September 2017 - GNSO-RPM-WG

Action Items and Notes from GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 28 September 2017
by Amr Elsadr Sept. 29, 2017

Sept. 29, 2017

Dear Working Group Members, Below are the action items from the WG call on 28 September 2017. The action items, notes, meeting documents, AC room chat and recording have all been posted on the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/o4BEB. The transcripts of the meeting will be posted on the same wiki page, when they are available. Additionally, as per action item 2, staff has revised the language of the Additional Marketplace RPMs question 4 (first bullet) in its second occurrence, when it is being asked of trademark owners as opposed to Registry Operators. Please see the attached updated “Additional Marketplace RPMs Questions - categorized by respondent” document. Working Group members are invited to provide feedback as to whether this current phrasing adequately addresses the concerns raised during yesterday’s WG meeting. The updated text of the question is as follows: Have you been blocked from registering a second level domain name matching your registered trademark in any of the gTLDs for which Additional Marketplace RPMs are provided, as a result of the same trademark being held by another trademark owner, but for a different class of goods or services? Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to compile Sunrise Registration data for Registry Operators that provide Additional Marketplace RPMs 2. Staff to revert Question 4 targeting trademark owners to match the original wording in bullet one of Question 4 being asked of gTLD Registry Operators

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP WG call on Thursday, 28 September 2017 03:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Sept. 28, 2017

Sept. 28, 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 Thursday, 28 September 2017at 03:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/o4BEB MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-28sep17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p936cuxk55x/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** 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/o4BEB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle Adobe Connect chat transcript for 28 September 2017: Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Thursday, 28 September 2017 03:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… George Kirikos:Hi folks. Kathy Kleiman:Petter - tx for being on so early in the morning your time! Kathy Kleiman:Hi George and Sara... Sara Bockey:Hi there. George Kirikos:Welcome Kathy, Sarah, Petter et al. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All Michael Flemming:Good morning Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I think we might see more people in 4 minutes Philip Corwin:Hello, night owls and early birds Petter Rindforth:always a good tart of the day ;-) Petter Rindforth:..start... Steve Levy:Petter, you have my utmost respect! Martin Silva:Hi all Lori Schulman:Hi Justine Chew:Great work, Phil, Mary and all involved re GNSO Council decision on our data request. Michael Flemming:Question: So, officially, what is the lead time for the PDP and how far do we see stretching ourselves out? Michael Flemming:as in time wise* Michael Flemming:not necessarrily in regards to content Martin Silva:I do think there is room to wide the scope of some question that would increase data value gathered Amr Elsadr:Thanks. I think Phil did a great job covering it. David McAuley:and what is new plan while data being athered - or will WG develop a new approach while data being gathered David McAuley:gathered, that is Michael Flemming:Alright, thank you. George Kirikos:Some other data has already been requested though on other questions, e.g. the Top 500 TMCH terms, etc. (from March 2017!), i.e. from The Analysis Group. Michael Flemming:I just wanted to know when that would occur. David McAuley:Thanks Phil, makes sense Lori Schulman:I missed the first few minutes of the call, what was the final budget figure? Philip Corwin:The request was a minimum of $50k. What we will actually get is unknown. George Kirikos:Is that for "external" spending? Or does it include ICANN "staff time"? George Kirikos:(i.e. ICANN staff was compiling some stuff) David McAuley:Agree with Lori on prioritization Philip Corwin:We may well need to prioritize, depending on the funds made available. Colin O'Brien:The low dollar amount is worrying. In my experience surveys can become very expensive. Lori Schulman:@George, my understanding is that 50K is for external consulting only not staff time Michael Flemming:Lori, I think you are still on audio George Kirikos:Thanks, Lori. David McAuley:is someone scuba diving? George Kirikos:lol David David McAuley:its not so much data gathering as analysis in light of data received Martin Silva:1) I think we should include this question as part of the survey and outreach we are already doing to the stakeholders Kathy Kleiman:Martin: did you want to come online to speak? Martin Silva:I have several remarks, I will take the mic for some of them. Martin Silva:this one is pretty small remark George Kirikos:I assume we already have the data (TLD by TLD) on number of sunrise registrations (e.g. by The Analysis Group, and/or the monthly registry reports). Do we have that as a public data set? (e.g. in a spreadsheet) George Kirikos:(can then match that up with data on whether there were additional RPMs for that TLD, type, etc.) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):formally to extent that is not breaching RA and RPMs and other Consensus Policies Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and RSEP David McAuley:This series of questions (#3) underscore importance of professional help Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@David, unfortunately most experts in this field are in this PDP Martin Silva:Amr is perfectly capturing the remarks Martin Silva:clap clap clap David McAuley:good point @Maxim Jon Nevett:Again, we are not reviewing the Additional marketplace RPMs -- the second bullet was rejected by the subgroup Jon Nevett:Bullet 3 again is beyond scope Jon Nevett:no George Kirikos:Bullet 3 in the "notes" pod? Or in the top pod? Jon Nevett:notes george Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Maxim: ICANN Compliance does not have power to be the source of the contractually binding opinion Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):RA is a contract and each party see things from their angle Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Registry and ICANN Compliance Jon Nevett:Thanks Phil -- you said it better than I would have and you didn't wake my wife while saying it! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):too early for me David McAuley:I agree w/@Maxim about ICANN Compliance authority – I assume a professional survey person, if he/she asks ICANN, would ask ‘what in your opinion AFFECTS’ not ‘what in your opinion authorizes’ Justine Chew:I agree with Phil. Also, the "acceptability" of additional Marketplace RPMs are commercial innovations not within the remit of this group. Colin O'Brien:+1 Greg David McAuley:Also +1 @Greg Justine Chew:+1 Greg Lori Schulman:Agree with Greg Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 Greg Lori Schulman:Support not changing questions without agreement of subteam and subteam leader Martin Silva:Lori, I would agree that they should be asked, but the agreement of the WG includes and overrun the will of the subteam. And I say it as a subteam member :-P George Kirikos:sub = subordinate Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):if we change list of questions too much, we are at risk of GNSO Council to retract the approval Cyntia King:Re-litigatig every question/point of the sub-groups will make this a very long process. Martin Silva:why? we are making what they asked, to improve them to be as efficient as possible in getting as much relevant data, and relevant means close to reality, non biased, sufficient, etc. Cyntia King:Utilizing sub-groups is a way of dividing work & assigning expertise. Lori Schulman:Agree with Cyntia. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Martin, the approval was granted for the set of questions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it was not a wildcard Martin Silva:we are not erasing the question, we are making them more accurate Martin Silva:is good, is in the sense that the GNSO approved them George Kirikos:As noted last week, one would want to check the historical rules, too (e.g. using Archive.org) because the currently-posted rules might be different. George Kirikos:Although, registrars probably have them too, if they were used as distribution partners for those additional RPMs. Amr Elsadr:Question: Providers = Registry Operators? Amr Elsadr:Question above for Martin. :) Martin Silva:yes Amr Elsadr:Thanks, Martin. George Kirikos:+1 Martin. For question 5, we'd also have the actual registration stats (i.e. in the ICANN monthly reports), to see if that impacted registration volume). Cyntia King:Finding registrants for these highly-specific questions may be dependent on registries providing data that is subject to confidentiality claims, right? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George,it is hypothetical ... even Registrars sometimes do not know what the reason for registration was (or in situation where the Registrant chosed not to be one) Martin Silva:Cyntia, yes, I agree is not an easy task, I just put forward the idea, if is not feasible, we can drop it, but if it is, maybe we improve it Justine Chew:Exactly, Greg is correct. So would be it registrants who have received a TM Claims notice? Cyntia King:I just thought of my own portfolio @Martin. Lori Schulman:I thought that TM owners received copies of the claims' notices. I recall receiving them. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it is hard to reach those comanies which reached the conclusion not to register (they are not in WHOIS) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):We did in Moscow and .xn--80adxhks to extend claims period ... so far two years Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and going Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):the data is on TLD start info portal Cyntia King:@Greg - to your point, how could we get a representative sample of registrants? Greg Shatan:@Cyntia, I doubt there's a way to get a representative sample, without a great deal of planning and effort. More like we'll end up with anecdotes. Justine Chew:So is the effort worth putting in to get the (possible) result? Amr Elsadr:Note that the questions regarding advantages/disadvantages and costs associated with ongoing Claims services should already be covered by the TM Claims questions. George Kirikos:ICANN has surveyed registrants in the past, e.g. see: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann… George Kirikos:"Global Registrant Survey Final Phase Results Available" George Kirikos:No need to reinvent the wheel. Jon Nevett:where is that question? Philip Corwin:Thx George for identifying that. I'd hope that staff would look into the extent to which that registrant survey produced responses. Cyntia King:@George, but why do we need anecdotal data? Aren't we looking for representative samples for data integrity? Jon Nevett:I don't think we should name specific companies Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):answer to question 5 is in ICANN Accounting (they charged for each claims registration additional .25 USD) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):for the lsat bit George Kirikos:@Cyntia: my link *was* to a representative sample, i.e to counter the "anecdotal". David McAuley:Jon - that Q is on page 2, section III, Question 4 David McAuley:I didn't remember it and guess maybe that was rephrased George Kirikos:i.e. it was suggested that creating a representative sample of registrants was hard by Greg above. It's already been done before. Cyntia King:So you want us to engage Nielsen to survey registrants? Is this part of our budgeted deta collection? Greg Shatan:Our budget wouldn't cover it.... Amr Elsadr:Note: Asking trademark owners this question was a WG suggestion, not staff. :) Greg Shatan:I think it George Kirikos:@Cyntia: No, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm just countering the suggestion by Greg that creating a representative sample of registrants was difficult, and that one would necessarily end up relying on anecdotes. Greg Shatan:is the phrasing at issue. Michael Flemming:In any gTLDs that offer a blocking mechanism? Cyntia King:@George. Agreed it's not difficult to survey registrants - just expensive & time-consuming. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I think it is related to ROs using such blocking mechanics Greg Shatan:@George, just because it's been done, doesn't mean it's easy. I'm looking at our budget and approach. Jon Nevett:thx David McAuley:Agree w Phil and Jon George Kirikos:@Greg: same could be said about getting a representative sample of TM holders. Cyntia King:Agree w/ @Phil Cyntia King:Also checked @George's link. Very interesting reading. Michael Flemming 2:You wouldn't. Most Registrars would show the domain as unavailable. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):URS does not work for old TLDs Michael Flemming 2:Unless the query for the domain is recorded Justine Chew:I have to drop off now. Cheers, for the good discussions. Michael Flemming 2:Thanks, Justine. Philip Corwin:@Maxim--neither does claims notices or blocking services/only for new tlds Jon Nevett:xxx had a blocking mechanism, so shouldn't be limited to New TLDs Martin Silva:As kathy said 2 mins ago, Analysys Group might have info on that. Martin Silva:* regarding Q5 Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):.com is not following RPMs and URS George Kirikos:For registration volume, we can see the actual reg volume in the monthly reports. George Kirikos:i.e. it's public data already (just needs to be compiled) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I was saying only that URS is limited Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):to new gTLDs mostly (and few ccTLDs) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):how do we reach non-registrants (those who decided not to register)? George Kirikos:Given so many registrants of new gTLDs were from China, attention should be paid to ensure any survey of registrants cover China in particular. Martin Silva:I promise not to make more remarks Mary Wong:@Maxim, that is a question we will need to addres. Not least because, the broader we cast the net of potenial respondents, the more expansive and epensive the survey. George Kirikos:By the way, for staff, https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__club.domain.cn_forum.p… might be an additional data source for Chinese registrants experiences, on some of the other data collection (i.e. for previous questions). i.e. it's the Chinese equivalent to NamePros.com. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Q2 could be answered only by the relevant party Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):if we ask non relevant parties we just extend unwise spendings Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I suggest we run a poll to understand how many PDP members support these additional side questions Mary Wong:By way of context, please note that the budget for data collection isn't that big; so the broader we cast the net, the more pressure we bring to bear on the budget that we have to do the surveys we have identifed as necessary Michael R Graham:I think the history of the development and approval of these questions answers Maxim's question. David McAuley:agree w/Mary and it underscores Lori's earlier point about prioritization Cyntia King:@Mary - you should have a bell that rings every time we try to expand the budget. Or maybe a buzzer. Petter Rindforth:Good point!! Martin Silva:I just point out what I look is missing, if it is missing for a good reason I am more than happy to agree! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Michael, I was saying that additional changes to our questions can be done with such limited numbers of participants we see now Greg Shatan:@Cyntia, I don't think we could take that much buzzing.... :-) Greg Shatan:It would help to know what the actual experience is when trying to register a "blocked" domain. Is it any different than trying to register an already registered domain? Michael R Graham:@Cyntia +1 David McAuley:Interesting call, thanks all, goodbye Philip Corwin:Good point Greg. That's a question for registrars George Kirikos:Goodnight, folks. Jon Nevett:thx! Martin Silva:good night/day to all! Philip Corwin:Bon Soir Michael R Graham:Thanks from the quiet corner Greg Shatan:I hope it's daytime for someone.... Mary Wong:Next meeting is next Weds at 1700 UTC Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all Cyntia King:Night! Martin Silva:thank you for standing my noisy remarks! Martin Silva:by all Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. Lori Schulman:bye Steve Levy:Bye Greg Shatan:Night!

