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

**with updated AC Chat/ Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group 05 October 2016
by Terri Agnew Oct. 6, 2016

Oct. 6, 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, 05 October 2016 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/rhC4Aw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-05oct16-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/rhiOAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Connect chat transcript for 05 October 2016: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group hled on Wednesday, 05 October 2016 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/rhC4Aw George Kirikos:Hi folks. Jay Chapman:Hello all. Hi George. Exciting finish by your Jays last night :) Vaibhav Aggarwal (Blade-BRAINS Group):Greetings earthlings George Kirikos:Here's the video of the winning home run. :-) George Kirikos:http://m.mlb.com/news/article/204957478/blue-jays-beat-orioles-in-a… George Kirikos:How are you, Jay? George Kirikos:My blue font matches the Toronto Blue Jays colours. :-) Jay Chapman:Well done! George Kirikos:Edwin Encarnacion is a free agent at the end of the season (so is Jose Bautista). I hope Toronto can re-sign them. Paul Tattersfield:Hi all George Kirikos:Welcome, Paul. Paul Tattersfield:Thanks George how's things in sunny Canada? Philip Corwin:Hello all Steve Levy:Hi everyone George Kirikos:Fantastic here, Paul. How are you? George Kirikos:Welcome Phil & Steve. Paul Tattersfield:Good George, were having an Indian Summer and fall is just beginning to show in the trees Salvador Camacho Hernandez:Hello everybody! Mary Wong:The timeline indicates no meeting the week before HYD Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):hello All Terri Agnew:Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Mary Wong:Sorry Phil - I had audio/mic issues. Can you repeat your question? Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:I have no audio Vinzenz Heussler:Me neither Mary Wong:Re decisions on Charter questions - as far as staff can recall, no definitive decisions were made as to what to drop or language for refining any J. Scott Evans:Sorry to be late. Busy here. Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:I closed my browser and restarted and now have audio Kathy Kleiman:@Bret and Vinzenz: sound is coming in on both phone and adobe connection. Kathy Kleiman:Great! Vinzenz Heussler:Have audio again, thx! George Kirikos:I think we need to ask "What data do we need to answer each of these questions?", and then go out and get that data. Mary Wong:@George, the TMCH Sub Team is doing that and should report back soon. George Kirikos:Thanks, Mary. Perhaps this discussion is premature, then, if we've not heard back from them yet. Mary Wong:@George, the Sub Team has been careful to not analyze or edit the questions - they're using the questions as a baseline to figure out what data they might need, so hopefully the parallel discussions actually will align well. J. Scott Evans:i think so Mary Wong:All, if the questions are not clear, it may be helpful to try to refiine/edit them as part of the WG discussion as to whether to consider any particular question? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Question 5 is poorly worded - "how should". It presupposes a problem. As a WG we should start by asking if sunrise should be in some way limited by the the TM's G&S. The answer may be yes or no. If yes, then we need to discuss how we would do that. Marie Pattullo:Trying to limit by class (how?) would also be extremely difficult to enforce, not least because a word may be generic in language one and mean nothing in language two. Denise Michel:apologies for being late Mary Wong:@Kristine, maybe Q5 should start with "Should" rather than "How should"; and possibly a "If so, how?" be added at the end? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Marie, I think that is the gist of the questions. Paul Tattersfield:can here you here Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Mary, yes. Griffin Barnett:I could hear Greg Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Can hear Greg just fine. Laurie Anderson:Is anyone getting a bad echo? Griffin Barnett:Now I hear terrible echo Jeff Neuman (Valideus):We had this issue earlier with another group Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'm on the phone...no echo. Marie Pattullo:No echo and no Greg *sad*. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):the phone line cannot hear those using just the adobe room to participat Beth Allegretti:No echo and I couldn't hear Greg Mary Wong:The phone bridge is clearer - seems like a few people are having AC audio issues today Jeff Neuman (Valideus):The phone line is clear....but we cant hear some that participate through the adobe room only Marie Pattullo:But we should not be attempting to remove rights that TM owners have in law. Reg Levy - M+M:I heard Greg and now I'm getting Kathy through Greg's phone. Paul Tattersfield:Really bad echo here from Kathy Georges Nahitchevansky:I am hearing multiple people speaking and feedback Reg Levy - M+M:thanks, Greg :) George Kirikos:*6 to mute/unmute Mary Wong:All, please dial in on the phone bridge if you're having AC audio issues Greg Shatan:Audio problem dealt with. George Kirikos:+1 Kathy. The TMCH database should be entirely public. J. Scott Evans:Hey, don't talk bad about our product. ;-) George Kirikos:If the TMCH database should exist at all. In my view, it would be better to simply have an API (like TMView does) that interfaces with all the national TM databases. And then kill the sunrise special access. So, it would just be a "notice" database, without any gaming effects. Edward Morris:Agree with George and Kathy. With ICANN's new status anything we can do to allow light into all of our processes should be favoured in order to generate public confidence in our methods and processes. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):There were some very good arguments by the IPC prior to the 20912 round as to why the TMCH should not be public. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):I believe we should ask the IPC if the same rationale applies today George Kirikos:We shouldn't just "ask the IPC" -- we should determine it based on all input, not giving special input to the IPC. Edward Morris:I'd like to hear the arguments Jeff. Of course, we have to realise that the envoronment has changed. Still, I'd like to hear the rationale. Mary Wong:Note that our WG and the New gTLD WG each have liaisons to the other who are members of both WGs. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):@George - just giving you context, not making any judgments Jeff Neuman (Valideus):WE should also document why some believe it should be made public George Kirikos:The questions from 40,000 feet is simple "What are the costs and benefits of the TMCH? If the costs exceed the benefits, should the TMCH be discontinued, or be modified to correct the imbalance? Paul Tattersfield:I would guess 2 is amied at all new gTLDs ending up with existing rigths holders rather than new entrants (generic trems) George Kirikos:I obviously disagree with J. Scott on the prior point. It's like saying that new gTLDs should only be evaluated by talking to registry operators, rather than listening to registrants. Greg Shatan:We should discuss if we can prevent reverse engineering or other activities designed to thwart the non-public nature of the TMCH database. Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:As I mentioned on the liast last week, TMCH registrations leave footprints when they are used for sunrise preferences. See, e.g., http://www.thedomains.com/2016/07/06/new-gtld-tube-goes-live-thursday-less-… George Kirikos:(since new gTLDs were created for registry operators, by J. Scott's logic). TMCH impacts registrants, so their input should be equal to that of the IPC. Greg Shatan:+1 J Scott. Well said. Greg Shatan:Trademark owners ARE registrants. George Kirikos:@Greg: Sometimes they are --- sometimes they are not, i.e. they seek to BLOCK registrations, via the notices. Greg Shatan:That doesn Greg Shatan:'t mean they're not registrants. Marie Pattullo:@George û no, because new gTLDs were supposed to benefit all (clean) players; the TMCH is simply a repository for TMs allowing the TM owners to choose where and whether to register their TMs. Marie Pattullo:So - what Jeff said :-) Jeff Neuman (Valideus):Actually it is a Review of the "Effectiveness" of the RPMs, right? J. Scott Evans:@Jeff. Correct. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):ICANN profits a bit from TMCH , so they are in conflict of interests Greg Shatan:ICANN was always a private organization. George Kirikos:"Security by obscurity" doesn't work. TMCH can be easily reverse-engineered (and probably was). Just try registerting hundreds of thousands of domains, and see if you get a TMCH match. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Edward: a trademark protection mechanism that threatens trademark interests is, by definition, not effective. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):when not allowing competition Greg Shatan:There are good policy reasons for keeping the database confidential. George Kirikos:Or, run the entire USPTO database via automated registration attempts, and check against the TMCH matches that show up. Paul Tattersfield:@Greg +1 George Kirikos:@Greg: is this the same position when the IPC talks against WHOIS privacy? :-) Greg Shatan:Apples and oranges. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):I was on the STI as well Lori Schulman:Thats the point. The mechanisms are new. J. Scott Evans:A closed database is not a problem Lori Schulman:Many new gTLDs are not launched yet Lori Schulman:we want good, objective data George Kirikos:The folks who don't want to review the TMCH openly --- do they want to apply it to .com, though, as a "consensus" policy? Or do they want to keep it strictly limited to new gTLDs? J. Scott Evans:@Kathy. If we are going there, then I want to reserve the right to re-open all the issue wrt the PDDRP George Kirikos:If they simply want to keep the TMCH, etc. applicable only to new gTLDs, I think most folks won't care. George Kirikos:(well, "most folks" is general -- I bet the new gTLD registries will ask why they're singled out....) Lori Schulman:@George, thanks for the clarifying issues re: .com vs. new gTLDs Paul Tattersfield:yes David Tait:we can Griffin Barnett:can hear steve George Kirikos:*6 to mute/unmute Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Let's say we discuss an open TMCH. - what is the harm caused by a closed TMCH? I'm hearing complaints that a notice is generated. Most average domain name registrants aren't going to look up the legitimacy of their domain name registration before they register, so the notice is a "push" of TMCH information. I'm missing the reason why the clamor for an open TMCH? What problem is that going to address? Vinzenz Heussler:Hearing you Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George , .com for comoros islands and via country and territory policy :) Paul Tattersfield:fine in chat khouloud Dawahi:yes David Tait:yes Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:I can hear him Gary Saposnik:I can hear Laurie Anderson:I am hearing Steve Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I hear Steve Lori Schulman:there are delays with the telephone mute/unmute Marie Pattullo:Nope. George Kirikos:I can't hear him. Georges Nahitchevansky:I can hear him Terri Agnew:@Steve, please check your mute khouloud Dawahi:i can hear you Steve Levy:Sorry. Will dial in J. Scott Evans:yes khouloud Dawahi:yes Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):yes George Kirikos:I can hear him on Adobe. George Kirikos:Strange. Georges Nahitchevansky:There is now feedback Terri Agnew:checking on why J. Scott Evans:I can hear you thorough the speaker on computer Beth Allegretti:+1 Kristine open vs. closed TMCH Beth Allegretti:I can't hear at all Bradley Silver:cant hear anything Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Steve is only on the AC room audio....for some reason. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):I would be happy to have my company manage the TMCH Databases for much cheaper :) Denise Michel:Could we get a full transcript please Steve Levy:For those who couldn't hear me, +1 J. Scott. TMs are public but prioritization by registering in TMCH should be considered a trade secretSo far, havenÆt seen any uses of TMCH data (leaked or otherwise) which would be considered constructive and have only seen abuse in pricing of domainsHelsinki Q4: Valid in principle. But cost of operation? Would others jump into the market if operation is a money loser? Mary Wong:@Greg, that is the plan - but a date and topic hasn't been discussed or agreed Greg Shatan:We will need to deal with the issues of abuse of the TMCH database. While this would be exacerbated by opening the database, these should be dealt with regardless. Mary Wong:@Denise, the call transcript and AC chat history will be posted to the WG wiki for this meeting date. Greg Shatan:Thanks, Mary! Marie Pattullo:@Kristine - I was wondering the same: what benefit would an open DB bring? And if any, balanced against the TM owners' interests, would it be proportionate? J. Scott Evans:@Phil. We need a small drafting team to put forth some draft objective questions. Marina Lewis:+1 J.Scott and Steve L. David Tait:@Densie, further to Mary's comment this should be within the next 24-48 hours Jeff Neuman (Valideus):OUt of curiousity, why do we need a shorter list? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1,Google doc in comments mode Jeff Neuman (Valideus):Yes, we should make sure the questions are clear, but why cant we start with these J. Scott Evans:@Phil. Anything more than 5 becomes unweildy IMHO Paul Tattersfield:@ Jeff they are not mutually exclusive questions/issues Marina Lewis:Phil - I lost my phone connection. I'll respond in chat, Greg Shatan:or broadened... Marina Lewis:How about we send out this list as is to the group for quick and short feedback? (e.g., a 24 or 48 hour turnaround)? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'm going to suggest that the TMCH subteam has sort of started this. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):better not 48 hours of the weekend Marina Lewis:+1 Kristine - I'm on that subteam and I think we can include this in our work. Griffin Barnett:Probably no need to impose such artificially short turnaround for review, given 2 week break until next WG meeting Greg Shatan:Good point Griffin J. Scott Evans:+1 Phil. J. Scott Evans:I am happy to coordinate a team Greg Shatan:We may want to break this list up into sub parts. Greg Shatan:Right now it covers the waterfront. Kathy Kleiman:I would be happy to help J. Scott coordinate this new subgroup, if people want to volunteer for it. Paul Tattersfield:I'm haapy to help on a sub team George Kirikos:"Premium names" have higher renewal costs too, Phil. George Kirikos:So, that might have been the concern. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):Correct PHil, lets not offer opinions on Premium names at this poiint Greg Shatan:Premium names raise significant issues with regard to Sunrise. George Kirikos:(so, striking a name from the "premium names" list would reduce defensive registration costs) J. Scott Evans:I am going to have to sign off to join a work call. Again, I am happy to work to put a small drafting team together. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):@Greg - yes, which is why I am not sure Phil should editorialize on this. Greg Shatan:Stopping price gouging through abuse of premium names would also lower defensive registration costs, and be consistent with RPM goals. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all Lori Schulman:Sorry, thought I was on mute. Lori Schulman:I am on when I should be "off" "Off" when I should be on. mmmm..... George Kirikos:Bye folks. Lori Schulman:ciao Steve Levy:Bye all! Paul Tattersfield:bye all Mary Wong:Please remember - no call next week. Mary Wong:We resume on 19 Oct. Marie Pattullo:Have a great evening, all. Steve Levy:Thanks,Phil Darcy Southwell:Thanks, all, bye! Brian Winterfeldt (Mayer Brown):Thank you Phil! Brian Winterfeldt (Mayer Brown):By everyone. Marina Lewis:bye all Greg Shatan:Bye all! Georges Nahitchevansky:Bye everyone Salvador Camacho Hernandez:Bye!

