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

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Notes and Actions from the Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group on 17 August 2016
by maj_aj Aug. 18, 2016

Aug. 18, 2016

Being on travel all this month I look forward to the transcripts or audios Best mona Sent from Samsung Mobile. <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: David Tait <david.tait(a)icann.org> </div><div>Date:17/08/2016 9:55 PM (GMT+02:00) </div><div>To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org </div><div>Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Notes and Actions from the Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group on 17 August 2016 </div><div> </div> Dear all, Here are the staff notes and action items from the Working Group (WG) call held earlier today. For your convenience, we have categorized them into four main issues, as you’ll see below: these are (1) TMCH provider questions and proposed community survey, (2) Questions for ICANN Compliance, (3) Issues/Concerns/Suggestions regarding the TM-PDDRP and (4) the next meeting. 1) TMCH Provider questions and community survey ACTION: WG members to review document of provider questions and community Survey previously circulated by MW by CoB Friday; 2) Questions for ICANN Compliance The WG considered questions to be submitted to ICANN Compliance. ACTION: i. WG members to provide scenarios to illustrate bad faith/abusive conduct in question to ICANN Compliance by next week's call; ii. Staff to prepare revised questions for compliance in relation to the handling of complaints from third-parties regarding abusive conduct; iii. WG Volunteers to review existing, publicly available metrics published by ICANN Compliance. 3) Consideration of Issues/Concerns/Suggestions regarding the TM-PDDRP Doodle poll shows no support for continuing discussion regarding burden of proof at this point, however, in the event of new concerns emerging or a demand to revisit the topic arising it would be possible to revisit this topic; Remedies – Consideration of this issue is to be paused until more input has been received from the Community survey i. ACTION: Staff to prepare a specific question to the registries regarding vagueness of remedies to be sent alongside other requests for information for consideration by WG Optional Mediation- The WG considered that there was a need to convene a sub-team to review the issue of Optional mediation and put forward an outline proposal for consideration by WG. ii. ACTION: (Staff to issue call for volunteers on the list before next meeting) 4) Next meeting The next meeting of the WG to take place at 2100 UTC Wednesday 24 August ACTION: WG members to be prepared to discuss Analysis Group report. Kind regards, 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 _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

1 0

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group 17 August 2016
by Terri Agnew Aug. 17, 2016