1 0

FOR REVIEW: Documents on Additional Marketplace RPMs
by Mary Wong Sept. 28, 2017

Sept. 28, 2017

Dear all, As noted in Action Items #2 and #3 following the Working Group call of 20 September (see https://community.icann.org/x/TC0hB for all the action items and notes from the call), please find attached the following documents: 1. Action Item #2 (identifying the target group of respondents for each question on Additional Marketplace RPMs): Staff has prepared a document that lists each of the questions proposed by the Sub Team according to the target group of respondents (viz. registry operators, registrars, trademark owners, TMCH providers). The document also contains some staff notes concerning potential starting points and available information sources for answering the questions. 1. Action Item #3 (linking to and summarizing the Additional Marketplace RPMs (primarily, the various Protected Marks Lists services) currently being offered): Staff has prepared a table showing the service, the registry operator offering the service, a summary of the service, and links to the registry operator’s informational pages and selected industry coverage of the services. We hope these two documents are useful as you consider the questions proposed by the Sub Team. Thanks and cheers Mary

2 1

Agenda, documents and discussion questions for upcoming RPM Working Group call
by Mary Wong Sept. 26, 2017

Sept. 26, 2017

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for our upcoming Working Group call, scheduled for Thursday 28 September at 0300 UTC (reminder: as this is the APAC time zone-friendly rotating call, this means the call will take place on Wednesday evening for members based in the Americas): 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. De-briefing: GNSO Council discussion of and decision on our data request (Phil, Kathy, staff) 3. Group discussion: what existing information there is, and what additional data/information may be required for further discussions on the current Additional Marketplace RPMs (see further notes below for more details and questions for consideration)? 4. Next steps on Additional Marketplace RPMs 5. Next steps on data research / next meeting For Agenda Item #2, members may wish to review the recording and/or transcript of the Council’s discussion prior to our meeting: * http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20sep17-en.mp3 (recording, starting around 20 minutes into the call till around the 70-minute mark); * https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-20sep17-en.pdf (transcript, pages 10-32); * https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-20sep17-en.pdf (AC chat transcript, pages 3-7). For Agenda Item #3, please review the information that staff had compiled on the current Additional Marketplace RPMs being offered by several Registry Operators and circulated last Thursday (21 September). This document has been uploaded to the Working Group wiki space here as well: https://community.icann.org/x/o4BEB Your review will assist in the Working Group’s discussion of the following questions: * What data do we need to answer the questions related to the Additional Marketplace RPMs? * To who and how do we go to gather it? * Can any of these data requests be quickly/easily/cheaply added to the surveys of "anecdotal data" requests approved by the GNSO Council last week that will be going out to Registrars, Registrars, Trademark Owners, Registrants, etc.? For Agenda Item #4, the co-chairs’ suggestion for Working Group consideration is 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 Working Group, look at information staff provided at the end of last week on the Additional Marketplace RPMs provided by Donuts, M+M and Rightside; and share with the Working Group which questions these appear to address (in whole or in part). * Review the approved data request in light of the Council’s additional direction for the Working Group to maximize the value of the data gathered, with recommendations for the Working Group of revisions or changes. For the subgroup, and 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. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Results of GNSO Council vote on our data request
by Paul Keating Sept. 21, 2017

