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

Notes from WG call & **QUESTION FOR MEMBERS ABOUT MEETING TIMES** (please read!)
by Mary Wong June 8, 2016

June 8, 2016

Dear all, The following note contains an initial section for Members only, followed by a section intended for both Members and Observers, containing notes of the last Working Group call. I. For Members only: Please note the upcoming WG call on Wednesday 8 June will not be a rotating call; in other words, the 8 June WG meeting will take place at the regular time of 1600 UTC. However, the next call – on Wednesday 15 June – will rotate to 2100 UTC. Please look out for updated calendar invitations from the GNSO Secretariat. This change is being made to partially accommodate the biweekly Registries Stakeholder Group calls. In order to fully accommodate the Registries SG calls, however, it may be necessary to change the time of the non-rotating, regular call. The co-chairs and staff recognize that there is likely not one single time that will suit all time zones and that some suggested times are fairly difficult for some WG members, especially those situated in the APAC region. As such, the co-chairs wish to ask Members to indicate, via response to this Doodle poll, whether they approve a change from 1600 UTC (the current time) to 1700 UTC for the non-rotating calls: http://doodle.com/poll/5t5zaticrz9cfizf. II. For All: (i) TMCH Data Sub Team The following Members have signed up for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Sub Team that will be tasked to contact various relevant sources (e.g. ICANN’s Global Domains Division; the TMCH provider; the TMCH Independent Examiner etc.) to begin the process of data gathering for the Working Group’s TMCH review: Scott Austin, Catherine Douglas, Salvador Camacho Hernandez, Marina Lewis, Susan Payne. A mailing list will be set up for these Members, the WG co-chairs and ICANN support staff to begin this work. If you are a Member of the WG and would like to join this Sub Team, please send me an email (note that the co-chairs may limit the number of Members for the team). The Sub Team may also decide to request a list of the TMCH marks to compare with frequency of registrations (and variety of different registrants) with those in other TLDs Other suggestions include one for a survey of mark-holders who did not register in the TMCH, to understand why they chose not to do so. A survey of registrars and even registrants, to see whether TMCH match notices/warnings caused them undue pressure to not register names could also be considered. (ii) Additional Questions for the WG The following Additional Questions were also suggested by various Members for the Working Group to consider as part of the review of the TMCH and the Trademark Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure. Please send any thoughts or comments you may have on these to this email list for further consideration and discussion. Note that these do not replace and may be added to the existing list of issues currently attached to our Charter: For the TMCH: - Are the fees reasonable? - Should there be multiple TMCH Providers? - What % of contemplated domain name registrations were deterred due to the notices of a matching mark in the TMCH database? (note: registrars might have this information, e.g. via abandoned shopping carts for new gTLDs vs ccTLDs or legacy gTLDs) - Strength of the marks in the TMCH, i.e. what % are fanciful, vs. descriptive, generic, etc. (note: interest here is finding out whether a TMCH registration allows "weak" marks to gain some advantage, vs. the first-come first serve system) - Should there be a time limit on Claims notices? (query whether this should be considered under the TMCH review or the Claims Period review – interest here is finding out whether there is an increase in registrations after the Claims Notices end) For the TM-PDDRP: - It has never been used so one question could be whether it is broad enough to cover abuses that were not anticipated when it was developed? General Question about whether there is latitude for the WG to change our Charter – WG should at minimum be open about "foundational issues" about the UDRP that may nevertheless be relevant to flag for discussion even during Phase One; a specific suggestion is for ICANN staff to make a list of foundational issues identified during Phase One that may be relevant to Phase Two 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

4 3

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Notes from WG call & **QUESTION FOR MEMBERS ABOUT MEETING TIMES** (please read!)
by Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal June 8, 2016

