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

Mp3, AC Chat & Attendance for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG
by Michelle DeSmyter Oct. 20, 2016

Oct. 20, 2016

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, 19 October 2016 at 21:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/che4Aw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-19oct16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-19oct16-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<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** 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/che4Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 19 October 2016: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 21:00 UTC Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… George Kirikos:Hi folks. Michelle DeSmyter:Hi there George!! George Kirikos:Hi Michelle. How are you? Michelle DeSmyter:Very well, thank you so much Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All Philip Corwin:Hello all. Beautiful afternoon in DC Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):second question: who is still waiting for visa :) Statton Hammock:@Phil. Breaking any temperature records today in DC? Greg Shatan:I am still waiting for my visa.... nervously. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):me too Philip Corwin:Got my visa, and just got my Hepatitis-A and Typhoid shots and my malaria Rx. Yippee! Philip Corwin:86 in DC. May be a record. I just biked 10 miles ;-) yuri chumak:greeting from Toronto Paul McGrady:Reboot. :) Greg Shatan:82 in New York. George Kirikos:Welcome, Yuri. Go Blue Jays. :-) Steve Levy:Hi all Philip Corwin:Tomorrow goes back to fall -- rain and the 60s. yuri chumak:thanks George :) Reg Levy - MMX:I'm good for now, thanks. Reg Levy - MMX:Sorry, NO idea why my hand was up. David Tait:They're free Mary Wong:Working Group wiki page for TM-PDDRP materials and responses: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Jeff Neuman:I am so confused again. We are talking about mediation again for which 11 of the 16 responses said there were no activities that would have given rise to any claims under the pddrp? Paul Tattersfield:Sorry I'm late George Kirikos:I would only consider the survey as having 12 "outside" responses, given 4 of the 16 came from members of this PDP. Elizabeth Featherman:Sorry I am late. Mary Wong:@Jeff, it's not been agreed what topics will be further discussed - we're just going through the survey responses now, and the Provider responses at the next meeting in Hyderabad. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):percentage for such low numbers are meaningless George Kirikos:+1 Maxim Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and misleading Jeff Neuman:@Mary - I thought Kathy just said that were going to spend time in Hyderabad talking about mediation Mary Wong:These graphs and percentages are automatically compiled by Survey Monkey - so for our purposes it may be more informative to look at the raw numbers. George Kirikos:The raw answers to the survey, via the link Kathy emailed to the list, was more useful. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it is a good idea to leave only numbers Mary Wong:@Maxim, the numbers are included in the slides. Jeff Neuman:Agreed these percentages are meaningless with the low numbers Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@mary, percentage form wrong perceprion (you have to look through the slide) George Kirikos:The full answers are at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di… (directly below "Surveys") MIght need to add a .pdf file extension, to be able to read it properly. Steve Levy:Interesting that one respondent's clients prefer to give up! Jeff Neuman:Did anyone say they would have used it if there was mediation :) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:This is the key question Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:IT gets to the point of the survey. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Q7 Brian Cimbolic:absolutely - question 7 is the threshold question George Kirikos:"perception of bias based on experiences" --- strange, given no one has ever experienced a PDDRP :-) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):more usefull representation would be __name of the constituency __number Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:One person who answered no to Q7, elected to complete the remaining questions, it looks like. Steve Levy:George, I'm not surprised that someone woudl have a "perception of bias" based on very little or no information. Quite typical in a variety of fields. Paul McGrady:A low turn out is its own statistic. Brian Cimbolic:+1 Paul Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:The purpose of the survey was to try to identify anecdotes or issues that could direct the group to problems that need solving. Greg Shatan:Q7 only asks whether, at this time, the respondent has yet seen any activity that could be challenged under the PDDRP. Philip Corwin:Statement that burden of proof is impossible seems hyperbole. Yes it's high, but not that high. I suspect bigger issue is uncertainty of what will result even if burden is met. Mary Wong:There is also the Google Doc that a few WG members filled out with anecdotal evidence of perceived registry conduct that they felt might fall under the TM-PDDRP. Mary Wong:The Google Doc is available on the same WG wiki page (see above for link). Steve Levy:+1 Phil. Uncertainty around possible results is understandable given the lack of any history witih the policy and the fact that ICANN is not bound to accept the recommendation of the panel. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):the last question should be - did you understand the set of questions? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I think the numbers indicate there is not an outpouring of animosity toward the TM-PDDRP - probably indicative of the lack of an identifiable problem. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Which is one of the questions we had....is there an identifiable problem? Mary Wong:@Kristine, yes, that seems to be borne out also by the responses to the 2015 RPM Paper. George Kirikos:100% agree with Greg. Garbage in, garbage out. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 Mary Wong:Please recall that the WG discussed and approved these questions. Steve Levy:@ Kristine, I agree that it's tough to determine if there is an identifiable problem with a policy that has not yet been used and is very poorly understood by most brad owners. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):It might be a good idea to discuss the representation next time George Kirikos:ICANN paid a company to do the new gTLDs consumer awareness (albeit, it was an internet poll that was pretty bad too). George Kirikos:Lots of awareness of new gTLDs that didn't exist. :-) George Kirikos:Here's the email from Mary, re: that unused GNSO procedure for a better survey: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2016-October/000727.html Jon Nevett (Donuts):I don't support more surveying on PDDRP for the reasons Kathy is mentioning -- we would just be wasting our time Greg Shatan:I am not necessarily saying this should be the candidate for an "expert" survey effort.... Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree with Greg. I think there is a difference between the WG trying to get information and the wording of a valid survey designed to obtain that information. In my opinion, as a WG we did the former. We need an expert to do the latter. I don't necessarily think we need to go back here. But definitely support obtaining resources on any surveys going forward. David Maher:@Jo n +1 Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Jon +1 Greg Shatan:It is not a "general interest" topic, but there may be ways to get more answers from the population who gives a darn... Greg Shatan:Not that I'm suggesting it, but this is probably a better candidate for a "focus group" rather than a "survey".... Steve Levy:Lack of awareness may be due to lack of serious problems addressed by the PDDRP. If folks were expreiencing such problems, they would research the matter and, I presume, find the PDDRP. George Kirikos:Really, the survey should not even mention the PDDRP -- it should really have been a survey expanding on Question #7. I'm confident 99% of people have never heard of the PDDRP, or any of the myriad acronyms in the ICANN ecosystem. Reg Levy - MMX:I think Petter has the right idea if we think we really need this information. George Kirikos:i.e. is there a problem that the PDDRP properly solves. Greg Shatan:Whether they saw the harm or not does not tell us anything about what they think of the remedy. Rebecca Tushnet:+1 to Brian's: no need to add more non-information about non-use Steve Levy:+1 Brian David Maher:@ Brian +1 Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it is quite hard to resolve future unknown problem :( Paul McGrady:I think the big take away from this survey is that we need to improve our future surveys. I don't think it tells us much else about the substantive topic. Jon Nevett (Donuts):I support keeping the RPM -- it does serve a purpose, but there is no evidence that it requires a change. If there ever is a change required, we could go through a PDP at that time. Paul McGrady:@Jon - agree. The RPM itself may be keeping abuses at bay. Greg Shatan:After you, Mary. Paul McGrady:@Greg - agree. The survey doesn't provide those sorts of answers. Susan Payne:@Greg - agree. There are RPMs which are being used and we should prioritise those Mary Wong:Slides are unsync'ed Heather Forrest:To Susan, Paul and Greg's point, in a way perhaps it's unfortunate that TMPDDRP came early in the review Jeff Neuman:Sorry....mediation????? Mary Wong:Everyone can scroll through the slides. Greg Shatan:Agree with Heather, we may want to loop back on this down the road... Jeff Neuman:Why are we again looking at mediation? Sorry....missed that Greg Shatan:I think we should look at meditation. Very calming. Heather Forrest:I think looping back could be useful, and we will undoubtedly learn some lessons as we progress that could be useful on revisitation Jeff Neuman:Where are those responses? Philip Corwin:@Heather & Greg -- Something had to come first. But no RPM is locked in stone, and any can be revisited, inckuding PDDRP, until we deliver the WG report. Heather Forrest:I'm not complaining as such, Phil - we're here now and rather than stress about why/how, let's think about how to move forward Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all George Kirikos:Bye folks. Philip Corwin:Bye all. Safe travel to India! Jon Nevett (Donuts):Thanks! Robin Gross:thanks, Kathy and all, bye! Paul Tattersfield:thanks all bye Heather Forrest:Thanks everyone Susan Kawaguchi:Thanks Everyone

