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

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP WG on 25 January 2017
by Michelle DeSmyter Jan. 25, 2017

Jan. 25, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call held on Wednesday, 25 January 2017 at 04:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page:https://community.icann.org/x/L53DAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-25jan17-en.mp3<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-25jan17-en.mp3[mailer.samanage.…> <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-25jan17-en.mp3[mailer.samanage.…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<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/L53DAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter Adobe Connect chat transcript for 25 January 2017: Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 25 January 2017 at 04:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Meeting page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… George Kirikos:Hi everyone. Michelle DeSmyter:Hello George! George Kirikos:Hi Michelle. George Kirikos:brb Petter Rindforth:God Morning! Mary Wong:Hello Laurie, Petter, George! Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:Geeetings all Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:hola George Kirikos:Hi Mary and Vaibhav. Mary Wong:Hi Vaibhav, Justine, Grace, J Scott and all! GraceM:Hi Mary. Hi everyone! Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:Greetings Mary Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All David McAuley (RySG):Hi Mary Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):7am for me Jonathan Agmon:Hello all David McAuley (RySG):is sound muffled for anyone else? Mary Wong:The follow up questions are also captured on the slides Mary Wong:On Q2, note that the follow up question from last week's call was, WHO should the TMCH (if it is the TMCH) be educating besides rights-holders? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 for education from ICANN (after all .. there are exceed funds from new gTLD program) Mary Wong:@Maxim, what to do with the auction proceeds from the 2012 New gTLD Program is the subject of a new Cross Community Working Group so it's not known at this time how those funds will be used. Jonathan Agmon:Would imposing educational duties on the TMCH mean an increase of their fees? Kathty Kleiman:@Jonathan: Since it would not require any additional "learning effort" on the part of the TMCH (they're already the experts), having additional educational materials available on their website shoulld not be much additional cost. Michael Flemming:I am all for the TMCH to educate rights holders, domain name registrants and potential registrants, but haven't they already been doing that? I worked with staff from the TMCH in order to help educate rights holders 3/4 years ago when this all started. We are in agreement that there is incentive opportunity, but there is a large cost associated with educating people. It has to be done in the right and correct way. Unless you communicate the need for the TMCH to rights holders, then none of them will buy into it. The initial impression of the TMCH that rights holders have is that new gTLDs and TMCH is too troublesome and it is easier to just not be associated with. I think we need to look at this as a community perspective, as well. Mary Wong:We save the chats, but encourage everyone to speak up so your remarks are captured in the recording and meeting transcript. Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:@Jonathan Excellent Q. It will become an entry barrier for main nTLDs Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:especially for Not-for-profitorgs Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:@JSoctt Coomunity effortss Mary Wong:@Vaibhav, what do you mean by community efforts? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I don't oppose having the TMCH post official training materials on their site, once ICANN creates it. But the TMCH just has no way to tell the customers of any particular registry or registrar what their experience will be. Petter Rindforth:ICANN: Education, TMCH: Basic information Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I think community does not have capacity or funds for education Mary Wong:Yes Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:@Mary - Wile TMCH takes the lead, but the Registries shuld have equal participation Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Perfect Heather Mary Wong:@Vaibhav, how do you mandate that? Or do you leave it to registries (and maybe registrars) to decide to do it? George Kirikos:ICANN/TMCH together can provide materials that the registrars convey to customers, in a hybrid. But, ultimately it's the registrars who deal with registrants. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Registrars have contact with the Registrants who use TMCH, and Registries do not Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes, the TMCH should educate on how to use their system. But the registrants do not use the TMCH, they experience "side effects." Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:@Maxim @Mary If Registries chage a premium on Domain names then they ming keep a couple of $s for education & awareness on the side Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:why all profit is to be Paid by the consumer ? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1Maxim and registries develop sunrise policies. Mary Wong:@Maxim that is true for Claims, though not necessarily for Sunrise or Notice of Registered Name (NORN) after a registration matching a TMCH mark has taken place, right? Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:& Registries act s agents of the educatinn for Registrants on behalf of Registries Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Vaibhav , TCMH is a product of new gTLD progam, and exceed funds are .. IMHO just unused for education (new gTLD awareness also) Mary Wong:@J Scott, ok Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:Yes Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Mary , please do not mix technical interaction of computers and human interaction with customers (education of omputer API level does not work) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):*computer API Kathty Kleiman:@Mary: I think Kristine's suggestion above is worth saving in our Notes. It's part of the Hybrid solution... Kathty Kleiman:... suggested by Heather and others. Mary Wong:@Kathy, sorry I missed it - can someone rephrase the Hybrid solution? Kathty Kleiman:TMCH + ICANN Mary Wong:We are expecting feedback from the TMCH Providers Mary Wong:Nothing yet received from any registrar George Kirikos:Here was Greg Shatan's comment: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-January/000932.html Mary Wong:We will recirculate the folllow up questions to Q1 & 2 to the list, plus notes from today Kathty Kleiman:@Mary: as a note to the "hybrid," perhaps we could add Kristine's comment -- I don't oppose having the TMCH post official training materials on their site, once ICANN creates it. But the TMCH just has no way to tell the customers of any particular registry or registrar what their experience will be. Justine Chew:Q3 (a) --- https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademark-2Dclearin… Michael Flemming:Who are private parties? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:We should seek anecdotal data for at least #2 as well. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):IBM is technical part and they might educate about technical side only (and most probably we talk about legal part of interation) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):so it looks like we need to ask Deloitte.. Mary Wong:Note that one of the questions that the TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team sent to the TMCH Providers concerned the number of private contracts they had for using the TMCH Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:@Jscott You are away from the Mic please close up Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:Npe Michael Flemming:Yes Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:lost volume George Kirikos:Low volume, but I can hear you. Kathty Kleiman:I think that's right Heather Forrest:I heard you, J Scott Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:yup David McAuley (RySG):better Michael Flemming:Loud and clear George Kirikos:(via the phone bridge) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I hear Mary Wong:The specific question asked of Deloitte and IBM was: "Can you tell us who is using the TMDB and under what circumstances (other than for providing the Sunrise and Claims Notice services required by ICANN)? How many "blocking"-type services are you supporting (e.g. protected marks lists), and with/for whom? Are you aware of other services that may be provided by registry operators using the TMDB other than via contract with you?" Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):just took look at the Russian page of https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademark-2Dclearin… - they should have used translators and not automated translation ...I hope the education is properly delivered not only in English Michael Flemming:Yes! Michael Flemming:Thank you. Mary Wong:We are expecting the TMCH Providers to provide us with their responses - I will follow up with my GDD colleagues to send a reminder Michael Flemming:I think the simple answer to this question is that information is available, but the quality of information is not very good. The best and fastest answer possible is to send it to the TMCH Providers. Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:@Jscott : Y dont v get them here in the group and share their perspecctive Mary Wong:@Vaibhav, I believe that this is something the co-chairs are open to, depending on the actual responses we get. Michael Flemming:Because they're asleep :) Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:@MicF ha ha ha good one Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:Lets wake them from the Yellow pages ;-) Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:@Marry Yes My Suggestion Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG::-) Kathty Kleiman:I like that idea! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):we need to be sure that we have feedback from them Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:Infact they could be a part of some Calls in order to Speed up the discussion on this Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:Its like Interview 1 by 1 in order to set the perspective on the Qs right Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:@Maxim Correct Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:right Michael Flemming:Oh, I am pretty sure they will be there. Mary Wong::) Kathty Kleiman:It has been a long day!! Mary Wong:@J Scott, yes, staff will do that George Kirikos:Bye folks. George Kirikos::-) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:LOL Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:ha ha ha Kathty Kleiman:Good morning; good night! Mary Wong:Thanks everyone David McAuley (RySG):Good bye all Lillian Fosteris:Good night/good day! Heather Forrest:Thanks J Scott and Mary! Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks everyone, thanks J Scott! Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:Thanks Guys have a good One GraceM:thank you all Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:GNight