June 8, 2016

Nice, Just a Request, can v at least tentatively block calendars please. Regards, -Vaibhav Aggarwal Blade-BRAINS(tm) Group | President & Group CEO +91.9899246969 From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, June 6, 2016 at 9:04 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Notes from WG call & **QUESTION FOR MEMBERS ABOUT MEETING TIMES** (please read!) Dear all, The following note contains an initial section for Members only, followed by a section intended for both Members and Observers, containing notes of the last Working Group call. I. For Members only: Please note the upcoming WG call on Wednesday 8 June will not be a rotating call; in other words, the 8 June WG meeting will take place at the regular time of 1600 UTC. However, the next call on Wednesday 15 June will rotate to 2100 UTC. Please look out for updated calendar invitations from the GNSO Secretariat. This change is being made to partially accommodate the biweekly Registries Stakeholder Group calls. In order to fully accommodate the Registries SG calls, however, it may be necessary to change the time of the non-rotating, regular call. The co-chairs and staff recognize that there is likely not one single time that will suit all time zones and that some suggested times are fairly difficult for some WG members, especially those situated in the APAC region. As such, the co-chairs wish to ask Members to indicate, via response to this Doodle poll, whether they approve a change from 1600 UTC (the current time) to 1700 UTC for the non-rotating calls: http://doodle.com/poll/5t5zaticrz9cfizf. II. For All: (i) TMCH Data Sub Team The following Members have signed up for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Sub Team that will be tasked to contact various relevant sources (e.g. ICANN¹s Global Domains Division; the TMCH provider; the TMCH Independent Examiner etc.) to begin the process of data gathering for the Working Group¹s TMCH review: Scott Austin, Catherine Douglas, Salvador Camacho Hernandez, Marina Lewis, Susan Payne. A mailing list will be set up for these Members, the WG co-chairs and ICANN support staff to begin this work. If you are a Member of the WG and would like to join this Sub Team, please send me an email (note that the co-chairs may limit the number of Members for the team). The Sub Team may also decide to request a list of the TMCH marks to compare with frequency of registrations (and variety of different registrants) with those in other TLDs Other suggestions include one for a survey of mark-holders who did not register in the TMCH, to understand why they chose not to do so. A survey of registrars and even registrants, to see whether TMCH match notices/warnings caused them undue pressure to not register names could also be considered. (ii) Additional Questions for the WG The following Additional Questions were also suggested by various Members for the Working Group to consider as part of the review of the TMCH and the Trademark Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure. Please send any thoughts or comments you may have on these to this email list for further consideration and discussion. Note that these do not replace and may be added to the existing list of issues currently attached to our Charter: For the TMCH: - Are the fees reasonable? - Should there be multiple TMCH Providers? - What % of contemplated domain name registrations were deterred due to the notices of a matching mark in the TMCH database? (note: registrars might have this information, e.g. via abandoned shopping carts for new gTLDs vs ccTLDs or legacy gTLDs) - Strength of the marks in the TMCH, i.e. what % are fanciful, vs. descriptive, generic, etc. (note: interest here is finding out whether a TMCH registration allows "weak" marks to gain some advantage, vs. the first-come first serve system) - Should there be a time limit on Claims notices? (query whether this should be considered under the TMCH review or the Claims Period review interest here is finding out whether there is an increase in registrations after the Claims Notices end) For the TM-PDDRP: - It has never been used so one question could be whether it is broad enough to cover abuses that were not anticipated when it was developed? General Question about whether there is latitude for the WG to change our Charter WG should at minimum be open about "foundational issues" about the UDRP that may nevertheless be relevant to flag for discussion even during Phase One; a specific suggestion is for ICANN staff to make a list of foundational issues identified during Phase One that may be relevant to Phase Two 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 _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Notes from WG call & **QUESTION FOR MEMBERS ABOUT MEETING TIMES** (please read!)
by Darcy Southwell June 8, 2016

