:Document was created by working group Cyntia King:@Kathy - the changes you proposed were debated last week & again this week. Please let's move forward w/ the Staff doc. Brian Cimbolic (PIR):we're at that point J Scott, IMO Lori Schulman:I recall voting on certain changes last week with buttons. Is that not right? Kathy Kleiman:We did not vote last week with buttons. Mary Wong:Staff has attempted to explain why we made the limited edits we did this week by email. We are happy to correct any mistakes we made, but we really cannot tell what the WG's directions to us are. Brian Cimbolic (PIR):we have the green agree, red disagree - this process is inexplicably long. It's like we're in the 6th unecessary cog in a Rube Goldberg machine Michael R Graham:Cyntia +1 -- Accept Staff doc and move forward or Redline plus vote on each change separately. Cyntia King:If the plenary disagrees w/ teh sub-groups work they should remand back, not have unending whole-group debate over every item. Brian Cimbolic (PIR):+1 Cyntia Greg Shatan:A number of ideas were thrown around. I don Lori Schulman:My apologies about faulty memory re: buttons. Maybe that was another call? Paul McGrady:Let's vote up or down on Kathy's proposal to survey "registrants". With an up or down on that, we can look at non-substantive edits through that lense. Greg Shatan:I don't recall adopting any of them. Terri Agnew:reminder, transcripts are posted on the GNSO Calendar: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou… and agenda wiki pages Brian Cimbolic (PIR):+1 Paul Greg Shatan:+1 Paul Lori Schulman:Paul's suggestion makes sense. Georges Nahitchevansky:We discussed all this in the past, we voted last week and yet we keep coming back to things already discussed and voted on. Agree that we move with the staff document. Maybe have anotehr vote to bring this to a close once and for all Cyntia King:@George - Sub-groups are supposed to be well-informed in the subject matter They discuss, advise then make recommendations based on their considered discussion. Paul McGrady:It was approved by the subteam. Let's vote up or down on Kathy's proposal to survey "registrants". With an up or down on that, we can look at non-substantive edits through that lense. Cyntia King:I feel your frustration, @J SCott Brian Cimbolic (PIR):Paul was chair of the subteam and his request makes perfect sense. Let's please vote up or down Greg Shatan:Agree with Paul McG's suggestion as well. Michael R Graham:+1 Paul -- Let us vote on proposal to also survey "registrants" Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:There are two "bubbles" on this doc. Paul's suggestion directly addresses the second bubble. Mary Wong:As noted previously, staff suggests that some of the factual information that we believe is being sought by this question already exists via the information from the relevant ROs and the TMCH providers. Cyntia King:+1 Paul Mary Wong:I can clarify Rebecca's question, if appropriate. Cyntia King:Thanks, @Mary. Very helpful. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 Paul, and that goes directly to the second comment in the doc on the screen. Georges Nahitchevansky:Please take a vote and get on with this as opposed to continuing down this unproductive path susan payne:exactly Phil Greg Shatan:needle in a haystack Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Phil, Q5 is already included on the claims subteam recommendations.... Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:*matching your trademark* Greg Shatan:registrants don't receive notifications in the post-90 day period. Isn't this right? Greg Shatan:By registrants I mean applicants. Lori Schulman:Just want to point out that the numbering is out of whack if someone hasn't already. Questions should be numbered in order. We seem to missing a "2". That appears to be a typo not a true omission of question. Kathy Kleiman:+1 Lori Mary Wong:@Greg, I may be wrong, but I think that is correct if you mean the extended service offered by Deloitte (which is the only Ancillary Service approved by ICANN so far). Lori Schulman:I don't think we caught that last week. That's not substance just clarity. Griffin Barnett:All of the questions here are already categorized by whom they are directed to... Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 Griffin Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Q2 is on the last page, Lori. :) Lori Schulman:oops... Lori Schulman:Oh, I see. The grouping by staff including old numbering. Paul McGrady:Needle in the haystack designed to make up for the fact that registrars did not collect this data while these things were occuring. This will add cost and burn time we don't have. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I suspect when staff sorted them, staff wanted to ensure that we undertand all of our questions were included. Lori Schulman:Got it. Lori Schulman:So all text is here. Nothing is missing. Thanks for clarifying. susan payne:why does it actually matter if blocked by a sunrise registration or a "block" Mary Wong:@Lori, @Kristine, that is correct - we kept the Sub Team's numbering so that it is clear that nothing was omitted and no text was altered for the questions by staff. susan payne:the "blocks" are no different to there being a prior registration. FCFS Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:a RO could have a claims notice to the applicant be for as long they want. Paul McGrady:@Griffin - correct. The Staff labeling them was just for clarification. The questions themselves make it clear who they were meant for. That is why the "let's survey potential registrants" is so completely out of the blue. Philip Corwin:Adding, BTW, I will be happy to share the post-90 day URS and DPML blocking questions with ICA members to see if that subgroup of professional domain investors/registrants believes it can provide any useful data on those questions. Griffin Barnett:right Susan - except within the first 90 days of claims, there doesn't seem to be any way a prospective registrant could distinguish a situation where they could not obtain a registration because it was subject to a DPML/block, a Sunrise registration, or any other kind of prior registration Paul Tattersfield:You could just the question on a domain forum, though it would be a subset of a certain type of registrant Kathy Kleiman:@Phil is your question preempted by the vote taking place? Philip Corwin:@Paul T - agreed/and it is a subset that might have a more sophisticated and knowledgeable response than a general registrant Jay Chapman:Agree, Phil Philip Corwin:I checked green but it is only for the two narrow questions I just discussed, not all the questions Cyntia King:Specific to the TMCH,/sunrise questoins on-screen Mary Wong:I think there are about 21 crosses and 7 checks Philip Corwin:Most of the questions are factual or otherwise so narrow that registrants would not have relevant data Mary Wong:Apologies, 25 crosses David McAuley:you must have cross-checked Mary Paul Tattersfield:(Yes - along Phil's lines too) Mary Wong:25 crosses, 9 checks (counting Claudio and Rebecca) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Exactly Rebecca....we're ALREADY asking. It's not in scope for THIS sub team. Griffin Barnett:+1 Kristine Paul McGrady:+1 Kristine George Kirikos:26% believe there should be. susan payne:@Rebecca, and as you rightly point out, the registrant almost certainly doesn't know the cause of the blocki, so they can't inform this discussion Kiran Malancharuvil:+1 Kristine George Kirikos:What's the level for "divergence" vs. "consensus"? Michael R Graham:25 votes Disagree -- 9 Agree Greg Shatan:I think Rebecca's point shows that we'll get useful information related to this in another way. Michael R Graham:With Kristine -- I would agree to serve Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I agree to servce Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:serve susan payne:happy to volunteer Lori Schulman:Ok. I am a glutton for punishment. Kurt Pritz:I can work on this Griffin Barnett:Exactly Greg - I don't think we are foreclosing asking "registrants" certain questions, just not in connection with the questions relating to voluntary RPMs that are reflected in this particular doc Mary Wong:Will do, J Scott Lori Schulman:+1 Griffin. That is exaclty how I see it. Mary Wong:We have Susan and Kurt joining Lori, Kristine and Michael G Lori Schulman:I have no problems asking whomever we define as registrants relevant questions Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Well, it's a small list, I guess. Martin Silva Valent:voluntary RPMs are dangerous for noncom users and small business, they are usualyl the one that suffer the abuse of these sobsure mechanisms Kurt Pritz:Kurt does volunteer Kiran Malancharuvil:I can help where I can Mary Wong:Done Philip Corwin:Co-Chairs are Ex Officio members of all subteams, so we receive constant punishment ;-) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Martin, we aren't reviewing "voluntary mechanisms" that's outside the scope - that the key issue Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:We're reviewing ICANN mechanisms and getting relevant data about the voluntary ones. Martin Silva Valent:We could discuss if ICANN should work to regulate them Martin Silva Valent:becaus ethey are contracted parties Lori Schulman:I think we all agree that ICANN is not a regulator. Greg Shatan:@George: Divergence is where there isn't strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Maybe, but that's outside the scope of this PDP susan payne:@Martin out of scope for this PDP. Martin Silva Valent:if a voluntary action goes against the policy we do here, it frustrates our policy, then we should enforce them by contract tools George Kirikos:Bye folks. Martin Silva Valent:no ALL voluntary actions of registrar are out of scope Martin Silva Valent:any how Brian Cimbolic (PIR):martin that's a question for ICANN Compliance Greg Shatan:yes ALL are out of scope. Brian Cimbolic (PIR):this PDP is not a contract enforcement body Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 Brian Paul Tattersfield:thanks all, bye Terri Agnew:next call: Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 11 October 2017 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minute duration. Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks J. Scott! Colin O'Brien:bye all Philip Corwin:Bye all Griffin Barnett:thank you J. Scott, all....until next time... Martin Silva Valent:let's pick it up :-P Louise Marie Hurel:thanks all, bye Steve Levy:Thanks all Martin Silva Valent:bya all susan payne:thanks all. David McAuley:Thanks J. Scoot and all, good bye Lori Schulman:cioa Lori Schulman:ciao