2 1

Proposed agenda for Working Group call at 0400 UTC (Tuesday night for the Americas; Wednesday for EMEA & APAC)
by Mary Wong Jan. 24, 2017

Jan. 24, 2017

Dear all, For the Working Group call that will take place at 0400 UTC (around 8 hours from now – Tuesday night for some members and Wednesday for others), subject to further changes from our co-chairs, we will continue to discuss the TMCH Charter questions in Category 1 (Education) and return to the three registry responses we received to the TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team questions: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Continue discussion on TMCH Charter Questions Category 1 (see further below) 3. Continue review of Registry responses received to TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team questions (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63151397/18.1%20Registry%2…) 4. Next steps/next meeting For Agenda Item #2, the discussion will focus on the follow up questions that were sent to this mailing list last week, i.e.: 1. On whether the TMCH is “clearly communicating” its criteria and process (including for submission of entries by rights holders and objections to specific entries and recordals in the TMCH): · It is possible that the TMCH Guidelines themselves (e.g. criteria and process for submission of entries) are clearly communicated – the problem could be with a perceived inconsistency of approach (e.g. it is not always clear what the grounds for rejecting submissions are) and an apparent piecemeal approach to implementation (e.g. it is not clear what else will be accepted as proof of use). Comments? · Has anyone reported or does anyone know if there has been any issue or trouble concerning multiple registrations of the same trademark by multiple trademark holders? · Can we get more information about what the TMCH’s “learning curve” has been between its establishment and initial operations, and now? · Is there any publicly-available information on how to object to TMCH entries and recordals? How can objections be lodged if the TMCH database is not publicly searchable? 2. On whether the TMCH should be responsible for education: · Who should the TMCH be educating besides rights holders – e.g. registrants, users, the community at large? You can find the full set of TMCH Charter questions here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58729944/Clean%20-%20TMCH%… Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 07:44 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Follow up from Working Group call on 18 January 2017 1. On whether the TMCH is “clearly communicating” its criteria and process (including for submission of entries by rights holders and objections to specific entries and recordals in the TMCH): · It is possible that the TMCH Guidelines themselves (e.g. criteria and process for submission of entries) are clearly communicated – the problem could be with a perceived inconsistency of approach (e.g. it is not always clear what the grounds for rejecting submissions are) and an apparent piecemeal approach to implementation (e.g. it is not clear what else will be accepted as proof of use). Comments? · Has anyone reported or does anyone know if there has been any issue or trouble concerning multiple registrations of the same trademark by multiple trademar holders? · Can we get more information about what the TMCH’s “learning curve” has been between its establishment and initial operations, and now? · Is there any publicly-available information on how to object to TMCH entries and recordals? How can objections be lodged if the TMCH database is not publicly searchable? 2. On whether the TMCH should be responsible for education: · Who should the TMCH be educating besides rights holders – e.g. registrants, users, the community at large?

1 0

PLEASE CONSIDER A REPLY: Proposed Working Group call next week
by Mary Wong Jan. 19, 2017

Jan. 19, 2017

Dear Members, Those Members who were present at the Working Group meeting held earlier today agreed to go ahead with the meeting scheduled for next Wednesday. In view, however, of the fact that quite a few Members will be traveling to NamesCon at that time, coupled with its being the first meeting time that is rotating to 0400 UTC, it will be helpful if we can get a sense of how many Members will not be able to attend the meeting. As such, please take a moment to reply to me if you know you will NOT be on the call next Wednesday at 0400 UTC – note that there’s no need to Reply All or reply at all if you plan to be on the call. Thank you! Cheers Mary

