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

New Q15 Proposal re: Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 25, 2019

Oct. 25, 2019

Dear WG members, Per the action item below to draft a new Q15 proposal relating to the discussion during the meeting on 16 October, staff submits for your consideration the following suggested text. We very much look forward to working with you on further revisions as needed, as well as to the discussion on today’s call. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie Staff-suggested draft (based on Working Group discussions and suggestions made on the Working Group call of 16 October): The Working Group understands that, on the one hand, trademark owners may register trademarks and enter them into the Trademark Clearinghouse as part of a business-confidential strategy, including for new products yet to enter the market. On the other hand, some Working Group members have noted that it was not clear, during the lead up to the launch of the 2012 New gTLD Program, that the Trademark Clearinghouse database was intended to be a non-publicly-accessible, confidential database. In addition, some Working Group members expressed concern that potential registrants may benefit from knowing what marks are already in the Trademark Clearinghouse database prior to attempting a registration, especially in view of the likelihood (based on discussions the Working Group has held with the current Trademark Clearinghouse validator) that some marks may consist of generic words which potential registrants may legitimately wish to use as a domain name. The Working Group agrees in principle that an audit of the Trademark Clearinghouse database can be beneficial. Accordingly, the Working Group recommends that, in order to inform the next review of the Trademark Clearinghouse, a small group of community volunteers be formed that will have limited, specifically-defined, confidential access to the Trademark Clearinghouse database, for the sole purpose of working with ICANN Org and any appointed third party examiner on such review. The scope of such confidential access is to be limited to oversight purposes only and must not violate any terms of confidentiality that apply to trademark owners whose marks are already in the Trademark Clearinghouse database at that time. From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 3:27 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019 Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 16 October 2019 at 17:00 UTC. Staff will post these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, Zoom chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-10-16+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Open and Deferred TMCH Questions: Q7 Design Marks: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Kleiman/Muscovitch and Shatan proposals in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q8 GIs: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Tushnet proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q12: ACTION: Staff will work with Maxim to revise the proposal to include context and background, and make it more formal. Make it clear that this is an implementation recommendation, not policy. Publish to the WG email list for review. Q15: ACTIONS: 1) WG agrees to publish Karanicolas proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. 2) ACTION: Staff to draft a new proposal based on suggestions and circulate it to interested WG members and the Co-Chairs. Q2: Proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent: ACTIONS: 1) Martin to revise the proposal with assistance of other WG members and circulate it on the WG email list for review. 2) Staff will check to see if either party to the contract can seek modifications. Discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so: ACTION: WG members are requested to continue discussion on the email list. See the draft survey at: survey [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_kak3MEWFTNeq…>. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Status of Questions Q7, Q8, Q12, and Q15: Q7 Design Marks: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Kleiman/Muscovitch and Shatan proposals in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q8 GIs: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Tushnet proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q12: Proposal from Maxim Alzoba – TMCH Operational Considerations -- Need to improve redundancy and availability of the TMCH. -- Question: Are you referring to the TM database, run by IBM? Deloitte is the validator and IBM is the maintainer of the database. Answer: Relates to the provision of the database. Or could be a issue with the design, it’s hard to say. Need to review how it works. Might not be limited to software functions. Could be dataflow design. -- Need to get background on the cases reported to GDD colleagues. The validation function is kept separate from the database function. If the WG wishes to investigate this further this is probably an issue with implementation as to SLA (there are applicable SLAs). Need also to go back and look at the deliberations concerning the original design of the TMCH and database. -- Information about the SOW with IBM (and for that matter the SLAs with Deloitte) on this Working Group wiki page, under TMCH Contracting: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864  ACTION: Staff will work with Maxim to revise the proposal to include context and background, and make it more formal. Make it clear that this is an implementation recommendation, not policy. Publish to the WG email list for review. Q15: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Karanicolas proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. -- Hoped that we could get consensus. -- Could allow a limited group to access the data, perhaps a future review team? Can’t just open up now when those who participate have been assured of confidentiality. -- Question - is there a way for the WG to reach agreement on how to ensure there is some kind of specific, limited access to the data in the TMDB for oversight purposes only (including future reviews)? ACTION: Staff to draft a new proposal based on suggestions and circulate it to interested WG members and the Co-Chairs. 3. Remaining Deferred Charter Questions (see the attached Status of WG Discussions on Agreed TMCH Charter Questions): a. Close Discussion: TMCH Category 6: Balance: Charter Question 16: Close discussion. b. Discussion: TMCH Category 1: Education: Charter Questions 1, 2, and 3 – Proposal submitted by Martin P Valent for Q2 (1 Oct 2019<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/109482780/Martin%20Pablo%2…>) Q1: Close discussion. Q2: Proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent: -- TMCH should educate rights holders; it is already doing outreach and should do more. -- Needs to be revised to be in the form of a recommendation. -- Amendment: this effort would work in conjunction with whatever marketing ICANN is doing to support knowledge around new gTLD program in general and the TMCH. -- Not clear as drafting what is the remit of Deloitte and what falls elsewhere. Some of this should be done at an ICANN level. -- Not sure involving ICANN at this level is required. -- ICANN is not involved in marketing gTLDs. -- Needs to be some definition/scope. Don’t see TMCH providing education on RPMs. We also need to clarify what is meant by “education.” Is this essentially “awareness” or is something more contemplated? -- In the end we need much more in terms of education. If it’s not in the current contract then it’s worth considering in future discussion. -- Need to be careful how to express this. -- From staff: ICANN Org does not have control over the TMCH provider’s website and information. The contract was an initial 5-year term that expired on the first anniversary of the entering into force of the new gTLD program, and followed by consecutive 1-year renewal terms unless there’s a 180 day notice of termination. See: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864 . We are in the 1-year renewal term. -- Should look at what Deloitte already provides on their website. -- There's a lot of talk about what should be done - but no-one identifying anything actually glaringly missing. -- Maybe it’s more of an outreach question, if the education already exists. -- We should be identifying what’s not being done. Otherwise, we’re just endorsing education conceptually, or providing a generic roadmap for what could be done that will include many things that are already being done. ACTION: Martin to revise the proposal with assistance of other WG members and circulate it on the WG email list for review. ACTION: Staff will check to see if either party to the contract can seek modifications. 4. Discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so. See the draft survey at: survey [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_kak3MEWFTNeq…>: -- Survey does not designate which proposals go into the Initial Report – that will be decided via WG discussion. -- WG members should consider whether or not names and affiliations should be included, although the survey is not a poll. -- WG members will decide what to do with the data. -- Co-Chairs suggest allowing WG members to take the survey as a way to inform, but not direct, WG discussions. ACTION: WG members are requested to continue discussion on the email list.

