November 2018 - GNSO-RPM-WG

ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018
by Ariel Liang Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP WG call held on 08 August 2018 (17:00-18:30 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/uwNpBQ Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) == ACTION ITEMS: * Brian Beckham to send to the WG a WIPO FAQ with regard to “Doe Complaint”. * Renee Fossen to provide more information on HSTS-preloaded domain suspension issues in the written responses. * Staff to recirculate the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document * WG members to provide substantive comment and raise anything they believe is missing on the WG mailing list by COB Tue, 14 Aug. Co-Chairs will then discuss among themselves to determine further actions/process. * WG members to finish reviewing the rest of the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document, including page 24-35, during next week’s call. Later period to discuss larger policy issues. NOTES: Review Agenda/Statements of Interest * George Kirikos has become a member of the At-Large Community: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/George+Kirikos+SOI General Comment on the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table Document * The topics in the table were developed by the WG members and deliberated on by the WG & URS Sub Teams. Each Sub Team then did very substantial work on data collection and reviewing what came back. While the actual Sub Team recommendations and suggestions captured in this document are what is intended the WG should discuss - to see if it wishes to develop policy or operational recommendations - discussion over what should be on the actual list of topics should not be reopened unless the WG agrees to do so. We encourage all WG members to review all the previous reports from each Sub Team, and all the documents they worked on. They are linked in this Super Consolidated document (page 2). * The Super Consolidated document is a summary of findings and suggestions by the Sub Teams. The Table does not mean to limit/restrict recommendations from the WG members. If there is any issue overlapping with UDRP, can possibly be carried over to the phase II of the PDP. * Is it possible to add additional topics to the Super Consolidated Table? One WG member said that access to the Courts, for example, is a topic he raised, which isn't in the table. Statute of Limitations, whether URS should apply to legacy gTLDs as a consensus policy, are just a few of the topics not in the table. He brought it up in November 2017 (see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-November/002585.html ) and it was reflected in a later document. That's a critical issue for registrants. if they don't have access to the courts to challenge a URS decision, then it's a huge denial of their rights. * While the chart is not meant to foreclose further discussion, it is a good faith attempt at capturing the work of the sub teams. The purpose of today's, and likely the next few, calls was to make sure this was an accurate and comprehensive reflection of our discussions so far. That said, WG members should bear in mind that we are seeking consensus, so items which are unlikely to achieve that may not be appropriate to reflect as a recommendation, but could be included in public comments on the Initial Report. Also, before adding items to this chart, we will want to work with staff to see whether such topics was previously discussed, and if so, the level of agreement/consensus. In other words, it is not necessary final, but is equally an opportunity to reintroduce topics which have been discussed, but for which consensus is/was not possible. * Could we create a list of "missing issues" -- a list of issues raised in this call (and calls to follow); we can evaluate the nature and weight of these ideas later. * Regarding the Action Items highlighted in column 3 of the table, Providers ST will do a first pass of the responses from the Providers to the follow-up questions, and then discuss the issues that they identified and proposed suggestions with the full WG. Limited filing period (page 3) * One WG member believes that there should be limitation for filing period to bring URS Complaints, so the domain registered many years ago would not be subject to unfair treatment. He said a registrant who owns a domain for 20 years, for example, shouldn't have to be concerned about a policy that can take their domain down with very short time period to respond. * Other WG members said this was discussed, and did not achieve agreement. That would only even be an option if the trademark pre-dated. This is unlikely to be a situation in practice where a URS was brought because it would probably not be a "slam dunk" case after 20 years unless there had been a change of circumstances. * On the issue of delay and laches - as reported by the Docs Sub Team, the data did not provide any basis for which a policy recommendation should be made. The Providers and Practitioners Sub Teams also did not uncover any specific issues that came to either practitioners' or providers' attention. Administrative Review (page 3-4) * One WG member asked whether ICANN should bring Providers into contractual relationship in order to enforce the URS Rules & Procedures. Another member said it probably need to be ICANN’s legal department to enforce the rules & procedure. * URS Providers have MoU with ICANN. Whether it is ICANN’s compliance department or legal department to enforce the rules & procedures, it should not be controversial that Providers must abide by them. * An MOU could be legally enforceable, depending on the circumstances. 500-word Complaint limit (page 4-5) * On 500-word Complaint Limit - Practitioners' survey results were split (out of 12, 5 agree it's sufficient, 4 disagree); results included feedback from some that the word limit was too low: "arbitrary and often insufficient" and "should be slightly increased". * One member said he understands and generally agrees with the decision not to suggest an expansion of the word limit, he wonders if there aren't situations (multi- domain challenges, etc.) where a Complainant or Respondent might be given the opportunity to request an expansion. This point can be captured for decisional phase. * Another member suggested that perhaps providers can provide stats on the average word length of complaints, to see how close to the 500 words they are at present. (i.e. a table of distributions, e.g. 10% under 200 words, 20% between 201 and 300, etc.) Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec (page 5-6) * One member believes that 2-3 days might not be a good rule (e.g. weekends, time to research, etc.). Maybe 5 business days. * WIPO’s approach to “doe complaints” has been very helpful and provides some comfort that the lack of true registrant/registrant organization data masked due to GDPR will not result in a deficient complaint for an omitted respondent. * ACTION ITEM: Brian Beckham to send to the WG a WIPO FAQ with regard to “Doe Complaint”. * Forum is asking for amendment of the complaint in UDRP - under the rules that's not allowed in URS. SMD Files (page 6-7) * SMD files are used for limited purpose of demonstrating the use. * Recollection is that SMD files would be passed to the Examiners and relay the critical information related to the TM registration. That's why some people are surprised by the limited info SMD files would provide. * The SMD files contain some basic human-readable information, with the rest of the information coded. For example, the trademark itself is human-readable but the applicable Nice classification is coded. A SMD file is used by registries/registrars for validation, and as Greg noted, to demonstrate use. From the TMCH provider: http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/help/faq/which-information-does-smd-… * If the intent of the STI was that the SMD file would be a file summary, that got lost somewhere along the way, way before the SMD file was designed by the TMCH providers. * Rules 3(b)(v) Specify the trademark(s) or service mark(s) on which the complaint is based and the goods or services with which the mark is used including evidence of use –which can be a declaration and a specimen of current use in commerce - submitted directly or by including a relevant SMD (Signed Mark Data) from the Trademark Clearinghouse * It might be useful to look at the spec that they relied on. But the real question is how should the examiner get the relevant data about the Complainant’s mark. The SMD file is probably not the answer, if it was ever intended to be. * the Examiner is not required to second-guess the SMD file. Its existence is sufficient that the mark has had use validated by the TMCH. Other Topics (page 7-8) * These are policy proposals can be brought up when WG members are proposing changes to the URS policy itself. Charter asks us to address the question whether the URS should become a consensus policy applicable to legacy domains. Charter is not specific regarding whether such discussion should occur in phase I or phase II. This feedback illustrates that the ST didn't get to propose policy changes, it is for the WG to discuss and propose changes. * when we reference the STI and IRT reports, we need to keep in mind they only had about 1-2 months to complete their work and produce a report; they were not standard PDP working groups and had limited charters and mandates, which were set by the Board * This is feedback from one Provider, who may want to grow their business. Practitioners survey are from Complaints' side. Need to have a balanced solution when considering the input. * There were plenty of practitioners that represent registrants in the Subgroup, although their experience was largely with the UDRP. Duration of response period (Page 11) * One member believes that if the URS continues in its current form, it would affect valuable domain names. The ones the registrants that do want to defend them, 14 days are not sufficient. 20 days may be more appropriate. It should be based on the age of the domain name. If a domain is 3 months, it will have a shorter period to respond. If you own a domain name for 5-10 years, response period would be longer so less urgency. * Several other WG members disagree. The URS is supposed to be an expedited proceeding so increasing the length of time of a streamlined proceeding defeats the purpose. At most, there could be an additional 3 or 4 days extension period for cause. The point is that there are enough circumstances that give rise to the URS 'quick response' that we should NOT make assumptions into policy. It is an assumption that an "aged" domain would not require a fast response. In Mexico, we have not been able to file a domain name case due to Courts ignorance about the subject and also, because it could take years to be solved. We're spinning out fo control - extending the time to respond to URS cases just because a domain registration is not new defeats the purpose of fast action to take down an infringing domain once it's discovered. The URS is meant to address clear and convincing cases of infringement. A person registers a domain name for less than $50 and brand owner find out about at some point and then files an injunction in court for tens of thousands of dollars. Where is the balance. Examiners Guide (page 13) * The WIPO guidance for examiners took 1500 hours to develop. * The WIPO guidance is relevant to the URS, the elements are shown are the same and the differences include the burden of proof, word limit, etc. A lot of WIPO guidance goes to the shade of grey issues. URS is for clear black/white cases, so if there is a URS guidance it would likely be abbreviated. Duration of Suspension Period & Review of Implementation (page 21-23) * One WG member suggests to find out how much cost for registries & registrars to comply with the URS rules and procedures. Need to get data/feedback from the registries/registrars. * Other WG members are not sure "cost of implementation of URS" for Registries/Registrars is relevant to effectiveness of URS. We don't need to do a cost/benefit analysis (the costs & benefits aren't ICANN's), the providers, registrars, registries need to be asked if they are overburdened by the costs of compliance. * There is an action item to contact the registries/registrars about these issues. Timing TBD due to Sunrise & Claims survey launch. Other topics (page 23-24) * One WG member thinks the HSTS issue is not difficult to fix. The Providers need to improve their technical applicability to resolve the issue. Renee Fossen from Forum disagrees. * ACTION ITEM: Renee Fossen to provide more information on HSTS-preloaded domain suspension issues in the written responses. NEXT STEPS * ACTION ITEM: Staff to recirculate the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document and ask all WG members to provide substantive comment and raise anything they believe is missing on the WG mailing list by COB Tue, 14 Aug. Co-Chairs will then discuss among themselves to determine further actions/process. * ACTION ITEM: WG to finish reviewing the rest of the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document, including page 24-35. Later period to discuss larger policy issues.

