October 2019 - GNSO-RPM-WG - lists.icann.org

ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018
by Ariel Liang 11 Feb '20

11 Feb '20

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

URS Individual Proposals Survey - Open till Friday, 1 November
by Ariel Liang 31 Oct '19

31 Oct '19

Dear All, Per discussions of the RPM Working Group meeting today (23 October), the WG has agreed to use a survey to facilitate the assessment of support for the inclusion of URS individual proposals in the RPM PDP Initial Report. Survey Link: https://forms.gle/noeJjVFbSffcctHi6 The survey will be closed on Friday, 1 November at 23:59 UTC. PLEASE READ A. Please read the “Disclaimer” and the “Important Instructions” on page 1 before you proceed. B. To avoid losing your progress in the survey, you MUST: 1. Provide your email address above in order to receive a copy of your submitted responses; 2. Click "Submit" at the end of the Google Form (the last question on every page allows you to quickly jump to the end of the Google Form to submit); 3. After you click "Submit," you will receive an email to the above-provided email address; within the email, click the "Edit Response" button at top of the email; 4. After you click the "Edit Response" button, you will be directed to the survey to return and complete; 5. Repeat the above steps 2-4 every time you wish to quit the survey and save your progress. C. Per WG’s input in today’s call, staff has added a mandatory question about affiliation and optional comment fields in the survey. The WG members who have already filled out the survey prior to today’s call are encouraged to re-enter the survey and complete the affiliation question (and enter additional comments, if desired). D. If you need any technical assistance with the survey, please contact ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org> Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

2 2

ICANN66 RPM PDP WG Meeting Schedule
by Julie Hedlund 28 Oct '19

28 Oct '19

Dear WG members, Please see below the schedule of ICANN66 RPM PDP WG meetings with the links to the meeting pages. There are three scheduled sessions. The proposed agenda and materials are available at the links to the wiki below (see WG Meeting Wiki with Proposed Agenda and Materials). Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie ICANN66 RPM PDP WG Meeting Schedule: Full Schedule: https://66.schedule.icann.org Floor Maps: https://66.schedule.icann.org/floor_maps/ Saturday, 02 November 2019: WG Meeting Sessions 1 & 2: 15:15-16:45<https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1116883> and 17:00-18:30<https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1116884> -- Room 511A: https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1116883 and https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1116884 WG Meeting Session 1 & 2 Wiki with Proposed Agenda and Materials<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-11-02+ICANN66+Montrea…> Sunday, 03 November 2019: WG Meeting Session 3: 17:00-18:30<https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1116888> – Room 511A: https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1116888 WG Meeting Session 3 Wiki with Proposed Agenda and Materials<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-11-03+ICANN66+Montrea…>

1 0

New Q15 Proposal re: Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019
by Julie Hedlund 25 Oct '19