Aug. 17, 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, 17 August 2016 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/6AmsAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-17aug16-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXz…> 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/rhiOAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 17 August 2016: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call held on for Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 16:00 George Kirikos:Hi folks. Elliot Silver:Hello, everyone. George Kirikos:Welcome, Elliot. Philip Corwin:Hello all. I'm back from vacation in reenergized format ;-) George Kirikos:Welcome back, Phil. George Kirikos:Why would ICANN be handling complaints re: ccTLDs? (last sentence of document) Is that a typo? Mary Wong:@George, no, that was in Kathy's email to the list. Kurt Pritz:That sounds right, J Scott Susan Payne:sounds reasonable Dominic DeLuca(FORUM):Did anyone else just have the audio fail? Caroline Chicoine:+1 George Kirikos:Audio fine on the telephone feed. Mary Wong:@George, all - correcting myself; I think Kathy sent her comments only to the chairs and staff. Apologies - we should have forwarded it to the full list. In any case, that was taken from her suggestions on this topic. Terri Agnew:@Dominic, AC audio is working, please let me know if a dial out on the telephone is needed Alistair Payne:+1 - i agree Petter Rindforth:+1 John McElwaine:+1 Dominic DeLuca(FORUM):Working now. Thank you Mary Wong:Can we ask that members send possible scenarios to the full WG list? As J. Scott notes, within this coming week (before next Weds)? George Kirikos:Looking at the actual ICANN Compliance notices archive, they've almost entirely been targeted at registrars. https://www.icann.org/compliance/notices Mary Wong:@George, yes - and registries to some extent (ie ICANN Contracted Parties) Greg Shatan:@George, I don't think .SUCKS is a ccTLD. Though sometimes I feel I live there.... Alistair Payne:yes Susan Payne:yes Mary Wong:@J Scott, yes from staff Alistair Payne:old Philip Corwin:.sucks is not a ccTLD Kurt Pritz:It is not an obvious typo to me. Is the question writer here? Greg Shatan:It is the ccTLD of the Land of Sucks. Grace Mutung'u::D George Kirikos:Instead of getting a "filtered" view of those complaints from the point of view of the ICANN compliance department, perhaps the ICANN Compliance department could mail out something to those who've contacted them, so the aggrieved companies could be aware of this PDP, and that we're collecting data, etc?? Jeff Neuman:They already publish those metrics George Kirikos:(mail = email, etc.) Kurt Pritz:Here is a possible addendum / replacement for Q2: From the Data Analysis written and verbal report, it was apparent that TMCH records are being downloaded for purposes other than that required by Sunrise and Claims processes. Does / will compliance investigate these possible uses absent a complaint? Jeff Neuman:I know at every meeting they present those. Perhaps staff can gather those reports George Kirikos:Here are some stats: https://features.icann.org/compliance/prevention-stats George Kirikos:They call them "informal complaints" Philip Corwin:The complains about .sucks were not about direct or encouraged infringement. They were about pricing for TM holders who wished to obtain their marks to prevent prospective infringement (or legitimate criticism) Kurt Pritz:Typo or not - I think it would be meaningful to see complaints about ccTLDs. Mary Wong:Compliance reports and dashboard available here: https://www.icann.org/resources/compliance-reporting-performance George Kirikos:Although, data is not very detailed, i.e. "Abuse" is not specific! Rebecca Tushnet:If no one else is willing, I'd do it as long as I had company. Mary Wong:Thanks, Rebecca! Caroline Chicoine:Happy to help! Mary Wong:And Caroline! Caroline Chicoine:Mary where are links you mentioned? Caroline Chicoine:Thanks! Mary Wong:Compliance dashboard (monthly): https://features.icann.org/compliance Jeff Neuman:Here is a link to the presentation from Marakash: file:///C:/Users/Jeffrey/Downloads/presentation-compliance-registry-10mar16-en.pdf<file:///C:\Users\Jeffrey\Downloads\presentation-compliance-registry-10mar16-en.pdf> Jeff Neuman:oops Jeff Neuman:I will get you a better one Mary Wong:All reports: https://www.icann.org/resources/compliance-reporting-performance Jeff Neuman:https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/thu-compliance-re… George Kirikos:Lori has her hand up. Mary Wong:@Rebecca, @Caroline - we will follow up with you by email with all the links Mary Wong:Please mute if not speaking, thank you! Jeff Neuman:Lots of static on audio George Kirikos:We can hear you, Lori, but lots of noise in the background. Luc Seufer:I thought Lori was INTA not NASA George Kirikos:lol Luc Lori Schulman:I am INTA. INTA wrote a letter to compliance last year regarding abusive practices with specific examples. The response that we got from compliance is that there wasn't much ICANN could do other than file a suit to enforce a PIC. Lori Schulman:Would having that letter be helpful? Lori Schulman:I am not sure here. Philip Corwin:Yes, that letter would be helpful IMHO Philip Corwin:I do so