1 0

Follow up from the Working Group call today
by Mary Wong Oct. 19, 2016

Oct. 19, 2016

Dear all, As follow up from the Working Group call that was just held, here are the links to the additional documents that were mentioned and that Working Group participants may wish to review before we reconvene at ICANN57. In relation to the first document – a compilation of several Working Group members’ contributions regarding perceived registry conduct that might come within the scope of the TM-PDDRP – Working Group members may wish to consider those examples together with the results of the Community Survey. This document can be viewed and downloaded from the Working Group wiki space at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61606586/Collated%20Exampl…. The second document is an updated list of potential questions that can be sent to ICANN Compliance regarding the TM-PDDRP. This updated list was worked on by a couple of Working Group volunteer members in September. As you may recall, the Working Group had agreed to consider whether or not to follow up with Compliance on this topic, following the Working Group’s review of the Community Survey responses. This document can be viewed and downloaded from the Working Group wiki space at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61606586/Follow%20up%20que…. 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

1 0

A few clarifications on the TM-PDDRP Community Survey
by Mary Wong Oct. 19, 2016

Oct. 19, 2016

Hello everyone, In light of a few questions that have been raised about the survey, staff hopes the following notes will be helpful: - The initial email solicitation that was sent to Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies (SO/ACdid not specify a date by which the responses were expected, though a subsequent note mentioned mid-September, and we kept the survey open for some time after that date. - Question 1 of the survey asked for the respondent’s name and details (though they could choose not to provide them) – this isn’t reflected in the consolidated responses document, which starts from Question 2 (SO/AC/SG/C affiliation). - Not all respondents noted their SO/AC/SG/C affiliation (if any); of those that did, I believe we got responses from 1 Registries, 5 Registrars, 3 IPC, 2 BC, 1 ccNSO, and 1 At-Large member (if I recall correctly). Several respondents also answered that they represented trademark owners. - Certain questions were predicated on a “If your answer to the preceding question is Yes” basis; however, a respondent could choose to also provide examples and details even if they didn’t answer Yes to the previous question. Finally, the Working Group may recall that a few members volunteered several weeks ago to compile a Google Document comprising real/observed experiences with perceived registry behavior that they believe may come within the purview of the TM-PDDRP. That document has been circulated for a last review amongst the group of volunteers, and we hope to share it with the full Working Group after the call tomorrow, if not before. Perhaps the Working Group can review that document prior to deciding whether or not to recirculate the survey. We hope this information is of assistance. Cheers Mary On 10/18/16, 09:53, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of Steve Levy" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of slevy(a)accentlawgroup.com> wrote: +1 Brian On 10/18/16, 9:42 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of Winterfeldt, Brian J." <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of BWinterfeldt(a)mayerbrown.com> wrote: >Dear J. Scott and all: > >I would also support attempting to obtain additional input on the survey >questions by re-circulating. When the survey was first circulated I >think there may have been some miscommunication or lack of clear >communication as to when prospective survey respondents must submit >responses before the survey closed. Given that there are still other open >areas in connection with the PDDRP, I don't see any harm in giving an >extended opportunity for additional input on this. > >With respect to the responses that have been collected to date, I agree >that despite the relatively small sample size, this Working Group should >not dismiss this input out of hand. This threatens the credibility of >our work. We should spend the time to thoroughly review and analyze the >input and discuss whether it makes sense to revisit preliminary >conclusions regarding the PDDRP. I am not suggesting we will ultimately >change course in terms of the conclusions, but believe we should be >deliberate in our approach. > >Best regards, > >Brian > > >Brian J. Winterfeldt >Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice >Mayer Brown LLP > > >-----Original Message----- >From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans >Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 9:22 AM >To: George Kirikos >Cc: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey >Responses on TM-PDDRP > >Query to our group. If the majority feels the sample size is just too >small, what should we do? Ask for additional input by recirculating the >survey. Taking George's points and ignore the survey b/c the sample is too >small? Do other have another alternative? > > >J. Scott Evans | Associate General Counsel - Trademarks, Copyright, >Domains & Marketing | >Adobe >345 Park Avenue >San Jose, CA 95110 >408.536.5336 (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) >jsevans(a)adobe.com >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protect… >C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C0 >9131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLero4h40 >8S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > >On 10/18/16, 6:18 AM, "George Kirikos" <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: > >>J. Scott: >> >>Your first email asked for "Thoughts?" and "Discussion"? Then, after >>receiving my thoughts and discussion on the survey, you attempted to >>delegitimize those thoughts and discussion by saying what you said: >> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protect… . >>org%2Fpipermail%2Fgnso-rpm-wg%2F2016-October%2F000685.html&data=01%7C01%7 >>CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131 >>022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=VIUCDoME2%2FjmgMFmQqmykgl8zJEZJU6Ov >>zU%2FcwVRe%2Fs%3D&reserved=0 >> >>"I am not going to argue statistics with you. You can say whatever you >>want >>to discredit this input. We asked for input. We received it and it gave >>us >>a clear direction. Just because the direction is in direction opposition >>to your personal position is no reason to ignore the input. I would >>suggest that you rally those who share your views the next time we do >>outreach." >> >>with the entire basis of that statement ("Just because...") based on a >>false premise that I'm against changing the PDDRP. A false premise. I >>simply pointed out simple truths, a total sample size of only 16, with >>only 5 in favour of PDDRP changes. If those observations were so >>"dangerous" that you "couldn't argue statistics", but instead sought >>to attack the person making them, that says a lot about the strength >>of your arguments. >> >>And then you made the reckless suggestion that folks should be >>attempting to artificially affect the outcome of the PDP by "rallying" >>people who "share your views". >> >>I don't have any "anti-IP animus" --- I've long been opposed to >>cybersquatting! I've even assisted TM holders pursue cybersquatters. I >>am against *over-reaching* by some TM holders and am in favour of >>*balanced* policy that protects the interests of domain name >>registrants, in accordance with established law. >> >>Stop trying to label people, and instead listen to the arguments and >>facts they put forward. >> >>Here were the undeniable FACTS: 16 total response, 5 in favour of PDDRP >>changes. >> >>In my view, as I said before, the sample size is too small, and there >>were flaws in the survey where the numbers didn't add up properly. >> >>Sincerely, >> >>George Kirikos >>416-588-0269 >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protect… . >>com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845b >>d08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BStelCVq >>yAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >> >> >> >>On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:47 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans(a)adobe.com> >>wrote: >>> George: >>> >>> I apologize if you feel attacked. That was not my intent. It was, >>>however, >>> my intent to point out that our group reached out to the community for >>> feedback. We got that feedback and it gave us a directive. If we >>>applied >>> your same argument, I could say that the anti-IP sentiments of the NCUC >>> have been championed for over 18 years by no more than 10 people who >>>claim >>> to represent all non-contracted, non-commercial parties. That said, and >>> despite only seeing the same voices raise the same concerns time and >>>time >>> again, we have listened, debated, re-debated, and sought input. The >>> issues/concerns of these parties are always on the table despite only >>> being put there by a very small group of people. So, I think we should >>> take into account the call for change in the PDDRP and take action. >>>Others >>> may disagree and our consensus may be that we should not take action. >>> >>> Finally, I follow your work in many working groups and, IMHO, you have >>>a >>> clear anti-IP animus and I do believe that flavors your positions. I >>>may >>> be wrong, but I am entitled to my opinion and I can express it. It is >>>not >>> meant to insult you or demean your positions. It is meant to call a >>>spade >>> a spade. I am pro-IP and proud of it. I will advocate for trademark >>>owners >>> when not acting in my capacity of chair. As Chair, it is my duty to >>>make >>> sure ALL viewpoints are heard and considered, even those with which I >>> strongly disagree. >>> >>> J. Scott >>> >>> >>> J. Scott Evans | Associate General Counsel - Trademarks, Copyright, >>> Domains & Marketing | >>> Adobe >>> 345 Park Avenue >>> San Jose, CA 95110 >>> 408.536.5336 (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) >>> jsevans(a)adobe.com >>> >>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protect… >>>%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb >>>%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLe >>>ro4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/18/16, 5:36 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of >>>George >>> Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of icann(a)leap.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>J. Scott: >>>> >>>>What are you talking about? I've already made it clear (during the >>>>calls) that I'm in *favour* of improving the PDDRP! Perhaps you've not >>>>been paying attention. For you to attack my earlier response on the >>>>basis that the "input" is in "opposition to (my) personal position" is >>>>ridiculous. I would have made the comments I made regardless of my own >>>>position, for the clear and logical reasons I stated, which had >>>>absolutely nothing to do with the actual answers to the survey but >>>>instead were based on (1) total number of responses and (2) numbers >>>>not adding up properly. >>>> >>>>Furthermore, to suggest that *anyone* in the group should "rally those >>>>who share your views the next time" is entirely inappropriate, in my >>>>opinion. It's suggesting that instead of this working group doing a >>>>"scientific" survey, a *representative* sample of the population of >>>>stakeholders, that folks should instead be engaged in electioneering >>>>in order to artificially manipulate the outcome. For that suggestion >>>>to come from one of the co-chairs of this working group is even more >>>>disturbing. >>>> >>>>Lastly, I properly noted that there were a total of 5 people (out of >>>>16 survey participants) believe that the PDDRP should change. That's >>>>31.25%, a mathematical fact. You might label that an "overwhelming" >>>>response and a "clear direction", but I disagree, for the reasons I >>>>stated in my first email, and say so *despite* my own personal opinion >>>>on the issue. >>>> >>>>Sincerely, >>>> >>>>George Kirikos >>>>416-588-0269 >>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protect… >>>>p.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416 >>>>845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BS >>>>telCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>> >>>>On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:13 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans(a)adobe.com> >>>>wrote: >>>>> George: >>>>> >>>>> I am not going to argue statistics with you. You can say whatever you >>>>>want >>>>> to discredit this input. We asked for input. We received it and it >>>>>gave >>>>>us >>>>> a clear direction. Just because the direction is in direction >>>>>opposition >>>>> to your personal position is no reason to ignore the input. I would >>>>> suggest that you rally those who share your views the next time we do >>>>> outreach. >>>>> >>>>> J. Scott >>>>> >>>>> J. Scott Evans | Associate General Counsel - Trademarks, Copyright, >>>>> Domains & Marketing | >>>>> Adobe >>>>> 345 Park Avenue >>>>> San Jose, CA 95110 >>>>> 408.536.5336 (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) >>>>> jsevans(a)adobe.com >>>>> >>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protect… >>>>>01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759 >>>>>bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQ >>>>>DuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/18/16, 5:08 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of >>>>>George >>>>> Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of icann(a)leap.com> >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>1. The sample size appears to be 16 (from Q2), so the statistical >>>>>>margin of error for such a small sample size is enormous. The total >>>>>>number of respondents who "overwhelmingly" believe that the PDDRP >>>>>>should change is 5 (answer to Q10), which is actually 31.25% of those >>>>>>who participated in the survey (5 of 16). >>>>>> >>>>>>2. Many of the numbers don't add up. e.g. >>>>>>(a) for Q4, there were 19 responses, despite the sample size being >>>>>>16! >>>>>>(b) for Q9, there were 6 responses, when the most there should have >>>>>>been is 5 (given there were 5 "yes" responses in Q7). >>>>>>(c) for Q10, there were 6 responses, when the most there should have >>>>>>been is 5 (given there were 5 "no" responses in Q9). >>>>>> >>>>>>There were only 9 visible answers (i.e. there was no Q1 shown in the >>>>>>document), so it's disturbing that one-third of the survey results >>>>>>don't add up properly. I'm not sure what software was used to display >>>>>>the survey, but tools like SurveyMonkey, etc. usually allow >>>>>>"conditional branching" or "skip logic" to only show some questions >>>>>>to >>>>>>people who answer a prior question in a certain manner, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protect… . >>>>>>surveymonkey.com%2Fmp%2Ftour%2Fskiplogic%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel >>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785 >>>>>>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=vl6Lhl21GVSzrgY1nnJklWCQxvJk%2FElc2yi9 >>>>>>flUzNx0%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>>Given the above, I'd place little weight on the results, either "for" >>>>>>something or "against" something. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sincerely, >>>>>> >>>>>>George Kirikos >>>>>>416-588-0269 >>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protect… >>>>>>eap.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc >>>>>>3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tW >>>>>>fU%2BStelCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>>On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:56 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans(a)adobe.com> >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>> Wow. The respondents seem to really believe (overwhelmingly so) >>>>>>>that >>>>>>>we >>>>>>>need >>>>>>> to amend the PDDRP to make is useable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thoughts? Discussion? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> J. Scott >>>>>>> >>>>>>> J. Scott Evans | Associate General Counsel - Trademarks, Copyright, >>>>>>>Domains >>>>>>> & Marketing | >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adobe >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 345 Park Avenue >>>>>>> >>>>>>> San Jose, CA 95110 >>>>>>> 408.536.5336 (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) >>>>>>> jsevans(a)adobe.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protect… >>>>>>>a=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3 >>>>>>>f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452 >>>>>>>nIHswQDuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of David Tait >>>>>>> <david.tait(a)icann.org> >>>>>>> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:36 AM >>>>>>> To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and >>>>>>>Survey >>>>>>> Responses on TM-PDDRP >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear All >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Further to my previous email I attach a further revised version of >>>>>>>this >>>>>>> document which (following a request from the co-chairs) now >>>>>>>contains >>>>>>>the >>>>>>> graphs once again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: David Tait <david.tait(a)icann.org> >>>>>>> Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 15:08 >>>>>>> To: <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> >>>>>>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and >>>>>>>Survey >>>>>>> Responses on TM-PDDRP >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Jeff >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Further to your previous email I am pleased to attach a >>>>>>>consolidated >>>>>>>version >>>>>>> of the responses received. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> >>>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 11:09 >>>>>>> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" >>>>>>> <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and >>>>>>>Survey >>>>>>> Responses on TM-PDDRP >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Mary for this. Is there a way to combine all of the written >>>>>>> responses in the summary document as well especially to questions >>>>>>>6, >>>>>>>7, >>>>>>>8, >>>>>>> 10. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 or jeff.neuman(a)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 Mary Wong >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 3:49 PM >>>>>>> To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org >>>>>>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey >>>>>>> Responses on TM-PDDRP >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You will recall that the Working Group had agreed to resume >>>>>>>deliberations >>>>>>> over the Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure >>>>>>>(TM-PDDRP) >>>>>>> after receipt of responses from the TM-PDDRP providers and closure >>>>>>>of >>>>>>>the >>>>>>> Community Survey. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We received responses from two providers FORUM and WIPO, for >>>>>>>which >>>>>>>we >>>>>>> thank Brian Beckham, Ty Gray, Daniel Legerski and their colleagues. >>>>>>>We >>>>>>>also >>>>>>> collected sixteen community member responses to the TM-PDDRP >>>>>>>Community >>>>>>> Survey, including from registrars and intellectual property >>>>>>>rights-holders. >>>>>>> All the responses, as well as an aggregated data report on the >>>>>>>Community >>>>>>> Survey, have now been uploaded to the Working Group wiki space >>>>>>>here: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protect… >>>>>>>munity.icann.org%2Fx%2FugqsAw%5Bcommunity.icann.org&data=01%7C01%7CB >>>>>>>winterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09 >>>>>>>131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=3AhE7D7sQ71PXkCT2Y4BBmXOIBM >>>>>>>%2FVXefpQnxZ8CnsKU%3D&reserved=0]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Working Group co-chairs have asked that Working Group members >>>>>>>review >>>>>>> these responses in time for our next call on 19 October 2016, >>>>>>>where, >>>>>>>if >>>>>>>time >>>>>>> permits, we will start discussing them. At the moment, we >>>>>>>anticipate >>>>>>>that a >>>>>>> fuller review, including community participation, will be the focus >>>>>>>of >>>>>>>the >>>>>>> Working Group¹s open meeting at ICANN57 in Hyderabad. This will >>>>>>>allow >>>>>>>us to >>>>>>> complete this initial review of the TM-PDDRP shortly thereafter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> FYI the tentative date and time of the open Working Group meeting >>>>>>>at >>>>>>>ICANN57 >>>>>>> is currently Monday 7 November (Day 5 of the meeting), from >>>>>>>11.00-12.30 >>>>>>> local Hyderabad time. As with all these sessions, remote >>>>>>>participation >>>>>>> facilities will be made available for those who will not be present >>>>>>>in >>>>>>> Hyderabad. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <ACL> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protect… . >>>>>>>icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterf >>>>>>>eldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b >>>>>>>7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9 >>>>>>>PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org >>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protect… >>>>>>cann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel >>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785 >>>>>>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2 >>>>>>BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org >>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protect… >>>>nn.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%4 >>>>0mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d >>>>42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o% >>>>3D&reserved=0 >>> > >_______________________________________________ >gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protect… . >org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayer >brown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e >51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved= >0 >__________________________________________________________________________ > > >This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the >use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have >received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are >not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy >this e-mail. > >_______________________________________________ >gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