8 8

Follow up from Working Group call on 18 January 2017
by Mary Wong Jan. 19, 2017

Jan. 19, 2017

Dear all, As a follow up to the Working Group call held yesterday, please note that much of the informational materials referenced or requested on the call is available for viewing and download on our wiki pages, for example: · Community concerns as raised in public comments to various reports and papers published prior to our PDP (e.g. the 2015 RPM Staff Paper, our PDP Preliminary Issue Report, the 2011 Preliminary Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP, and the 2009 Special Trademark Interests (STI) and Implementation Recommendations Team (IRT) reports): https://community.icann.org/x/4SWAAw · We have also created specific informational pages for each RPM that we are reviewing; for the TMCH, you can find operational, functional and other documents defining the scope of the TMCH (including the 2012 Implementation Assistance Group (IAG) report mentioned on the call), other background to the development of the TMCH, and current metrics and reports here: https://community.icann.org/x/0AusAw Several questions and observations emerged from the discussion yesterday, for which we hope discussion can be continued on this mailing list and the call next week. On the call, discussions focused on the first two questions under TMCH Charter Category 1 (Education). Please provide your further thoughts and comments on the following discussion points: 1. On whether the TMCH is “clearly communicating” its criteria and process (including for submission of entries by rights holders and objections to specific entries and recordals in the TMCH): · It is possible that the TMCH Guidelines themselves (e.g. criteria and process for submission of entries) are clearly communicated – the problem could be with a perceived inconsistency of approach (e.g. it is not always clear what the grounds for rejecting submissions are) and an apparent piecemeal approach to implementation (e.g. it is not clear what else will be accepted as proof of use). Comments? · Has anyone reported or does anyone know if there has been any issue or trouble concerning multiple registrations of the same trademark by multiple trademar holders? · Can we get more information about what the TMCH’s “learning curve” has been between its establishment and initial operations, and now? · Is there any publicly-available information on how to object to TMCH entries and recordals? How can objections be lodged if the TMCH database is not publicly searchable? 2. On whether the TMCH should be responsible for education: · Who should the TMCH be educating besides rights holders – e.g. registrants, users, the community at large? For those Members who were not on the call, you may wish to review the MP3 recording and meeting transcript to see the context and remarks relating to the above points. These – along with the slides that were used during the call - have been posted to the wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/x/JZ3DAw. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

2 1

FW: Input from Paul Keating about the three Category 1 TMCH Charter questions on the Working Group agenda today
by Mary Wong Jan. 18, 2017

Jan. 18, 2017

Dear all, As referenced by Kathy during the Working Group call held a short while ago, please find below the complete email from Working Group Member Paul Keating where he comments on the three questions that make up Category 1 (Education) of our TMCH review. Paul has confirmed that he had intended to share these comments with the full group. Cheers Mary From: Paul Keating <Paul(a)law.es> Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 11:31 Below I have attempted to provide some responses to the questions for the group’s consideration: For Agenda Item #2, the agreed Charter questions are: 1. Is the TMCH clearly communicating: (i) the criteria it applies when determining whether or not to accept marks for entry into the TMCH; (ii) options for rights-holders when their submissions are rejected; and (iii) options for third parties who may have challenges to or questions about recordals in the TMCH? PRK: I have no comment on (I) and (ii). However, as to (iii), there should be a method for challenging the registration given the brand spectrum of the use and power of the registration – not only to secure exclusivity as to domain name registrations but to potentially chill the registration of domain names in cases in which such registrations ado exist. 2. Should the TMCH be responsible for educating rights-holders, domain name registrants and potential registrants about the services it provides? If so, how? If the TMCH is not to be responsible, who should be? PRK: Yes. IMHO the TMCH has been less than stellar at education and relies too heavily upon registries/registrars and other third parties to do so. T His is not surprising given the background of its founders who launched .EU and .BE. In ADDITION (not in place of) the TMCH effort, ICANN should ensure that adequate information is published and that launches are accompanied with adequate information of not only the impact of the TMCH registrations but include information on how to challenge such registrations. 3. What information on the following aspects of the operation of the TMCH is available and where can it be found? (a) TMCH services; (b) Contractual relationships between the TMCH providers and private parties; PRK: There is little direct information to be found IMHO. This leads to a lack of actual or perceived transparency which should be disfavored. and (c) With whom does the TMCH share data and for what purposes? PRK: I would very much like to know the answer to this question. I would also like to know if access to the TMCH database by any third party is limited in any manner by contract. Once we have this information then we can consider an appropriate review and come forth with any relevant suggestions. Thank you, Paul Keating From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 7:49 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposed agenda and materials for RPM Working Group call on 18 January 2017 Dear all, The proposed agenda for the next Working Group Members’ call on 18 January 2017 is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Overview and discussion of TMCH Charter questions, Category 1: Education (see further below) 3. [if time permits] Continue review of registry operator responses to data gathering request 4. Next steps/next meeting For Agenda Item #2, the agreed Charter questions are: 1. Is the TMCH clearly communicating: (i) the criteria it applies when determining whether or not to accept marks for entry into the TMCH; (ii) options for rights-holders when their submissions are rejected; and (iii) options for third parties who may have challenges to or questions about recordals in the TMCH? 2. Should the TMCH be responsible for educating rights-holders, domain name registrants and potential registrants about the services it provides? If so, how? If the TMCH is not to be responsible, who should be? 3. What information on the following aspects of the operation of the TMCH is available and where can it be found? (a) TMCH services; (b) Contractual relationships between the TMCH providers and private parties; and (c) With whom does the TMCH share data and for what purposes? Additional Notes on Agenda Item #2: ? You can find the full list of final TMCH Charter questions and their categories here: https://community.icann.org/x/2CWAAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. ? Staff has also compiled a wiki page containing background information, operational requirements and other relevant materials on the TMCH: https://community.icann.org/x/0AusAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. For Agenda Item #3, please refer to the compilation of responses received so far from 3 registry operators (attached for recirculation; a copy can also be downloaded from https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61606228/Registry%20Respon…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do…>. Please note that the co-chairs and staff are working on getting the same questions out in a survey format, to see if additional responses may be forthcoming from other registry operators. Thanks and cheers Mary _______________________________________________ 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

