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

Proposed Implementation of GNSO Consensus Policy Recommendations for the Protection of IGO&INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs
by George Kirikos July 10, 2017

July 10, 2017

FYI, ICANN published this last night: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-protection-2017-05-17-en and conceivably it might impact our work to some degree. For those concerned about having multiple databases of protected names (i.e. TMCH, GIs, etc.), there seems to be multiple lists here for claims notices for IGOs and INGOs, and it's not clear if those are simply being incorporated into the existing TMCH. More comments later, once I've had time to analyze it fully. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

3 3

FOR ACTION: Working Group members' poll on open TMCH questions
by Mary Wong July 10, 2017

July 10, 2017

Dear all, Please be informed that the poll to assess the sense of all members of the Working Group, in relation to certain types of design marks (i.e. stylized and composite marks) and to treatment of geographical indications, is now open. Please be sure to fill in your response by 23.59 UTC on Monday 10 July: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WV26DQK. IMPORTANT NOTE: * The Working Group co-chairs, assisted by staff, have developed a Reference Guide containing relevant definitions (i.e. of “stylized marks” and “composite marks”) as well as of relevant examples. This Reference Guide is attached for your convenience, and it should be consulted as Working Group members go through the survey, which consists of 11 substantive questions and we believe ought not to take too much time to fill in. Finally, please also note – the poll should be taken only by Working Group members, and not observers. Thanks and cheers Mary

7 9

Slides and documents from the open community session at ICANN59
by Mary Wong June 29, 2017

June 29, 2017

Dear all, The slides and documents that were used for the open Working Group session here at ICANN59 (on Thursday 29 June) have now been uploaded to the Working Group wiki space here: https://community.icann.org/x/qwffAw Please note: * As noted during the session, these documents were prepared solely for the purpose of facilitating community discussion at this meeting. They reflect verbatim excerpts from the Sub Team reports and do not replace or supersede the documents prepared by the Sub Teams, which remain the definitive documents. * As several members have also requested that the list of definitions proposed by the Sunrise Sub Team be circulated, we have uploaded a copy of that to the wiki page as well. * Recordings and transcripts of the session should be available within the next day or so from this link on the ICANN59 schedule: https://schedule.icann.org/event/B49M/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-… * Staff will follow up with action items and a compilation of the questions and suggestions made during the session early next week. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] ICANN59 RPM call/F2F -- remote participation details
by Julie Bisland June 29, 2017

June 29, 2017

Dear All, Here is the link for the audio bridge phone numbers: https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/dial-in-23may17-en.pdf This information can also be found on the GNSO Remote Participation Details Open and Public Meetings Wiki Page: https://tinyurl.com/ydej5ugu Best to all, Julie -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2017 5:29 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] ICANN59 RPM call/F2F -- remote participation details Hi folks, The details of the upcoming call on Thursday (Joburg time) are at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_eve… namely: Thursday, June 29, 9:00 am - 12:00 noon Joburg time (3:00 am - 6 am NYC time) Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/jnb59-ballroom2 I couldn't find any dial-in telephone number to participate, though? Perhaps Mary or Terri or one of the other ICANN staff can confirm whether there is a dial-in available like our normal calls? Also, has a final agenda or any documents (e.g. Powerpoint, although PDF is best) been circulated for this call? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwICAg&… _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

4 3

FOR WG REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Sub Team Reports (Re: Agenda for next RPM Working Group call this Wednesday)
by Mary Wong June 26, 2017