agree Lori Schulman:To be clear, not much ICANN could do and that yes. I have notes from a conversation. They would not respond in writing. Lori Schulman:Sending letter and notes to Mary Wong now. Mary Wong:Thanks, Lori Lori Schulman:Sorry about that JScott. Hand is down. Lori Schulman:Letter is for context. Lori Schulman:No discuss of burden proof. Mary Wong:@Jeff, yes - it was also a more general point about topics that had been discussed previously in the community during the development of the TM-PDDRP Lori Schulman:Jeff is right. George Kirikos:Right, I think there was some confusion re: "burden of proof" vs. "what legal test" must be met (i.e. a certain legal test must happen, and then there's a burden of proof in meeting that test). George Kirikos:One can make a different legal test, but retain the "burden of proof" as before. George Kirikos:I would disagree a bit with Jeff. What he's advocating for creates a bias for the "status quo". George Kirikos:In finance, there's something callled "Zero Based Budgeting",where you start from a zero base.....that takes longer, but can yield a better result. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:George, we're shooting in the dark if we don't have a problem to solve before we try to solve it. Jeff Neuman:Yes George. Status quo absent any evidence that something NEEDS to change Jon Nevett:@George -- there should be a bias for the status quo unless there is consensus to change it Jon Nevett:Good point JN! Mary Wong:ADNDRC and FORUM provided input on remedies in their initial responses to the WG Brian Cimbolic:+1 Jeff - we don't want to create a solution where there may be no problem. We're not here to tweak/redesign just for the sake of it, if there are identifiable problems that's one thing. If there are not readily identifiable problems, we should leave it be. Beth Bacon:=1 to Jeff and Brian Jeff Neuman:The providers should be more specific as to what the issues are with the remedies Mary Wong:Link to the Provider responses: https://community.icann.org/x/Gx_OAw Jeff Neuman:I think some follow up questions are in order Beth Bacon:apologies that was a + 1 not an = George Kirikos:I'd not limit it to just "what isn't working" --- one should be prospective, e.g. the "limitation period" stuff contemplates problems that will arise in the future. Adding a limitation period "future proofs" the policy, as it'll help eliminate complaints that couldn't be brought before the courts. Luc Seufer:I agree with Jeff too. Better move on to policies whih have been put to the test and actually need to be reformed Mary Wong:@Kristine, the staff understanding of the providers' input is the same. Mary Wong:ADNDRC, on why the PDDRP may not have been used: "he remedies available (as set out in paragraph 18 of TM-PDDRP) might not serve any useful purposes to the trademark holder harmed by a "Second Level" infringement. It might be more convenient and cost-effective to the trademark holder to take the usual UDRP or URS directly against the domain name registrant rather than initiating an action against the registry operator under TM-PDDRP." Jeff Neuman:To be clear, I do not believe we need to look into the remedies Jeff Neuman:until and unless there is an issue actually shown Mary Wong:FORUM, on the same question: "Based on our general experience in alternative dispute resolution, the unspecific nature of theremedies available in TM-PDDRP could be another reason why it has not been used." Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:Agree with Jeff. We need to know FIRST if there is a problem. Jon Nevett:I think that the registries will understand the implications of the request Greg Shatan:Old check Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:Yes, agree that we should provide context. Philip Corwin:Agree with jon -- registries are pretty sophisticated about the PDP Rebecca Tushnet:nOt necessarily that, but to make clear the context: Rebecca Tushnet:are there things that need fixing in the lack of clarity. Mary Wong:SUGGESTION on timing of Registry question - the TMCH Sub TEam may have some (different) questions for RySG as well. Can we hold this until the Sub Team confirms that they do, and send it as a single follow up/request? Lori Schulman:Consolidating questions to registries makes sense. Caroline Chicoine:Like that idea Mary Susan Payne:+1 to Mary Jeff Neuman:Agree all questions should be presented at same time Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:Yes, agree. Mary Wong:ok thanks Philip Corwin:+1 on a single combined inquiry Jeff Neuman:Agree with J Scott Jeff Neuman:same test should be applied Caroline Chicoine:agree Mary Wong:@J Scott, yes Terri Agnew:Next call: Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Groupis scheduled for Wednesday, 24 August 2016 at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Petter Rindforth: On holdiday next week, but otherwise happy to assist on the mediation issue if we can get back on that the week after Terri Agnew:@Petter, will not apology, have a lovely holiday George Kirikos:Bye folks. Laurie Anderson:bye all! Susan Payne:thanks all Jay Chapman:thanks, all Petter Rindforth:thanks :-) J. Scott Evans:Cial Philip Corwin:Bye all! J. Scott Evans:*ciao Mary Wong:Thanks J Scott, everyone!

