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

REMINDER: Call for Volunteers: Sunrise and TMCH Claims Sub Teams
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 8, 2018

Dec. 8, 2018

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, As noted during today’s meeting, according to the attached timeline for the completion of Phase One of the PDP, the Working Group (WG) will shortly proceed to develop recommendations relating to the Trademark Clearing House (TMCH), Sunrise, and Claims RPMs. This email is a request for WG members to volunteer to join the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams to assist with analyzing the results of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims surveys, and the previously collected data, with a view toward determining if and whether the data are helpful in answering the agreed questions based on refinements of the original charter questions for each of these RPMs (as in the attached two tables). In addition, as per the attached timeline the Sub Teams will assist in the review of individual proposals and in the development of preliminary recommendations. Please reply to this email on the list by TODAY Friday, 07 December and indicate which Sub Team(s) you would like to join. Note that to avoid running the Sub Team meetings at the same time, one Sub Team will meet on Wednesdays at 1300 UTC and the other at 1700 UTC, depending on member preferences. We may seek an alternate time if one can be found that doesn’t conflict with other GNSO meetings: ____ Join the Sunrise Sub Team ____ Join the Trademark Claims Sub Team Please also let us know if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

5 4

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 December 2018
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 6, 2018

Dec. 6, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 05 December 2018 (17:00-18:30 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-12-05+Review+of+all+R…. See also the attached referenced documents. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Staff to send out a Call for Volunteers for the Sunrise and Claims Sub Teams Staff to schedule Sub Team calls Notes: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates: None. 2. Discuss Proposed Sub Team Approach, Scope of Work, and Call for Volunteers -- see attached documents: 1) Draft RPM Timeline August 2018-September 2019 – updated 03 December 2018 by ICANN staff (Phase 1): Discussion: -- Concerns: 1) Simultaneous meetings -- prevents participation in both Sub Teams. Could schedule on alternate dates or could use early time slot. 2) opening individual proposals on the 2nd and close on 23 January -- complete analysis of the data first? -- There will be updates to the full WG, which would help the individuals to prepare their proposals. -- Concerned that if we can only participate in one sub team could that encourage those who aren't participating to make individual proposals. -- Support sub teams meeting in parallel, but not at the same time. -- The Sub Teams could meet at 1300 and 1700 UTC on Wednesdays, if there is enough participation. -- Could also use a Friday time and report back on Monday. -- Seems pointless to start on Phase 2 in the middle; could we take a break? It may be overcome by events. -- UDRP discussion could be organizational. -- Seem to be deviating from the URS in that the sub teams can go through the individual proposals. Concerns about whether sub teams can block individual proposals. -- Quick note on Sub-teams -- the idea is to: (1) break the work into tracks that can run concurrently so as to move forward more quickly, and (2) to apply expertise to specific topics. This shouldn't preclude people from being on multiple teams and, with weekly reporting to the group, should give sub-teams the authority to make recommendations. -- We had already considered a lot of TMCH issues before moving into URS, so we are asking people to get their proposals on the table early, not that they couldn't wait. -- Can we move the submission period for the individual proposals to be later? Per staff the timing of the submission of the individual proposals can be later. -- We can also allocate some time in the full WG when the sub teams report back and have the individual present the proposal and sub team chair. -- If the individual proposals wait until after the sub teams have presented their results then it might add time to the timeline -- although this approach does not have to be decided at this point. -- Have pros and cons presentations from the sub teams. 2) Status of TMCH and Related RPM Discussions 3) Table of Final Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions and Data Collected 4) Table of Final Agreed Trademark Claims Charter Questions and Data Collected -- Add page numbers (although note that the PDF is for viewing only; the working document will be Google Doc or Google Sheets). -- Does the data include the outreach that the PDP WG did to all the SOs/ACs -- that was done in late 2016? Answer: We received one or two responses, which were not data specific. We do have them on the record and when the sub teams develop recommendations they will be reminded of all relevant input. Can add as a placeholder at the end of the document. -- On articles and blogs -- will the WG be collecting the data? Staff began the exercise, but since the WG was considering the need for data collection, which because the surveys were very extensive, it may be that the survey data may address those requests. We were hoping to get further guidance since it is a lot of work and we are not sure how much it is useful. 5) TMCH Sunrise and Trademark Claims Survey Results Tool -- Add the link to the Google spreadsheet in the table. -- Staff can assist Sub Teams with questions.