20 45

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 28 November 2018
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 28, 2018

Nov. 28, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 28 November 2018 (13:00-14:30 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-11-28+Review+of+all+R…. See also the attached referenced documents: 1) responses from Analysis Group to WG members clarifying comments and questions; 2) current PDP WG timeline. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Analysis Group will produce a redlined version of their responses to the WG members clarifying comments and questions based on the discussion on today’s call. Co-Chairs/GNSO Council Liaison/Staff will meet to discuss a) establishing sub teams for Sunrise & Claims to review the Analysis Group survey results; b) additional scope of work for sub teams (including treatment of sub team recommendations at full Working Group level vis-à-vis individual proposals); c) revised Phase One timeline; and report back to the WG. Notes: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates: No updates. 2. Review and Discussion on Analysis Group responses to all clarifying questions/comments: >From Rebecca Tushnet: Q6&8 (registrant), pages 13-16: -- Question: Of the 6 respondents that received a claims notice (Q6) but did not complete the domain name registration (6a) -- how could 2 have received a Cease and Desist letter? Answer: Analysis Group will look into this question. -- Question: Were there any anti-fraud questions? Answer: There weren't any because we were trying to keep it as short as possible. Didn't see evidence of people answering randomly. Can look to see if there were other suspicious responses. -- Comment: Seems like we aren't comparing the same thing -- doesn't seem that question 8 is specific, so we aren't talking about the same scenario as 6a. It seems that 6a and 8 are not asking about the same scenario. Q8: "After you registered your domain name(s), did you ever receive any of the following types of warning or notices of possible trademark conflict regarding your choice of a domain name? Please note that you can select multiple options." -- Question: Of the 9 who received a URS or UDRP notice, do we know the result? Answer: We didn't ask questions on the outcome of DRPs. -- Question: What about the disparity of only 6% got a notice the other saying 5 out of 6 received it? Answer: Wouldn't put a lot of weight on the 94% number. -- Question: Did ask the trademark owners about URS and UDRP outcomes -- is there a way to cross-correlate? Answer: No. Q21a (TM owner survey), page 34: -- Comment: For a single brand you could receive multiple NORNs, some of which they had done something with and some not. What we are seeing is that we have surveyed 2 populations that behave very differently. Everybody in the ICANN panel; any time there is a written response they said it was their TM; that question was asked of the registrants. Q7 (registrant) and others, page 15: -- Comment: Registrant survey: When we look at the claims notice if there is any suggestion of changing the language it could help reduce problems/issues. >From George Kirikos to all surveys: -- Question: Problem with all surveys re: margin of error. Answer: Due to the opt-in nature of the surveys and issues that arise in defining the proper population for some of the respondent groups, we do not feel it would be proper to provide confidence intervals or margins of error for these results. >From Kristine Dorrain: -- Comment: Actual/Potential Domain Name Registrants Pages 9 and 19: Could be useful to correlate. -- Question: Did we capture the names of the registry operators? Answer: We have the names of the registry operators who gave their names, but we promised to keep that information confidential. -- Question: In the new gTLD registry agreement it states that registry operators shall cooperate with economic studies created by ICANN -- did that come up? Answer: We did not indicate in the preamble anything related to that provision. There was an economic study done several years ago that was done by ICANN, but that was to address GAC advice. -- Question: Can we have the numbers of gTLDs in the registry survey? Answer: We can give a range of number of gTLDs for the registry survey. 3. Next Steps/Timeline: -- Might need to schedule two calls per week to make the schedule. -- Sub Teams could be more efficient. -- But the danger of breaking into sub teams and running them in parallel is we might have things falling through the cracks or not capturing dependencies; may need to deal with TMCH separately. -- Could be two sub teams -- sunrise and claims -- and then come back to TMCH. -- Another option could be to have sub teams review the survey results on registrants, contracted parties, TM/brands. -- Concern that there shouldn't be many individual proposals outside of sub teams, unless the sub team has obviously missed something. -- Using Sub Teams doesn't preclude individuals from making proposals. -- From the staff perspective, it's not so much Sub Team "supremacy" (which is not contemplated by the Working Group Guidelines) but the question that was raised is, how Sub Team recommendations will be iterated vis-a-vis proposals from individuals etc. -- Perhaps, a Sub team recommendation that has consensus within the sub team should be presumed to have Working Group consensus. That could be reversed if there is consensus within the WG. Individual proposals thereafter are welcome but would require WG consensus (which as we've seen would be unlikely but not impossible). All individual proposals should have been vetted by now and should be taken up by the Sub teams in their discussions and those individuals should be invited to discuss with the sub teams. -- To recap my suggestion for the record: Staff could email the Notes from every sub-team meeting to the WG so everyone can stay informed of the issues & progress. -- Staff noted that the current timeline is unrealistic, recommends that the first task is to analyze the survey results, and that the scope of work and impact on the timeline should be clear for any use of sub teams.