1 0

Agenda and documents for Working Group call on 17 August
by Mary Wong Aug. 16, 2016

Aug. 16, 2016

Dear Working Group Members, The proposed agenda for our next meeting, scheduled for 17 August 2016 at 1600 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect/phone bridge only)/updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discuss and finalize questions for ICANN Compliance (see attached document) 3. Conclude discussion on Issues/Concerns/Suggestions regarding the TM-PDDRP (see attached document – updated from the last version of 10 August) 4. Agree on co-chairs’ proposal regarding next steps for the TM-PDDRP review 5. Review TMCH Sub Team report on meeting with the Analysis Group on the TMCH Independent Review (see Pg 2 and Annex 1 of attached document – unchanged from the last version circulated last week) 6. Agree on next steps for the WG regarding the Analysis Group’s Draft Report on the TMCH (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/tmch-review-2016-07-25-en) 7. Next meeting All the documents referenced in this email have also been uploaded to the WG wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/6AmsAw. The transcript and recording of the meeting from last week are available on the WG wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/uwSsAw. 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

Update: Survey on Newcomer Tools
by Nathalie Peregrine Aug. 16, 2016

Aug. 16, 2016

Dear ICANN Community member, Further to our previous email we have encountered some technical difficulties with the survey which was previously sent out. To that end we have prepared a replacement and would ask you to still complete it by 11 September 2016. The revised survey is available here - https://goo.gl/forms/nUO214NICcPm7jc83 The responses which have already been received will be tracked through by staff to ensure their inclusion in the final report. Should you have any further comments please do not hesitate to contact us. Kind regards, David From:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nathalie Peregrine Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 7:20 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Survey on Newcomer Tools Dear ICANN Community member, We need your input to improve GNSO newcomer and training tools. GNSO Council has directed<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201607> staff to develop a survey to assess the familiarity that the community has with the different newcomer and training tools as well as their perceived usefulness. Staff would kindly request that you complete the attached survey available here<http://www.clicktools.com/go?iv=1063kkc3v1m98>. Please provide your response by 11 September 2016. Should you have any further comments please do not hesitate to contact us. Kind regards, David Tait 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<http://www.icann.org>

1 0

Wiki page for information and documents on the TM-PDDRP
by Mary Wong Aug. 16, 2016