1 0

Notes and actions from RPMs meeting 5 October 2016
by David Tait Oct. 6, 2016

Oct. 6, 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 www.icann.org

1 0

Please RSVP Pre-ICANN 57 Policy Update Webinar Announcement
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 5, 2016

Oct. 5, 2016

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-05-en Please RSVP via this form<https://goo.gl/forms/LTVbnZ8zXIBp5fFm1> 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://www.icann.org/resources/pages/presentations-2012-08-27-en>. 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://goo.gl/forms/LTVbnZ8zXIBp5fFm1> by 14 October 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 17 October 2016.

1 0

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group 05 October 2016
by Terri Agnew Oct. 5, 2016

Oct. 5, 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, 05 October 2016 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/rhC4Aw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-05oct16-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/rhiOAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew **Due to a technical issue the AC chat is only the partial chat, missing the beginning portion. We are working with our vendor to retrieve the full chat and will send an update once received. **Partial Chat (see note above) Adobe Connect chat transcript for 05 October 2016: Phil Marano (Mayer Brown): Can hear Greg just fine. Laurie Anderson: Is anyone getting a bad echo? Griffin Barnett: Now I hear terrible echo Jeff Neuman (Valideus): We had this issue earlier with another group Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services: I'm on the phone...no echo. Marie Pattullo: No echo and no Greg *sad*. Jeff Neuman (Valideus): the phone line cannot hear those using just the adobe room to participat Beth Allegretti: No echo and I couldn't hear Greg Mary Wong: The phone bridge is clearer - seems like a few people are having AC audio issues today Jeff Neuman (Valideus): The phone line is clear....but we cant hear some that participate through the adobe room only Marie Pattullo: But we should not be attempting to remove rights that TM owners have in law. Reg Levy - M+M: I heard Greg and now I'm getting Kathy through Greg's phone. Paul Tattersfield: Really bad echo here from Kathy Georges Nahitchevansky: I am hearing multiple people speaking and feedback Reg Levy - M+M: thanks, Greg :) George Kirikos: *6 to mute/unmute Mary Wong: All, please dial in on the phone bridge if you're having AC audio issues Greg Shatan: Audio problem dealt with. George Kirikos: +1 Kathy. The TMCH database should be entirely public. J. Scott Evans: Hey, don't talk bad about our product. ;-) George Kirikos: If the TMCH database should exist at all. In my view, it would be better to simply have an API (like TMView does) that interfaces with all the national TM databases. And then kill the sunrise special access. So, it would just be a "notice" database, without any gaming effects. Edward Morris: Agree with George and Kathy. With ICANN's new status anything we can do to allow light into all of our processes should be favoured in order to generate public confidence in our methods and processes. Jeff Neuman (Valideus): There were some very good arguments by the IPC prior to the 20912 round as to why the TMCH should not be public. Jeff Neuman (Valideus): I believe we should ask the IPC if the same rationale applies today George Kirikos: We shouldn't just "ask the IPC" -- we should determine it based on all input, not giving special input to the IPC. Edward Morris: I'd like to hear the arguments Jeff. Of course, we have to realise that the envoronment has changed. Still, I'd like to hear the rationale. Mary Wong: Note that our WG and the New gTLD WG each have liaisons to the other who are members of both WGs. Jeff Neuman (Valideus): @George - just giving you context, not making any judgments Jeff Neuman (Valideus): WE should also document why some believe it should be made public George Kirikos: The questions from 40,000 feet is simple "What are the costs and benefits of the TMCH? If the costs exceed the benefits, should the TMCH be discontinued, or be modified to correct the imbalance? Paul Tattersfield: I would guess 2 is amied at all new gTLDs ending up with existing rigths holders rather than new entrants (generic trems) George Kirikos: I obviously disagree with J. Scott on the prior point. It's like saying that new gTLDs should only be evaluated by talking to registry operators, rather than listening to registrants. Greg Shatan: We should discuss if we can prevent reverse engineering or other activities designed to thwart the non-public nature of the TMCH database. Bret Fausett, Uniregistry: As I mentioned on the liast last week, TMCH registrations leave footprints when they are used for sunrise preferences. See, e.g., http://www.thedomains.com/2016/07/06/new-gtld-tube-goes-live-thursday-less-… George Kirikos: (since new gTLDs were created for registry operators, by J. Scott's logic). TMCH impacts registrants, so their input should be equal to that of the IPC. Greg Shatan: +1 J Scott. Well said. Greg Shatan: Trademark owners ARE registrants. George Kirikos: @Greg: Sometimes they are --- sometimes they are not, i.e. they seek to BLOCK registrations, via the notices. Greg Shatan: That doesn Greg Shatan: 't mean they're not registrants. Marie Pattullo: @George - no, because new gTLDs were supposed to benefit all (clean) players; the TMCH is simply a repository for TMs allowing the TM owners to choose where and whether to register their TMs. Marie Pattullo: So - what Jeff said :-) Jeff Neuman (Valideus): Actually it is a Review of the "Effectiveness" of the RPMs, right? J. Scott Evans: @Jeff. Correct. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): ICANN profits a bit from TMCH , so they are in conflict of interests Greg Shatan: ICANN was always a private organization. George Kirikos: "Security by obscurity" doesn't work. TMCH can be easily reverse-engineered (and probably was). Just try registerting hundreds of thousands of domains, and see if you get a TMCH match. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services: @Edward: a trademark protection mechanism that threatens trademark interests is, by definition, not effective. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): when not allowing competition Greg Shatan: There are good policy reasons for keeping the database confidential. George Kirikos: Or, run the entire USPTO database via automated registration attempts, and check against the TMCH matches that show up. Paul Tattersfield: @Greg +1 George Kirikos: @Greg: is this the same position when the IPC talks against WHOIS privacy? :-) Greg Shatan: Apples and oranges. Jeff Neuman (Valideus): I was on the STI as well Lori Schulman: Thats the point. The mechanisms are new. J. Scott Evans: A closed database is not a problem Lori Schulman: Many new gTLDs are not launched yet Lori Schulman: we want good, objective data George Kirikos: The folks who don't want to review the TMCH openly --- do they want to apply it to .com, though, as a "consensus" policy? Or do they want to keep it strictly limited to new gTLDs? J. Scott Evans: @Kathy. If we are going there, then I want to reserve the right to re-open all the issue wrt the PDDRP George Kirikos: If they simply want to keep the TMCH, etc. applicable only to new gTLDs, I think most folks won't care. George Kirikos: (well, "most folks" is general -- I bet the new gTLD registries will ask why they're singled out....) Lori Schulman: @George, thanks for the clarifying issues re: .com vs. new gTLDs Paul Tattersfield: yes David Tait: we can Griffin Barnett: can hear steve George Kirikos: *6 to mute/unmute Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services: Let's say we discuss an open TMCH. - what is the harm caused by a closed TMCH? I'm hearing complaints that a notice is generated. Most average domain name registrants aren't going to look up the legitimacy of their domain name registration before they register, so the notice is a "push" of TMCH information. I'm missing the reason why the clamor for an open TMCH? What problem is that going to address? Vinzenz Heussler: Hearing you Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @George , .com for comoros islands and via country and territory policy :) Paul Tattersfield: fine in chat khouloud Dawahi: yes David Tait: yes Bret Fausett, Uniregistry: I can hear him Gary Saposnik: I can hear Laurie Anderson: I am hearing Steve Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I hear Steve Lori Schulman: there are delays with the telephone mute/unmute Marie Pattullo: Nope. George Kirikos: I can't hear him. Georges Nahitchevansky: I can hear him Terri Agnew: @Steve, please check your mute khouloud Dawahi: i can hear you Steve Levy: Sorry. Will dial in J. Scott Evans: yes khouloud Dawahi: yes Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): yes George Kirikos: I can hear him on Adobe. George Kirikos: Strange. Georges Nahitchevansky: There is now feedback Terri Agnew: checking on why J. Scott Evans: I can hear you thorough the speaker on computer Beth Allegretti: +1 Kristine open vs. closed TMCH Beth Allegretti: I can't hear at all Bradley Silver: cant hear anything Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services: Steve is only on the AC room audio....for some reason. Jeff Neuman (Valideus): I would be happy to have my company manage the TMCH Databases for much cheaper :) Denise Michel: Could we get a full transcript please Steve Levy: For those who couldn't hear me, +1 J. Scott. TMs are public but prioritization by registering in TMCH should be considered a trade secretSo far, haven't seen any uses of TMCH data (leaked or otherwise) which would be considered constructive and have only seen abuse in pricing of domainsHelsinki Q4: Valid in principle. But cost of operation? Would others jump into the market if operation is a money loser? Mary Wong: @Greg, that is the plan - but a date and topic hasn't been discussed or agreed Greg Shatan: We will need to deal with the issues of abuse of the TMCH database. While this would be exacerbated by opening the database, these should be dealt with regardless. Mary Wong: @Denise, the call transcript and AC chat history will be posted to the WG wiki for this meeting date. Greg Shatan: Thanks, Mary! Marie Pattullo: @Kristine - I was wondering the same: what benefit would an open DB bring? And if any, balanced against the TM owners' interests, would it be proportionate? J. Scott Evans: @Phil. We need a small drafting team to put forth some draft objective questions. Marina Lewis: +1 J.Scott and Steve L. David Tait: @Densie, further to Mary's comment this should be within the next 24-48 hours Jeff Neuman (Valideus): OUt of curiousity, why do we need a shorter list? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): +1,Google doc in comments mode Jeff Neuman (Valideus): Yes, we should make sure the questions are clear, but why cant we start with these J. Scott Evans: @Phil. Anything more than 5 becomes unweildy IMHO Paul Tattersfield: @ Jeff they are not mutually exclusive questions/issues Marina Lewis: Phil - I lost my phone connection. I'll respond in chat, Greg Shatan: or broadened... Marina Lewis: How about we send out this list as is to the group for quick and short feedback? (e.g., a 24 or 48 hour turnaround)? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services: I'm going to suggest that the TMCH subteam has sort of started this. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): better not 48 hours of the weekend Marina Lewis: +1 Kristine - I'm on that subteam and I think we can include this in our work. Griffin Barnett: Probably no need to impose such artificially short turnaround for review, given 2 week break until next WG meeting Greg Shatan: Good point Griffin J. Scott Evans: +1 Phil. J. Scott Evans: I am happy to coordinate a team Greg Shatan: We may want to break this list up into sub parts. Greg Shatan: Right now it covers the waterfront. Kathy Kleiman: I would be happy to help J. Scott coordinate this new subgroup, if people want to volunteer for it. Paul Tattersfield: I'm haapy to help on a sub team George Kirikos: "Premium names" have higher renewal costs too, Phil. George Kirikos: So, that might have been the concern. Jeff Neuman (Valideus): Correct PHil, lets not offer opinions on Premium names at this poiint Greg Shatan: Premium names raise significant issues with regard to Sunrise. George Kirikos: (so, striking a name from the "premium names" list would reduce defensive registration costs) J. Scott Evans: I am going to have to sign off to join a work call. Again, I am happy to work to put a small drafting team together. Jeff Neuman (Valideus): @Greg - yes, which is why I am not sure Phil should editorialize on this. Greg Shatan: Stopping price gouging through abuse of premium names would also lower defensive registration costs, and be consistent with RPM goals. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): bye all Lori Schulman: Sorry, thought I was on mute. Lori Schulman: I am on when I should be "off" "Off" when I should be on. mmmm..... George Kirikos: Bye folks. Lori Schulman: ciao Steve Levy: Bye all! Paul Tattersfield: bye all Mary Wong: Please remember - no call next week. Mary Wong: We resume on 19 Oct. Marie Pattullo: Have a great evening, all. Steve Levy: Thanks,Phil Darcy Southwell: Thanks, all, bye! Brian Winterfeldt (Mayer Brown): Thank you Phil! Brian Winterfeldt (Mayer Brown): By everyone. Marina Lewis: bye all Greg Shatan: Bye all! Georges Nahitchevansky: Bye everyone Salvador Camacho Hernandez: Bye!