7 8

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 05 December 2018 at 17:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 6, 2018

Dec. 6, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC Chat attached to this email, and the MP3 & AC recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Wednesday, 05 December 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/uwHuBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-05dec18-en.mp3 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p2kimzq8o3u/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind Regards, Michelle DeSmyter

1 0

REMINDER: Agenda & Materials for 05 December Working Group Meeting 1700 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 5, 2018

Dec. 5, 2018

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, On behalf of the Co-Chairs, please see the attached materials and the draft agenda below for the Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 05 December at 1700 UTC for 90 minutes. Draft Agenda: Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates Discuss Proposed Sub Team Approach, Scope of Work, and Call for Volunteers -- see attached documents: a) Status of TMCH and Related RPM Discussions b) Draft RPM Timeline August 2018-September 2019 – updated 03 December 2018 by ICANN staff c) Table of Final Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions and Data Collected d) Table of Final Agreed Trademark Claims Charter Questions and Data Collected e) TMCH Sunrise and Trademark Claims Survey Results Tool Discuss Revised Timeline for Phase 1 (see attached document) AOB Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

3 2

14 November TMCH Refresher Presentation -- Responses to Follow-Up Questions
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 4, 2018

Dec. 4, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the responses to follow-up questions from the Trademark Clearing House (TMCH) refresher presentation that was held on 14 November. This was a session with staff from ICANN’s Global Domains Division (GDD) to explain in some detail the TMCH Functional Specification, i.e. “how it works” rather than “what it is”. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie Responses to Follow-Up Questions Translation of Claims Notice: The Trademark Notice must be provided by the registrar to the potential domain name registrant in English. Additionally, to best serve its potential domain name registrants, registrars should provide the Trademark Notice to potential domain name registrants in the language of the registrant’s registration agreement. As provided in the TMCH Requirements, "The Claims Notice MUST be provided by the registrar to the potential domain name registrant in English and SHOULD be provided by the registrar to the potential domain name registrant in the language of the registration agreement.” Spanning the Dot: For the .TATTOO example given, the registry employed two sunrise periods, known as Sunrise A and Sunrise B. Sunrise A would be the regular period involving the Trademark Clearinghouse and mandated by ICANN. Sunrise B would allow trademark owners to apply for SLDs that do not exactly match their trademark and may "span the dot", as in ''toms.tattoo" for the trademark "Tom's Tattoo.” This service would occur during a “Sunrise B” period described in the TLD Startup Information as: The pre-launch opportunity for Sunrise A applicants for whom the terminal portion of the trademark string corresponds to the TLD may respond to invitations to register second-level names in the TLD truncated prior to such terminal portion – i.e. in which the trademark “spans the dot.” Such labels would not match labels in the SMD file according to the matching rules, and would not generate any notices by the TMCH unless the registry made specific arrangements for such service. Contracts, including expiration of Deloitte validator contract and potential for multiple Clearinghouses: A summary of the original validator agreement with Deloitte is here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/validation-fram…. This agreement was auto-renewed on 12 July 2018 and extended on 12 November 2018 to 31 Dec 2022. This agreement provides that: Deloitte will initially be the sole provider of the validation services, but following the completion of ten (10) Qualified Sunrise Periods by Registries pursuant to the New gTLD Program, ICANN may then select additional third parties (“Additional Validators”) to perform the Trademark Clearinghouse validation services, in addition to Deloitte’s providing of the Trademark Clearinghouse Validation Function, provided, however, that ICANN shall use commercially reasonable efforts to ensure that such Additional Validators provide the Trademark Clearinghouse Validation Function without regard to region or type of Trademark and operating under the same terms and conditions as Deloitte hereunder, unless ICANN determines, following public discussion, to (i) appoint Additional Validators for specific regions, (ii) specify the types of Trademarks to be validated by such Additional Validators or (iii) modify the terms and conditions pursuant to which such Additional Validators shall operate. A summary of the database framework agreement with IBM is here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/database-framew… The Statement of Work with IBM for the TMCH database platform is here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/database-platfo… The Statement of Work with IBM for the TMCH Sunrise and Claims services is here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/sunrise-claims-… How does ICANN org monitor the TMCH, and what happens if one of the services is down: Both ICANN org and IBM monitor the technical infrastructure of the Trademark Clearinghouse. ICANN's monitoring is proactive and simulates the standard workflow used by the contracted parties. If issues are detected, communications are sent to IBM’s 24/7 Service Desk for internal escalation and ICANN staff for follow-up. IBM investigates the issue, conducts troubleshooting activities, and rectifies the issues. If the issue was considered a Severity 1 incident in which critical functions were unavailable, IBM conducts a root cause analysis. Once the causes are identified, IBM, in consultation with ICANN, takes corrective measures to keep the issue from reoccurring. Overall Service Level performance is posted on ICANN.org at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/metrics-systems-2015-08-05-en.