Aug. 16, 2016

Dear all, Based on the extensive list supplied by Jeff and ongoing staff collation of relevant materials, we have created a page on the Working Group wiki space that contains links to all the materials we have collected so far: https://community.icann.org/x/ugqsAw. You will see that the page currently includes all prior versions of the TM-PDDRP and links to relevant public comment forums as well as ICANN summaries, which we hope will be useful for documenting the substantive and procedural discussions that took place from the time that the 2009 Implementation Recommendations Team (IRT) proposed such a mechanism up to the adoption of the final TM-PDDRP Procedure in 2012. We hope to create similar pages for the other RPMs as the Working Group moves along with its work, beginning with the TMCH. Please feel free to send us information, documents and materials that you have or know of so that we can post them and, if needed, locate and upload them to the relevant page(s). 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 From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 17:37 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Materials on Willful Blindness / PDDRP Thanks very much for the links and materials, Jeff – staff will add them to the Working Group wiki space. As staff has also been trying to locate historical information relating to the development of the various RPMs we are reviewing in this Working Group, we would like to invite Working Group members to send on similar information so that we can continue to compile a useful bibliography, including (when the time comes) for the other RPMs. Regarding the TM-PDDRP, Working Group members may in addition be interested in seeing all the community comments that were provided in response to a public comment opportunity on the TM-PDDRP in early 2010: https://forum.icann.org/lists/ppdrp-15feb10/threads.html (Jeff has already included links to a few, and to the staff analysis of those comments). We are truly grateful for the tremendous depth of expertise in this Working Group. While staff may be able to find and collate a certain amount of material, being able to leverage your knowledge and memories is invaluable. 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 From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 16:36 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Materials on Willful Blindness / PDDRP All, I just want to restate my point that I made on the call today. I believe our job is not to rehash discussions that took place in 2008-2012 on the rights protection mechanisms. Rather I believe our job is to assess whether any changes to the RPMs (or additions to the RPMs) need to be made based on actual evidence. In my personal opinion (not of my company or any client), a person proposing changes to the policies or processes should have the burden showing good cause as to why those change should be made. Absent a showing of that good cause, I do not believe we should make the changes. On the call (and the chat) Lori (from INTA) and Susan K.(from Facebook) stated that they had filed concerns with ICANN on certain registry practices and the failure of ICANN to address them or the inapplicability of the existing RPMs to cover those activities. I believe we should be looking at those concerns (as well as any other issues that are brought forward), evaluate whether any of them could (or should) have been brought under the existing RPMs, why they were not, and whether we should address them by changing an existing RPM or even adding a new one. Discussions on the PDDRP thus far have focused on what theoretical changes we can make to the PDDRP to “make it better” without any evidence being evaluated by the group on whether or not there is a need to “make it better.” One of those proposals contemplates adding a willful blindness standard to the PDDRP without any showing that such a lower standard is necessary or whether there is any activity going on now (or in the past) that would fall under that lower standard necessitating a change to the policy. Absent any evidence showing good cause to change the policy to include willful blindness, the policy should not change. In fact, this issue was HEAVILY discussed and argued in 2010-2011. Ultimately, ICANN decided that the PDDRP should not include a willful blindness standard. I have included just some of the comments that were filed by WIPO, myself, the Registries, Neustar and others on this Issue including ICANN’s analysis. There were other proponents of willful blindness other than WIPO (including I believe MARQUES, INTA and other IP organizations. I believe that this was even supported by the governments during the Board-GAC consultations. I know I do not have them all on here. But at the end of the day, this was not accepted. The point is that we should not be rehashing these old arguments. Our RPM PDP should not a “second bite at the apple”. Here is a start for collecting the discussions that have already taken place: WIPO Proposal: · https://forum.icann.org/lists/ppdrp-15feb10/pdfkYQ1rYb8Ni.pdf (March 2010) · https://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-base/pdfjIZkXr0Dc2.pdf (June 2010) · https://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-base/pdf0nS63XScIt.pdf (December 2010) Circle ID Articles · http://www.circleid.com/posts/say_no_to_wipos_proposal_to_amend_the_pddrp_t… (May 5, 2010) ICANN Analysis: · https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/pddrp-comment-summary-and-ana… (also has info on contract compliance) (May 2010) · https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-agv4-12nov10… (November 2010) - Pg 118 ICANN PDDRP (Revised May 2010): https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/pddrp-clean-28may10-en.pdf (Introduction addresses “The procedure is not intended to hold liable a registry operator that simply happens to have or knows of infringing domain names within its gTLD. Affirmative conduct is required.”) RYSG Statement to WIPO Proposal: https://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-base/docLoFbNFb2jb.doc (June 2010) Neustar position: https://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-guide/pdf6T19n10mO4.pdf (July 2010) Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw

7 10

Further Action Items from the Working Group call held on Wednesday 10 August
by Mary Wong Aug. 12, 2016