June 8, 2016

Thanks for the summary, Mary. I want to suggest another question to help evaluate the effectiveness of the TMCH: How many trademarks were denied validation by the TMCH and for what reasons (by %)? Along with the other questions presented below, this will be helpful in evaluating whether existing TMCH rules/procedures produced desired (or other) results. Also, per the gTLD Applicant Guidebook, trademarks containing a “dot” were not accepted by the TMCH. Is this something we need to consider within our PDP given the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP? Thanks, Darcy __________ Darcy Southwell | Compliance Officer M: +1 503-453-7305 │ Skype: darcy.enyeart From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, June 6, 2016 at 8:34 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Notes from WG call & **QUESTION FOR MEMBERS ABOUT MEETING TIMES** (please read!) Dear all, The following note contains an initial section for Members only, followed by a section intended for both Members and Observers, containing notes of the last Working Group call. I. For Members only: Please note the upcoming WG call on Wednesday 8 June will not be a rotating call; in other words, the 8 June WG meeting will take place at the regular time of 1600 UTC. However, the next call – on Wednesday 15 June – will rotate to 2100 UTC. Please look out for updated calendar invitations from the GNSO Secretariat. This change is being made to partially accommodate the biweekly Registries Stakeholder Group calls. In order to fully accommodate the Registries SG calls, however, it may be necessary to change the time of the non-rotating, regular call. The co-chairs and staff recognize that there is likely not one single time that will suit all time zones and that some suggested times are fairly difficult for some WG members, especially those situated in the APAC region. As such, the co-chairs wish to ask Members to indicate, via response to this Doodle poll, whether they approve a change from 1600 UTC (the current time) to 1700 UTC for the non-rotating calls: http://doodle.com/poll/5t5zaticrz9cfizf. II. For All: (i) TMCH Data Sub Team The following Members have signed up for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Sub Team that will be tasked to contact various relevant sources (e.g. ICANN’s Global Domains Division; the TMCH provider; the TMCH Independent Examiner etc.) to begin the process of data gathering for the Working Group’s TMCH review: Scott Austin, Catherine Douglas, Salvador Camacho Hernandez, Marina Lewis, Susan Payne. A mailing list will be set up for these Members, the WG co-chairs and ICANN support staff to begin this work. If you are a Member of the WG and would like to join this Sub Team, please send me an email (note that the co-chairs may limit the number of Members for the team). The Sub Team may also decide to request a list of the TMCH marks to compare with frequency of registrations (and variety of different registrants) with those in other TLDs Other suggestions include one for a survey of mark-holders who did not register in the TMCH, to understand why they chose not to do so. A survey of registrars and even registrants, to see whether TMCH match notices/warnings caused them undue pressure to not register names could also be considered. (ii) Additional Questions for the WG The following Additional Questions were also suggested by various Members for the Working Group to consider as part of the review of the TMCH and the Trademark Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure. Please send any thoughts or comments you may have on these to this email list for further consideration and discussion. Note that these do not replace and may be added to the existing list of issues currently attached to our Charter: For the TMCH: - Are the fees reasonable? - Should there be multiple TMCH Providers? - What % of contemplated domain name registrations were deterred due to the notices of a matching mark in the TMCH database? (note: registrars might have this information, e.g. via abandoned shopping carts for new gTLDs vs ccTLDs or legacy gTLDs) - Strength of the marks in the TMCH, i.e. what % are fanciful, vs. descriptive, generic, etc. (note: interest here is finding out whether a TMCH registration allows "weak" marks to gain some advantage, vs. the first-come first serve system) - Should there be a time limit on Claims notices? (query whether this should be considered under the TMCH review or the Claims Period review – interest here is finding out whether there is an increase in registrations after the Claims Notices end) For the TM-PDDRP: - It has never been used so one question could be whether it is broad enough to cover abuses that were not anticipated when it was developed? General Question about whether there is latitude for the WG to change our Charter – WG should at minimum be open about "foundational issues" about the UDRP that may nevertheless be relevant to flag for discussion even during Phase One; a specific suggestion is for ICANN staff to make a list of foundational issues identified during Phase One that may be relevant to Phase Two 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 _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

2 1

Agenda for Working Group meeting on Wednesday 8 June
by Mary Wong June 8, 2016

June 8, 2016

Dear all, The proposed agenda for the next Working Group Members’ call, scheduled for Wednesday 8 June at 1600 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only) and updates to Statements of Interest 2. Confirm members and task list for TMCH Data-Gathering Sub Team 3. Staff briefing on Trademark PDDRP 4. Agree on questions for the Trademark PDDRP providers 5. Next steps / next meeting As a reminder, if Members (not Observers) have not already filled out the Doodle poll requesting your view as to a potential change in the non-rotating meeting times (from 1600 to 1700 UTC), we will greatly appreciate it if you can take a moment to do so, especially if you will be calling in from EMEA or the APAC regions: http://doodle.com/poll/5t5zaticrz9cfizf. 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