25 Oct '19

Dear WG members, Per the action item below to draft a new Q15 proposal relating to the discussion during the meeting on 16 October, staff submits for your consideration the following suggested text. We very much look forward to working with you on further revisions as needed, as well as to the discussion on today’s call. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie Staff-suggested draft (based on Working Group discussions and suggestions made on the Working Group call of 16 October): The Working Group understands that, on the one hand, trademark owners may register trademarks and enter them into the Trademark Clearinghouse as part of a business-confidential strategy, including for new products yet to enter the market. On the other hand, some Working Group members have noted that it was not clear, during the lead up to the launch of the 2012 New gTLD Program, that the Trademark Clearinghouse database was intended to be a non-publicly-accessible, confidential database. In addition, some Working Group members expressed concern that potential registrants may benefit from knowing what marks are already in the Trademark Clearinghouse database prior to attempting a registration, especially in view of the likelihood (based on discussions the Working Group has held with the current Trademark Clearinghouse validator) that some marks may consist of generic words which potential registrants may legitimately wish to use as a domain name. The Working Group agrees in principle that an audit of the Trademark Clearinghouse database can be beneficial. Accordingly, the Working Group recommends that, in order to inform the next review of the Trademark Clearinghouse, a small group of community volunteers be formed that will have limited, specifically-defined, confidential access to the Trademark Clearinghouse database, for the sole purpose of working with ICANN Org and any appointed third party examiner on such review. The scope of such confidential access is to be limited to oversight purposes only and must not violate any terms of confidentiality that apply to trademark owners whose marks are already in the Trademark Clearinghouse database at that time. From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 3:27 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019 Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 16 October 2019 at 17:00 UTC. Staff will post these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, Zoom chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-10-16+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Open and Deferred TMCH Questions: Q7 Design Marks: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Kleiman/Muscovitch and Shatan proposals in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q8 GIs: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Tushnet proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q12: ACTION: Staff will work with Maxim to revise the proposal to include context and background, and make it more formal. Make it clear that this is an implementation recommendation, not policy. Publish to the WG email list for review. Q15: ACTIONS: 1) WG agrees to publish Karanicolas proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. 2) ACTION: Staff to draft a new proposal based on suggestions and circulate it to interested WG members and the Co-Chairs. Q2: Proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent: ACTIONS: 1) Martin to revise the proposal with assistance of other WG members and circulate it on the WG email list for review. 2) Staff will check to see if either party to the contract can seek modifications. Discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so: ACTION: WG members are requested to continue discussion on the email list. See the draft survey at: survey [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_kak3MEWFTNeq…>. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Status of Questions Q7, Q8, Q12, and Q15: Q7 Design Marks: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Kleiman/Muscovitch and Shatan proposals in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q8 GIs: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Tushnet proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q12: Proposal from Maxim Alzoba – TMCH Operational Considerations -- Need to improve redundancy and availability of the TMCH. -- Question: Are you referring to the TM database, run by IBM? Deloitte is the validator and IBM is the maintainer of the database. Answer: Relates to the provision of the database. Or could be a issue with the design, it’s hard to say. Need to review how it works. Might not be limited to software functions. Could be dataflow design. -- Need to get background on the cases reported to GDD colleagues. The validation function is kept separate from the database function. If the WG wishes to investigate this further this is probably an issue with implementation as to SLA (there are applicable SLAs). Need also to go back and look at the deliberations concerning the original design of the TMCH and database. -- Information about the SOW with IBM (and for that matter the SLAs with Deloitte) on this Working Group wiki page, under TMCH Contracting: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864  ACTION: Staff will work with Maxim to revise the proposal to include context and background, and make it more formal. Make it clear that this is an implementation recommendation, not policy. Publish to the WG email list for review. Q15: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Karanicolas proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. -- Hoped that we could get consensus. -- Could allow a limited group to access the data, perhaps a future review team? Can’t just open up now when those who participate have been assured of confidentiality. -- Question - is there a way for the WG to reach agreement on how to ensure there is some kind of specific, limited access to the data in the TMDB for oversight purposes only (including future reviews)? ACTION: Staff to draft a new proposal based on suggestions and circulate it to interested WG members and the Co-Chairs. 3. Remaining Deferred Charter Questions (see the attached Status of WG Discussions on Agreed TMCH Charter Questions): a. Close Discussion: TMCH Category 6: Balance: Charter Question 16: Close discussion. b. Discussion: TMCH Category 1: Education: Charter Questions 1, 2, and 3 – Proposal submitted by Martin P Valent for Q2 (1 Oct 2019<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/109482780/Martin%20Pablo%2…>) Q1: Close discussion. Q2: Proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent: -- TMCH should educate rights holders; it is already doing outreach and should do more. -- Needs to be revised to be in the form of a recommendation. -- Amendment: this effort would work in conjunction with whatever marketing ICANN is doing to support knowledge around new gTLD program in general and the TMCH. -- Not clear as drafting what is the remit of Deloitte and what falls elsewhere. Some of this should be done at an ICANN level. -- Not sure involving ICANN at this level is required. -- ICANN is not involved in marketing gTLDs. -- Needs to be some definition/scope. Don’t see TMCH providing education on RPMs. We also need to clarify what is meant by “education.” Is this essentially “awareness” or is something more contemplated? -- In the end we need much more in terms of education. If it’s not in the current contract then it’s worth considering in future discussion. -- Need to be careful how to express this. -- From staff: ICANN Org does not have control over the TMCH provider’s website and information. The contract was an initial 5-year term that expired on the first anniversary of the entering into force of the new gTLD program, and followed by consecutive 1-year renewal terms unless there’s a 180 day notice of termination. See: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864 . We are in the 1-year renewal term. -- Should look at what Deloitte already provides on their website. -- There's a lot of talk about what should be done - but no-one identifying anything actually glaringly missing. -- Maybe it’s more of an outreach question, if the education already exists. -- We should be identifying what’s not being done. Otherwise, we’re just endorsing education conceptually, or providing a generic roadmap for what could be done that will include many things that are already being done. ACTION: Martin to revise the proposal with assistance of other WG members and circulate it on the WG email list for review. ACTION: Staff will check to see if either party to the contract can seek modifications. 4. Discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so. See the draft survey at: survey [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_kak3MEWFTNeq…>: -- Survey does not designate which proposals go into the Initial Report – that will be decided via WG discussion. -- WG members should consider whether or not names and affiliations should be included, although the survey is not a poll. -- WG members will decide what to do with the data. -- Co-Chairs suggest allowing WG members to take the survey as a way to inform, but not direct, WG discussions. ACTION: WG members are requested to continue discussion on the email list.