June 26, 2017

Dear all, Please find attached the reports from the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams. As noted in the agenda below, these will be presented by the Sub Team chairs for a brief initial discussion by the Working Group on the 21 June call, and will form the basis for further deliberations by the Working Group during the 3-hour open Working Group meeting at ICANN59. For each report/table, the updated questions and/or proposed alternative formulations of the original Charter questions have been put in bold font – this will be Column 3 for the Sunrise report (titled “Proposed Notes or Alternative Wording”) and Column 2 (titled “Updated Question”) for the Trademark Claims table. Both documents also show the original Charter questions in the first, left-hand column, and include notes on the related Sub Team discussions, including some questions and comments that show the latest dialogues among the Sub Team. These documents have also been uploaded to the Working Group wiki space for this Wednesday’s meeting, in both Word and PDF formats, for your easy reference and download: https://community.icann.org/x/qlDwAw Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, June 19, 2017 at 16:23 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Agenda for next RPM Working Group call this Wednesday Dear all, The proposed agenda for the next Working Group call, scheduled for this Wednesday at 1700 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect or phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Receive and discuss final reports from the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams 3. Confirm opening and closing dates for Open TMCH Questions poll 4. Discuss co-chairs’ proposed agenda for, and intended outcomes of, 3-hour WG session at ICANN59 5. Next steps For Agenda Item #2, the Sub Teams will be circulating their reports before the call, hopefully on Tuesday (tomorrow). For Agenda Item #3, we hope to be able to publish the poll by the time of the Working Group call, if not before. For Agenda Item #4, please see the following suggested agenda (with the chronological order TBD): 1. Further discussion of reports and suggestions from the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams (up to one hour each) 2. Panel discussion with registry and registrar representatives (up to one hour): * For this session, the co-chairs will be sending an invitation letter to the Chairs of the Registries and Registrars Stakeholder Groups this week, inviting them to send representatives to engage in discussion with our Working Group. Working Group members who are also RySG or RrSG members will be cc’d on the correspondence, as it seems likely they will be involved in their SG discussions. * The scope of the proposed panel discussion is likely to focus on the data collection suggestions that the two Sub Teams (for Sunrise and Trademark Claims) will be proposing (and which the Working Group will have the opportunity to review and discuss this week). Thanks and cheers Mary

3 2

ICANN59 RPM call/F2F -- remote participation details
by George Kirikos June 25, 2017

June 25, 2017

Hi folks, The details of the upcoming call on Thursday (Joburg time) are at: https://schedule.icann.org/event/B49M/gnso-review-of-all-rights-protection-… namely: Thursday, June 29, 9:00 am - 12:00 noon Joburg time (3:00 am - 6 am NYC time) Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/jnb59-ballroom2 I couldn't find any dial-in telephone number to participate, though? Perhaps Mary or Terri or one of the other ICANN staff can confirm whether there is a dial-in available like our normal calls? Also, has a final agenda or any documents (e.g. Powerpoint, although PDF is best) been circulated for this call? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

GNSO Policy and Outreach sessions - every morning 08:00 - 08:30 local time ICANN59
by Nathalie Peregrine June 22, 2017

June 22, 2017

Dear all, As a reminder, GNSO Policy and Outreach sessions will be held at the beginning of each meeting day. During these sessions, the GNSO Policy Support Team will provide a briefing that aims to assist attendees in their preparation for the GNSO topics that are on the agenda for that specific day. This session is intended to be informative and interactive. Please join us with any questions you may have. They will be held from 08:00 – 08:30 local time every day in Committee 4, except for Tuesday 27 June, when that particular session will be held in Ballroom 2. Remote participation is available. Please remember to add these sessions to your schedules (go to https://schedule.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_&d=…>, create a profile and add the sessions you’re interested in) in order to receive all the updates and/or changes. Kind regards, Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Specialist, SOAC Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

Action Items from GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 21 June 2017
by Amr Elsadr June 21, 2017

June 21, 2017

Dear Working Group Members, Below are the Action Items from today’s Working Group call. The Action Items, notes, recordings and meeting documents are all posted on the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/qlDwAw. The call transcripts will also be posted on this page when they are available. Please also note that you are all encouraged to familiarize yourselves with the reports presented by the Sunrise Registrations and Trademark Claims Sub Teams on today’s call. Discussion of these two reports will continue during the Working Group face-to-face meeting at ICANN 59 in Johannesburg. The face-to-face meeting will take place on Thursday, 29 June from 09:00 – 12:00 (local ZA time) in Ballroom 2. Information on this meeting, including remote participation details can be found here<https://icann59johannesburg2017.sched.com/event/B49M/gnso-review-of-all-rig…>. Thanks. Amr Action Items: Action Items for WG members: 1. Working Group members to review reports from both Sub Teams, and suggest amendments to refined questions, provide additional comments and recommend additional data requirements that may be of assistance in answering the Charter questions 2. Working Group members to suggest more appropriate wording for Q22 in the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team report 3. Working Group members should review data requirements and notes on data from the revised Analysis Group report Action Items for Staff: 1. Staff to add suggestions made during the call on data collection as track changes to the Sub Team reports 2. Staff to remove first bullet from reworded Q1 in the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team report 3. Staff to revise refined questions 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team report for typos, clarify numbering for Q4 and ensure that the questions are communicated clearly 4. Staff to consult Sub Team as to Jon Nevett's question about whether Premium Names in Q3 of the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team report actually refers to Reserved Names 5. Staff to revise grammar of Q17/reworded Q11 in the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team report 6. Staff to remove Kristine Dorrain’s note from Q12 in the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team report