6 5

FW: Timing of the WG calls: RySG conflict
by Susan Payne June 3, 2016

June 3, 2016

My email yesterday did not post to the list, so I am forwarding it for completeness, noting that Kathy has already acknowledged and I have provided the co-chairs with details of the RySG meeting schedule. thanks Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne(a)valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Susan Payne Sent: 02 June 2016 18:48 To: J. Scott Evans ADOBE ; 'Phil Corwin'; 'Kathy Kleiman'; 'Mary Wong' Cc: ntfy-gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Timing of the WG calls: RySG conflict Dear co-chairs and Mary As was briefly discussed on the call yesterday, the current timing of the RPMs WG calls conflicts with the scheduled bi-weekly calls of the Registry Stakeholder Group, which take place between 15:00 and 17:00 UTC [corrected times] every other Wednesday. The RySG calls frequently include an hour long discussion of live issues with GDD staff, which is generally the second hour to accommodate staff's schedules and thus at the same time as the PDP WG call. The next such meeting is on Wednesday 15 June and as a consequence most, if not all, of those WG members who participate in the RySG will be unable to join the WG call on 15 June, and many are likely to miss half of all WG calls due to this scheduling clash. 14 WG members identify themselves as members of the RySG. In addition, there are a handful of others, including Jeff Neuman and myself who did not identify as RySG members when joining this WG but who do join the RySG calls as appointed representatives of RySG members. This scheduling clash therefore affects a significant number of the WG members, and I offered to raise this with you on everyone's behalf (although some may also choose to make their own comments). We would like to request some rescheduling of the PDP WG calls to accommodate the RySG participants. I assume that a change of day is not possible, so I would like to suggest: * As a minimum, it would be very helpful if the one in four rotation to a later time for the WG call could coincide with the RySG call pattern - ie that the WG call which takes place at 2100UTC is on 15 June rather than 8 June (or in addition to it if that is easier than rescheduling this upcoming call) since this would mean that only every other RySG call is in conflict. * It would also be preferable for that remaining conflicting WG call to start an hour later at 1700 UTC, thereby avoiding the clash, if that does not significantly impact other WG participants. Your consideration of this request would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne(a)valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of Valideus Ltd. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Valideus Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and VAT number 987 7551 49. Our registered office is at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN.

1 0

(no subject)
by Dawahi Khouloud June 3, 2016

June 3, 2016

Dear kathy I would like to ask since the time is too short to answer all the questions asked during the webinar .So how will the data gathering proceed ?Can you give me more details .I want to help maybe if I can in this specific task .

1 0

Pre-ICANN56 Policy Update Webinar Announcement
by Nathalie Peregrine June 2, 2016

June 2, 2016

PRE-ICANN56 POLICY UPDATE WEBINAR <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-06-02-en#><https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-06-02-en#><https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-06-02-en#><https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-06-02-en#><https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-06-02-en#><https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-06-02-en#> Please RSVP via this form<http://goo.gl/forms/NEFg46A88QnWK8Z33> by 10 June 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 13 June 2016. The ICANN Policy Development Support Team will provide a Policy Update Webinar on Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC, in preparation for the upcoming ICANN Policy Forum in Helsinki. The purpose of the webinar is to summarize policy activities across the ICANN policy development community and briefing the community on the Cross-Community sessions taking place in Helsinki. Cross-Community Sessions Briefings: * ICANN Accountability & Cross-Community Working Group (CCWG) Update * Charter for the Cross-Community Working Group (CCWG) on the use of new generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Auction Proceeds * Draft Framework of Principles for Future Cross-Community Working Groups * New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (PDP) * Next Generation generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Registration Directory Service (WHOIS) Policy Development Process (PDP) * Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in all generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) Policy Development Process (PDP) Supporting Organizations & Advisory Committee Updates: * Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and Regional Internet Registries (RIR) Policy Development * Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) * ICANN Operational Plan & Budget * Country & Other Geographic Names Forum * Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) * GNSO Review * Possible Modification of the WHOIS Conflicts with Local Law Procedure * At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and At-Large Community * Policy Advice Development * Next Steps on the At-Large Review * Activities at ICANN56, including Outreach and Engagement and Regional At-Large Organizations (RALO) Sessions * Government Advisory Committee (GAC) * 2-Character Labels and Country Names as Second Level Domains in New generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) * Advice Effectiveness * Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation * International Governmental Organization (IGO) Acronyms Protections in New generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) * Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Advisory * Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) * Publications * DNSSEC Workshop The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session runs for 90 minutes and will be conducted 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<http://goo.gl/forms/NEFg46A88QnWK8Z33> by 10 June 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 13 June 2016.