14 39

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 23 October 2019
by Julie Hedlund 23 Oct '19

23 Oct '19

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 23 October 2019 at 17:00 UTC. Staff will post these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, Zoom chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-10-23+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Open and Deferred TMCH Questions: Category 4: Costs & Other Fundamental Features, Q12: Include Maxim Alzoba’s proposal in the Initial Report for public comment. Category 5: Access & Accessibility, Q15: Include Michael Karanicolas’ proposal in the Initial Report for public comment. (No agreement to include the new proposal.) Category 1: Education, Q2: Staff will assist in putting Martin de Silva’s proposal in the form of a recommendation for review by Martin and the WG as draft text for the Initial Report. Survey on URS Individual Proposals: Add affiliation and a comment field. Send the survey out today with the deadline set at 23:59 UTC on Friday, 01 November. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: Kathy Kleiman has joined the faculty as a fellow at American University. 2. Remaining Charter Questions (see the attached Status of WG Discussions on Agreed TMCH Charter Questions): a. Category 4: Costs & Other Fundamental Features, Q12: Close Discussion -- Revised proposal from Maxim Alzoba. ACTION: Include the proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. b. Category 5: Access & Accessibility, Q15: Close Discussion -- New proposal based on suggestions from Rebecca and others. -- Serious concerns. It seems to suggest that what AG did was a breach of confidentiality. Should proceed on the assumption is that auditing is a legitimate function. -- The AG access was done on the basis of the GAC request. Would this change the ability for GAC to make such requests in future. -- Perception was that there were strongly held views in the WG on both sides as to whether the marks should be available publicly and we would seek public comment (Karanicolas proposal). -- Don’t object to a confidential audit, but not clear on the purpose. -- Is this about future WG access? -- This is a staff attempt to capture the points of the discussion for a new proposal arising from the meeting on 16 October. -- The idea is to dig deeper to conduct a reexamination of a mark already registered by the national TM Office. It would involve an in-depth legal analysis. -- If we wanted to put a recommendation forward dealing with the role of compliance and the way the contracts are structured, we could consider, but otherwise it would be way too complex. -- The issue here is the viability of doing this at the moment, but worth further consideration of how we do that (oversight and access). Important to stress that oversight, access, and transparency are very important principles. -- There is a valid underlying issue to be addressed, but don’t think we will get there on this call. -- Protecting confidentiality, consumers, and TM owners also are important principles. -- If this proposal is put out for public comment then the concerns must also me conveyed. -- There are competing interests that are of importance. -- Only put something out for comment if it is specific, which this is not. -- Summary: Not seeing agreement on this proposal. c. Category 1: Education, Q2: Close Discussion -- Revised proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent -- Tried to understand what information is on the TMCH website. -- TMCH is already doing some outreach. -- Don’t know that the scope is there to require Deloitte to do outreach. -- Martin has not written a specific proposal, and that would be as a recommendation. -- ACTION: Staff will assist in putting the proposal in the form of a recommendation for review by Martin and the WG as draft text for the Initial Report. d. Category 2: Verification & Updating of TMCH Database, Q4, Q5, Q6: Close Discussion (no proposals) -- There was no agreement to put forward any proposals or recommendations concerning these questions. -- Staff will check the audio and transcript with respect to Claudio di Gangi’s suggestions. 3. Whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so: Close Discussion. See the draft survey at: survey [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_kak3MEWFTNeq…> -- Not clear on how much time we’ll have to respond to the survey? Answer: a week or so. -- Survey is not dispositive. It is a useful tool for guidance. -- Can include a question for people to indicate their affiliation. If we close the survey at ICANN66 staff would not have time to do an analysis of how each affiliation answered each question. -- We can show names if people agreed to provide them. -- Add a comment field? -- ACTION: Add affiliation and a comment field. Send the survey out today with the deadline set at 23:59 UTC on Friday, 01 November. 4. AOB: Sessions at ICANN66 Saturday, 02 November: 15:15-16:45 Session 1 17:00-18:30 Session 2 Sunday, 03 November: 17:00-18:30 Session 3