Sept. 21, 2017

Excellent. Thank you Mary and the rest of staff. From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 4:43 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Results of GNSO Council vote on our data request > Dear all, > > As you know, the GNSO Council met yesterday after our Working Group call to > discuss and vote on the data request we submitted to them. Staff is pleased to > inform you that the Council approved the request, following an extensive > discussion of the cost, budget and resource estimate as well as the objectives > and nature of the data to be collected. The Council resolution is appended > below you may wish to note that an added Resolved clause was inserted to the > text of the original motion that was submitted; we have highlighted the new > addition in yellow. > > Staff will now work with our co-chairs to determine how we may best fulfill > the Council¹s directions, including following the next step in the process > which is submission of the request to ICANN Organization for budget work and > approval. > > As Kathy and Phil were both on the Council call and participated actively in > the Council¹s discussions, they may well have additional thoughts and > information for everyone. > > Council Resolution 20170920-1: GNSO Council Approval of Data Collection > Request from RPM Review PDP Working Group > * Submitted by Heather Forrest > * Seconded by James Bladel, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > > WHEREAS: > 1. In October 2015, the GNSO Council adopted all the consensus recommendations > from the Data & Metrics for Policy Making (DMPM) Working Group and instructed > ICANN staff to commence implementation of the recommendations > (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20151021-1) > 2. The Metrics Request Decision Tree and Working Group Metrics Request Form > developed by the DMPM Working Group were consequently incorporated into the > GNSO¹s Working Group Guidelines > (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf) > 3. The Working Group chartered by the GNSO Council to conduct the Policy > Development Process (PDP) to review all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in > All gTLDs has, after extensive deliberations, developed a list of data > collection tasks that it believes are critical in order for it to fulfill its > Charter (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-15mar16-en.pdf) > 4. As part of its chartered tasks, the PDP Working Group was urged to bear in > mind that a fundamental underlying objective of its work is to ³create a > framework for consistent and uniform reviews of these [RPMs] in the future²; > 5. The Competition, Consumer Protection and Consumer Trust (CCT) Review Team > convened under the ICANN Bylaws has noted the lack of, and need for, data in > order to evaluate the effectiveness of the various RPMs that were created for > ICANN¹s 2012 New gTLD Program round > (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-rt-draft-report-07mar17-en.… > f), and > 6. The PDP Working Group has developed and submitted a DMPM data request form, > as required by the GNSO¹s Working Group Guidelines, to the GNSO Council for > its approval on 16 September 2017 > (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-sunrise-trademark-claims-07sep17-en.pdf) > > RESOLVED: > 1. The GNSO Council approves the DMPM request as submitted by the Review of > All RPMs in All gTLDs PDP Working Group. > 2. The GNSO Council instructs the leadership of the RPM PDP to work with ICANN > staff and any outside experts to structure the data request in such a way that > the value and relevance of the data is maximised. > 3. The GNSO Council directs ICANN policy staff to forward the DMPM request to > the appropriate department of ICANN Organization for the requisite budget and > resource approvals, with a further request that the matter be considered and > approved in as timely a fashion as practicable. > 4. The GNSO Council requests a follow up report from the Review of All RPMs in > All gTLDs PDP Working Group on the progress and outcomes of its DMPM request > in time for the GNSO Council¹s meeting scheduled for 21 December 2017, and a > regular written report thereafter, at intervals of not less frequently than > monthly, followed by a detailed status report on the Working Group¹s view of > the utility of the data collection exercise on the progress and timeline of > Phase One of the PDP by ICANN61. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary > _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

2 1

Results of GNSO Council vote on our data request
by Mary Wong Sept. 21, 2017

Sept. 21, 2017

Dear all, As you know, the GNSO Council met yesterday after our Working Group call to discuss and vote on the data request we submitted to them. Staff is pleased to inform you that the Council approved the request, following an extensive discussion of the cost, budget and resource estimate as well as the objectives and nature of the data to be collected. The Council resolution is appended below – you may wish to note that an added Resolved clause was inserted to the text of the original motion that was submitted; we have highlighted the new addition in yellow. Staff will now work with our co-chairs to determine how we may best fulfill the Council’s directions, including following the next step in the process which is submission of the request to ICANN Organization for budget work and approval. As Kathy and Phil were both on the Council call and participated actively in the Council’s discussions, they may well have additional thoughts and information for everyone. Council Resolution 20170920-1: GNSO Council Approval of Data Collection Request from RPM Review PDP Working Group * Submitted by Heather Forrest * Seconded by James Bladel, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben WHEREAS: 1. In October 2015, the GNSO Council adopted all the consensus recommendations from the Data & Metrics for Policy Making (DMPM) Working Group and instructed ICANN staff to commence implementation of the recommendations (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20151021-1) 2. The Metrics Request Decision Tree and Working Group Metrics Request Form developed by the DMPM Working Group were consequently incorporated into the GNSO’s Working Group Guidelines (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf) 3. The Working Group chartered by the GNSO Council to conduct the Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs has, after extensive deliberations, developed a list of data collection tasks that it believes are critical in order for it to fulfill its Charter (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-15mar16-en.pdf) 4. As part of its chartered tasks, the PDP Working Group was urged to bear in mind that a fundamental underlying objective of its work is to “create a framework for consistent and uniform reviews of these [RPMs] in the future”; 5. The Competition, Consumer Protection and Consumer Trust (CCT) Review Team convened under the ICANN Bylaws has noted the lack of, and need for, data in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the various RPMs that were created for ICANN’s 2012 New gTLD Program round (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-rt-draft-report-07mar17-en.…) and 6. The PDP Working Group has developed and submitted a DMPM data request form, as required by the GNSO’s Working Group Guidelines, to the GNSO Council for its approval on 16 September 2017 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-sunrise-trademark-claims-07sep17-en.pdf) RESOLVED: 1. The GNSO Council approves the DMPM request as submitted by the Review of All RPMs in All gTLDs PDP Working Group. 2. The GNSO Council instructs the leadership of the RPM PDP to work with ICANN staff and any outside experts to structure the data request in such a way that the value and relevance of the data is maximised. 3. The GNSO Council directs ICANN policy staff to forward the DMPM request to the appropriate department of ICANN Organization for the requisite budget and resource approvals, with a further request that the matter be considered and approved in as timely a fashion as practicable. 4. The GNSO Council requests a follow up report from the Review of All RPMs in All gTLDs PDP Working Group on the progress and outcomes of its DMPM request in time for the GNSO Council’s meeting scheduled for 21 December 2017, and a regular written report thereafter, at intervals of not less frequently than monthly, followed by a detailed status report on the Working Group’s view of the utility of the data collection exercise on the progress and timeline of Phase One of the PDP by ICANN61. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Recordings, Attendance, and AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 20 September 2017 17:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 20, 2017