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call / Wednesday, 28 November 2018 at 13:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Nov. 28, 2018

Nov. 28, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC Chat attached to this email, and the MP3 & AC recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Wednesday, 28 November 2018 at 13:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/JAHuBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-28nov18-en.mp3 AC Recording: Due to a technical issue, the AC Recording dropped and is incomplete: Part 1 (first 34 minutes): https://participate.icann.org/p680y0ydsux/<https://participate.icann.org/p680y0ydsux/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=6e9547a54461439c…> Part 2 (last 28 minutes): https://participate.icann.org/p88oxq5hj3l/<https://participate.icann.org/p88oxq5hj3l/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=6e9547a54461439c…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw Thank you. Kind Regards, Julie

1 0

REMINDER: Agenda & Materials for 28 November Working Group Meeting 1300 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 26, 2018

Nov. 26, 2018

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, On behalf of the Co-Chairs, please see the draft agenda below for the Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 28 November at 1300 UTC for 90 minutes. Please note the following action items as background for the next meeting: Ask Analysis Group to respond to all clarifying questions/comments (SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT and files on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=90771305) Schedule a follow-up Working Group call with Analysis Group to go through their responses on Wednesday, 28 November (scheduled) Draft Agenda: Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates Review and Discussion on Analysis Group responses to all clarifying questions/comments Next Steps/Timeline AOB Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

1 0

Agenda for 28 November Working Group Meeting 1300 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 21, 2018

Nov. 21, 2018

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, On behalf of the Co-Chairs, please see the draft agenda below for the Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 28 November at 1300 UTC for 90 minutes. Please note the following action items as background for the next meeting: Ask Analysis Group to respond to all clarifying questions/comments (to be provided); Schedule a follow-up Working Group call with Analysis Group to go through their responses on Wednesday, 28 November (scheduled) Draft Agenda: Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates Review and Discussion on Analysis Group responses to all clarifying questions/comments Next Steps/Timeline AOB We wish you a very Happy Thanksgiving to all who are celebrating! Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

1 0

RESULTS/NEXT MEETING: Timing of Working Group Weekly Meetings
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 21, 2018