1 0

Agenda and documents for the next Working Group call
by Mary Wong Oct. 4, 2016

Oct. 4, 2016

Dear all, The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, scheduled for 5 October at 1700 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect/phone bridge only); updates to SOI 2. Continue review of Charter and community questions for TMCH, Sunrise and Claims – the aim being to finalize which questions the WG agrees to review, which need to be synthesized with others, and which are to be postponed or not considered 3. Next steps / next meeting For agenda item #2, we hope that the consolidated list of Charter and community questions that was compiled by staff, and reattached for your convenience, will be helpful. In addition, we refer you to the mailing list discussions that have been going on for further background: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/. We are pleased also to report that both the FORUM and WIPO have very kindly submitted their feedback on the additional questions regarding the TM-PDDRP that we had sent to them last month. These will be posted to the Working Group wiki space along with the responses that were received to the Community Survey on the TM-PDDRP. Subject to the co-chairs’ decision, we expect that these will be taken up by the Working Group at its next meeting, on 19 October, in preparation for ICANN57 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

1 0

GNSO Working Group Communication Tools Classroom | 10 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 4, 2016

Oct. 4, 2016

GNSO Working Group Communication Tools Classroom | October 10 2016 | 20:00 UTC Please RSVP via <https://goo.gl/forms/rGI0HvuV8eT00FJ53> this form<https://goo.gl/forms/rGI0HvuV8eT00FJ53> by 7 October 2016. Are you a new GNSO Working Group Member? Do you have questions you never asked about Adobe Connect or other participation tools that are used to facilitate Working Group deliberations? The upcoming Communication Tools Classroom is the place to look for answers to these and any other questions you may have in relation to Working Group tools. Please join the SO/AC Support team on October 10, 2016 at 20:00 UTC for the Communication Tools Classroom. In an informal setting, new Working Group members will be familiarized with the communication tools they will be using when taking part in GNSO Working Groups. Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. Introduction to the SO/AC Support team & Policy Support Staff 3. Where to find relevant information: a. GNSO Master Calendar b. Individual Working Group Wiki pages. 4. Working Group Mailing lists: a. Difference between statuses (Observer/ Member) 5. Working Group Members a. Statements of Interests b. Email invitations c. Calendar invitations 6. Adobe Connect room 7. Questions This session will be recorded and the recordings will be made available on the GNSO Calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar>. We look forward to your participation! Please RSVP via this form<https://goo.gl/forms/rGI0HvuV8eT00FJ53> by 7 October 2016.

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] "free speech"
by J. Scott Evans Oct. 1, 2016

Oct. 1, 2016

Rebecca: Thanks for weighing in here. First, I do not use Wikipedia as a definitive source for anything related to the law. It is interesting reading and may require that I go to more definitive sources to verify, but I do not put much stock in it as the absolute "truth" on any subject. Second, many countries have almost an exact replica of the US Constitution, but don't recognize the provision related to free speech. Likewise, many jurisdictions do not recognize the concept of "fair use." My only point our call was that there are many non-lawyers participating. I think many time views are put forth on our calls that could be seen as misleading. It is one thing to hold the US concept of free speech up as the standard bearer that we should aspire to in our work (I could also argue that US concept of IP protection should also be held up as an appropriate standard). However, in my experiences at ICANN since we originally drafted, it has constantly been pointed out that we SHOULD NOT apply US-like trademark protections to the ICANN RPMs since different jurisdictions view trademarks differently. I can theoretically see the rationale behind this argument. Unfortunately for me, however, I fail to see how the concept of US free speech should be universally applied, but US-like trademark protections should not. I think that is intellectually inconsistent. As for the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its signatories, I think the same position could be taken with regard to the Paris Convention and its signatories. 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: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26(a)law.georgetown.edu<mailto:rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>> Date: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 10:34 AM Cc: "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] "free speech" Just to correct a misstatement on the call earlier: Most nations don't have a US-style First Amendment. Most nations with a rule of law do, however, recognize freedom of speech in some form, including the right to criticize private companies. As this Wikipedia entry notes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country, implementation can be inconsistent on the ground, but I expect that inconsistent enforcement of trademark rights on the ground doesn't mean that trademark owners want ICANN to ignore the law on the books; freedom of speech is equally a principle worth honoring. In addition, I don't know how many countries whose nationals participate in the ICANN process have signed on to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which includes freedom of speech, http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/, but I doubt we want to make policy based on the countries that don't recognize any freedom of speech at all. Also, you can't have it both ways: if domain names can facilitate infringement, which they absolutely can, then they convey meaning; if they convey meaning, they can also facilitate noninfringing conduct or affirmatively protected freedom of speech. It is just as true, or untrue, that a trademark owner can register a different string if it can't have the one that it wants as it is that a person making fair or otherwise noninfringing use can do so. This is especially so if we've given trademark owners the ability to jump the line in many circumstances. Freedom of speech principles may help tell us when preclusion of a domain name to a speaker-whether a trademark owner or a non-owner-is of particular importance. That is, they can help us identify the important false positives (notifications generated in response to domain names that wouldn't infringe). Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759 ________________________________ <ACL>