Sept. 20, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email, and 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, 20 September 2017 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/TC0hB MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-20sep17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p4e3e2ozkw3/<https://participate.icann.org/p4e3e2ozkw3/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=96c8662b94871fcc…> 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/ Thank you. Kind regards, Julie Adobe Connect chat transcript for 20 September 2017: Julie Bisland:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Wednesday, 20 September 2017 at 17:00 UTC. Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Julie Bisland:We would like to introduce Andrea Glandon - SO/AC Collaboration Services Coordinator (she is taking over Chantelle Doerksen's duties while on leave) George Kirikos:Hi folks. George Kirikos:Welcome, Andrea. Andrea Glandon:Thank you! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All Paul Tattersfield:Hello everyone George Kirikos:It might be wise to blast out an email reminder, i.e. a 2 minute warning. Amr Elsadr:Julie already sent one, George. :) George Kirikos:Strange, as it didn't show up in my mailbox yet (usually it's fast). Paul Tattersfield:I had one 4 minutes before the hour George Paul McGrady:Dialing in now David McAuley:sorry to be late Paul McGrady:On the phone! Mary Wong:The GNSO Council meeting is audiocast live for non-Councilors to listen in. The link to the audiocast as well as the agenda for this meeting, and documents, can be found here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_meet… George Kirikos:Noise on line? Mary Wong:Paul is breaking up for us Mary Wong:I can explain he preamble while we wait Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):voice is still jittered George Kirikos:https://domainnamewire.com/2016/12/15/donuts-acquires-irish-top-lev… (Donuts acquired .IRISH) J. Scott Evans:Wouldn't it simply be a matter of looking at the registries that offered a DPML and how many sunrise registrations were sold in those registries as compared to those who had no DPML service? George Kirikos:@JScott: One would have to collect the data carefully, e.g. .IRISH *now* is probably covered by Donuts DPML, but didn't have it at launch. George Kirikos:Also, if we're going to assess the "extent" (quantitative), if there are 5000 DPML marks in 2017, that might overstate the impact of sunrises in 2014, if 2014 only had 100 DPML registrations, for example. susan payne:@Paul - yes, I agree J. Scott Evans:@george. If that is the case, then I don't think it is relavent to sunrise. It might be for URS or UDRP Mary Wong:Staff has collected data on the dates of the various Sunrise periods across all new gTLDs that have launched - perhaps those can be matched to whether they were operated (at the time of Sunrise) by the three ROs that we know offer DPML and similar services? George Kirikos:Right, Mary. J. Scott Evans:I have no idea why this a question and how it effects our looking at the efficacy of the current RPMs. George Kirikos:@JScott: as a "first pass", one can do stats like "Those with DPML had 100 sunrises, on average, vs. those without DPML had 200" (as made up numbers), but that would have many missing variables. George Kirikos:(e.g. the strings covered by DPML might be very different than those not covered by DPML, on average) Marie Pattullo:But either would show that brand holders do need and use the RPMs. Jon Nevett (Donuts):assume that the expknatory note won't be included when the questionaire goes out? George Kirikos:Perhaps it's a "benefit" of the TMCH? Philip Corwin:@Jon--I believe you are correct Jon Nevett (Donuts):Thanks Phil Mary Wong:If it will help, the TMCH Functional Specifications explains how registry operators access the TMCH database. George Kirikos:Although, maybe it's also a way to look at whether the TMCH is competitively priced, etc. (maybe they use alternatives?) Mary Wong:In addition, the Terms & Conditions spelling the scope of Registries' and Registrars' ability to access the TMCH Database can be found here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__marksdb.org_tmdb_publi… susan payne:@Jon - but these questions are not a questionaire to go to others so much as the questions we think this WG should be considering. They may give rise to questions we ask others Poncelet Ileleji:Am fine Paul Tattersfield:@ Susan good to hear because it depends who you ask some commentators are highly unlikely to be objective or provide straightforward answers Jon Nevett (Donuts):ok -- thanks Susan George Kirikos:Here's the DPML Plus description: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__donuts.domains_what-2Dw… Mary Wong:@Paul, that is correct - the Sub Team focused on exact matches only. Jon Nevett (Donuts):#5 is for Claims, no? George Kirikos:(it covered typos, etc. --- might give insight into Greg's expanded match proposal) George Kirikos:They are aware --- due to misspellings. Jon Nevett (Donuts):correct Phil George Kirikos:"more than three "contains" or misspelled strings can be added for an additional fee" J. Scott Evans:Question 5 deals with Claim services. Question 4 deals with DPML and speaks to the fact that there were variants of the DPMLs. susan payne:I have to leave the Adobe room now I'm afraid but will rejoin on phone George Kirikos:Are all these additional RPMs going through ICANN's RSEP system? George Kirikos:(or are some, but not all?) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):anything now goes via RSEP Mary Wong:No comment from staff, we agree with Phll George Kirikos:Is it mandatory, though? Or can they offer it without going through RSEP? Jon Nevett (Donuts):sure Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it is a coinsidence that 100% of requests for any change to services go via RSEP Jon Nevett (Donuts):i'm fine with it as is -- thx Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@ GEorge, there is no list of things that must have an RSEP. It's case by case. J. Scott Evans:I have a question for the Registry Operator representatives on the call. What is the likelihood that registries will respond to us? George Kirikos:Thanks, Kristine. That's what I thought, that it might be vague. Perhaps that's something that should be a "question"? George Kirikos:i.e.did your RPM go through RSEP? (as a data collection task) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@George, because reviewing additional RPMs themselves is not in scope, we declined to include such questions. ICANN has a separate group working on RSEPs Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@George, we're seeking data to inform sunrise Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:research Mary Wong:@Kathy, what would be the question for the non-trademark-owning general public? George Kirikos:Thanks, Kristine. It's a maze of PDPs! :-) Kathy Kleiman:@Mary, for tradeemark-owner general public Mary Wong:@Kathy, thanks Kathy Kleiman:tx you! George Kirikos:Volume is a bit low for Greg? Mary Wong:@Kathy, maybe others on the call can elaborate - but I am not sure that a TM owner will know that they were blocked because another TM owner used a blocking service for a different class of goods or services. They will just know they can't register, right? George Kirikos:@Mary: yes, it's very difficult, because there's no "standard' across all registries as to how those blocked names appear in WHOIS, afaik. Mary Wong:@George, so what question will we be asking these blocked TM onwers? Kathy Kleiman:Apple Records :-) George Kirikos:@Mary: is it a question for the TM owners? Or the registry operators? Or both? Mary Wong:@George, Kathy suggesed we also ask the TM owners who were blocked. George Kirikos:Do registrars get any input? (e.g. do these registry-operated blocking lists reduce the offerings of sunrises offered through registrars?) Kathy Kleiman:@Mary, I think I would rephrase: we also ask the TM owners if they have been blocked... Michael R Graham:@Kathy -- Apple Michael R Graham:@Kathy -- Apple (Records) owned by Apple (Computers) now. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):since those RPMs passed RSEP - they did not rise "significant Security or Stability issues or (ii) could raise significant competition issues" - according to the ICANN process (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource… ) George Kirikos:Some of the visible rules will only show the *current* rules, not the historical ones. George Kirikos:(they've been evolving over time, etc.) J. Scott Evans:@Susan. It makes perfect sense to me. Michael R Graham:Apologies, but I will have to drop off in 15. Paul Tattersfield:if it becomes mandated does it effect their competitive edge? George Kirikos:I think Donuts has (or has applied for) some patents in relation to their offerings? Paul Tattersfield:Phil +1 George Kirikos:That might affect whether they could ever be "mandated" by ICANN, if it violates a patent. George Kirikos:I think Claudio is referencing this: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002341.html David McAuley:That sounds quite helpful, thanks Mary and staff Mary Wong:We are trying our best to get that done quickly while being accurate :) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@George, I think the data about "do blocked domains affect domains available for registration in Sunrise or GA" is the same, right? The subsequent question is "who was blocked"? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:But the RO wouldn't really know if a registrant didn't get the domain name they wanted.... Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 Paul Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 Kristine, sometimes even Registrars did not know that George Kirikos:Sure, that would be fine, Kathy. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree wholeheartedly with Susan. George Kirikos:A review looks at the costs *and* benefits, including the costs imposed on others (e.g. prospective registrants). bradley silver:+1 Susan George Kirikos:If Susan's concern is correct, do we trash this entire document? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:But George, we are NOT reviewing additional RPMs Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:That is not our mandate. Jeff Neuman:@George - but it is a review of the ICANN-mandated RPMs....not all RPMs Paul McGrady:+1 Susan. John McElwaine:Agree with Susan. We need stay within our charter. Jon Nevett (Donuts):Agree with Susan -- also, Just for the record -- blocking services don't impact the ability for someone else to register a name any more than does an actual registration. Marie Pattullo:Agree with Susan as well. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@George, we're asking for some voluntary data to help our RPMs review. Marie Pattullo:Thanks Jon, good point. Cyntia King:10 secs......4 Greg Shatan:Lori Schulman from INTA is not on this call. Mary Wong:@Phil, @George, we do not have any information on that point. Nielsen is a contractor to INTA so the question should be for INTA to answer. Mary Wong:@George, can you remind us what the questions were and the WG agreement to send the questions to Nielsen? Julie Bisland:The next Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Thursday, 28 September 2017 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minute duration. George Kirikos:@Mary: they were sent to the mailing list. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):3AM ... is it possible to make 5AM? George Kirikos:@Mary: See: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002427.html George Kirikos:That was August 31st, at Mary's invitation. Mary Wong:@George, was there agreeemnt to send them to Nielsen? Mary Wong:I ask because I don't recall that as a staff action item, so apologies if I missed it. Sara Bockey:on thursday or tuesday at 3UTC?? Kathy Kleiman:@Maxim, probably not before this coming Wed. George Kirikos:Here was Claudio's email: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-September/002505.html Kathy Kleiman:But perhaps Mary could add your require to our co-charis list of issues and concerns... Sara Bockey:it's on my calendar for the 26th, not the 28th Mary Wong:@Sara, it would be Thursday at 0300 UTC. Thats the normal rotation for every 4th call. Sara Bockey:OK, thanks! George Kirikos:Bye folks. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all David McAuley:thanks all, good bye Louise Marie Hurel:bye all