Aug. 12, 2016

Dear all, In addition to the initial list of immediate Action Items that was circulated following the Wednesday call, here are the remaining Action Items for your further discussion and feedback. (1) FOLLOW UP WITH ICANN COMPLIANCE The WG discussed 2 possible questions to be put to Compliance for follow up. WG members are requested to review these and provide your feedback as well as suggest any additional questions: 1. When community or review work brings to light circumstances which may warrant further investigation, is Compliance empowered to investigate, especially if a formal complaint has not been filed? If yes, have you done so previously? 2. If Compliance becomes aware of possible problematic activity involving use of TMCH or other RPMs e.g. by registrars or registries (or any other circumstance comes to light which may justify further investigation), do they proceed to investigate in the absence of a formal complaint? If they are empowered to act, have they taken action based on the data/information they have? Staff Note: WG members may recall that Compliance was asked a specific question previously about whether they had received complaints that they dealt with but that might otherwise fall under the TM-PDDRP though no complaint was filed under that Procedure. Here is their response: “Compliance has received a minimal number of complaints from trademark holders regarding registry operator’s practices. However, not having received them in the context of a TM-PDDRP complaint, they were not assessed for viability under the Procedure and therefore, it would be speculative to opine whether they could have been covered under the Procedure.” (2) ADDITIONAL NOTES ON ISSUES/CONCERNS/SUGGESTIONS DOCUMENT Online mediation - Staff to add to Summary Document that the online mediation option nevertheless should include the ability to use the "regular" tools that would be used for physical real-time mediation e.g. side meetings and caucuses. Further, in-person mediation should also an option as long as both parties agree. Collecting information about substantial infringement and bad faith registry practices – consider approaching entities such as INTA, MARQUES, Managing IP for information; staff to gather letters and other documents sent to ICANN previously (e.g. by INTA) Burden of proof – Suggestion that the status quo should remain as the default unless there is evidence justifying change (per Jeff Neuman: "the status quo with respect to the PDDRP (both substantive and procedural) should be maintained unless there is a good reason to change it. By good reason I mean that it should be the burden of those requesting a change to show good cause as to why it should be changed. Good reason should be supported by evidence".) Staff to work with Jeff to compile the documents available, including prior legal analysis by ICANN. WG members to send in additional materials for staff compilation. WG members are invited to continue discussions via this email list prior to the next WG call. Please also note the action items and deadlines from the initial list sent on Wednesday (see below). Thank you! Cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 15:49 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Action Items (initial list) from the Working Group call held earlier today (Wednesday 10 August) Dear Working Group Members, The following is the initial list of Action Items from the call held earlier today. Staff will send the second additional list of Action Items following confirmation of specific suggested language from the call transcript and recording. Action Item #1: · Members who were on the call today approved the proposed set of follow up questions to be sent to the three TM-PDDRP Providers. Members who were not able to be on the call are kindly requested to review the attached questions and send any concerns or objections to this mailing list by Monday 15 August. We hope to send the questions out early next week, with a view to receiving the providers’ input by end-August. Action Item #2: · Members who were on the call today approved the proposed list of questions for the ICANN community survey. Members who were not able to be on the call are kindly requested to review the attached questions and send any concerns or objections to this mailing list by Monday 15 August. We hope to create the survey and send out the link by the end of next week, with a view to receiving responses by Friday 16 September. Action Item #3: · All members are invited to provide their view as to the scope of the mandate of the TMCH Sub Team. As noted on the call today, some Working Group and Sub Team members thought it would be appropriate for the Sub Team to catalogue all existing information and data they consider relevant, to be reported back to the full Working Group – this could include developing appropriate questions to be answered (based on those in the Working Group Charter and additional Working Group/community questions) and requesting materials from third parties (e.g. the TMCH Providers, registrars, others). The information sought could include not just materials that are easily accessible by public search but potentially also information that, while already in existence, will be provided by request. Other Working Group members thought that the Sub Team’s mandate was limited to gathering information and data that was already publicly available and reporting that back to the full Working Group – this would not include the Sub Team contacting third parties who may be able to provide additional data or materials. · For further background, please refer to the Sub Team’s initial report on the Working Group wiki space: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61605051/TMCH%20Sub%20Team…. · To join the Sub Team, please contact the GNSO Secretariat at gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> with your request to be added to the list. Action Item #4: · With thanks to those Members who have already completed the Doodle poll on mediation and burden of proof, Members who have not yet participated in the straw poll are kindly requested to do so by Friday 12 August: http://doodle.com/poll/nc8ydu8cbbywtabm. As always, the call recording and transcript as well as any follow up documents will be posted to the Working Group wiki space, under the relevant meeting date: https://community.icann.org/x/uwSsAw. 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

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Scope of TMCH Sub-group
by Luc SEUFER Aug. 12, 2016