1 0

Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group
by Julie Bisland June 21, 2017

June 21, 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, 21 June 2017 at 17:00 UTC. MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-21jun17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p190nczhmbf/<https://participate.icann.org/p190nczhmbf/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=7e6f3537161197f1…> 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/qlDwAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie Adobe Connect chat transcript for 21 June 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minute duration. Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… George Kirikos:Hi folks. George Kirikos:When we come to talk about data later, I wanted to point out section 2.15 of each Registry Agreement for new gTLDs talks about cooperation with "economic studies", see: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de… Is it possible that this PDP qualifies as an "economic study", so that the data *must* be provided? Paul Tattersfield:Hi George, everyone George Kirikos:Hi Paul T. How are you? Paul Tattersfield:Busy, and it is hot here in England 90s F Kathy Kleiman:Hi All, We're holding another minute.. Paul Tattersfield:but its all good :) George Kirikos:That's good to here. George Kirikos:*hear Paul McGrady:@Kathy K & @Staff - I will need to drop at 45 minutes after due to another event I have to attend. See you all in joBurg! Mary Wong:Thanks for letting us know, Paul. Lori Schulman:It's in the 90's here too and no one in g Lori Schulman:no one in Germany has air conditioning. Lori Schulman:grrr Lori Schulman:Hi Brian Susan Payne:we don't have aircon here in UK in our homes. office is the best place to be :( Lori Schulman:Today, I am missing America even more. Paul McGrady:I'm super comfy in my humidity controlled, 70 degree bubble... Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All Mary Wong:Both Word and PDF versions of the two Sub Team reports have also been posted on the Working Group wiki page for today's call: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Louise Marie Hurel:Hi all. Sorry for being late, had some connection issues. Mary Wong:The three definitions are on Page 2 Mary Wong:The Sub Team's suggestion for data collection is at the end of the document, following the table. Kathy Kleiman:Starting on page 3 David McAuley:yes Kiran Malancharuvil:Yes, helpful Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks Lori Colin O'Brien:Yes George Kirikos:We have 90 minutes, so lots of time. Kathy Kleiman:Question 6 Kathy Kleiman:page 7 Jon Nevett:Question 3 doesn't make sense to me -- there might be a typo in there Jon Nevett:is it challenging a "premium name" or a "reserved name" Jon Nevett:thanks Lori Kathy Kleiman:Which question 3, Jon, the original or the revised? Mary Wong:@Jon, the original Q3 spoke of premium names and that's the wording in the revised question. David McAuley:I'm thrown off by numbering in columns 1 and 3 Jon Nevett:right, but the question is about releasing a reserve name Mary Wong:@David, the numbering for Column 1 is the original from the Charter, the numbering for Column 3 reflects the fact that many questions were batched, so there was a need to renumber to make sure there is a final chornological list. Mary Wong:Note that the Sub Team has included definitions for LRP, ALP and QLP in footnotes. Mary Wong:@Jon, we will revert to the Sub Team with your question. Amr Elsadr:Color-coding of consolidated/bunched questions was replaced with the references to the original Charter questions in the third column. Susan Payne:so should we have a note to that effect - ie that it's captured in 1 Mary Wong:@Lori, isn't Q19 already covered by the new Preamble questions? George Kirikos:There was going to be a survey of the PDP members, I think. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Mary/Amr, please remove my note from new Q12 as we decided not to create a new term.' Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:It's not longer relevant Mary Wong:Thanks, Kristine - noted. Amr Elsadr:Note that these questions are not in their final form - they are still subject to review by the full WG, and suggestions for modifications are still welcome. David McAuley:Thanks Lori Mary Wong:@Kathy, can you repeat what you asked for, about creating a third list? Paul McGrady:@Lori, great job presenting this substantial work the subteam did! Lori Schulman:Thanks Paul. George Kirikos:https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/xyz/xyz-agmt-html-05… (section 2.15, Cooperation with Economic Studies) Is this PDP an "economic study"? Arguably yes, since it's weighing economic benefits/costs.... Kathy Kleiman:Mary: subsantivie changes, tweaks and suggestions to add to data gathering Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):there