1 0

FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION THIS WEEK: List of questions on Additional Marketplace RPMs
by Mary Wong Sept. 18, 2017

Sept. 18, 2017

Dear all, You may recall that a third Sub Team was formed to review and refine the original list of questions concerning Additional Marketplace RPMs (initially referred to as Private Protections) at the end of May. Please find attached – for your review and for Working Group discussion on our call this Wednesday - the proposed list of final questions that the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team has agreed on. Please note that the document is the staff draft of the Sub Team’s agreements, and as such the Sub Team may have corrections or additional information that it will provide on the Working Group call this week. The original questions, all Sub Team calls, and interim drafts can be viewed at the Sub Team’s wiki workspace at https://community.icann.org/x/s8rRAw. Staff has also uploaded the attached list of proposed final questions to the “Documents” sub space for the Sub Team. In addition, the Sub Team agreed to archive all the questions that were deleted from the original list for Working Group reference – these can be found under the tab “Archive of Deleted Questions” in the same “Documents” sub space. Thanks and cheers Mary

2 1

Confirming CANCELLATION of the RPM Working Group meeting for this week
by Mary Wong Sept. 12, 2017

Sept. 12, 2017

Dear all, This email is being sent to confirm that there will not be a RPM Working Group call this Wednesday, 13 September. The co-chairs and staff will be working this week on the presentation to the GNSO Council of the data request, and discussing planning details and timelines as we move into the data gathering and research stage for the Sunrise and Claims RPMs in this Phase One of the Policy Development Process. Thanks and cheers Mary

3 2

Updated data request form and motion for GNSO Council vote; action items from Working Group call of 6 September
by Mary Wong Sept. 10, 2017

Sept. 10, 2017

Dear all, The co-chairs have asked that staff circulate to you the motion and draft data request that has been submitted to the GNSO Council by our Council liaison Heather Forrest. The relevant documents are attached to this email. Please note that the co-chairs will be working with staff to prepare an Executive Summary of the request that can be used as a reference by the Council. Staff will also be adding back, at co-chair Kathy Kleiman’s request, the following text that was in the original suggestion on gaming (which has now been moved, per Working Group agreement, to be part of the general research tasks listed as #7 from its previous standalone entry): “… including those describing the registration of the word “the” and single letter marks, and any investigation/reporting of issues/concerns/problems with TM Claims notices and abandonment." Finally, the recording and transcript of the co-chairs’ call with the leadership teams of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures and the GNSO Council have been posted here: https://community.icann.org/x/NSQhB For your reference, here are the action items from our last call, all of which have been completed: 1. Co-Chairs and staff to update and finalize data request to the GNSO Council 2. Staff to circulate links to the recording and transcripts of the joint call between the leadership teams of the RPMs Review PDP Working Group, the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group and the GNSO Council 3. Staff to remove the prioritization columns from the Google Doc when it is submitted as part of the data request 4. Staff to move the question about translating the Trademark Claims Notice from the survey of registrants and potential registrants to the survey of registrars 5. Staff to add Sunrise gaming to the task of gathering third-party sources and delete it as a standalone task 6. Staff to replace the words “scope and cost” with “feasibility” in the task regarding development of a system to handle non-exact matches 7. Staff to correct reference under anonymized data from Deloitte from Sunrise to TMCH registration, and clarify that the data should include both undisputed domains as well as domains in dispute 8. Staff to clarify that data collection suggestions on URS also include UDRP disputes The meeting notes will be uploaded to the Working Group wiki page for this meeting shortly. Thanks and cheers Mary

2 2

Agenda and documents for RPM Working Group call on Wednesday 6 September 2017
by Mary Wong Sept. 6, 2017

Sept. 6, 2017

Dear all, The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, coming up today at 1700 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review draft GNSO Council data collection request (including suggested prioritization levels from the Working Group co-chairs) 3. Next steps/next meeting For agenda item #2, the following documents are attached: * A draft request to the GNSO Council, in the form prescribed by the GNSO Operating Procedures, outlining the request, the rationale for the request, an initial estimated budget and list of possible sources, as well as attachments detailing the Charter questions and data collection tasks being contemplated. * A Google Doc showing all the various data collection tasks identified to date (as noted in Attachment 2 to the draft request form described above), where the Working Group co-chairs have noted a preferred prioritization level to each task. The staff understanding is that we will be focusing on a review of the Google Doc on the call. Thanks and cheers Mary

8 12

Recordings, Attendance, AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 06 September 2017 17:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Sept. 6, 2017