Aug. 12, 2016

Hello Jeff, For sake of clarity, could you confirm that by "whether that data is public or whether that data has to be gathered by any other source” you refer to actual facts which can be verified and not stuff one “think they read on the internet”. All the best, Luc // Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS office: +35227220166 fax: +35220300166 mobile: +352691600417 lseufer(a)eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com/> 21, rue Léon Laval, L-3372 Leudelange, Luxembourg On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> wrote: All, I know this came up at the end of the call this week and there was not an extensive discussion on the topic, but I just wanted to reiterate for the record that I support the proposal of members of the subcommittee that they work on gathering all data around the Clearinghouse/Sunrise/Claims, etc. whether that data is public or whether that data has to be gathered by any other source. I believe that group should work on a list of questions/surveys/interviews, etc. of all applicable parties to help the working group make informed decisions on whether any changes should be made to the existing processes and what those changes should be. I know the subgroup is meeting tomorrow, so I hope this e-mail helps progress the discussion. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone. Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. --------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Scope of TMCH Sub-group
by Jeff Neuman Aug. 11, 2016

Aug. 11, 2016

All, I know this came up at the end of the call this week and there was not an extensive discussion on the topic, but I just wanted to reiterate for the record that I support the proposal of members of the subcommittee that they work on gathering all data around the Clearinghouse/Sunrise/Claims, etc. whether that data is public or whether that data has to be gathered by any other source. I believe that group should work on a list of questions/surveys/interviews, etc. of all applicable parties to help the working group make informed decisions on whether any changes should be made to the existing processes and what those changes should be. I know the subgroup is meeting tomorrow, so I hope this e-mail helps progress the discussion. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw

1 0

Survey on Newcomer Tools
by Nathalie Peregrine Aug. 11, 2016

Aug. 11, 2016

Dear ICANN Community member, We need your input to improve GNSO newcomer and training tools. GNSO Council has directed<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201607> staff to develop a survey to assess the familiarity that the community has with the different newcomer and training tools as well as their perceived usefulness. Staff would kindly request that you complete the attached survey available here<http://www.clicktools.com/go?iv=1063kkc3v1m98>. Please provide your response by 11 September 2016. Should you have any further comments please do not hesitate to contact us. Kind regards, David Tait 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

1 0

Action Items (initial list) from the Working Group call held earlier today (Wednesday 10 August)
by Mary Wong Aug. 10, 2016

Aug. 10, 2016

Dear Working Group Members, The following is the initial list of Action Items from the call held earlier today. Staff will send the second additional list of Action Items following confirmation of specific suggested language from the call transcript and recording. Action Item #1: · Members who were on the call today approved the proposed set of follow up questions to be sent to the three TM-PDDRP Providers. Members who were not able to be on the call are kindly requested to review the attached questions and send any concerns or objections to this mailing list by Monday 15 August. We hope to send the questions out early next week, with a view to receiving the providers’ input by end-August. Action Item #2: · Members who were on the call today approved the proposed list of questions for the ICANN community survey. Members who were not able to be on the call are kindly requested to review the attached questions and send any concerns or objections to this mailing list by Monday 15 August. We hope to create the survey and send out the link by the end of next week, with a view to receiving responses by Friday 16 September. Action Item #3: · All members are invited to provide their view as to the scope of the mandate of the TMCH Sub Team. As noted on the call today, some Working Group and Sub Team members thought it would be appropriate for the Sub Team to catalogue all existing information and data they consider relevant, to be reported back to the full Working Group – this could include developing appropriate questions to be answered (based on those in the Working Group Charter and additional Working Group/community questions) and requesting materials from third parties (e.g. the TMCH Providers, registrars, others). The information sought could include not just materials that are easily accessible by public search but potentially also information that, while already in existence, will be provided by request. Other Working Group members thought that the Sub Team’s mandate was limited to gathering information and data that was already publicly available and reporting that back to the full Working Group – this would not include the Sub Team contacting third parties who may be able to provide additional data or materials. · For further background, please refer to the Sub Team’s initial report on the Working Group wiki space: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61605051/TMCH%20Sub%20Team…. · To join the Sub Team, please contact the GNSO Secretariat at gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> with your request to be added to the list. Action Item #4: · With thanks to those Members who have already completed the Doodle poll on mediation and burden of proof, Members who have not yet participated in the straw poll are kindly requested to do so by Friday 12 August: http://doodle.com/poll/nc8ydu8cbbywtabm. As always, the call recording and transcript as well as any follow up documents will be posted to the Working Group wiki space, under the relevant meeting date: https://community.icann.org/x/uwSsAw. 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