Nov. 21, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Many thanks to those who responded to the inquiry below. Based on the responses the timing of the calls will be: Weekly call time except last meeting of the month: 1700 UTC (keeping UTC the same year round) Last meeting of the month: 1300 UTC As the next call that will be scheduled on Wednesday, 28 November is the last meeting of the month, an invite will be sent for a call at 1300 UTC for 90 minutes. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, November 19, 2018 at 4:49 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER re: RESPONSE REQUESTED: Timing of Working Group Weekly Meetings Dear Working Group members, This is a reminder -- Many thanks to those Working Group members who have responded to this request. Staff captured the following action from last week’s WG meeting: Action: Staff will send an inquiry to the WG on the timing of ongoing calls, with separate queries as to whether 1) the preference is for 1700 UTC or 1800 UTC for regular calls, and 2) what is the preference for the APAC-friendly time for the last call of the month. Per this action item, please indicate your preference as follows for the weekly WG calls held on Wednesdays: Weekly call time except last meeting of the month: _____ 1700 UTC (keeping UTC the same year round) - or - _____ 1800 UTC. Last meeting of the month: _____ 1200 UTC (keeping UTC the same year round) – or – 1300 UTC – or - _____ Other, indicate suggested time: ______. Please note that there is no call scheduled next week. The next scheduled call will be on Wednesday, 28 November at a time determined by the preference of the WG for #2 above. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

1 0

REMINDER re: RESPONSE REQUESTED: Timing of Working Group Weekly Meetings
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 19, 2018

Nov. 19, 2018

Dear Working Group members, This is a reminder -- Many thanks to those Working Group members who have responded to this request. Staff captured the following action from last week’s WG meeting: Action: Staff will send an inquiry to the WG on the timing of ongoing calls, with separate queries as to whether 1) the preference is for 1700 UTC or 1800 UTC for regular calls, and 2) what is the preference for the APAC-friendly time for the last call of the month. Per this action item, please indicate your preference as follows for the weekly WG calls held on Wednesdays: Weekly call time except last meeting of the month: _____ 1700 UTC (keeping UTC the same year round) - or - _____ 1800 UTC. Last meeting of the month: _____ 1200 UTC (keeping UTC the same year round) – or – 1300 UTC – or - _____ Other, indicate suggested time: ______. Please note that there is no call scheduled next week. The next scheduled call will be on Wednesday, 28 November at a time determined by the preference of the WG for #2 above. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

1 0

RESPONSE REQUESTED: Timing of Working Group Weekly Meetings
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 15, 2018

Nov. 15, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Staff captured the following action from yesterday’s WG meeting: Action: Staff will send an inquiry to the WG on the timing of ongoing calls, with separate queries as to whether 1) the preference is for 1700 UTC or 1800 UTC for regular calls, and 2) what is the preference for the APAC-friendly time for the last call of the month. Per this action item, please indicate your preference as follows for the weekly WG calls held on Wednesdays: Weekly call time except last meeting of the month: _____ 1700 UTC (keeping UTC the same year round) - or - _____ 1800 UTC. Last meeting of the month: _____ 1200 UTC (keeping UTC the same year round) – or – 1300 UTC – or - _____ Other, indicate suggested time: ______. Please note that there is no call scheduled next week. The next scheduled call will be on Wednesday, 28 November at a time determined by the preference of the WG for #2 above. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 14 November 2018 at 17:00 UTC.
by Michelle DeSmyter Nov. 14, 2018

Nov. 14, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC Chat attached to this email, and the MP3 & AC recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Wednesday, 14 November 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is also posted on agenda wiki page: MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-14nov18-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p2gz10o56ul/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind Regards, Michelle DeSmyter

1 0

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 14 November 2018
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 14, 2018