7 11

Action items from the WG call of 28 September 2016
by Mary Wong Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Dear all, The Trademark Claims slide presentation has been updated with the additional questions and suggestions that were made by WG members who were on the call this Wednesday. You can find the updated slide deck – with the additional questions listed on a new Slide #16 – on the WG wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/QAu4Aw (under the heading Follow Up). In addition, WG members also suggested that registrars be requested to provide data on the total number of registration attempts that were made through them – the objective being to discover how many such attempts did not trigger a Claims Notice (since we have data for the number of Claims Notices triggered, the percentage of registrations that then proceeded toward completion of registration, and the total number of actual registrations, but no information on how many attempted registrations were not subject to a Claims Notice). Staff will note this suggestion for inclusion in the WG’s (or the Sub Team’s, as appropriate) outreach efforts to registrars. WG members are kindly requested to review the full list of Charter questions pertaining to the TMCH, Sunrise and Claims – including the additional community and WG suggestions received – as part of the overall WG exercise to determine whether to consider only some or all of them, and whether other questions need to be added. As noted previously, staff has compiled and circulated the full list of questions into a single document for ease of review, and the document is also available at the wiki page link noted above. 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

"free speech"
by Rebecca Tushnet Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Just to correct a misstatement on the call earlier: Most nations don't have a US-style First Amendment. Most nations with a rule of law do, however, recognize freedom of speech in some form, including the right to criticize private companies. As this Wikipedia entry notes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country, implementation can be inconsistent on the ground, but I expect that inconsistent enforcement of trademark rights on the ground doesn't mean that trademark owners want ICANN to ignore the law on the books; freedom of speech is equally a principle worth honoring. In addition, I don't know how many countries whose nationals participate in the ICANN process have signed on to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which includes freedom of speech, http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/, but I doubt we want to make policy based on the countries that don't recognize any freedom of speech at all. Also, you can't have it both ways: if domain names can facilitate infringement, which they absolutely can, then they convey meaning; if they convey meaning, they can also facilitate noninfringing conduct or affirmatively protected freedom of speech. It is just as true, or untrue, that a trademark owner can register a different string if it can't have the one that it wants as it is that a person making fair or otherwise noninfringing use can do so. This is especially so if we've given trademark owners the ability to jump the line in many circumstances. Freedom of speech principles may help tell us when preclusion of a domain name to a speaker-whether a trademark owner or a non-owner-is of particular importance. That is, they can help us identify the important false positives (notifications generated in response to domain names that wouldn't infringe). Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759

8 18

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group 28 September 2016
by Terri Agnew Sept. 28, 2016