1 0

Proposed agenda and materials for RPM Working Group call on 18 January 2017
by Mary Wong Jan. 18, 2017

Jan. 18, 2017

Dear all, The proposed agenda for the next Working Group Members’ call on 18 January 2017 is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Overview and discussion of TMCH Charter questions, Category 1: Education (see further below) 3. [if time permits] Continue review of registry operator responses to data gathering request 4. Next steps/next meeting For Agenda Item #2, the agreed Charter questions are: 1. Is the TMCH clearly communicating: (i) the criteria it applies when determining whether or not to accept marks for entry into the TMCH; (ii) options for rights-holders when their submissions are rejected; and (iii) options for third parties who may have challenges to or questions about recordals in the TMCH? 2. Should the TMCH be responsible for educating rights-holders, domain name registrants and potential registrants about the services it provides? If so, how? If the TMCH is not to be responsible, who should be? 3. What information on the following aspects of the operation of the TMCH is available and where can it be found? (a) TMCH services; (b) Contractual relationships between the TMCH providers and private parties; and (c) With whom does the TMCH share data and for what purposes? Additional Notes on Agenda Item #2: · You can find the full list of final TMCH Charter questions and their categories here: https://community.icann.org/x/2CWAAw. · Staff has also compiled a wiki page containing background information, operational requirements and other relevant materials on the TMCH: https://community.icann.org/x/0AusAw. For Agenda Item #3, please refer to the compilation of responses received so far from 3 registry operators (attached for recirculation; a copy can also be downloaded from https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61606228/Registry%20Respon…) Please note that the co-chairs and staff are working on getting the same questions out in a survey format, to see if additional responses may be forthcoming from other registry operators. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

ICANN Policy staff Workshop 23 - 27 January 2017
by Nathalie Peregrine Jan. 12, 2017

Jan. 12, 2017

Dear all, ICANN Policy staff will be holding its annual Policy Workshop in Los Angeles from Monday 23 January 2017 to Friday 27 January 2017. Staff will be replying to email requests, but there will be delays. Thank you for your understanding, GNSO SO/AC Support

1 0

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group
by Terri Agnew Jan. 11, 2017