1 0

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP WG 01 June 2016
by Terri Agnew June 1, 2016

June 1, 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, 01 June 2016 at 16:00 UTC. MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-01jun16-en.mp3 The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/9weOAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 01 June 2016: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call held on Wednesday, 01 June 2016 Terri Agnew:wiki meeting page: https://community.icann.org/x/3g_OAw George Kirikos:Hi everyone. Roger Baah:Hello All Graham Schreiber:Hello All: George Kirikos:Great to see representation from Africa, Roger. How are things in Ghana? Roger Baah:very well George George Kirikos:Glad to hear. Salvador Camacho Hernandez:Hello everybody George Kirikos:Welcome Salvador. Ivett Paulovics:Hi everyone Salvador Camacho Hernandez:Thanks George, how are you? George Kirikos:I'm very well, thanks. How are you today? George Kirikos:Hi Ivett. Salvador Camacho Hernandez:Everything is great here in Mexico City, a little cloudy but good Mariia Parubets:Hi everyone George Kirikos:Welcome Mariia. Robin Cali:Hi Everyone - Robin Cali is here Paul Tattersfield:Hi All George Kirikos:Hi Robin & Paul. George Kirikos:It looks like nearly everyone has completed their SOI -- https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729950 Terri Agnew:membership and SOI wiki pageg: https://community.icann.org/x/3iWAAw Terri Agnew:synce has been enabled, everyone can scroll themselves George Kirikos:Question: Was there a date specified for a response? (it says [DATE] on page 2) George Kirikos:Oops, page 3, rather. Mary Wong:Hi George, I think we said 22 July. George Kirikos:Thanks, Mary. Ines Hfaiedh:Hi all, greetings from Tunisia ! George Kirikos:Welcome, Ines. Ines Hfaiedh:thank you George :) George Kirikos:For the PDDRP, should our review be considering it a failure of the process when registry operators appear to focus on defensive registrations by TM holders as a business model? (e.g. .SUCKS, etc.) Graham Schreiber:<Comment> What about a pseudo DOMAIN NAME built to INDUCE ... Infringement, Dilution & Blurring? <> http://domainnamewire.com/2016/05/04/centralnic-nuke-handful-psuedo-domain-… Paul Keating:@Kathy, is the purpose of the TM rights to determine whether they are working, need improvement, etmp Petter Rindforth:As I see members from both Forum & WIPO here today, it would be interesting, if possible, to have their quick comments on the PDDRP today? Graham Schreiber:<Question> Why is ICANN and this Group colluding with NAF / ADR Forum who are aiding and abetting CentralNic's "pseudo" cc.COM's as Domain Names </Question> Paul Keating:@KATHY, THINGS TO ADDRESSL: CONTROLL OVER TEGH ADR PROCESS BY ICANN Paul Keating:NO. SORRY AM IN PUBLIC Paul Keating:SORRY BUT AM IN A PUBLIC PLACE AND VERY LOUD (sory for caps) Graham Schreiber:George, ISPs like VeriSign, Network Solutions, eNom / Demand Media and 123REG all profit from RACKETEERING via CentralNic's "pseudo" cc.COM's. Philip Corwin:Mr. Schreiber, you are once again posting non-germane, distracting, and disruotive comments. And your charge that this WG is colluding with CentralNic is false and defamatory. PLEASE CEASE AND DESIST FROM ALL COMMENTS THAT ARE NOT GERMANE TO THE CURRENT DISCUSSION. YOU HAVE BEEN PUBLICLY WARNED AGAISNT SUCH BEHAVIOR. Mary Wong:Apologies, I got dropped. Will catch up with questions and notes via the recording, and make sure they are noted. Graham Schreiber:Contributory Infringement is well defined by Jones Day. The same Jones Day that represents ICANN Et Al. <> http://www.jonesday.com/files/Publication/cb405aa3-30fc-45b0-a025-6bd424932… Graham Schreiber:Hi Phil: In my opinion this group is "colluding with CentralNic" because the ADR Forum is a member of this WG and they aid and abett CentralNic at the 3RD Level. khouloud dawahi:I had the same question paul ,thanks Graham Schreiber:This group should defend .COM Domain Name Registrants from CentralNic; and make ICANN enforce the RAA Section 3.7.7.9 on CentralNIc. J. Scott Evans:I finally made it. Sorry. Train issues with a fatality. George Kirikos:Paul is right, that they're all interrelated and interdependent. George Kirikos:But, it's hard to simultaneously review everything. Mary Wong:Mr Schreiber, please heed the co-chairs' request. You will be removed from this Adobe chat room otherwise. Thank you. Paul Tattersfield:Graham, as I understand your concerns there is a real problem/issue and it is something I intend to raise at the appropriate time. Don't risk, get banned for raising it too