Sept. 6, 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, 06 September 2017at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/NSQhB> https://community.icann.org/x/NSQhB MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-06sep17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p5iuwbk2b0q/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=4c3b942c19b662a3 3da23668e40af4d353ba4e487e0fe89e2b7968116327ab8a> https://participate.icann.org/p5iuwbk2b0q/ 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 06 September 2017: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Wednesday, 06 September 2017 at 17:00 UTCfor 90 minute duration. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ NSQhB&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ZylEGi-ytcsyochM0PJCwXrG2WtOhMCFGBoXilEDxwM &s=0K0u8N7Sjy9Uxc_I1_6XbYliQkX6IBmWK1fVFkDlnNo&e> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_N SQhB&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIg mkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ZylEGi-ytcsyochM0PJCwXrG2WtOhMCFGBoXilEDxwM& s=0K0u8N7Sjy9Uxc_I1_6XbYliQkX6IBmWK1fVFkDlnNo&e= George Kirikos:Hi folks. George Kirikos:Now it asked me for my name/spelling again. Odd. George Kirikos:Might want to blast out an email reminder. Terri Agnew:sending George Kirikos:You can probably automate that, so it sends out a reminder 1 day before (which seems to already happen) and 5 minutes before. :-) Steve Levy:Hello all Philip Corwin:hello all Mary Wong:That's correct, J Scott - we will be the first Philip Corwin:We are the guinea pigs, lucky us ;-) George Kirikos:Mine wasn't a 'retort', since it came before anyone else's comments. Jeremy Malcolm:"questions" versus "rhetoric"? George Kirikos:Sequence was at: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-September/date.html> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-September/date.html Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):Hello All Philip Corwin:I posted a responsive email to Brian at 12:50 pm ET Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):@Terri, I will have to drop the call for SSC call in 53min Mary Wong:@Phil, staff hasn't managed yet to capture your response but we can do so now for AC display if you like. Philip Corwin:That would be helpful, Mary Marina Lewis:Hi everyone Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):I managed to get to the place with wifi Mary Wong:@Phil, got it - I'll put it up in AC after Brian has finished his explanation. George Kirikos:Are all the data requests capturing prior questions? e.g. I recall that we were going to analyze the monthly registry reports to look at various metrics. Was it not requested because we already have that data? George Kirikos:(i.e. have the data, but then plan to analyze it later?) George Kirikos:Data exists, but needs to be put into a form that can be analyzed. Mary Wong:@George, yes and yes (the latter in the sense that the monthly reports are already being incorporated by staff into the spreadsheets we are compiling) George Kirikos:Thanks Mary. Paul Tattersfield:Phil +1 George Kirikos:There's some background noise for someone. George Kirikos:That's assuming the data we have from INTA has some validity, which is in dispute. Philip Corwin:To sum up, we are not free to just ignore the Council adopted DMPM WG recommendations and subseqent procedures, and doing so would leave our future policy recommendations subject to criticism for not being based in data that could have been readily developed. Kathy Kleiman:It was a very dramatic call. Justine Chew:Really? Hmm, I'll have to listen to the recording then. George Kirikos:If data won't change positions, then perhaps those people whose positions are not affected by evidence/facts should consider leaving this PDP. George Kirikos:Since that's not evidence-based policymaking. Mary Wong:We will send around the link and transcript when we get them/ Louise Marie Hurel:Hi all, I apologize for joining late George Kirikos:Or type question into chat. Philip Corwin:recording of that call is available at <https://participate.icann.org/p6upmgoxxzr/> https://participate.icann.org/p6upmgoxxzr/ David McAuley:Thanks Phil George Kirikos:Do we know how much $$$$ was allocated to the WHOIS studies? That's a baseline of how much we should get. George Kirikos:(given this PDP, and that one, are probably among the most important to ICANN) Susan Payne:sorry, I cannot get mike to work David McAuley:Those are major steps Mary jusy mentioned, no? Mary Wong:@David, yes, we (staff) think so Kurt Pritz 2: apologize in advance for this question as I should know the answer. Are we doing this survey because we received a notice that our conclusions should be based in data - or - did we make the decision to do the survey and are now adjusting the methodology due to the new reports on data? Susan Payne:my coment was that I was on the data gathering groups but that this documnent isn't quite what I was expecting. As an example, the TM claims group identified a survey of registrars including data on abandonment rates, but the survey of registrars referred to here is seeking only anecdotal data Philip Corwin:@Kurt-we are pursuing the data needs identified by our subteams, and doing so within the new context prescribed by Council George Kirikos:It'll probably be a lot more than $50K. Mary Wong:@Susan, I hope the second document will be clearer - we added the registrar questions to that document Justine Chew:@Susan, good point. I wanted to ask who was doing a completeness check on all received inputs (from subgroups, WG mail lists, WG calls) -- I presume staff is doing that? George Kirikos:+1 Justine. Kurt Pritz 2:@ Phil - thanks (whew) Mary Wong:@Justine, yes, staff George Kirikos:There were too many '1's in the next attachment, for it to be considered 'prioritized'. :-) George Kirikos:Need to rank the data. Kathy Kleiman:From the Key: "Priority Level 2: Medium Priority (highly desirable for Working Group progress at this stage) George Kirikos:Maybe do it in a Doodle poll? Paul McGrady:Yes. That is better. Lori Schulman:Agree. Guidance from co-chairs would be very useful Susan Payne:agree Kristine Lori Schulman:agree with Kristine as well. Philip Corwin:As you will see, the co-chairs had different views on some of these khouloud Dawahi:yes indeed philip Philip Corwin:One big reason to use professional survey designers is to frame the best possible questions to garner the most useful data Susan Payne:I agree with Lori George Kirikos:Lori: I think part of is that it says "Obtain anecdotal evidence" without actually saying what specific questions are being asked. David McAuley:We would have to have flexibility I would think if we plan to use professional service - they will change it up as far as language goes George Kirikos:+1 J. Scott. George Kirikos:So, there's still a way to go before we get to the actual questions that give us those magnitude/quantitative results that are powerful. Kathy Kleiman:+1 J. Scott Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):do we know of any such survey designer who is aware of the ICANNese lingo? Justine Chew:I truly hope whoever we approach / engage as the professional survey designers have a true appreciation for ICANN's data needs. David McAuley:Great question Maxim, if anyone does I bet Mary does Lori Schulman:and an appreciation of the survery taker as well Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):I think it is the minimal level we need Justine Chew:At the other end, what can be done to compel responses to the (ultimate) survey? David McAuley:"Massive" sounds right to me, @Mary Lori Schulman:Agree, need incentives for responses George Kirikos:There are no 'dumb' questions. Susan Payne:Mary has covered what I was going to say. I don't think it is currently clear from the doc so making it clearer would definitely help Terri Agnew:reminder to mute when not speaking khouloud Dawahi:there are no dumb questions Paul Tattersfield:As long as the WG has chance to review the professional input before the survey is sent out maybe even an iterative process will be needed George Kirikos:Since this is the first time ICANN is going through this process, we don't know the right way to ask for this data, from experience. Mary Wong:@Paul, that is the staff expectation - that the questions will be reviewed by the group before the surveys are sent out Paul McGrady:Agree J Scott. Lori Schulman:It would be very difficult for INTA to promote this survey to its entire membership within the next year given our efforts for the CCT-RT review as we need to prevent survey fatigue. Paul Tattersfield:thanks Mary George Kirikos:@Lori: it shouldn't just be INTA that is surveyed, but all TM holders. George Kirikos:(e.g. random sample from USPTO and/or other national databases, to be representative) Lori Schulman:Agree George. Jonathan Frost (.CLUB):Have to drop off. Apologies. Lori Schulman:but it is unlikely governments will allow this. need to use the associations. Griffin Barnett:apologies for joining late, had a client call come up that just ended George Kirikos:Governments don't need to "allow" anything --- the USPTO database is in the public domain. Paul Tattersfield:@George a subset of large TM holders may be more statistically significant :) Lori Schulman:not just trademark associations but maybe Chambers of Commerce George Kirikos:@PaulT: but less representative. Paul McGrady:I agree with Kurt. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree with Kurt George Kirikos:So, eliminate column 1 entirely? Fine by me. Lori Schulman:I agree with Kurt George Kirikos:(and column 2) Salvador Camacho:Agree Susan Payne:I personally don't give them all the same priority. I have argued against many of them but Kurt is correct that we did this exercise and they made the cut Paul Tattersfield:@George may be - however the two groups usage may be signifcantly different George Kirikos:@PaulT: Indeed they would be....that's why we shouldn't focus on one unrepresentative group when deciding policy for all. Philip Corwin:I will be in the unique position on 9/20 of both presenting the request to Council as a co-chair and considering it as a Councilor Lori Schulman:Phil, would you have to recuse if you are a co-chair? Is this considered a conflict of interest? George Kirikos:I don't think it's considered a conflict of interest -- they have no interest in the outcome of the PDP, just by chairing. Philip Corwin:I don't believe so, Lori Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):I will have to drop this call for GNSO SSC call in 7 min Philip Corwin:No personal or financial benefit or detriment Lori Schulman:I have the SSC call too. George Kirikos:+1 J. Scott Philip Corwin:And Paul is in a rather similar position. Not a full WG co-chair, but a subteam chair Kathy Kleiman:+1 Paul and J. Scott, with a clear discussion of our need for anecdotal and research data Lori Schulman:re: Conflict, just making sure that bases are covered. I wasn't sure and I doubt it is. Cyntia King:I must drop off in 6 mins for call w/ counsel George Kirikos:If they reject that, then we could have another call to prune the list. David McAuley:There is also disclosure about these various roles Philip Corwin:Besides, I vote on Council, when a vote is required, consistent with the BC position, not my individual view George Kirikos:(and should have had more notice, given the documents only arrived 12 hours ago, so not everyone had time to thoroughly review) Mary Wong:OK thanks J Scott Paul Tattersfield:Walk in the shoes of your customer Cyntia King:Agree David Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):bye all Philip Corwin:Diffeering somewhat from Kathy, I believe it may be useful to note UDRPs filed aganst new gTLDs, as a UDRP may indicate more serious infringement where domain transfer was desired. But we can decide that question down the road. George Kirikos:+1 Phil. Paul Tattersfield:Phil +1 Lori Schulman:Need to drop off. Ciao. Paul McGrady:Agree with Susan. Interesting question, but directed to the wrong party. Mary Wong:Should the question be asked of registrars then? George Kirikos:That language of registration might be important, e.g. if there were a disproportionate number of Chinese respondents (to make up an example), because they didn't understand a TMCH notice in English. George Kirikos:Only UDRPs for new gTLDs, though. George Kirikos:Not all UDRPs. Mary Wong:@George, we still have to get all the UDRPs filed after 2012, and "back out" the legacy gTLD complaints. George Kirikos:@Mary: very easy to filter out .com/net/org, etc. :-) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:And figure out what to do with all the UDRPs that include both. George Kirikos:@Mary: Using UDRPsearch.com, etc., it's easy to pick out the non-com/net/org ones. Mary Wong:@George, the point is that we have to normalize the data, and it may be straightforward to some extent, but not a simple click/sort. Amr Elsadr:Note that the purpose of this question is to help evaluate the efficacy of the Claims Notice by identifying which registrations under new gTLDs during the Claims Period resulted in disputes (UDRPs or URSes). George Kirikos:+1 Susan Elisa Cooper:agree Paul McGrady:Agree with Susan. Justine Chew:Agree with Susan, we should not disregard UDRPs filed against new gTLD John McElwaine:Agree with Susan. Kathy Kleiman:All, we were asked for prioritization. If all is going in - keep it all. Phil Marano:+1 George Kirikos:I thought there was already a consensus (2 or 3 calls ago) for both. George Kirikos:UDRP *isn't* a huge task! George Kirikos:URS = get all cases from NAF; UDRP: do a search, and eliminate those that are com/net/org/biz/info/us/etc. Philip Corwin:We still have to agree on what we are sending to Council, even without prioritization. George Kirikos:Can do the search via WIPO/NAF, or an aggregator like UDRPsearch.com. Georges Nahitchevansky:Agree with Susan George Kirikos:But, won't the researchers be able to go back and confidentially get the TMCH data, just like The Analysis Group did? George Kirikos:(i.e. the data is still available from the TMCH, as to when a recordal was created) George Kirikos:I thought that was already in the document? (was it actually dropped) Susan Payne:domainer bloggers are not investigative reporters. but I didn't take this out George Kirikos:I think it is there, under section 6. George Kirikos:Yes, under "SUBTEAM SUGGESTION"., all the sources Mary asked about in a separate email. George Kirikos:(section 7, actually, not 6) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I think my issue is, we're not necessarily "looking for gaming." We're looking for overall Sunrise data. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:The wording is very loaded. Kiran Malancharuvil:agree with Kristine Mary Wong:@Kristine, that's what we are doing now - researching Sunrise Pricing, Premium Pricing, Reserved Names. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Correct. Paul McGrady:+1 John McE. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:We're already doing it...nothing we need permission for. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Or budget. George Kirikos:@Kristine: doesn't it require permission to use staff resources for it? George Kirikos:Or, can we order Mary et al around, without it? :-) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@ George, I thought Mary said they'd already started research George Kirikos:@mary: right. Just want to make sure that we don't get starved for resources to research it fully. George Kirikos:Oops, I meant @Kristine. Terri Agnew:finding the line Mary Wong:@Kristine, @George - staff is starting the blog research (for the sources noted for the WG list) but for the specific terms suggested by the Sub Teams - Sunrise Pricing, Premium Pricing, Reserved Names. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:feedback.... Mary Wong:I'm a bit concerned at how, as well as the number, of hits that may come back the more general the words we use to search are. Paul McGrady:Agree with J Scott's solution. John McElwaine:Agree as that will make it incumbent that we study the facts behind the reporting George Kirikos:@John: agreed, can't take the reports at face value. They're a starting point. John McElwaine:@George were on the same page - but creating more work for us :) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Isn't the first step here, just asking for RFPs? George Kirikos:e.g. there was a long thread that uncovered "shill bidding" at one of the domain auction houses, based on a few simple observations. That led to further research by others, etc. But, if we don't have those starting points, we're not in the position to do that additional work. I agree, it is more work! :-) George Kirikos:@Mary: I think the issue I had is the use of the word "sunrise" in that point. Mary Wong:Understood, George - we will rephrase Mary Wong:Apologies for the careless wording here! Mary Wong:@J Scott, yes Susan Payne:ok George Kirikos:I think that solves it. Paul Tattersfield:earlier Kathy Kleiman:old X Justine Chew:Done. Marina Lewis:Old x - thanks Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Excellent chairing J Scott Mary Wong:We are only at the start ... George Kirikos:Will an updated draft be sent out later, for review, before it goes to council? Kathy Kleiman:Congratulations J. Scott! George Kirikos:Because, we only got this document 12 hours ago. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree with George... Elisa Cooper:Great job J Scott Paul McGrady:Great call! Well done everyone. Terri Agnew:next call: The call for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 13 September 2017 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minute duration. Mary Wong:@George, maybe for information rather than further edits - since the Council deadline is Sunday. Paul Tattersfield:Thanks, bye all Philip Corwin:Thanks all. Good job JS Susan Payne:thanks J. Scott:thanks all khouloud Dawahi:bye George Kirikos:Bye folks. Salvador Camacho:Great call! Bye!