could be NDAs which prevent researchers from releasing of all data Jon Nevett:pdps aren't economic studies under 2.15 Mary Wong:@George, I can respond 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 by delivering to ICANN or its designee conducting such study all data related to the operation of the TLD reasonably necessary for the purposes of such study requested by ICANN or its designee, provided, that Registry Operator may withhold (a) any internal analyses or evaluations prepared by Registry Operator with respect to such data and (b) any data to the extent that the delivery of such data would be in violation of applicable law. Any data delivered to ICANN or its designee pursuant to this Section 2.15 that is appropriately marked as confidential (as required by Section 7.15) shall be treated as Confidential Information of Registry Operator in accordance with Section 7.15, provided that, if ICANN aggregates and makes anonymo" Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):If ICANN initiates or commissions - where PDP is initiated by GNSO George Kirikos:ICANN can "iniitiate it", without it being commissioned. I think it's possible that this qualifies. Mary Wong:I can answer Susan Payne:not an economic study George Kirikos:Since we're weighing the pros/cons in economic terms, ultimately. George Kirikos:This is about the "functioning of nGTLDs" and "related matters", if we read that language closely. Jon Nevett:citing 2.15 would be the way to get less support and information from registries Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 Jon, most probably due to NDAs which will be required by registries Paul McGrady:I can't imagine this is what the contracted parties had in mind when they agreed to "economic studies". Mary Wong:@Kathy, on a third list - perhaps it will be less confusing (and make for fewer documents to review) if we just had the Sub Team data suggestions in the list, and supplement with any WG member suggestions (labeled as such). George Kirikos:@PaulM: "I can't imagine this is what....." can be applied to lots of ICANN contracts. :-) George Kirikos:What matters is what's written, not what was in their minds. Lori Schulman:Did we decide how questions will be answered? Paul Tattersfield:That was a great presentation Lori, thank you Kathy Kleiman:Applause to Mary and Amr!! Paul McGrady:Sorry to have to drop. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):hopefully we are dismissed as a subteam? Lori Schulman:Thank you Paul T. Kathy Kleiman:Safe travels, Paul. Lori Schulman:By Paul M. Lori Schulman:bye Amr Elsadr:Use of "Domain Name Applicant" in the questions is explained in a footnote. Kathy Kleiman:Question 2 Mary Wong:Just saw some numbering errors in this new Q4 - apologies, we will fix them Kathy Kleiman: Could you add page numbers to this document? Mary Wong:@Kathy, they are there - bottom right hand corner Kathy Kleiman:in revised version? Mary Wong:Per Brian Beckham's emails from earlier today - we have added a footnote (new addition to the document circulated last night), footnote #6, to specifically refer and link to the Graham/Shatan/Winterfeldt proposal. Mary Wong:Per Kristine's explanation just now about ways to acquire data/research - the basic requirement to set the process in motion, for approval by the GNSO Council, is for the WG to agree on what data/research/surveys it believes is necessary and fill out the Data/Metrics Request Form, which also requires a rationale and suggestions for sources and estimates for budget. David McAuley:Thanks Kristine, another great presentation Paul Tattersfield:How many UDRPs involve a TMCH notice? Wouldn't it be a very small subset? George Kirikos:Event Study Methodology: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-June/002130.html (using registry data we already have, see if various metrics change after the end of the TM Claims period) Georges Nahitchevansky:Only issue I see with that approach is that the change could also have occurred on account of other factors such as improved marketing by the regitry operator, greater consumer awareness etc.. So while the data could be helpful, it would not necessariy be instructive George Kirikos:@Georges: That's why one does those event studies across *all* TLDs, to average out those effects. George Kirikos:i.e. one isolates just the "event" under study, the claims period ending. George Kirikos:UDRPSearch.com has search across providers. Georges Nahitchevansky:I don't think you can just average out and say this is on account of a or b. You probably also have to study registration patterns based on increased awarenedss of TLDs, timing of marketing efforts etc. The bottom line is that the date you suggest may be helpful but it needs to be filtered through the relevant spectrum of factors so that you have grteater certainty