Jan. 11, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call held on Wednesday, 04 January 2017 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/EZ3DAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-04jan17-en.mp3 The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Connect chat transcript for 04 January 2017: Terri Agnew:Happy New Year! Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 04 January 2017. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… George Kirikos:Hi folks. Happy New Year. Philip Corwin:Hello all and happy new year. I'll be stepping away until the call commences Paul Tattersfield:Hello everyone George Kirikos:Hey Paul. How's it going? Paul Tattersfield:Great Goerge and you? I see you had some snow https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-… George Kirikos:I'm doing fine, thanks. I'm cheering for global warning, to make our winters milder here. :-) Elizabeth Featherman:Happy new year! Sorry I have a client call coming up the same time. I hope to rejoin the meeting as soon as possible. GraceM:can hear you loud and clear Mary Wong:We will be starting shortly. J. Scott Evans:I can not dial in. Is 866.692.5726 the correct number? Mary Wong:J. Scott, yes George Kirikos:Be sure to have a 1 up front. J. Scott Evans:I only get a fast busy signal. George Kirikos:1-866-692-5726 George Kirikos:Have there been any new responses since December 13th? Mary Wong:@George, no George Kirikos:Only 3 respondents, and PIR/AFNIC are relatively small registry operators. Terri Agnew:documents are also attached on agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… George Kirikos:Mary has her hand up. Brian Cimbolic:well at PIR we do opreate .org, but fair point in the new TLD arena :) George Kirikos:@Brian: yes, that's what I meant, i.e. in relation to TMCH for new gTLDs. Brian Cimbolic:@george - yep absolutely George Kirikos:More than 3 registries have participants in this PDP, I believe. Kathy Kleiman:Agree with J. Scott that direct communication with New gTLD Registries may be more effective. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):I believe answers from the registrars for this question is going to be more dispositive. Registries only get access to the list of strings, but they do not get the full list of marks in the TMCH or the other data associated with the trademarks Robin Gross:Direct communication could be very helpful. Vinzenz Heussler:I agree with Kathy Brian Cimbolic:I think direct communication is a good idea - but also, perhaps asking the other Registries that are part of the PDP to respond George Kirikos:Sure, direct communication is fine, if the RySG isn't doing a good job getting the participation. GraceM:I wonder how many of the new gTLD registries responded...... Kathy Kleiman:GDD may be able to assist us - with emails or by sending the email for us (Global Domains Division) Petter Rindforth:Is there any admin / policy problems to reach out to both groups? Mary Wong:@Petter, policy staff can contact those WG members that are also registries for assistance. As Kathy noted, we will likely ask GDD staff for help in sending the email to all New gTLD Registires (although they will already have received the request and reminder from the RySG chair). Petter Rindforth:Thanks, Mary - just a quick 2nd q: What time do we have? (As we cannot spend too long time on this topic before we proceed) Kurt Pritz:We developed questions with each group in mind. There are two alternatives for improving participation. One is for ICANN to use its bully pulpit and strongly encourage participation. This is a vital part of the ICANN support role. If registries and registrars want a vote in the adjustments to policy, they must participate. A second approach that this group censures registries in further discussion if they haven't participated in this questionaire. Kurt Pritz:I would have Akram or the CEO write the letter. Mathieu Weill:as one of the registries who responded (AFNIC) I express strong reservations against direct outreach. the questions are tailored to registry service providers rather than the 1000 gtld. all these request will go straight to the back end Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Converting it to a survey format might help too... a mult-page word doc doesn't rise to the top of a busy person's to do list as quickly as a short survey. Robin Gross:Agree that we might get more responses if we send it as a survey. Mathieu Weill:maybe the limited number of responses is an information is itself Brian Cimbolic:+1 Jeff - good point Jon Nevett:Agree with Jeff Lillian Fosteris:I agree with Kristine that a survey may lead to an increase in responses Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:If many registries simply need to check "no" or "NA", they can speed through it. Beth Bacon:+1 Jeff George Kirikos:Is this PDP considered an "Economic Study"?? See Section 2.15 of the new gTLDs standard agreeement: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de… George Kirikos:2.15 Cooperation with Economic Studies. If ICANN initiates or commissions an economic study on the impact or functioning of new generic top-level domains on the Internet, the DNS or related matters, Registry Operator shall reasonably cooperate with such study, including..... Jeff Neuman (Valideus):@George no Robin Gross:staff couldn't develop a survey quickly? Jeff Neuman (Valideus):And I wouldnt go there Petter Rindforth:Definitely - make it simple but clear. We need no novels just a reply to a Q&A George Kirikos:I think it's open to interpretation....it's a policy study, and has economic impacts..... Jeff Neuman (Valideus):@George - Again, I would take the friendly approach and talk directly to them. More likely to respond as opposed to fighting whether this is the economic study or not George Kirikos:Agree that friendly approach is best. Kurt Pritz:I agree with Mary: the division of labor as I see it is the working group prepares the data regquired and fashions questions; ICANN staff formats them in a way to engender participation - whether that is a survey or some other form Jay Chapman:sorry - check :) Mary Wong:Note also that the questions encompass also Sunrise and Claims topics Terri Agnew:Next call: Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 11 January 2017 at 18:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Paul Tattersfield:Whats the reason for moving calls between 18:00 and 17:00 wouldn't a single time be more memorable? J. Scott Evans:Paul: We have people from all over the world. We move the time in order to accommodate our non-North American members. George Kirikos:Bye folks. Paul Tattersfield:I appreciate that JS but 1 hr! Philip Corwin:@Paul -- ,also I think there is a conflict with a regular RySG call Greg Shatan:First Wake Up Call of the New Year. :-) Greg Shatan:Bye all! Robin Gross:Thanks J. Scott and all. Bye. susan payne (valideus):bye Paul Tattersfield:thanks Phil Paul Tattersfield:Bye all