14 39

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 23 October 2019
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 23, 2019

Oct. 23, 2019

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 23 October 2019 at 17:00 UTC. Staff will post these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, Zoom chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-10-23+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Open and Deferred TMCH Questions: Category 4: Costs & Other Fundamental Features, Q12: Include Maxim Alzoba’s proposal in the Initial Report for public comment. Category 5: Access & Accessibility, Q15: Include Michael Karanicolas’ proposal in the Initial Report for public comment. (No agreement to include the new proposal.) Category 1: Education, Q2: Staff will assist in putting Martin de Silva’s proposal in the form of a recommendation for review by Martin and the WG as draft text for the Initial Report. Survey on URS Individual Proposals: Add affiliation and a comment field. Send the survey out today with the deadline set at 23:59 UTC on Friday, 01 November. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: Kathy Kleiman has joined the faculty as a fellow at American University. 2. Remaining Charter Questions (see the attached Status of WG Discussions on Agreed TMCH Charter Questions): a. Category 4: Costs & Other Fundamental Features, Q12: Close Discussion -- Revised proposal from Maxim Alzoba. ACTION: Include the proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. b. Category 5: Access & Accessibility, Q15: Close Discussion -- New proposal based on suggestions from Rebecca and others. -- Serious concerns. It seems to suggest that what AG did was a breach of confidentiality. Should proceed on the assumption is that auditing is a legitimate function. -- The AG access was done on the basis of the GAC request. Would this change the ability for GAC to make such requests in future. -- Perception was that there were strongly held views in the WG on both sides as to whether the marks should be available publicly and we would seek public comment (Karanicolas proposal). -- Don’t object to a confidential audit, but not clear on the purpose. -- Is this about future WG access? -- This is a staff attempt to capture the points of the discussion for a new proposal arising from the meeting on 16 October. -- The idea is to dig deeper to conduct a reexamination of a mark already registered by the national TM Office. It would involve an in-depth legal analysis. -- If we wanted to put a recommendation forward dealing with the role of compliance and the way the contracts are structured, we could consider, but otherwise it would be way too complex. -- The issue here is the viability of doing this at the moment, but worth further consideration of how we do that (oversight and access). Important to stress that oversight, access, and transparency are very important principles. -- There is a valid underlying issue to be addressed, but don’t think we will get there on this call. -- Protecting confidentiality, consumers, and TM owners also are important principles. -- If this proposal is put out for public comment then the concerns must also me conveyed. -- There are competing interests that are of importance. -- Only put something out for comment if it is specific, which this is not. -- Summary: Not seeing agreement on this proposal. c. Category 1: Education, Q2: Close Discussion -- Revised proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent -- Tried to understand what information is on the TMCH website. -- TMCH is already doing some outreach. -- Don’t know that the scope is there to require Deloitte to do outreach. -- Martin has not written a specific proposal, and that would be as a recommendation. -- ACTION: Staff will assist in putting the proposal in the form of a recommendation for review by Martin and the WG as draft text for the Initial Report. d. Category 2: Verification & Updating of TMCH Database, Q4, Q5, Q6: Close Discussion (no proposals) -- There was no agreement to put forward any proposals or recommendations concerning these questions. -- Staff will check the audio and transcript with respect to Claudio di Gangi’s suggestions. 3. Whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so: Close Discussion. See the draft survey at: survey [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_kak3MEWFTNeq…> -- Not clear on how much time we’ll have to respond to the survey? Answer: a week or so. -- Survey is not dispositive. It is a useful tool for guidance. -- Can include a question for people to indicate their affiliation. If we close the survey at ICANN66 staff would not have time to do an analysis of how each affiliation answered each question. -- We can show names if people agreed to provide them. -- Add a comment field? -- ACTION: Add affiliation and a comment field. Send the survey out today with the deadline set at 23:59 UTC on Friday, 01 November. 4. AOB: Sessions at ICANN66 Saturday, 02 November: 15:15-16:45 Session 1 17:00-18:30 Session 2 Sunday, 03 November: 17:00-18:30 Session 3

1 0

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Wednesday 23 October 2019
by Andrea Glandon Oct. 23, 2019

Oct. 23, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Wednesday, 23 October 2019 at 17:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/y4MzBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw>. Thank you. With kind regards, Andrea

1 0

Revised Q12 Proposal re: Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 23, 2019