early because your input could be invaluable Salvador Camacho Hernandez:Dear Graham, As far as I know this is not a Judgement Group recruited to judge CentralNic. We are working to review and create better protection mechanisms regarding domain names. George Kirikos:(Paul Keating, even; given we have multiple Pauls in the group) Graham Schreiber:OK Mary. I get it. I'll be quiet, for the time being. Cheers, Graam. Mary Wong:Thank you, Graham. Graham Schreiber:Thanks you ... Paul Tattersfield. I will follow you're lead. Petter Rindforth:On the other hand, I think that working initially with these other topics will also give us ideas on what (if any) changes are needed with "the mother" = UDRP in step 2 George Kirikos:True, Petter. So, in other words, due to the interdependencies, any review of the PDDRP, TMCH, URS, etc. are not "final", until we circle back to them one more time *after* reviewing the UDRP. J. Scott Evans 2:I don't see the UDRP as the trunk of the tree or the "basis" for all the RPMs. The UDRP is just one of several RPMs used at different times for a different purpose. Petter Rindforth:@George - probably, if necessary. I presume will anyway will have to make a final follow up on all topics before we end this WG Susan Payne 2:Whilst I understand Paul K's concerns, I think that the new gTLD RPMs are independent. They are additional RPMs available for the new gTLDs which did not apply to the legacy ones, but they aren't branches of the tree. Agreed, the URS has similarities, that would not be the case for the other RPMs J. Scott Evans 2:Our charter asks us to review the existing RPMs and evaluate how they work, if they work and if they need to be revised to make them function to fulfill the purpose for which they were designed. Denise Michel:@Jay + 1 Mary Wong:Perhaps the question of whether the UDRP is relevant is something to be considered when we get to the URS review - at that point, it may be plausible that the WG may wish to request the Council for an amendment to the Charter, but it's hard to see how this can be resolved at this stage when the WG is considering a different RPM? Mary Wong:Note also that as a general matter, the WG is also charged with asking, by the end of its work, whether the RPMs collectively acheive their objective. J. Scott Evans 2:The UDRP and the other RPMs give a user no "rights". The "rights" that are protected by the RPMs are granted by governments around the world. George Kirikos:Instead of trees and branches, the metaphor might be "weapons". The PDDRP is like a nuclear bomb, targeting the registry operator itself, whereas the UDRP and URS are like arrows, targeting registrants. If the arrows were very effective, cheap, etc., TM holders wouldn't need the nuclear bomb. Georges Nahitchevansky:In my mind, the UDRP and the other mechanisms are not one treee, but likely a stand of separate trees. There may some similarities between the URS and UDRP, but they are essentially two separate mechanisms and not interrelated brancehs of one tree, so to speak. We should stick to the approach as it now set out. Terri Agnew:@J Scott, your mic is not enabled J. Scott Evans 2:I don't think you can hear me. George Kirikos:hehe Georges, I was thinking "forest" too (although 'weaopns" might be even better as a metaphor, as per above) George Kirikos:*weapons, even Terri Agnew:to active yur mic, select telehpone icon and follow the prompts or send me a chat with your phone number and op can dial out to you Paul Keating:sorry I have to go to a client call. Rudi Vansnick:sorry had issues with Adobe Flash updates ... had to reboot even Paul Tattersfield:I have another meeting I have to attend, bye all thanks Petter Rindforth:Just a general note: I think it is a good idea to collect thoughts about the UDRP that will come up during our phase 1 work on the other topics, and then have a - hopefully - good base/start for step 2 on the UDRP. Susan Payne:I'm happy to volunteer as well George Kirikos:Right, we'd need to get access to registry data, to do a proper analysis. Graham Schreiber:I'll help to. Catherine Douglas 2:Please add my name to this sub-group Marina Lewis:I'd like to volunteer as well. Graham Schreiber:too! khouloud dawahi:I do believe data gathering is very important and I might further say that there s a deficit of data to clarify the issues .I want to ask about the how of the gathering I mean we gather the materials that exist online right ?? @kathy Salvador Camacho Hernandez:Add my name to the sub-group please Jeff Neuman:The Premium Names issue has a lot of overlap with both RPMs and the Subsequent Procedures PDP Jeff Neuman:We should