as to what the data actually shows Amr Elsadr:To the extent that UDRP/URS data is relevant to the TMCH and associated RPMs, some data is available in the revised AG report. George Kirikos:Long ago, I asked that UDRP providers be required to make decisions available in XML form. Had that been done, it would have made research a lot easier, since it would be easy to automate. Paul Tattersfield:Brian +1 plus the dataset is too small and may skew the results from a much larger later dataset Georges Nahitchevansky:Yes but doing this by event such as claim period ending is not going to necessarily get you what you are looking for given that multiple factors are possibly operating along the same time Georges Nahitchevansky:line Mary Wong:@Kristine, perhaps a good starting point might be the AG report and analysis. Then the WG can decide what else is missing or needs to be done or followed up on. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Mary, as always, yes...start with what we have. George Kirikos:For item #3, the survey/poll, are we going to see the survey questions (and agree to them), before they get sent? George Kirikos:(i.e. folks might not agree with all of them, seek additions/changes/deletions, etc.) George Kirikos:(i.e. before the poll opens) George Kirikos:Thanks Mary. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):It is better to avoid meeting time Lori Schulman:Yes, Mary and Amr have gone above and beyond. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):travels + busy ICANN meeting time George Kirikos:We have all the eager beavers here --- the voices of the rest is what matters. :-) David McAuley:how bout Juky 7, friday Susan Payne:difficult to say without knowing how long it is. but probably yes George Kirikos:(i.e. the ones not here will likely be slower to respond to polls, etc.) Lori Schulman:Maybe Monday the 10th? Lori Schulman:I am not home until the 4th Lori Schulman:and then we will all have catch up Cyntia King:I'm always available w/ minimal notice. Mary Wong:The suggestions are in the right hand pod Mary Wong:Under Agenda Mary Wong:To clarify - the proposed panel discussion will, like Kathy has just said, be informal. The Ry and Rr reps will NOT be expected to have the answers. Mary Wong:It will mostly be to discuss the proposed data questions, and how Rys and Rrs may be able to share data in a way that preserves confidentiality and business advantage. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 Susan Louise Marie Hurel:+1 George Lori Schulman:Agree with Susan. Lori Schulman:would rather have advanced notice to Ry and RR and structured call Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):this meeting is attended by policy people, and those questions are operational (wrong meeting for them) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 Lori Jon Nevett:too late to organize Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I will be there, but we do need more people George Kirikos:@Jon: you might be right, sadly. :-( Wasted opportunity, to hear from folks we don't normally hear from who are attending physically. Jon Nevett:i will be there Jeff Neuman:A bunch of us will be there, but I am not sure exactly what questions will be asked of a panel George Kirikos:Last F2F, we had the Deloitte people, at least., which was different from a 'normal' call. Jeff Neuman:At some point, I think it would be good to do a role playing exercise..... Mary Wong:@Kristine, that was what staff was about to suggest as well. Jeff Neuman:I am serious, but we are almost done with this meeting Jeff Neuman:I will write something up... George Kirikos:@Jeff: does this involve costumes? :-) Jeff Neuman:@George - Hey, what ever you are into Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I might need to get a last minute ticket to J'burg if there are costumes Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):no comments George Kirikos:lol Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):We might even see registrants there Jeff Neuman:Perhaps Abu Dhabi Jeff Neuman:But It is interesting when you put people in opposite roles Jeff Neuman:And try to view the issues from the other side Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:It's fascinating, especially from people who've been on multiple sides. Jeff Neuman:I know several IP attorneys that became registries and stsarted to see things from a different view Jeff Neuman::) Lori Schulman:Agree with Susan again. This needs to be thought out. Jeff Neuman:And vice cersa Lori Schulman:not last minute David McAuley:Thanks all, safe travels Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):safe travels Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all Louise Marie Hurel:Thanks all Lori Schulman:bye Louise Marie Hurel:safe travels George Kirikos:Bye folks. Amr Elsadr:Thanks all, and safe travels.