Oct. 23, 2019

Dear Maxim, Per the action item below from the meeting on 16 October to revise the Q12 proposal, staff submits for your consideration the following suggested revised text. We very much look forward to working with you on further revisions as needed, as well as to the discussion on today’s call. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie Q12: Suggested Revised Proposal Text: It is critical that the Trademark Clearinghouse database remains available for access by registries and registrars in order to provide the mandatory Sunrise and Trademark Claims services and, in some cases, additional services such as extended claims periods. The Working Group recommends that the Trademark Clearinghouse database provider(s) be contractually bound to maintain, at minimum, industry-standard levels of redundancy and uptime. To further ensure the effective delivery of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims services, the Working Group also provides the following implementation guidance to the Implementation Review Team that will be formed to advise ICANN org on implementation of those policy recommendations that are ultimately approved by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board: * Consider the advisability of requiring that more than one provider be appointed; and * Review the work of the Implementation Advisory Group that was formed for the 2012 New gTLD Program to assist ICANN org with developing the specifications for and design of the Trademark Clearinghouse. Q12: Original Proposal Text: Given the importance of the TMCH to the roll-out of new gTLDs (Sunrise period), and Claims period in those, which have passed Sunrise period by then the availability of the main TMCH database and services is a necessity. Accordingly, the TMCH providers must provide a better design of the TMCH system -- with improved redundancy and availability. The Implementation Review Team may want to consider requiring the creation of two virtual TMCH operators (with appropriate synchronization and redundancy). In case where existence of only one TMCH provider is proven or regarded to be the only feasible option (either due to financial or technological reasons), the need of the better technological design will arise (not limited to two 'virtual TMCHs' inside of the TMCH platform and requirements to avoid maintenance done the way rendering the system partially unaccessible or partially functional). Here I referred not just to the situation of the total shutdown of the TMCH, but also to situations where some of services are not properly functioning (example - Registries not being able to upload LORDN file, which was experienced in the last years, and which is an grand issue for Sunrise and an issue for Claims period for a new TLD). Some TLDs have ongoing or ever extended Claims periods, not limited to 90 days of General Availability period. From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 3:27 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019 Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 16 October 2019 at 17:00 UTC. Staff will post these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, Zoom chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-10-16+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Open and Deferred TMCH Questions: Q7 Design Marks: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Kleiman/Muscovitch and Shatan proposals in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q8 GIs: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Tushnet proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q12: ACTION: Staff will work with Maxim to revise the proposal to include context and background, and make it more formal. Make it clear that this is an implementation recommendation, not policy. Publish to the WG email list for review. Q15: ACTIONS: 1) WG agrees to publish Karanicolas proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. 2) ACTION: Staff to draft a new proposal based on suggestions and circulate it to interested WG members and the Co-Chairs. Q2: Proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent: ACTIONS: 1) Martin to revise the proposal with assistance of other WG members and circulate it on the WG email list for review. 2) Staff will check to see if either party to the contract can seek modifications. Discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so: ACTION: WG members are requested to continue discussion on the email list. See the draft survey at: survey [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_kak3MEWFTNeq…>. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Status of Questions Q7, Q8, Q12, and Q15: Q7 Design Marks: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Kleiman/Muscovitch and Shatan proposals in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q8 GIs: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Tushnet proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q12: Proposal from Maxim Alzoba – TMCH Operational Considerations -- Need to improve redundancy and availability of the TMCH. -- Question: Are you referring to the TM database, run by IBM? Deloitte is the validator and IBM is the maintainer of the database. Answer: Relates to the provision of the database. Or could be a issue with the design, it’s hard to say. Need to review how it works. Might not be limited to software functions. Could be dataflow design. -- Need to get background on the cases reported to GDD colleagues. The validation function is kept separate from the database function. If the WG wishes to investigate this further this is probably an issue with implementation as to SLA (there are applicable SLAs). Need also to go back and look at the deliberations concerning the original design of the TMCH and database. -- Information about the SOW with IBM (and for that matter the SLAs with Deloitte) on this Working Group wiki page, under TMCH Contracting: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864  ACTION: Staff will work with Maxim to revise the proposal to include context and background, and make it more formal. Make it clear that this is an implementation recommendation, not policy. Publish to the WG email list for review. Q15: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Karanicolas proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. -- Hoped that we could get consensus. -- Could allow a limited group to access the data, perhaps a future review team? Can’t just open up now when those who participate have been assured of confidentiality. -- Question - is there a way for the WG to reach agreement on how to ensure there is some kind of specific, limited access to the data in the TMDB for oversight purposes only (including future reviews)? ACTION: Staff to draft a new proposal based on suggestions and circulate it to interested WG members and the Co-Chairs. 3. Remaining Deferred Charter Questions (see the attached Status of WG Discussions on Agreed TMCH Charter Questions): a. Close Discussion: TMCH Category 6: Balance: Charter Question 16: Close discussion. b. Discussion: TMCH Category 1: Education: Charter Questions 1, 2, and 3 – Proposal submitted by Martin P Valent for Q2 (1 Oct 2019<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/109482780/Martin%20Pablo%2…>) Q1: Close discussion. Q2: Proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent: -- TMCH should educate rights holders; it is already doing outreach and should do more. -- Needs to be revised to be in the form of a recommendation. -- Amendment: this effort would work in conjunction with whatever marketing ICANN is doing to support knowledge around new gTLD program in general and the TMCH. -- Not clear as drafting what is the remit of Deloitte and what falls elsewhere. Some of this should be done at an ICANN level. -- Not sure involving ICANN at this level is required. -- ICANN is not involved in marketing gTLDs. -- Needs to be some definition/scope. Don’t see TMCH providing education on RPMs. We also need to clarify what is meant by “education.” Is this essentially “awareness” or is something more contemplated? -- In the end we need much more in terms of education. If it’s not in the current contract then it’s worth considering in future discussion. -- Need to be careful how to express this. -- From staff: ICANN Org does not have control over the TMCH provider’s website and information. The contract was an initial 5-year term that expired on the first anniversary of the entering into force of the new gTLD program, and followed by consecutive 1-year renewal terms unless there’s a 180 day notice of termination. See: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864 . We are in the 1-year renewal term. -- Should look at what Deloitte already provides on their website. -- There's a lot of talk about what should be done - but no-one identifying anything actually glaringly missing. -- Maybe it’s more of an outreach question, if the education already exists. -- We should be identifying what’s not being done. Otherwise, we’re just endorsing education conceptually, or providing a generic roadmap for what could be done that will include many things that are already being done. ACTION: Martin to revise the proposal with assistance of other WG members and circulate it on the WG email list for review. ACTION: Staff will check to see if either party to the contract can seek modifications. 4. Discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so. See the draft survey at: survey [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_kak3MEWFTNeq…>: -- Survey does not designate which proposals go into the Initial Report – that will be decided via WG discussion. -- WG members should consider whether or not names and affiliations should be included, although the survey is not a poll. -- WG members will decide what to do with the data. -- Co-Chairs suggest allowing WG members to take the survey as a way to inform, but not direct, WG discussions. ACTION: WG members are requested to continue discussion on the email list.