Sept. 28, 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, 28 September 2016 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/QAu4Aw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-28sep16-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/rhiOAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 28 September 2016: Terri Agnew: Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group held on Wednesday, 28 September 2016 at 16:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Terri Agnew: agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/QAu4Aw George Kirikos: Hi folks. George Kirikos: It looks like the layout of the room was adjusted slightly? David Tait: Hi George, yes there have been some updates to add additional functionality to the AC rooms Steve Levy: Hi all! Paul Tattersfield: Hi everyone Greg Shatan: Nice new room! I can still smell the paint. Yuri Chumak: hi Ankur Raheja: Hello Kathy Kleiman: But do you like the color, Greg? Greg Shatan: So many shades of gray. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): Hello all Kathy Kleiman: oh dear. Greg Shatan: We will need to provide color with our chat colors. And with our comments. Georges Nahitchevansky: Who was in charge of the paint job Kathy Kleiman: indeed, color commentary... George Kirikos: A theme selector would be nice....perhaps aqua..... Greg Shatan: I want to rock and roll all night, and ICANN every day. Greg Shatan: Custom skins for Adobe Connect rooms! Mary Wong: Ack, earworm!!! Greg Shatan: @Mary, sorry...:-) Mary Wong: :) ----------------------------------------------------- (09/28/2016 11:07) ----------------------------------------------------- Terri Agnew: everyone can turn the slides themselves ----------------------------------------------------- (09/28/2016 11:09) ----------------------------------------------------- Terri Agnew: Please remember to mute when not speaking Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): yep. Paul Keating: Hello all. Sorry I am late. ----------------------------------------------------- (09/28/2016 11:11) ----------------------------------------------------- Paul McGrady: Sorry to be tardy. Good m/a/e. ----------------------------------------------------- (09/28/2016 11:12) ----------------------------------------------------- George Kirikos: Is there a reason for the English bias in the notice? (Given the large number of registrants from China, are they getting adequate notice? Are the Chinese registrars translating into Chinese?) Griffin Barnett: I believe it is required (not optional) to provide the notice in English and the language of the registration agreement Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): How to say .... lot's of potential registrants were freaked out due to the text and did not realise that they are not doing wrong things ... it would be nice to have more non-legal persons friendly text Mary Wong: The TMCH Requirements provide the following: "The Claims Notice MUST be provided by the registrar to the potential domain name registrant in English and SHOULD be provided by the registrar to the potential domain name registrant in the language of the registration agreement." George Kirikos: Do we have any stats on whether the registrars are following the "should" advice? Or are they cutting costs, and ignoring the suggestion? Mary Wong: So whether there is a Chinese version depends on whether the registration agrement is in Chinese (which may well be the case if the registrar is a Chinese-based registrar). Philip Corwin: Slide 4 notes that Notice must be provided in English and, preferably, language of registration agreement ----------------------------------------------------- (09/28/2016 11:16) ----------------------------------------------------- George Kirikos: 46.8% of registrants are from China for new gTLDs, so perhaps the "should" can be replaced by "must" https://ntldstats.com/country Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): One interesting note was that the original policy was that a Registry had to run a Sunrise OR a Claims Period, but not both. Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): THat changed after GAC Advice George Kirikos: (might even be higher than 46.8%, depending on the 17.9% of proxy registrations) Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): We need to decide whether to formally codify both into the policy (or not) Mary Wong: @George, we (staff) don't know at this point if the aggregate numbers for Claims Notices sent are available broken down into different languages. Note that the official working language at ICANN is English, so the official notice (as provided for in the TMCH Requirements) is provided in English. I don't believe we provide an official translation in multiple languages. ----------------------------------------------------- (09/28/2016 11:19) ----------------------------------------------------- George Kirikos: That's surprising that there's no official translation, given that one of the justifications for the new gTLDs program was for IDNS, and "lesser served" countries in general. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): than, given that most people on the planet do not read English ... I think big share of those notices were not understood Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): @George, perhaps that's a policy recommendation; (Namely, we should have formal translations done in at least the 6 UN languages)/ George Kirikos: +1 Jeff Mary Wong: All, for Slide 10, the "either type of registration activity" quoted refers to both legitimate registrations and cybersquatting activity. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): +1 for chilling effect ----------------------------------------------------- (09/28/2016 11:22) ----------------------------------------------------- Griffin Barnett: agree that official translations of the claims notice language in at least the 6 UN languages would be helpful George Kirikos: How many registration attempts didn't trigger a claims notice? (i.e. is XX million+ total registration attempts, but 1.8 million triggered a Claims Notice?) Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): And today Donuts announced a new DPML Plus service George Kirikos: (and of those that didn't trigger a claims notice, what % (presumably higher than 6.3%) went on to complete the domain name registration?) Mary Wong: @George, I think we can only get that total number if all registrars agree to provide that information. Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): http://www.donuts.domains/services/dpml-plus/dpml-plus-overview George Kirikos: @Mary: We'd need those kinds of figures, to determine whether or not the 6.3% is indeed a "chilling effect" ----------------------------------------------------- (09/28/2016 11:26) ----------------------------------------------------- Philip Corwin: I'm confused about Donuts' DPML service. Slide says that mark registered in TMCH can be blocked, but also says that blocked mark need not be an exact match of the TMCH registered mark. How broad is the potential scope of blocking? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): this kind of extra protection will prevent those parties from obtaining their matching domains, the way we see now with IGOs ... Mary Wong: @George, we don't disagree - but I doubt we can get all the data so as to be a reliable figure. Perhaps we can compare the number of Claims Notices issued and the number that proceeded nevertheless (per the Analysis Group's data) with the total number of registrations? Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): Can we add the question of whether both Sunrise AND Claims should continue to apply or whether we stick with the original policy which was Sunrise OR Claims Philip Corwin: My recollection is that TM+50 not being used much Paul Tattersfield: It's probably a helpful chill, developing a (non-infringing) business on a domain where there is also a larger brand in an unrelated sector is a serious headache and it doesn't go away with tine. If possible choosing a unique name is a far better route. Paul Tattersfield: time Mary Wong: @Phil, on the breadth of a DPML block, the operative word used by these registries is "contains" the TM. I believe they also include substituions (e.g. numbers for characters). Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): given the amount of generic names registered as TMs- extra protection will make future TLDs usless Kathy Kleiman: Looking at the Additional Questions and Issues from the Charter, perhaps the key question is: are the TM Claims Services policies fair and balanced as adopted and as used? ----------------------------------------------------- (09/28/2016 11:30) ----------------------------------------------------- Steve Levy: I feel balance is an important consideration given the huge number of cybersquatted domains compared with the lower number of generic domains claimaed curing sunrise by trademark owners George Kirikos: Do we have any stats on what percentage of the claims notices get triggered in different time periods? (e.g. first 10 days of GA, vs. 80th-90th days of GA) Perhaps that would help determine where the "sweet spot" is, in terms of picking an optimal time period for the claims notice period. Paul Keating: Perhaps organizing them by category. TMCH procedureal issues, Rights protections, etc. Rebecca Tushnet: It seems to me a problem with data collection is that registries aren't required to let ICANN inspect--subject to confidentiality agreements--the actual attempts that triggered matches/notices. Without being able to audit a sample there is just no way to make any kind of informed judgment about whether these are true positives or false positives, or what percentage of each we might be getting. Statton Hammock: I don't think the first and last are NOT the same. One asks for an opinion, the other asks for facts. Mary Wong: @Rebecca, that is the staff concern - that any data we get from registrars will likely be incomplete and thus not as accurate or helpful as we may need. Rebecca Tushnet: So can contracts with registries be changed to allow such audits in the future, again subject to confidentiality obligations? Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): Rebecca - I think you meant registrars in your point. Registries do not have the information you point out (Namely, whether registrations were attempted but decided not to proceed) . That is the registrar level Rebecca Tushnet: And by allow I mean "require access to" John McElwaine: @jscott Agree with that approach Rebecca Tushnet: Sorry, registrars Petter Rindforth: agree khouloud Dawahi: yes Kathy Kleiman: @J.Scott: What slide are you looking at now? Tx. Philip Corwin: @Steve Levy--what is factual basis for statement that there is "huge number of cybersquatted domains"? UDRPs constitute less than 1/100 of all registered gTLD domains. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): Even adding "if you do not understand the text = please click this URL in 6 UN languages will help" Beth Allegretti: + 1 Caroline Bret Fausett, Uniregistry: I like the suggestion of changing the text of the notice. Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): Yes, I will go after Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): because my question is semi different topic George Kirikos: Here's what the TM Claims Notice looks, for one registrar (Tucows/OpenSRS): https://kb.opensrs.com/22964-domains/188131-trademark-claims-notifications Vaibhav Aggarwal: HI I am In Sorry for being late kept waiting on the older link only to realise that the Talk is in a new Room :-) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry: Thanks. all. I have to bail. Will listen to the rest this afternoon. George Kirikos: (scroll down a couple of pages, to see what the registrant sees) ----------------------------------------------------- (09/28/2016 11:37) ----------------------------------------------------- Kathy Kleiman: @Mary and David: Could you add Jeff's question to the right? ----------------------------------------------------- (09/28/2016 11:39) ----------------------------------------------------- Mary Wong: Done! ----------------------------------------------------- (09/28/2016 11:41) ----------------------------------------------------- Ivett Paulovics: Sorry for being late Ivett Paulovics: Hi everyone Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): We need to decide also from a policy perspective as to whether to codify tM plus 0 Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): 50 George Kirikos: Interestingly, for Tucows/OpenSRS "You cannot enable Contact Privacy for domains that match marks in the Clearinghouse." I wonder if other registrars do the same, to mitigate risk. Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): that was not a GNSO policy Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): That was a Board addition after consultation ----------------------------------------------------- (09/28/2016 11:44) ----------------------------------------------------- Greg Shatan: A more "conversational" notice could make sense. Would "Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here" be too harsh for a claims notice? It translates nicely into Italian. ----------------------------------------------------- (09/28/2016 11:45) ----------------------------------------------------- George Kirikos: Thanks for pointing out that list, Kathy. Kathy Kleiman: @Greg, Dante's words may not be welcoming to registrants :-) Mary Wong: @Paul M, that language was in the TMCH Requirements. We haven't (David and I) seen an actual Claims Notice but we can ask. J. Scott Evans: @Greg ah hahahahahahaha Kathy Kleiman: How do we encourage fair use and discourage infringing use? ----------------------------------------------------- (09/28/2016 11:48) ----------------------------------------------------- Kathy Kleiman: blame us! George Kirikos: Perhaps the Claims Notice should only be triggered if the prospective registrant is in the same country as the mark. e.g. US Mark would show to a US Registrant, but not to a Canadian registrant. Pakistani mark wouldn't show to a US registrant. Kathy Kleiman: we did try to create a balanced notice... Greg Shatan: Agree with Paul, the notice does need to be firmly stated enough to put the potential registrant on notice. Kathy Kleiman: +1 Paul! Greg Shatan: The balance may be right -- it may be the legalistic language that needs fixing. Lori Schulman: Kathy just explained the problem in a nutshell. How do we balance the message? Kathy Kleiman: for those reading the chat room later - the 10 most frequently downloaded trademark strings in claims service data - smart, forex, hotel, one, love, cloud, nyc, london, abc, luxury Philip Corwin: @Paul--I wasn't advocating any particular "softening" language at this time, just some thinking about whether language can be made a tad less legalistic and thereby clearer for average registrant. Agree that some intended registration may be very infringing, while others would not -- often dependent on registrant intent raher than the TMCH-registered mark. Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): I also believe that a number of notices may be been sent as part of an error from a particular registrar Steve Levy: Sorry, have to log off now but will continue on the phone line. Phil Marano (Mayer Brown): Should we explore the possibility / likelihood that potential registrants who ultimately decline to register domain names upon receipt of a claims notification, are simply seeking to reverse engineer the Clearinghouse database through a multitude of queries and attempted registrations? Mary Wong: @Phil M, how would we do that, though? Greg Shatan: Phil, that's an interesting point. And could skew the data. Phil Marano (Mayer Brown): @Mary: Not sure, open to any thoughts of course. George Kirikos: I wonder if the 93.7% figure might be overstated, if some of the domain names that triggered Claims Notices were also Premium Domains? George Kirikos: e.g. "smart" or "hotel" might be $50,000/yr domains. Kathy Kleiman: @Mary and David: could you include Beth's question re: language and translation? Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): I do believe it is overstated Mary Wong: The Technical Requirements say "SHOULD" (for language of registration agreement) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): the only language of Registry Agreement is English John McElwaine: @Phil I was about to mention that . We cannot assume that every purported "registrant" is actually trying to register a domain name. Greg Shatan: Can we find out what the more popular local registrars are doing, in fact? There can't be that many. George Kirikos: Plus, if 10 people were deterred from registering Hotel.TLD, it doesn't mean the string doesn't get registered --- the 11th person might (smartly) recognize the term can be used for non-infringing sites, and she/he goes ahead with the registration. Greg Shatan: It's the end-user registration agreement, not the Registry Agreement. I assume if I'm sitting in China and uising a Chinese registrar, the registration agreement is highly likely to be in Chinese. ----------------------------------------------------- (09/28/2016 11:55) ----------------------------------------------------- George Kirikos: Perhaps "human rights" refers to Free Speech? Statton Hammock: Agree J. Scott Mary Wong: We will add this - but, again, that depends on registrars agreeing to provide that information, and we may not also get all to respond. Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): Every PDP is now being asked about Human Rights Mary Wong: (this = questions/data about language of registration agreements) Greg Shatan: There's the CCWG-Accountability WS2 Subgroup on Human Rights Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): Seems to be a popular addition Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): And those that added the Human Rights language are never in these groups :) Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): Stephanie Perrin I believe on the Council always wanted to add this language George Kirikos: I'm in favour of Article 24: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ (right to rest and leisure) :-) Greg Shatan: I'm in there too, We are in the "messy" stage of the multistakeholder process. This too shall pass (it almost always does.) Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): I have to drop.....Bye all Mary Wong: "1. Are recent and strong ICANN work seeking to understand and incorporate Human Rights into the policy considerations of ICANN relevant to the UDRP or any of the RPMs?" Paul McGrady: @George K: love it! "Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay." Paul Tattersfield: breach of natural justice is important Paul McGrady: I am very concerned about just cherry picking one human right to apply here. Paul McGrady: This is a morass we should not allow ourselves to get trapped in. This is the work of that WS2 Subgroup. Paul Keating: J Sc ott: The EU certainly DOES have fair use. It is in 4Ibis of the EC Regulation on Trademarks Paul McGrady: Article 27(2) "(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author." Mary Wong: @Greg, as noted, these were community suggestions made to ICANN, unedited by staff. Bret Fausett, Uniregistry: I would invite people who are knowledgable of, sensitive to, and passionate about "human rights in the DNS" look at the work of the working group, and every working group, and tell us if what the group is doing impacts the issues. I am open to this issue, but I don't know enough about it to have an opinion one way or another. Vaibhav Aggarwal: Where are v going with this on TMCH ? Paul Tattersfield: Its relevant for refiling UDRPs Vaibhav Aggarwal: This is the not the Statge Vaibhav Aggarwal: Guys Vaibhav Aggarwal: I am confused Vaibhav Aggarwal: This is TMCH - Just a Repository Vaibhav Aggarwal: an Agency Vaibhav Aggarwal: Takes Iformation form one Source and Sends it to other Vaibhav Aggarwal: thats it Greg Shatan: Umbrella with broken spokes and bum handle... Mary Wong: Note that all these questions are community-made. The Charter states that "The issues that are listed here reflect the suggestions that have been made to date by the community regarding improvements or modifications to the RPM(s) in question and should form part of the discussions of the PDP Working Group. The Working Group may decide to address all, some or even additional issues to these." Paul Keating: do NOT strike. It should be kept but agree dealt with last. Vaibhav Aggarwal: @Greg ha ha ha Bret Fausett, Uniregistry: I wouldn't strike it, J. Scott. Let's just defer this. Bret Fausett, Uniregistry: Maybe just a change of terminology. Paul Keating: If it is an umbrella question it impacts all of the various points. Greg Shatan: Maybe by then the WS2 subgroup on HR will be finished with its work. Paul McGrady: WS2 HR is supposed to be done well ahead of us. Kathy Kleiman: +1 Paul Terri Agnew: The call for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 05 October 2016 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Kathy Kleiman: Each umbrella question should be evaluated with each RPM - as appropriate Greg Shatan: And don't foreget to update your Adobe Connect link. George Kirikos: Bye folks. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): bye all Kathy Kleiman: Tx J. Scott and All Greg Shatan: Bye all. Georges Nahitchevansky: Bye everyone Elizabeth Featherman: bye all! Vaibhav Aggarwal: Thanks Team Vaibhav Aggarwal: ciao Paul Tattersfield: bye everyone Philip Corwin: Ciao

2 1