make sure the groups liaise on which group is dealing with which issues J. Scott Evans 2:I think one of the things that the subgroup can look into is what thay study is focusing on and what others are doing J. Scott Evans 2:*the study* George Kirikos:We can still provide input via the mailing list, though, even if we're not on the subteam? Mary Wong:@Jeff, staff supporting both PDP WGs will try to set up a coordinating call for the chairs of both groups soon Mary Wong:@George, yes - the idea is that the sub team will come back to the full WG with its suggestions George Kirikos:Additional Question: Are the fees reasonable? Should there be multiple TMCH providers? .... George Kirikos:Additional Questions: What % of contemplated domain name registrations were deterred due to the notices of a matching mark in the TMCH database? (registrars might have this info, i.e. abandoned shopping carts for new gTLDs vs ccTLDs or legacy gTLDs) Jeff Neuman:One of the connections though is that certain registries obtained the list of TMCH marks and used that as a basis to determine which names should be premium. That does impact Sunrise processes and the protection of data within the clearinghouse George Kirikos:Additional Questions: The strength of the marks in the TMCH, i.e. what % are fanciful, vs. descriptive, generic, etc. Jeff Neuman:So, I do see some overlap Mary Wong:@Jeff, all - there are some questions about Premium Names already identified under the Sunrise section of the Charter'st list of questions. George Kirikos:We should get a list of the TMCH marks too, to compare with frequency of registrations (and variety of different registrants) in other TLDs. Graham Schreiber:Thank you for including me in the TMCH Sub Team. Cheers, Graham. Marie Pattullo 2:Should there be a time limit on Claims notices? Would be interested to know if there was an uptick in registrations after they stop. George Kirikos:i.e. is a TMCH registration causing "weak" marks to gain some advantage, vs. the first-come first serve system. Jeff Neuman:@Mary - Understood. Was just responding to Phil as to some elements of premium names pricing being part of this PDP and others that may be part of the Subsequent Procesures PDP. George Kirikos:We'll need to survey markholders who didn't register in the TMCH, to understand why. (i.e. it's not sufficient to simply survey those who did use the TMCH) George Kirikos:Also, survey registrars and even registrants, to see whether TMCH match notices/warnings caused them undue pressure to not register names (i.e. a "chilling effect" due to the warnings) Marie Pattullo 2:Good point George. I can ask AIM's members - am sure other associations can do likewise. khouloud dawahi:thanks kathy J. Scott Evans 2:I have a hard stop at 10 AM. Thanks to Kathy for chairing today. Thanks to Mary and the rest of ICANN Staff for all their assistance today. Terri Agnew:Recordings/ transcripts can be found in two places: GNSO calendar: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar and wiki agenda pages: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw (WG Meetings) Susan Payne:@George K - all good points, but our first task should be to deternmine what of this has already been done or is in pipeline. There are multiple workstreams on this subject George Kirikos:Agreed, Susan. Mary Wong:@Susan, @George - we can also see if some of these questions more appropriately "belong" to one of the other lists. George Kirikos:Just brainstorming, to put ideas and provoke further ideas from others. Cyntia King:Some of us may be able to get input from markholders about why they opted NOT to register w/ the TMCH, but they would likely hinsist on commenting anonymously. Is that possible? George Kirikos:How many participants are in the other meeting? (perhaps they can reschedule, if they have fewer people) Susan Payne:Phil - it would certaionly be better as a minimum to have the "late call" in a day which conflicts with a biweekly RySG call Mary Wong:We can put the question to the mailing list, per Phil's suggestion Marina Lewis:Thanks, everyone! Ines Hfaiedh:thanks all Darcy Southwell:Thanks, all! Georges Nahitchevansky:Bye everyone Salvador Camacho Hernandez:Thanks to everybody Philip Corwin:Bye all and thanks Roger Baah:bye all Mariia Parubets:thank you, bye Ines Hfaiedh:bye George Kirikos:Are we meeting again next week, but not the following week? Graham Schreiber:Thanks. Robin Gross:thanks, bye George Kirikos:Oops, I guess we're done. khouloud dawahi: bye thank you all George Kirikos:Bye folks. Mary Wong:@george, we will follow up via mailing list Kathy:Tx to Mary, Terri and David!