2 1

REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 23 October at 17:00-18:30 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 22, 2019

Oct. 22, 2019

Dear RPM WG members, This is a reminder. Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 23 October at 17:00-18:30 UTC. See all TMCH proposals at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/TMCH+Proposals. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Remaining Charter Questions (see the attached Status of WG Discussions on Agreed TMCH Charter Questions): 1. Category 4: Costs & Other Fundamental Features, Q12: Close Discussion -- Revised proposal from Maxim Alzoba. 2. Category 5: Access & Accessibility, Q15: Close Discussion -- New proposal based on suggestions from Rebecca and others. 3. Category 1: Education, Q2: Close Discussion -- Revised proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent 4. Category 2: Verification & Updating of TMCH Database, Q4, Q5, Q6: Close Discussion (no proposals) 1. Whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so: Close Discussion. See the draft survey at: survey [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_kak3MEWFTNeq…> 2. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 21, 2019

Oct. 21, 2019

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 16 October 2019 at 17:00 UTC. Staff will post these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, Zoom chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-10-16+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Open and Deferred TMCH Questions: Q7 Design Marks: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Kleiman/Muscovitch and Shatan proposals in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q8 GIs: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Tushnet proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q12: ACTION: Staff will work with Maxim to revise the proposal to include context and background, and make it more formal. Make it clear that this is an implementation recommendation, not policy. Publish to the WG email list for review. Q15: ACTIONS: 1) WG agrees to publish Karanicolas proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. 2) ACTION: Staff to draft a new proposal based on suggestions and circulate it to interested WG members and the Co-Chairs. Q2: Proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent: ACTIONS: 1) Martin to revise the proposal with assistance of other WG members and circulate it on the WG email list for review. 2) Staff will check to see if either party to the contract can seek modifications. Discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so: ACTION: WG members are requested to continue discussion on the email list. See the draft survey at: survey [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_kak3MEWFTNeq…>. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Status of Questions Q7, Q8, Q12, and Q15: Q7 Design Marks: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Kleiman/Muscovitch and Shatan proposals in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q8 GIs: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Tushnet proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q12: Proposal from Maxim Alzoba – TMCH Operational Considerations -- Need to improve redundancy and availability of the TMCH. -- Question: Are you referring to the TM database, run by IBM? Deloitte is the validator and IBM is the maintainer of the database. Answer: Relates to the provision of the database. Or could be a issue with the design, it’s hard to say. Need to review how it works. Might not be limited to software functions. Could be dataflow design. -- Need to get background on the cases reported to GDD colleagues. The validation function is kept separate from the database function. If the WG wishes to investigate this further this is probably an issue with implementation as to SLA (there are applicable SLAs). Need also to go back and look at the deliberations concerning the original design of the TMCH and database. -- Information about the SOW with IBM (and for that matter the SLAs with Deloitte) on this Working Group wiki page, under TMCH Contracting: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864  ACTION: Staff will work with Maxim to revise the proposal to include context and background, and make it more formal. Make it clear that this is an implementation recommendation, not policy. Publish to the WG email list for review. Q15: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Karanicolas proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. -- Hoped that we could get consensus. -- Could allow a limited group to access the data, perhaps a future review team? Can’t just open up now when those who participate have been assured of confidentiality. -- Question - is there a way for the WG to reach agreement on how to ensure there is some kind of specific, limited access to the data in the TMDB for oversight purposes only (including future reviews)? ACTION: Staff to draft a new proposal based on suggestions and circulate it to interested WG members and the Co-Chairs. 