1 0

Agenda & Materials for 05 December Working Group Meeting 1700 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 3, 2018

Dec. 3, 2018

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, On behalf of the Co-Chairs, please see the attached materials and the draft agenda below for the Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 03 December at 1700 UTC for 90 minutes. Draft Agenda: Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates Discuss Proposed Sub Team Approach, Scope of Work, and Call for Volunteers -- see attached documents: Status of TMCH and Related RPM Discussions Draft RPM Timeline August 2018-September 2019 – updated 03 December 2018 by ICANN staff Table of Final Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions and Data Collected Table of Final Agreed Trademark Claims Charter Questions and Data Collected TMCH Sunrise and Trademark Claims Survey Results Tool Discuss Revised Timeline for Phase 1 (see attached document) AOB Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

1 0

ICANN calendar feature
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 3, 2018

Dec. 3, 2018

Dear all, You will shortly be able to find all SO/AC public conference calls and webinar events listed on the ICANN calendar which you can find here: https://features.icann.org/calendar Where meetings are members-only, information will be provided as to where recordings and transcriptions will be posted. This global calendar does not in any way replace respective SO, AC, SG and C calendars but allows an overall view of events which ICANN community members could be interested in and will also contribute to avoiding scheduling conflicts. We hope you find this useful. Kind regards, Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 28 November 2018
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 28, 2018