9 9

Agenda and documents for the Working Group call on Wednesday 19 October
by Mary Wong Oct. 19, 2016

Oct. 19, 2016

Dear all, The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call is as follows (please note also that this is one of the rotational calls that will take place at 2100 UTC): 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect room and phone bridge only)/updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review and discuss responses to Community Survey on the TM-PDDRP (see attached document) 3. Overview reminder of Working Group follow-up questions to TM-PDDRP providers 4. Review Co-Chairs’ proposed agenda for the Working Group meeting at ICANN57 5. Next steps Please also note the following: · For Agenda Item #2 - In addition to the attached consolidated responses document (which was circulated previously by David), the Co-Chairs suggest that it will be very helpful if you also take the opportunity to review each individual response – all individual survey responses as well as the consolidated document can be viewed on the Working Group wiki space here: https://community.icann.org/x/ugqsAw. NOTE: The wiki page has also been updated with the following: § A Google Doc that several Working Group members had volunteered to populate last month with examples of perceived registry conduct that might fall within the scope of the TM-PDDRP; and § An updated set of potential follow up questions to ICANN Compliance, refined by Working Group volunteer members in September, on the understanding that the Working Group may return to consider the need to use them after reviewing the Community Survey and Provider responses. · For Agenda Item #3 – This will be covered only briefly, as a reminder of the actual questions that were sent to the three TM-PDDRP providers as follow up from our Working Group in early September. We will review and discuss more fully the two responses received at ICANN57, for which upcoming meeting the Co-Chairs would like to request that everyone have reviewed them. They too are available on the Working Group wiki space: https://community.icann.org/x/ugqsAw. · For Agenda Item #4 – The open Working Group meeting is currently scheduled for Monday 7 November, from 11.00 – 12.15 Hyderabad time. We will provide remote participation and call-in details separately. In addition, you may be interested in the Co-Chairs’ update to and discussion with the GNSO Council and community, from 09:00 – 09:30 Hyderabad time on Friday 4 November, and in a more general open session on the New gTLD Program Reviews, which will include a discussion of our work as well as other ongoing policy and related efforts on the 2012 New gTLD Program Round, on Saturday 5 November from 13:45 – 14:45 Hyderabad time. The full ICANN57 meeting schedule can be viewed here: https://icann572016.sched.org/. 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

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP
by J. Scott Evans Oct. 18, 2016

Oct. 18, 2016

Edward: Please allow me to apologize to you, George and the other members of the NCUC that may have taken offense. I was not making my comments as "quasi-ad hominem attacks." First, there is nothing quasi or subtle about me. If I wanted to attack someone, I am fully capable of a full on verbal assault. I did not mean to "attack" anyone. I am, however, often unvarnished in my comments. Please do not take offense. Second, it is true that I work for a multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporation. However from 1998 to 2007, I championed the cause of trademark owner on a pro bono basis from a small IP boutique in Charlotte, North Carolina with about $1 million in annual revenue. My clients were all SME's who could barely afford to register a trademark yet alone deal with the burgeoning cybersquatting that was going on the web and the law was still woefully undeveloped making taking any action much more time consuming and expensive than it is today. IP protections are not for the just for the multi-nationals - IP protections (especially trademark law) are for SME's too and, most importantly, for consumers. J. Scott J. Scott Evans | Associate General Counsel - Trademarks, Copyright, Domains & Marketing | Adobe 345 Park Avenue San Jose, CA 95110 408.536.5336 (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) jsevans(a)adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com From: Edward Morris <egmorris1(a)toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Reply-To: "egmorris1(a)toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>" <egmorris1(a)toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 6:04 AM To: "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans(a)adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP ________________________________ If we applied your same argument, I could say that the anti-IP sentiments of the NCUC have been championed for over 18 years by no more than 10 people who claim to represent all non-contracted, non-commercial parties. As contrasted with the newbies such as yourself, J. Scott, who continue to champion maximalist intellectual monopoly positions with no evidence that they have the support of the vast majority of trademark owners who, curiously, are neither multinational corporations nor high priced American law firms. Very disappointed to see one of our tri-chairs resort to quasi-ad hominem attacks when confronted with a difference of opinion. That doesn't portend well for the future of this working group. Edward Morris GNSO Councillor Noncommercial Stakeholders Group ________________________________ <ACL>