1 0

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Wednesday 23 October 2019
by Andrea Glandon 23 Oct '19

23 Oct '19

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Wednesday, 23 October 2019 at 17:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/y4MzBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw>. Thank you. With kind regards, Andrea

1 0

Revised Q12 Proposal re: Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019
by Julie Hedlund 23 Oct '19

23 Oct '19

Dear Maxim, Per the action item below from the meeting on 16 October to revise the Q12 proposal, staff submits for your consideration the following suggested revised text. We very much look forward to working with you on further revisions as needed, as well as to the discussion on today’s call. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie Q12: Suggested Revised Proposal Text: It is critical that the Trademark Clearinghouse database remains available for access by registries and registrars in order to provide the mandatory Sunrise and Trademark Claims services and, in some cases, additional services such as extended claims periods. The Working Group recommends that the Trademark Clearinghouse database provider(s) be contractually bound to maintain, at minimum, industry-standard levels of redundancy and uptime. To further ensure the effective delivery of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims services, the Working Group also provides the following implementation guidance to the Implementation Review Team that will be formed to advise ICANN org on implementation of those policy recommendations that are ultimately approved by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board: * Consider the advisability of requiring that more than one provider be appointed; and * Review the work of the Implementation Advisory Group that was formed for the 2012 New gTLD Program to assist ICANN org with developing the specifications for and design of the Trademark Clearinghouse. Q12: Original Proposal Text: Given the importance of the TMCH to the roll-out of new gTLDs (Sunrise period), and Claims period in those, which have passed Sunrise period by then the availability of the main TMCH database and services is a necessity. Accordingly, the TMCH providers must provide a better design of the TMCH system -- with improved redundancy and availability. The Implementation Review Team may want to consider requiring the creation of two virtual TMCH operators (with appropriate synchronization and redundancy). In case where existence of only one TMCH provider is proven or regarded to be the only feasible option (either due to financial or technological reasons), the need of the better technological design will arise (not limited to two 'virtual TMCHs' inside of the TMCH platform and requirements to avoid maintenance done the way rendering the system partially unaccessible or partially functional). Here I referred not just to the situation of the total shutdown of the TMCH, but also to situations where some of services are not properly functioning (example - Registries not being able to upload LORDN file, which was experienced in the last years, and which is an grand issue for Sunrise and an issue for Claims period for a new TLD). Some TLDs have ongoing or ever extended Claims periods, not limited to 90 days of General Availability period. From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 3:27 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019 Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 16 October 2019 at 17:00 UTC. Staff will post these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, Zoom chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-10-16+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Open and Deferred TMCH Questions: Q7 Design Marks: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Kleiman/Muscovitch and Shatan proposals in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q8 GIs: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Tushnet proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q12: ACTION: Staff will work with Maxim to revise the proposal to include context and background, and make it more formal. Make it clear that this is an implementation recommendation, not policy. Publish to the WG email list for review. Q15: ACTIONS: 1) WG agrees to publish Karanicolas proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. 2) ACTION: Staff to draft a new proposal based on suggestions and circulate it to interested WG members and the Co-Chairs. Q2: Proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent: ACTIONS: 1) Martin to revise the proposal with assistance of other WG members and circulate it on the WG email list for review. 2) Staff will check to see if either party to the contract can seek modifications. Discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so: ACTION: WG members are requested to continue discussion on the email list. See the draft survey at: survey [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_kak3MEWFTNeq…>. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Status of Questions Q7, Q8, Q12, and Q15: Q7 Design Marks: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Kleiman/Muscovitch and Shatan proposals in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q8 GIs: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Tushnet proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q12: Proposal from Maxim Alzoba – TMCH Operational Considerations -- Need to improve redundancy and availability of the TMCH. -- Question: Are you referring to the TM database, run by IBM? Deloitte is the validator and IBM is the maintainer of the database. Answer: Relates to the provision of the database. Or could be a issue with the design, it’s hard to say. Need to review how it works. Might not be limited to software functions. Could be dataflow design. -- Need to get background on the cases reported to GDD colleagues. The validation function is kept separate from the database function. If the WG wishes to investigate this further this is probably an issue with implementation as to SLA (there are applicable SLAs). Need also to go back and look at the deliberations concerning the original design of the TMCH and database. -- Information about the SOW with IBM (and for that matter the SLAs with Deloitte) on this Working Group wiki page, under TMCH Contracting: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864  ACTION: Staff will work with Maxim to revise the proposal to include context and background, and make it more formal. Make it clear that this is an implementation recommendation, not policy. Publish to the WG email list for review. Q15: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Karanicolas proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. -- Hoped that we could get consensus. -- Could allow a limited group to access the data, perhaps a future review team? Can’t just open up now when those who participate have been assured of confidentiality. -- Question - is there a way for the WG to reach agreement on how to ensure there is some kind of specific, limited access to the data in the TMDB for oversight purposes only (including future reviews)? ACTION: Staff to draft a new proposal based on suggestions and circulate it to interested WG members and the Co-Chairs. 3. Remaining Deferred Charter Questions (see the attached Status of WG Discussions on Agreed TMCH Charter Questions): a. Close Discussion: TMCH Category 6: Balance: Charter Question 16: Close discussion. b. Discussion: TMCH Category 1: Education: Charter Questions 1, 2, and 3 – Proposal submitted by Martin P Valent for Q2 (1 Oct 2019<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/109482780/Martin%20Pablo%2…>) Q1: Close discussion. Q2: Proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent: -- TMCH should educate rights holders; it is already doing outreach and should do more. -- Needs to be revised to be in the form of a recommendation. -- Amendment: this effort would work in conjunction with whatever marketing ICANN is doing to support knowledge around new gTLD program in general and the TMCH. -- Not clear as drafting what is the remit of Deloitte and what falls elsewhere. Some of this should be done at an ICANN level. -- Not sure involving ICANN at this level is required. -- ICANN is not involved in marketing gTLDs. -- Needs to be some definition/scope. Don’t see TMCH providing education on RPMs. We also need to clarify what is meant by “education.” Is this essentially “awareness” or is something more contemplated? -- In the end we need much more in terms of education. If it’s not in the current contract then it’s worth considering in future discussion. -- Need to be careful how to express this. -- From staff: ICANN Org does not have control over the TMCH provider’s website and information. The contract was an initial 5-year term that expired on the first anniversary of the entering into force of the new gTLD program, and followed by consecutive 1-year renewal terms unless there’s a 180 day notice of termination. See: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864 . We are in the 1-year renewal term. -- Should look at what Deloitte already provides on their website. -- There's a lot of talk about what should be done - but no-one identifying anything actually glaringly missing. -- Maybe it’s more of an outreach question, if the education already exists. -- We should be identifying what’s not being done. Otherwise, we’re just endorsing education conceptually, or providing a generic roadmap for what could be done that will include many things that are already being done. ACTION: Martin to revise the proposal with assistance of other WG members and circulate it on the WG email list for review. ACTION: Staff will check to see if either party to the contract can seek modifications. 4. Discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so. See the draft survey at: survey [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_kak3MEWFTNeq…>: -- Survey does not designate which proposals go into the Initial Report – that will be decided via WG discussion. -- WG members should consider whether or not names and affiliations should be included, although the survey is not a poll. -- WG members will decide what to do with the data. -- Co-Chairs suggest allowing WG members to take the survey as a way to inform, but not direct, WG discussions. ACTION: WG members are requested to continue discussion on the email list.