1 0

Agenda and documents for RPM Working Group call on Wednesday 4 October
by Mary Wong Oct. 4, 2017

Oct. 4, 2017

Dear all, Here is the proposed agenda for the Working Group call scheduled for 1700 UTC on Wednesday 4 October 2017: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Complete discussion of Additional Marketplace RPM questions, and agree on next steps 3. Staff presentation and Working Group discussion of initial staff compilation of Sunrise registration data 4. Next steps/next meeting For Agenda Item #2, staff has updated the Additional Marketplace RPMs document from last week, based on the discussion on the last call – please see the attached document. We note that the Working Group discussion last week ended at Question 2 under Section V on Page 5. The call this week will continue to cover the following topic that was not addressed on the call last week due to lack of time: * The co-chairs’ suggestion of the creation of a small, fast-moving subgroup to: * Review the list of data wanted and needed for Additional Marketplace Protections Questions, with input of the WG meeting, looking at the information staff provided at the end of last week on the Additional Marketplace RPMs provided by Donuts, M+M and Rightside; and sharing with WG which questions these appear to address (in whole or in part); and * Review the approved data request in light of the Council’s additional direction for us to maximize the value of the data gathered with recommendations for the WG of revisions or changes. * Assuming there is general agreement on this approach, a Call for Volunteers will start following this call. The Working Group co-chairs would like to ask the chairs of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams (Lori Schulman, Kristine Dorrain and Michael Graham) to participate, and encourage Working Group members familiar with survey work to join as well. In addition, there was some discussion on the last call over where and how to find information on the Additional Marketplace RPMs currently being offered by some registry operators. The Working Group co-chairs have asked staff to recirculate the staff-prepared summary of that information. Please be sure to review the document for information on the current Additional Marketplace RPMs, which can be found here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/71598243/Current%20AddlMkt… Finally, for Agenda Item #3, please find attached a set of charts concerning Sunrise registration data that staff will take the Working Group through in detail on the call. Please note the following: * The document is lengthy, but for purposes of the presentation and discussion on the call, we will be focusing only on the eight charts on the first seven pages. The remainder of the document is the actual data for each new gTLD relating to its type, delegation date and Sunrise dates and duration. * This is only the initial results of staff compilation of data related to Sunrise registrations that is available in the form of the reports provided to ICANN by registries, registrars and IBM as the TMCH Database provider. We anticipate refining these results further, and possibly adding more informational charts, depending on the Working Group’s questions and suggestions following the staff presentation. * ICANN does not collect or require the reporting of Sunrise pricing or the launch dates, pricing and usage of Additional Marketplace RPMs such as Protected Marks List services. Thanks and cheers Mary

3 5