1 0

REMINDER: Please RSVP Pre-ICANN 57 Policy Update Webinar Announcement
by Terri Agnew Oct. 13, 2016

Oct. 13, 2016

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-05-en Please RSVP via this form<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_LTVbnZ8zX…> by 14 October 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 17 October 2016. The ICANN Policy Development Support Team will provide a Policy Update Webinar on Thursday, 20 October 2016 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC, in preparation for the upcoming ICANN Annual General Meeting in Hyderabad. The purpose of the webinar is to summarize policy activities across the ICANNpolicy development community and briefing the community on the Cross-Community sessions taking place in Hyderabad. Cross-Community Sessions Briefings: * New generic Top Level Domain Auction Proceeds Drafting Team * Cross-Community Working Group for Framework of Cross-Community Working Group Principles * Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country/Territory Names as Top Level Domains Community Engagement Team Update: * Community Recognition at ICANN57 and Multistakeholder Ethos Award 2017 Process Launch * Supporting Organizations/Advisory Committees Work Effort Inventory/Snapshot Update * Policy Staff Support in Community Charter Amendment Processes Supporting Organizations & Advisory Committee Updates: * Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and Regional Internet Registries (RIR) Policy Development * Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Update * Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) * New generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (PDP) * Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms in all Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) Policy Development Process (PDP) * Next-Generation Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS Policy Development Process (PDP) * IGO/INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms Policy Development Process (PDP) * At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and At-Large Community Update * Government Advisory Committee (GAC) * Adaptation of Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Processes to the new ICANN Bylaws * Government Advisory Committee Vice-Chairs Elections taking place in Hyderabad * Capacity Building Session for the Asia Pacific Region organized by the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Working Group for Underserved Regions * The Government Advisory Committee developing further input for ongoing Policy Development Processes on Registration Directory Services and Future new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) * Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Update * Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Update The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session runs for 90 minutes and will be run in English. The webinar will be conducted in Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function in Adobe Connect. Recordings of the webinars will be made available here<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>. The Policy Development Support Team is always available to answer any questions via email at policyinfo(a)icann.org<mailto:policyinfo@icann.org>. Please RSVP via this form<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_LTVbnZ8zX…> by 14 October 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 17 October 2016.

1 0

FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP
by Mary Wong Oct. 13, 2016

Oct. 13, 2016

Dear all, You will recall that the Working Group had agreed to resume deliberations over the Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (TM-PDDRP) after receipt of responses from the TM-PDDRP providers and closure of the Community Survey. We received responses from two providers – FORUM and WIPO, for which we thank Brian Beckham, Ty Gray, Daniel Legerski and their colleagues. We also collected sixteen community member responses to the TM-PDDRP Community Survey, including from registrars and intellectual property rights-holders. All the responses, as well as an aggregated data report on the Community Survey, have now been uploaded to the Working Group wiki space here: https://community.icann.org/x/ugqsAw. The Working Group co-chairs have asked that Working Group members review these responses in time for our next call on 19 October 2016, where, if time permits, we will start discussing them. At the moment, we anticipate that a fuller review, including community participation, will be the focus of the Working Group’s open meeting at ICANN57 in Hyderabad. This will allow us to complete this initial review of the TM-PDDRP shortly thereafter. FYI the tentative date and time of the open Working Group meeting at ICANN57 is currently Monday 7 November (Day 5 of the meeting), from 11.00-12.30 local Hyderabad time. As with all these sessions, remote participation facilities will be made available for those who will not be present in Hyderabad. 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 2

FOR INFORMATION: Phase Two economic study on Competitive Effects of the New gTLD Program published for public comment
by Mary Wong Oct. 12, 2016

Oct. 12, 2016

Dear all, In light of the Working Group discussions over pricing in new gTLDs, some members may be interested in the pricing data contained in the findings of the Analysis Group (see link below), who conducted this economic study for ICANN on the competitive effects of the 2012 New gTLD Program round on the domain name marketplace. Note that the study does not specifically deal with the TMCH or RPM issues, although there is a small section in both the Phase One and Phase Two reports on sunrise pricing. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 16:26 To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] FOR INFORMATION: Phase Two economic study on Competitive Effects of the New gTLD Program published for public comment Dear Councilors, The above-mentioned study, which is Phase Two of the economic study that the ICANN Board requested regarding the competitive effects of the 2012 New gTLD Program round, has just been published for public comment: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-11-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…>. The public comment period will close on 5 December 2016. You may recall that Phase One of the study was released in September 2015. This Phase Two report compares changes in the domain name marketplace since then, and includes an additional number of new gTLDs and registry/registrar-provided data in the sample. The final findings will be shared with the CCT Review Team. 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