Nov. 14, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 14 November 2018 (17:00-18:30 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-11-14+Review+of+all+R…. See also the attached slides. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Staff will send an inquiry to the WG on the timing of ongoing calls, with separate queries as to whether 1) the preference is for 1700 UTC or 1800 UTC for regular calls, and 2) what is the preference for the APAC-friendly time for the last call of the month. Notes: 1. Statements of Interest: Maxim Alzoba: NOTE: I have updated my SOI, I am no longer in GNSO SSC 2. TMCH Refresher Presentation (How it Works): Link to the Functional Spec: https://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec-04.pdf All the three links can also be found on the documents portion of the Working Group wiki space for the TMCH: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864 -- Question: Does the SMD have an expiration date? Answer: It has an expiration and also a revocation option. The SMD has an expiration date, and the SMDRL (SMD Revocation List) can be used to actively revoke an SMD if necessary. -- Question: If the mark is S&Y could one of the marks by SANDY? Answer: The & can be replaced by the word "and". -- Question: how does this work when it is a "pre-registration." Answer: Acknowledged at the time of an application. -- Question: Is the text of the claims notice shown to registrants consistent across registrars? Answer: See: Exhibit B of the TMCH Operational Requirements for the prescribed text of the Claims Notice: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/rpm-requirement… -- Question: Will S&Y generate a U-label of SANDY? Answer: Yes. -- Question: How is the language detected? -- Question: If the language is French, does M&T become METS? Answer: It is determined by the official language of the jurisdiction where the mark is registered. And there could be more than one official language. Also, note, "On translations, the TMCH Operational Requirements state: " The Claims Notice MUST be provided by the registrar to the potential domain name registrant in English and SHOULD be provided by the registrar to the potential domain name registrant in the language of the registration agreement". -- Question: Can we see some example SMD files? Answer: See: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7848 -> Definition of SMD -- Question: SMD File -- some registries for Sunrise had different rules. Example: Spanning a dot -- if the dot was part of the trademark name -- .tattoo -- allowed johns.tattoo. Answer: Will make a note and get back to you. -- Question: On the example of expanding the dots Sunrises -- did these also get claims notices and NORNs? Answer: There were certain registry services and services offered by the TMCH that would have different results. We will check on that and get back to you. what Karen is describing is limited to what the specific ICANN rules require as to Sunrise and Claims (not additional sunrise eligibility requirements and/or other processes offered on a voluntary basis by some registries). -- Question: What is U-label? Answer: It is a unicode label; in Arabic script that would be the U-label. -- Question: Does a registrar have a list of the marks in the clearing house, or is there a real-time check? Answer: The registrar does not have access to a list; they can get trademark information from the Claims Notice Information Service. If you are registry you do have a list, but it is a list of labels - potential list of labels that would trigger a claims notice. -- Question: So everyone new registry would have a copy of the labels -- would that match the marks? Answer: Registries would get the DNL list that would match the marks that were registered. -- Question: Since the list is non-public, what confidentiality is involved? Answer: Registrars and registries have access to the TMCH based on their terms of service. Mary Wong: Here are the Terms of Service that all registries and registrars must agree to in relation to usage of the TMCH/TMDB: https://marksdb.org/tmdb/public/tandc -- Question: Trademark +50 service and how those entries are in the database and how that works? Answer: Allows for a rights holder that has a mark subject to UDRP types of cases to be submitted as additional labels that can be verified and added to the list of matching labels. There is text as to why those labels are in there. -- Question: If a rights holder wants to bring a UDRP and wants to use the notification or the registration in the TMDB proves..is there a method to determine that the mark was in the TMCH at that time. Is there another method to prove to a third party that your mark is in the TMCH. Answer: If it is my mark I can show that it was verified as of some date. Not sure if there is another way. -- Question: With regards to the notices that go out to the trademark holder is there a database that a trademark holder got a notice on a certain date? Answer: Not that we know of. The more general information is that the registry claims period was from this date to this date and the notice would have been sent. -- Question: Talks at one time about the issue of one clearing house or multiple clearing houses, does staff have a perspective? Answer: No we don't have a position; at the time that the clearing house was set up for volume or geographic scope or other reasons it might make sense to have a number of validators. To our knowledge there haven't been discussions on that. -- Question: The contracts that ICANN has with Deloitte -- how long does it last and who is overseeing that contract and ensuring that Deloitte is abiding by its rules? Answer: We don't have the exact expiration date, but believe it was a 5-year contract. The renewal process was that it was automatic unless cancelled. “The initial term of the agreement expires on the fifth anniversary of ICANN’s entry into a registry agreement under the new gTLD program, with consecutive one-year renewals thereafter unless either party provides 180 days’ notice of intent not to renew." -- Question: Is there something if you as a rights holder filed under TMCH and you didn't get a notice, is there a way that you can demonstrate that no notice was sent out? Answer: As to whether the notice was sent, you could submit an inquiry into ICANN Contractual Compliance. -- Question: Could we get a copy of the agreements with Deloitte? Also, did ICANN ever audit Deloitte? Answer: We will send the links and we will check on the audit question. See: Summary of IBM agreement: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/database-framew… -- Question: What happens if the TMCH is done? Answer: If we get notices we will try to notify people. 3. Timing of WG meetings: -- ACTION: Staff will send an inquiry to the list re: 1700 UTC versus 1800 UTC. Include a separate inquiry concerning the timing of the APAC-friendly call at the end of the month. -- There is no meeting scheduled for 21 November. The next meeting is scheduled for 28 November, if necessary.

1 0