2 1

REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 23 October at 17:00-18:30 UTC
by Julie Hedlund 22 Oct '19

22 Oct '19

Dear RPM WG members, This is a reminder. Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 23 October at 17:00-18:30 UTC. See all TMCH proposals at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/TMCH+Proposals. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Remaining Charter Questions (see the attached Status of WG Discussions on Agreed TMCH Charter Questions): 1. Category 4: Costs & Other Fundamental Features, Q12: Close Discussion -- Revised proposal from Maxim Alzoba. 2. Category 5: Access & Accessibility, Q15: Close Discussion -- New proposal based on suggestions from Rebecca and others. 3. Category 1: Education, Q2: Close Discussion -- Revised proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent 4. Category 2: Verification & Updating of TMCH Database, Q4, Q5, Q6: Close Discussion (no proposals) 1. Whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so: Close Discussion. See the draft survey at: survey [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_kak3MEWFTNeq…> 2. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019
by Julie Hedlund 21 Oct '19

21 Oct '19

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 16 October 2019 at 17:00 UTC. Staff will post these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, Zoom chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-10-16+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Open and Deferred TMCH Questions: Q7 Design Marks: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Kleiman/Muscovitch and Shatan proposals in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q8 GIs: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Tushnet proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q12: ACTION: Staff will work with Maxim to revise the proposal to include context and background, and make it more formal. Make it clear that this is an implementation recommendation, not policy. Publish to the WG email list for review. Q15: ACTIONS: 1) WG agrees to publish Karanicolas proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. 2) ACTION: Staff to draft a new proposal based on suggestions and circulate it to interested WG members and the Co-Chairs. Q2: Proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent: ACTIONS: 1) Martin to revise the proposal with assistance of other WG members and circulate it on the WG email list for review. 2) Staff will check to see if either party to the contract can seek modifications. Discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so: ACTION: WG members are requested to continue discussion on the email list. See the draft survey at: survey [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_kak3MEWFTNeq…>. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Status of Questions Q7, Q8, Q12, and Q15: Q7 Design Marks: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Kleiman/Muscovitch and Shatan proposals in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q8 GIs: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Tushnet proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q12: Proposal from Maxim Alzoba – TMCH Operational Considerations -- Need to improve redundancy and availability of the TMCH. -- Question: Are you referring to the TM database, run by IBM? Deloitte is the validator and IBM is the maintainer of the database. Answer: Relates to the provision of the database. Or could be a issue with the design, it’s hard to say. Need to review how it works. Might not be limited to software functions. Could be dataflow design. -- Need to get background on the cases reported to GDD colleagues. The validation function is kept separate from the database function. If the WG wishes to investigate this further this is probably an issue with implementation as to SLA (there are applicable SLAs). Need also to go back and look at the deliberations concerning the original design of the TMCH and database. -- Information about the SOW with IBM (and for that matter the SLAs with Deloitte) on this Working Group wiki page, under TMCH Contracting: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864  ACTION: Staff will work with Maxim to revise the proposal to include context and background, and make it more formal. Make it clear that this is an implementation recommendation, not policy. Publish to the WG email list for review. Q15: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Karanicolas proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. -- Hoped that we could get consensus. -- Could allow a limited group to access the data, perhaps a future review team? Can’t just open up now when those who participate have been assured of confidentiality. -- Question - is there a way for the WG to reach agreement on how to ensure there is some kind of specific, limited access to the data in the TMDB for oversight purposes only (including future reviews)? ACTION: Staff to draft a new proposal based on suggestions and circulate it to interested WG members and the Co-Chairs. 