4 4

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Follow up from WG call this week
by Mary Wong Jan. 10, 2017

Jan. 10, 2017

Dear all, This is just a brief note to add the staff perspective that it may indeed be more appropriate to first ensure that the registries in question do not object to our contacting their back end providers. We can include this query in the cover note to be sent accompanying the survey, and either request that registries feel free to have their providers give us the feedback, or suggest we send the survey on to their providers with their permission. I’m not sure that in either case we will get many responses, given the additional step involved, but if we receive permission to contact the providers, ICANN staff should be able to assist with sending out the requests (though not without some additional work). Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Date: Monday, January 9, 2017 at 15:10 To: Paul Keating <Paul(a)law.es>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Follow up from WG call this week In many cases, the providers do not have the right to provide answers on behalf of the registries. I think reaching out to the registries themselves is the way to go with the explanation that these questions may need to be answered by their back end providers. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 8:08 AM To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>; Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Follow up from WG call this week Why not ensure that the survey is being sent to the providers as well? From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Date: Monday, January 9, 2017 at 12:44 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Follow up from WG call this week Dear Mary, Dear Colleagues, Thanks for putting together the survey. I believe this may somewhat help collect more responses, but would like to reiterate a comment I made in the chat (although it got no traction at the time, but my audio was limited) during the last call. My organization, Afnic, is one of the few who submitted a response to the survey so far. We did it on behalf of one of our clients, the City of Paris. I have significant concerns about reaching out directly to registries, for the following reasons : - The questions are extremely technical, and most of our clients would be completely lost - There is no clear benefit for registries to invest time in answering this survey. The TMCH is often “dealt with” by a partner / provider. I understand the need to collect data from registries, but would suggest either of two options : 1) Consider that the low level of responses is an information in itself, and leave it at that. 2) Reach out to registry service providers rather than registries to collect more meaningful data. Just my two cents as a respondent to the survey. Best Mathieu De : gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Mary Wong Envoyé : vendredi 6 janvier 2017 23:08 À : gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Objet : [gnso-rpm-wg] Follow up from WG call this week Dear all, As requested during the Working Group call held earlier this week, staff has put all the questions that were sent to the Registries Stakeholder Group by the TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team into a survey format. You can preview and test it here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=twhcvzt1lfNFkO_2BF7lNnr7iX41Ca6g…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r…>. Please note that while we have retained almost all of the text of the original questions, in a few places we have rearranged their order or converted a question into a statement inviting comment. However, we do not believe we have changed any of the scope or intent of the questions, and we have not otherwise edited, deleted or added any questions. Also as agreed on the call, staff will work with the co-chairs to transmit this survey to specific registry operators (especially those offering blocking mechanism services who have not yet responded to the original solicitation for feedback) and via the registry members of this Working Group. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 _______________________________________________ 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

3 2

Proposed agenda and documents for RPM Review Working Group call this week
by Mary Wong Jan. 10, 2017

Jan. 10, 2017

Dear all, The proposed agenda for our next RPM Working Group members’ call this Wednesday at 1800 UTC is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review and agree on re-ordered list of final TMCH Charter questions (see attached document) 3. Discuss whether and how to consider the existence of additional voluntary RPMs (e.g. blocking mechanisms and other additional services provided using the TMCH) during WG review of the TMCH (see co-chairs’ statement, attached for re-circulation) 4. Next steps/next meeting For Agenda Item #2, the document shows a proposed re-arrangement of the WG-agreed, final TMCH Charter questions that will frame the WG’s review of the TMCH. Please note that while some questions have been moved, none of the language of any of the agreed questions has been modified, nor have new questions been added or existing ones amended or deleted. The purpose of the re-ordering is merely to suggest a more logical and coherent approach to the TMCH review that we are now embarking on. For ease of review, the updated document is attached in both redlined (against the list of questions discussed in December) and clean format. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

2 1