3. Remaining Deferred Charter Questions (see the attached Status of WG Discussions on Agreed TMCH Charter Questions): a. Close Discussion: TMCH Category 6: Balance: Charter Question 16: Close discussion. b. Discussion: TMCH Category 1: Education: Charter Questions 1, 2, and 3 – Proposal submitted by Martin P Valent for Q2 (1 Oct 2019<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/109482780/Martin%20Pablo%2…>) Q1: Close discussion. Q2: Proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent: -- TMCH should educate rights holders; it is already doing outreach and should do more. -- Needs to be revised to be in the form of a recommendation. -- Amendment: this effort would work in conjunction with whatever marketing ICANN is doing to support knowledge around new gTLD program in general and the TMCH. -- Not clear as drafting what is the remit of Deloitte and what falls elsewhere. Some of this should be done at an ICANN level. -- Not sure involving ICANN at this level is required. -- ICANN is not involved in marketing gTLDs. -- Needs to be some definition/scope. Don’t see TMCH providing education on RPMs. We also need to clarify what is meant by “education.” Is this essentially “awareness” or is something more contemplated? -- In the end we need much more in terms of education. If it’s not in the current contract then it’s worth considering in future discussion. -- Need to be careful how to express this. -- From staff: ICANN Org does not have control over the TMCH provider’s website and information. The contract was an initial 5-year term that expired on the first anniversary of the entering into force of the new gTLD program, and followed by consecutive 1-year renewal terms unless there’s a 180 day notice of termination. See: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864 . We are in the 1-year renewal term. -- Should look at what Deloitte already provides on their website. -- There's a lot of talk about what should be done - but no-one identifying anything actually glaringly missing. -- Maybe it’s more of an outreach question, if the education already exists. -- We should be identifying what’s not being done. Otherwise, we’re just endorsing education conceptually, or providing a generic roadmap for what could be done that will include many things that are already being done. ACTION: Martin to revise the proposal with assistance of other WG members and circulate it on the WG email list for review. ACTION: Staff will check to see if either party to the contract can seek modifications. 4. Discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so. See the draft survey at: survey [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_kak3MEWFTNeq…>: -- Survey does not designate which proposals go into the Initial Report – that will be decided via WG discussion. -- WG members should consider whether or not names and affiliations should be included, although the survey is not a poll. -- WG members will decide what to do with the data. -- Co-Chairs suggest allowing WG members to take the survey as a way to inform, but not direct, WG discussions. ACTION: WG members are requested to continue discussion on the email list.

5 13

Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 23 October at 17:00-18:30 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 17, 2019

Oct. 17, 2019

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 23 October at 17:00-18:30 UTC. See all TMCH proposals at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/TMCH+Proposals. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Remaining Charter Questions (see the attached Status of WG Discussions on Agreed TMCH Charter Questions): 1. Category 4: Costs & Other Fundamental Features, Q12: Close Discussion -- Revised proposal from Maxim Alzoba. 2. Category 5: Access & Accessibility, Q15: Close Discussion -- New proposal based on suggestions from Rebecca and others. 3. Category 1: Education, Q2: Close Discussion -- Revised proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent 4. Category 2: Verification & Updating of TMCH Database, Q4, Q5, Q6: Close Discussion (no proposals) 1. Whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so: Close Discussion. See the draft survey at: survey [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_kak3MEWFTNeq…> 2. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

3.2.4 transcript with ICANN General Counsel confirming status
by claudio di gangi Oct. 16, 2019