1 0

nvitation to participate in RPM TMCH Questions sub-team
by David Tait Oct. 10, 2016

Oct. 10, 2016

The email below is sent on behalf of RPMs Working Group co-chairs. Dear Working Group members, At the most recent meeting of the RPMs Working Group (WG) held on Monday 5 October 2016, it was determined to establish a small sub-team to undertake a review of the questions (from the WG Charter and various consultations including the Cross-Community session at ICANN56) relating to the Trademark Clearing House. The purpose of this review is to consider combining questions which are redundant or related, ensuring the neutrality of inquiries, and recommending questions that should be accorded low priority or not pursued. This group will be co-chaired by Kathy Kleiman and J Scott Evans. Two volunteers have kindly made themselves known already, Christine Farley and Paul Tattersfield. We would like to invited further participants (up to a maximum of 2 persons) to join this group. It is intended that this group will work to turn the questions around before the next meeting which is taking place on Wednesday, 5 October 2016. To assist you in deciding whether to participate the questions under review are listed below. Kind regards Phil Corwin, Kathy Kleiman and J Scott Evans Questions on the TMCH: >From the Charter 1. Should further guidance on verification guidelines for different categories of marks be considered? 2. Is the protection of the TMCH too broad? Is the TMCH providing too much protection for those with a trademark on a generic or descriptive dictionary word? 3. Should TM+50 be reversed? 4. Are legitimate noncommercial, commercial and individual registrants losing legitimate opportunities to register domain names in New gTLDs? 5. Should the TMCH scope be limited to apply to only the categories of goods and services in which the generic terms in a trademark are protected? If so, how? 6. Should the TMCH matching rules be expanded, e.g. to include plurals, ‘marks contained’ or ‘mark+keyword’, and/or common typos of a mark? 7. Should there be an additional or a different recourse mechanism to challenge rejected trademarks? 8. How quickly can a cancelled trademark be removed from the TMCH? 9. How can TMCH services be much more transparent in terms of what is offered pursuant to ICANN contracts and policies vs. what is offered to private New gTLD registries pursuant to private contracts? 10. Should there be a review on accessibility to TMCH for individuals, private trademark holders and trademark agents in developing countries? (Could this question be recast to also focus on small businesses/holders of limited numbers of mark holders. Could this may be a matter for the new gTLDs WG?) 11. How can the TMCH provide education services not only for trademark owners, but for the registrants and potential registrants who are equally impacted by their services? >From the community in Helsinki: 1. Does the TMCH provide avenues that are procedurally and substantively fair to effectively balance the rights of rights holders versus normal Internet users? 2. Does the TMCH create a tendency to perpetuate the status quo? 3. How accessible is the TMCH to reviewing accessibility for trademark agents in developing countries? 4. Should the TMCH remain a single provider or should we open it to different providers, of course with a central database that should be accessed by the different providers? Would it be practical to have more than one provider? 5. Are the costs of the TMCH, for rights holders, for ICANN, for the community, proportionate to the benefits it provides? 6. How do we determine what is “good chilling effect” and “bad chilling effect” in relation to RPMs?

7 6

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Notes and actions from RPMs meeting 5 October 2016
by J. Scott Evans Oct. 6, 2016

Oct. 6, 2016

Thanks David. J. Scott Evans | Associate General Counsel - Trademarks, Copyright, Domains & Marketing | Adobe 345 Park Avenue San Jose, CA 95110 408.536.5336 (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) jsevans(a)adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of David Tait <david.tait(a)icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 1:57 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] Notes and actions from RPMs meeting 5 October 2016 Dear All Please find below the notes and actions arising from yesterday's meeting of the RPMs Working Group. The meeting focused on continuing the review of the Charter questions and those questions which arose at ICANN56 in Helsinki. TMCH Question 5: To begin "Should" rather than "How should"; and possibly a "If so, how?" be added at the end Question 10: Could be recast to also focus on small businesses/holders of limited numbers of mark holders. Consider that this may be a matter for the new gTLDs WG. Additional questions: Should the TMCH database be entirely public? Is it practical to have more than one TMCH provider? [ADD TO HELSINKI Q4] ACTION: Co-Chairs to discuss and propose mechanism for WG to work on clarifying the questions and where necessary expand into sub-components. Initial proposal for a sub-team led by J Scott Evans to lead this activity and Paul Tattersfield volunteered to participate. Kind regards, David David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait(a)icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org> www.icann.org ________________________________ <ACL>

1 0