1 0

Directly from INTA's website: What the TTAB has to say about sample size
by George Kirikos Sept. 6, 2017

Sept. 6, 2017

Hi folks, Before I went to bed, I made a note to myself to do a quick search to see what TM practitioners would do in their TTAB statistical studies. This morning, one of the first hits I found came from INTA's own website, see below. In particular, note the statements (from footnote 147): (a) "characterizing 62 interviews as “anecdotal evidence” that did not lend themselves to statistical conclusions" (b) "finding 57 respondents raised a question “as to the overall validity of the survey results" The INTA survey sample size of 33 is far below even those two examples, and was closest to the next example: (c) "finding a survey of 25 pharmacists and doctors to be an insufficient sampling" (start of excerpt, sorry for the formatting, footnotes are #144 to #147; easier to read the PDF I link to) The Trademark Reporter (The Law Journal of the International Trademark Association), September-October, 2014. https://www.inta.org/TMR/Documents/Volume%20104/vol104_no5_a5.pdf C. Representative Samples (page number 1172) Probability and nonprobability methods may be used to select the sample from the universe of possible respondents. However, if the sample of respondents is not representative of the universe from which it was selected, it will be accorded little weight.144 The number of respondents sampled must be large enough for the results to be reliable. The overall sample size for a survey will depend on the number of disputed marks tested and whether the survey includes any control groups. Surveys in Board proceedings often interview between 100 and 300 respondents about each mark or stimulus examined.145 In some instances, the Board has considered survey samples with fewer than 200 respondents to be small,146 and samples with fewer than 100 respondents routinely have been disfavored.147 And here are the footnotes: 144. iMedica Corp. v. Medica Health Plans, 2007 WL 1697344, at *5 (T.T.A.B. June 7, 2007) (“We also find that the survey results are questionable because the survey did not fairly sample the universe of possible respondents and is biased in MHP’s favor.”) and Am. Home Prods. Corp. v. B.F. Ascher & Co., Inc., 166 U.S.P.Q. 61 (T.T.A.B. 1970) (“[T]he persons to be interviewed were not chosen on the basis of a sampling technique but solely because they were known to opposer . . .”), aff’d, 473 F.2d 903 (C.C.P.A. 1973). 145. Facebook, Inc. v. Think Computer Corp., 2013 WL 4397052, at *14 (T.T.A.B. July 23, 2013) (“Dr. Ford supervised . . . interviews: 270 in the test cell and 272 in the control cell.”); PepsiCo, Inc. v. Pirincci, 2012 WL 2930650, at *7 (T.T.A.B. June 25, 2012) (“In total, 404 consumers participated in the survey . . . with 200 consumers participating in one of two ‘test cells’ and 204 consumers in one of two ‘control cells . . .’”); Sara Lee Corp. v. Mahmoud, 2007 WL 4663353, at *5 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2007) (“[S]urvey respondents in the test group (199 women age 18 and older from around the country) were shown a stimulus card . . .”); AVA Enters. Trading Co., Inc. v. Audio Boss USA, Inc., 77 U.S.P.Q.2d 1783, 1786 (T.T.A.B. 2006) (“A test group of 100 respondents [was] shown a card. . . . A control group of 100 respondents [was] shown a card . . .”). Note, the test group may include more respondents than the control group. See Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Mambo Seafood #1, Inc., 2008 WL 4674603, at *7 (T.T.A.B. Sept. 22, 2008) (“The survey was taken of 296 individuals, 200 of whom were exposed to applicant’s mark with the remaining 96 persons comprising a control group that was exposed to the fictitious mark . . .”). 146. 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Morrison, 2008 WL 2385970, at *13 (T.T.A.B. June 2, 2008) (finding 162 survey respondents to be “small,” but according opposer’s survey some weight); Kohler Co. v. Kohler Homes, 2008 WL 4877069, at *9 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 2008) (“[T]he number of actual respondents to the KOHLER HOMES and KOHLER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS surveys is small, i.e., 164 and 163, respectively.”). 147. Clear Choice Holdings LLC v. Implant Direct Int’l, 2013 WL 5402082, at *8 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2013) (finding 90 respondents for each mark tested to be “a small number”); Bridgestone/Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC v. Silverstone Berhad, 2003 WL 1559659, at *4 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 2003) (characterizing 62 interviews as “anecdotal evidence” that did not lend themselves to statistical conclusions); iMedica Corp. v. Medica Health Plans, 2007 WL 1697344, at *4-*5 (T.T.A.B. June 7, 2007) (finding 57 respondents raised a question “as to the overall validity of the survey results”); Am. Home Prods. Corp. v. B.F. Ascher & Co., Inc., 166 U.S.P.Q. 61, 62 (T.T.A.B. 1970) (finding a survey of 25 pharmacists and doctors to be an insufficient sampling), aff’d, 473 F.2d 903 (C.C.P.A. 1973); Guardian Life Ins. Co. v. England, 2002 WL 31173415, at *3 (T.T.A.B. Sept. 2002) (finding it inappropriate to draw conclusions based on a survey with only three respondents). (end of excerpt) Of course, the above focused on sample size, but let's not forget the other part, about the non-representative nature of sample. Re-read the part above that said: "However, if the sample of respondents is not representative of the universe from which it was selected, it will be accorded little weight" That's exactly the second problem experienced with this INTA survey, as previously discussed. Q.E.D. Have a nice day. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