Oct. 16, 2019

All, I am very happy that ICANN is transparent and transcribes is meetings, which is particularly essential in this fluid and complex environment. Since I was involved in the ICANN committee that developed the proposal for the Trademark Clearinghouse, which was called the IP Clearinghouse, I have known from the start that the concept of allowing other forms of IP in the Clearinghouse was always part of the concept, because there was always broad agreement that the ICANN-imposed Mandatory RPMs, were the ceiling and not the floor. The new gTLD Registry controls the allocation of all domain names within its TLD, and can therefore establish voluntary mechanisms, consistent with local laws, to protect consumers from confusion and harm from malicious actors. Since the Clearinghouse database is just an administrative tool to support the implementation of these mechanisms, both mandatory and voluntary, there was never a reason to exclude certain forms of IP in the Clearinghouse for the sole purpose of supporting the voluntary RPMS that a specific Registry may adopt. We have reached consensus on this point, in particular through the ancillary database concept, but have gotten snagged on the wording of particular provisions, including 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 Section 3.2.4 currently states: "Other marks that constitute intellectual property" - and this category: 3.2.4 - is NOT for the mandatory Sunrise or Claims period, but for voluntary registry-specific RPMs. I located the transcript from the ICANN meeting when the Applicant Guidebook was essentially completed; it had reach the near final stage. 3.2.4 was specifically discussing during this meeting; the confusion with the language was identified (and it was even predicted that it was going to cause confusion) and ICANN staff and General Counsel agreed that 3.2.4 extended to other forms of IP beyond trademarks. In other words, we have been confused on this clause simply because of imprecise drafting of this provision. Please see the transcript here: https://archive.icann.org/en/ meetings/singapore2011/bitcache/Trademark%20Clearinghouse%20Implementation%20Plan-vid=26005&disposition=attachment&op=download.txt I am quoting the relevant section: "J. Scott Evans: Another comment to Amy. Amy, I think that the guidebook's use of "other marks" confusing, and that needs to be changed to "other indicia," because we're already talking about marks in trademarks, and if you just make that one change, because I think the idea is there are other indicia other than trademarks that might be protected by the local registry, and we just need to make that clear. Because I think there's some confusion, well, if trademarks are here, what are other marks. >>AMY STATHOS: Right. And with respect to the assignment issue, sometimes the database that has the assignment documents may be different than the actual database that has the actual registration, so looks like it's something that -- ------- So 3.2.4. was always intended to allow other forms of IP to be recorded in the main TMCH database for implementation of voluntary Registry-specific voluntary RPMs. I hope this closes the debate on 3.2.4. and here is my proposed modification to bring clarity to its meaning: "3.2.4 Other Signs or Indicia that constitute intellectual property" Best regards, Claudio

4 12

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Wednesday 16 October 2019 at 17:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Oct. 16, 2019

Oct. 16, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Wednesday, 16 October 2019 at 17:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/AYAzBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw>. Thank you. With kind regards, Terri

2 1

Q12: TMCH Operational Considerations Proposal
by Maxim Alzoba Oct. 16, 2019

Oct. 16, 2019

Hello all, Please find Q12: TMCH Operational Considerations Proposal below === Given the importance of the TMCH to the roll-out of new gTLDs (Sunrise period), and Claims period in those, which have passed Sunrise period by then the availability of the main TMCH database and services is a necessity. Accordingly, the TMCH providers must provide a better design of the TMCH system -- with improved redundancy and availability. The Implementation Review Team may want to consider requiring the creation of two virtual TMCH operators (with appropriate synchronization and redundancy). In case where existence of only one TMCH provider is proven or regarded to be the only feasible option (either due to financial or technological reasons), the need of the better technological design will arise (not limited to two 'virtual TMCHs' inside of the TMCH platform and requirements to avoid maintenance done the way rendering the system partially unaccessible or partially functional). Here I referred not just to the situation of the total shutdown of the TMCH, but also to situations where some of services are not properly functioning (example - Registries not being able to upload LORDN file, which was experienced in the last years, and which is an grand issue for Sunrise and an issue for Claims period for a new TLD). Some TLDs have ongoing or ever extended Claims periods, not limited to 90 days of General Availability period. ==== Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)

1 0