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: Agenda for next RPM Working Group call this Wednesday
by Mary Wong June 21, 2017

June 21, 2017

Thanks, Brian and J. Scott – just to clarify, the Trademark Claims Sub Team’s list of updated questions relate only to the Sub Team’s consideration of the original Charter questions that it was tasked to refine as appropriate. As such, the Sub Team’s table does not include the text for any of the “non-exact match” proposals that were sent to the Working Group; however, the Sub Team does note as part of its recommendation under Updated Question 4 (specifically 4(b)(i) on Page 10 of the Word version) that the “Graham/Shatan/Winterfeldt proposal” should be considered here. As these proposals had been combined previously into a single document for easier use by the Working Group, perhaps what staff can do for now is add a footnote/reference to this document in the Trademark Claims Sub Team table. We will also post that document, containing the Graham/Shatan/Winterfeldt proposal, on the page where we now have the Sub Team table as well, for completeness. If as a consequence of Brian’s suggestion and Working Group discussion, the sense of the group is that the Trademark Claims questions list should include an additional or more specific question referring to some aspects of the Graham/Shatan/Winterfeldt proposal, staff will of course update the table, along with any other agreed updates or further refinements (e.g. Brian’s other suggestion for rewording Question 4(a)). I hope this is helpful. Cheers Mary From: "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans(a)adobe.com> Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 08:41 To: "Beckham, Brian" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int> Cc: 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] Agenda for next RPM Working Group call this Wednesday +1 Sent from my iPhone On Jun 21, 2017, at 5:36 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> wrote: Thanks again Mary, Two quick things: 1) While I appreciate that there may be some process question about when/where this question fits, Michael Graham’s proposal (in the attached email dated 20-Apr) seems to be missing from the “Consolidated Table of Proposed Refinements to Charter Questions…” That proposal was: “The Trademark Claims Service and TMCH registration program should be expanded to apply to all Legacy TLDs as well as New gTLDs.” Again, even if it is necessary for some process reason to discuss this at another moment, it may be worth recording this proposal in the above‑mentioned document. 2) Question 4.a. states: “What is the evidence of harm under the existing system?” This should probably be rephrased, e.g., as: “Is there evidence of harm under the existing system? If so, what evidence is there, and what types of harm are observed?” Thanks. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 10:23 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda for next RPM Working Group call this Wednesday Dear all, The proposed agenda for the next Working Group call, scheduled for this Wednesday at 1700 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect or phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Receive and discuss final reports from the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams 3. Confirm opening and closing dates for Open TMCH Questions poll 4. Discuss co-chairs’ proposed agenda for, and intended outcomes of, 3-hour WG session at ICANN59 5. Next steps For Agenda Item #2, the Sub Teams will be circulating their reports before the call, hopefully on Tuesday (tomorrow). For Agenda Item #3, we hope to be able to publish the poll by the time of the Working Group call, if not before. For Agenda Item #4, please see the following suggested agenda (with the chronological order TBD): 1. Further discussion of reports and suggestions from the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams (up to one hour each) 2. Panel discussion with registry and registrar representatives (up to one hour): · For this session, the co-chairs will be sending an invitation letter to the Chairs of the Registries and Registrars Stakeholder Groups this week, inviting them to send representatives to engage in discussion with our Working Group. Working Group members who are also RySG or RrSG members will be cc’d on the correspondence, as it seems likely they will be involved in their SG discussions. · The scope of the proposed panel discussion is likely to focus on the data collection suggestions that the two Sub Teams (for Sunrise and Trademark Claims) will be proposing (and which the Working Group will have the opportunity to review and discuss this week). Thanks and cheers Mary <mime-attachment> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protect…>

2 1