9 18

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [RPM data collection request]
by Beckham, Brian Sept. 6, 2017

Sept. 6, 2017

Thanks very much Mary and co-chairs, Let me preface my email by saying that while I did miss a few WG calls in late August, I have gone back and read the transcripts. And although it is not clear to me exactly how or when, it seems that somewhere along the way, the idea to come up with a list of questions to inform the discussions of this WG (on which I think there was broad agreement – in some cases perhaps only in a spirit of working compromise) seems to have morphed into a call for a survey. Without seeking to take away from the work that has gone into this, to be honest, when I read through these questions, I land on the conclusion that these questions seem unlikely to provide anything other than yet more opinions and anecdotes. Virtually none of the questions seek actual data (which would read something like: how much did you budget for Sunrises, how many would you have participated in if budget was no issue, and how many did you actually participate in?). Also, the answers to some of them seem so facially obvious that the point of asking them is – to me at least – unclear. For example, it seems very uncontroversial to say that we already know the answer to “whether Premium Pricing and the use of Premium Names and Reserved Names lists affected TM owners’ willingness to participate in Sunrise.” In other words, concretely, what is it that the WG now seeks to achieve by issuing a broad survey on these questions? I would therefore like to suggest we consider leaving these as questions for the WG to consider as it formulates proposed solutions, instead of seeking permission and funds (not to mention additional time) for a survey. Before today’s call, I would furthermore like to ask: have the co-chairs considered issuing a preliminary consensus call to see which aspects of the RPMs we should leave behind as incapable of consensus (e.g., doing away with the TMCH or Sunrises), and which aspects there may be scope for further discussions that could lead to consensus recommendations? Finally, one important caveat: I would have absolutely no problem in principle in asking these or other questions to make the best and most informed recommendations we can. I do however question whether the proposed survey will not assist us to this end. Thanks for considering, and speak to you all soon, Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 6:21 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for RPM Working Group call on Wednesday 6 September 2017 Dear all, The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, coming up today at 1700 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review draft GNSO Council data collection request (including suggested prioritization levels from the Working Group co-chairs) 3. Next steps/next meeting For agenda item #2, the following documents are attached: * A draft request to the GNSO Council, in the form prescribed by the GNSO Operating Procedures, outlining the request, the rationale for the request, an initial estimated budget and list of possible sources, as well as attachments detailing the Charter questions and data collection tasks being contemplated. * A Google Doc showing all the various data collection tasks identified to date (as noted in Attachment 2 to the draft request form described above), where the Working Group co-chairs have noted a preferred prioritization level to each task. The staff understanding is that we will be focusing on a review of the Google Doc on the call. Thanks and cheers Mary

2 1

FOR FINALIZATION: List of domain name industry and brand owner blogs
by Mary Wong Sept. 5, 2017

Sept. 5, 2017

Dear all, Staff has, as noted, placed all suggestions received regarding domain name industry and brand owner blogs on this page on the Working Group wiki space: https://community.icann.org/x/ShMhB. As you may recall, one data collection task that had been agreed on was for staff to search these blogs for relevant articles on the topics of Sunrise and Premium Pricing, and the use of Premium Names and Reserved Names lists. If there are no objections to what is listed, or no further suggestions, staff will go ahead to perform the search as requested as soon as we can. As noted previously, our understanding is that the Working Group does not wish for staff to undertake the analysis or draw inferences from any of the articles or posts we may find; instead, we are to compile these into a document (or set of documents) for the Working Group – or possibly a sub group thereof – to analyze. Please let us know if this understanding is not correct. Thank you. Cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 18:37 To: Cyntia King <cking(a)modernip.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW: suggested industry blogs for gathering information; ICANN60 schedule Thanks, Cyntia and George for the suggestions. Staff has placed all suggestions (starting with the initial list circulated by staff) on the Working Group wiki page where this was recorded as an action item: https://community.icann.org/x/ShMhB. We will continue to update the page if more suggestions come in, and will circulate an updated list at the end of this week. Following Working Group agreement on which sources to look at, staff will search the various sources in line with the scope of this set of Charter questions (issues concerning Sunrise and Premium Pricing, and the use of Premium Names and Reserved Names lists). Cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Cyntia King <cking(a)modernip.com> Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 13:27 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW: suggested industry blogs for gathering information; ICANN60 schedule I agree w/ Kiran that publications directed at brand owners should be included. Examples of brand bogs, bulletins & white papers: * MarkMonitor [ markmonitor.com/mmblog ] * CSC Brand Services [ cscdigitalbrand.services/blog ] * INTA [ inta.org/INTABulletin ] * Marcaria [ blog.marcaria.com ] * NetNames [ netnames.com/insights/blo g] * Fairwinds [ blog.fairwindspartners.com ] Cyntia King E: cking@modernip O: +1 81-ModernIP C: +1 818.209.6088 [P Composite (Email)] -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 11:40 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW: suggested industry blogs for gathering information; ICANN60 schedule Hi Paul, On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup(a)gmail.com<mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com>> wrote: > Most people who run a blog do so because they have a passion for what > they write about. I'm sure if ICANN wrote to them asking if they could > provide a list of links to relevant articles for each of the subjects > the WG is looking into most would be happy to help out. It's even easier than that, since most sites have a search function, to find the relevant articles, and/or are publicly indexed in Google, Bing, etc. Indeed, that's what the site owners would be doing to answer such a query -- we can do that ourselves, and save them the time and effort. [that's how I came up with the list of additional sources] What they could be asked for, though, is for sponsored/paid posts to gather *additional* data that this working group needs. They have the audience for that outreach. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/[leap.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFAg&…> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

4 4

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Directly from INTA's website: What the TTAB has to say about sample size
by George Kirikos Sept. 5, 2017

Sept. 5, 2017

Hi Iain, On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:48 AM, CONNOR Iain <Iain.Connor(a)pinsentmasons.com> wrote: > George – on the basis of your acceptance “No one is denying those 33 members > of INTA who answered the survey had > those experiences or opinions.” it is inappropriate for you to persist with > your previous suggestion that this evidence should be ignored. Nice try, but what you left out of your partial quote was the "meat", namely: "What *is* in dispute is whether one should extract any truth about those experiences when talking about the larger populations, namely (1) all INTA members, and (b) all TM holders. Because of the issues with the study, it would not be credible to do so." Which is entirely consistent with what I said, and will persist in saying, namely that the proffered "evidence" has no weight (and should be ignored). The survey is weaker than "a set of anecdotes", weaker than "raised a question as to the overall validity of the survey results", and objectively into the realm of a bad survey for all the reasons previously stated (""However, if the sample of respondents is not representative of the universe from which it was selected, it will be accorded little weight" AND the issues of size, combined). One has to separate advocacy on this group from objective and scientific review. I'm pretty confident that if folks here saw that kind of "evidence" offered by an opponent in a courtroom or tribunal, they'd be making the identical arguments that I am -- and those would be the winning arguments, as they're backed by the long history of science/math/statistics. All the "pounding on the table" in the world won't turn those 33 respondents into the 300+ that might have made them statistically significant, nor fix the fact that they were not a representative sample of the INTA membership, nor the broader group of TM holders worldwide. Paul Keating later wrote: "If it had been issued by any other entity i am sure you would have laughed it out of the room" I'm confident and agree that it would indeed have been the source of great laughter (or in my case, from someone with a background in quantitative finance/math/econometrics, horror at the abuse of statistics/math, followed by laughter). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

9 17