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda for Working Group Members' call on 1 June
by Kathleen Brennan June 1, 2016

June 1, 2016

I apologize, but I cannot make today’s call Katie Brennan Kathleen E. Brennan ph.773.790.4855 <http://www.norvellip.com/> www.NorvellIP.com From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Frost Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 10:43 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda for Working Group Members' call on 1 June Regrets but this call conflicts with the RySG call. Jonathan On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Dorrain, Kristine via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> wrote: As this RPM meeting conflicts with the RySG bi-weekly call, I also send my apologies. I hope the proposed rotation for this call is able to accommodate scheduled SG meetings in the future. Thank you, Kristine Kristine Dorrain Corp Counsel – IP | Amazon | 206.740.9339 dorraink(a)amazon.com From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 8:09 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda for Working Group Members' call on 1 June Dear all, Here is the proposed agenda for the next Working Group call, scheduled for Wednesday 1 June at 1600 UTC: 1. Roll call (to be taken via Adobe Connect and the conference call-in phone bridge); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Co-chairs’ suggested approach and methodology for the Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Mechanism (Trademark PDDRP) 3. Discussion of approach and methodology – particularly in relation to data gathering – for reviewing the Trademark Clearinghouse 4. Co-chairs’ suggested approach to Working Group and community sessions in Helsinki for ICANN56 5. Next steps / next meeting 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 <tel:%2B1-603-5744889> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

1 0

Agenda for Working Group Members' call on 1 June
by Mary Wong June 1, 2016

June 1, 2016

Dear all, Here is the proposed agenda for the next Working Group call, scheduled for Wednesday 1 June at 1600 UTC: 1. Roll call (to be taken via Adobe Connect and the conference call-in phone bridge); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Co-chairs’ suggested approach and methodology for the Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Mechanism (Trademark PDDRP) 3. Discussion of approach and methodology – particularly in relation to data gathering – for reviewing the Trademark Clearinghouse 4. Co-chairs’ suggested approach to Working Group and community sessions in Helsinki for ICANN56 5. Next steps / next meeting 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

6 6