3. Remaining Deferred Charter Questions (see the attached Status of WG Discussions on Agreed TMCH Charter Questions): a. Close Discussion: TMCH Category 6: Balance: Charter Question 16: Close discussion. b. Discussion: TMCH Category 1: Education: Charter Questions 1, 2, and 3 – Proposal submitted by Martin P Valent for Q2 (1 Oct 2019<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/109482780/Martin%20Pablo%2…>) Q1: Close discussion. Q2: Proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent: -- TMCH should educate rights holders; it is already doing outreach and should do more. -- Needs to be revised to be in the form of a recommendation. -- Amendment: this effort would work in conjunction with whatever marketing ICANN is doing to support knowledge around new gTLD program in general and the TMCH. -- Not clear as drafting what is the remit of Deloitte and what falls elsewhere. Some of this should be done at an ICANN level. -- Not sure involving ICANN at this level is required. -- ICANN is not involved in marketing gTLDs. -- Needs to be some definition/scope. Don’t see TMCH providing education on RPMs. We also need to clarify what is meant by “education.” Is this essentially “awareness” or is something more contemplated? -- In the end we need much more in terms of education. If it’s not in the current contract then it’s worth considering in future discussion. -- Need to be careful how to express this. -- From staff: ICANN Org does not have control over the TMCH provider’s website and information. The contract was an initial 5-year term that expired on the first anniversary of the entering into force of the new gTLD program, and followed by consecutive 1-year renewal terms unless there’s a 180 day notice of termination. See: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864 . We are in the 1-year renewal term. -- Should look at what Deloitte already provides on their website. -- There's a lot of talk about what should be done - but no-one identifying anything actually glaringly missing. -- Maybe it’s more of an outreach question, if the education already exists. -- We should be identifying what’s not being done. Otherwise, we’re just endorsing education conceptually, or providing a generic roadmap for what could be done that will include many things that are already being done. ACTION: Martin to revise the proposal with assistance of other WG members and circulate it on the WG email list for review. ACTION: Staff will check to see if either party to the contract can seek modifications. 4. Discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so. See the draft survey at: survey [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_kak3MEWFTNeq…>: -- Survey does not designate which proposals go into the Initial Report – that will be decided via WG discussion. -- WG members should consider whether or not names and affiliations should be included, although the survey is not a poll. -- WG members will decide what to do with the data. -- Co-Chairs suggest allowing WG members to take the survey as a way to inform, but not direct, WG discussions. ACTION: WG members are requested to continue discussion on the email list.

5 13

Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 23 October at 17:00-18:30 UTC
by Julie Hedlund 17 Oct '19

17 Oct '19

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 23 October at 17:00-18:30 UTC. See all TMCH proposals at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/TMCH+Proposals. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Remaining Charter Questions (see the attached Status of WG Discussions on Agreed TMCH Charter Questions): 1. Category 4: Costs & Other Fundamental Features, Q12: Close Discussion -- Revised proposal from Maxim Alzoba. 2. Category 5: Access & Accessibility, Q15: Close Discussion -- New proposal based on suggestions from Rebecca and others. 3. Category 1: Education, Q2: Close Discussion -- Revised proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent 4. Category 2: Verification & Updating of TMCH Database, Q4, Q5, Q6: Close Discussion (no proposals) 1. Whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so: Close Discussion. See the draft survey at: survey [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_kak3MEWFTNeq…> 2. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0