Nov. 28, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 28 November 2018 (13:00-14:30 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-11-28+Review+of+all+R…. See also the attached referenced documents: 1) responses from Analysis Group to WG members clarifying comments and questions; 2) current PDP WG timeline. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Analysis Group will produce a redlined version of their responses to the WG members clarifying comments and questions based on the discussion on today’s call. Co-Chairs/GNSO Council Liaison/Staff will meet to discuss a) establishing sub teams for Sunrise & Claims to review the Analysis Group survey results; b) additional scope of work for sub teams (including treatment of sub team recommendations at full Working Group level vis-à-vis individual proposals); c) revised Phase One timeline; and report back to the WG. Notes: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates: No updates. 2. Review and Discussion on Analysis Group responses to all clarifying questions/comments: >From Rebecca Tushnet: Q6&8 (registrant), pages 13-16: -- Question: Of the 6 respondents that received a claims notice (Q6) but did not complete the domain name registration (6a) -- how could 2 have received a Cease and Desist letter? Answer: Analysis Group will look into this question. -- Question: Were there any anti-fraud questions? Answer: There weren't any because we were trying to keep it as short as possible. Didn't see evidence of people answering randomly. Can look to see if there were other suspicious responses. -- Comment: Seems like we aren't comparing the same thing -- doesn't seem that question 8 is specific, so we aren't talking about the same scenario as 6a. It seems that 6a and 8 are not asking about the same scenario. Q8: "After you registered your domain name(s), did you ever receive any of the following types of warning or notices of possible trademark conflict regarding your choice of a domain name? Please note that you can select multiple options." -- Question: Of the 9 who received a URS or UDRP notice, do we know the result? Answer: We didn't ask questions on the outcome of DRPs. -- Question: What about the disparity of only 6% got a notice the other saying 5 out of 6 received it? Answer: Wouldn't put a lot of weight on the 94% number. -- Question: Did ask the trademark owners about URS and UDRP outcomes -- is there a way to cross-correlate? Answer: No. Q21a (TM owner survey), page 34: -- Comment: For a single brand you could receive multiple NORNs, some of which they had done something with and some not. What we are seeing is that we have surveyed 2 populations that behave very differently. Everybody in the ICANN panel; any time there is a written response they said it was their TM; that question was asked of the registrants. Q7 (registrant) and others, page 15: -- Comment: Registrant survey: When we look at the claims notice if there is any suggestion of changing the language it could help reduce problems/issues. >From George Kirikos to all surveys: -- Question: Problem with all surveys re: margin of error. Answer: Due to the opt-in nature of the surveys and issues that arise in defining the proper population for some of the respondent groups, we do not feel it would be proper to provide confidence intervals or margins of error for these results. >From Kristine Dorrain: -- Comment: Actual/Potential Domain Name Registrants Pages 9 and 19: Could be useful to correlate. -- Question: Did we capture the names of the registry operators? Answer: We have the names of the registry operators who gave their names, but we promised to keep that information confidential. -- Question: In the new gTLD registry agreement it states that registry operators shall cooperate with economic studies created by ICANN -- did that come up? Answer: We did not indicate in the preamble anything related to that provision. There was an economic study done several years ago that was done by ICANN, but that was to address GAC advice. -- Question: Can we have the numbers of gTLDs in the registry survey? Answer: We can give a range of number of gTLDs for the registry survey. 3. Next Steps/Timeline: -- Might need to schedule two calls per week to make the schedule. -- Sub Teams could be more efficient. -- But the danger of breaking into sub teams and running them in parallel is we might have things falling through the cracks or not capturing dependencies; may need to deal with TMCH separately. -- Could be two sub teams -- sunrise and claims -- and then come back to TMCH. -- Another option could be to have sub teams review the survey results on registrants, contracted parties, TM/brands. -- Concern that there shouldn't be many individual proposals outside of sub teams, unless the sub team has obviously missed something. -- Using Sub Teams doesn't preclude individuals from making proposals. -- From the staff perspective, it's not so much Sub Team "supremacy" (which is not contemplated by the Working Group Guidelines) but the question that was raised is, how Sub Team recommendations will be iterated vis-a-vis proposals from individuals etc. -- Perhaps, a Sub team recommendation that has consensus within the sub team should be presumed to have Working Group consensus. That could be reversed if there is consensus within the WG. Individual proposals thereafter are welcome but would require WG consensus (which as we've seen would be unlikely but not impossible). All individual proposals should have been vetted by now and should be taken up by the Sub teams in their discussions and those individuals should be invited to discuss with the sub teams. -- To recap my suggestion for the record: Staff could email the Notes from every sub-team meeting to the WG so everyone can stay informed of the issues & progress. -- Staff noted that the current timeline is unrealistic, recommends that the first task is to analyze the survey results, and that the scope of work and impact on the timeline should be clear for any use of sub teams.

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call / Wednesday, 28 November 2018 at 13:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Nov. 28, 2018

Nov. 28, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC Chat attached to this email, and the MP3 & AC recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Wednesday, 28 November 2018 at 13:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/JAHuBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-28nov18-en.mp3 AC Recording: Due to a technical issue, the AC Recording dropped and is incomplete: Part 1 (first 34 minutes): https://participate.icann.org/p680y0ydsux/<https://participate.icann.org/p680y0ydsux/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=6e9547a54461439c…> Part 2 (last 28 minutes): https://participate.icann.org/p88oxq5hj3l/<https://participate.icann.org/p88oxq5hj3l/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=6e9547a54461439c…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw Thank you. Kind Regards, Julie

1 0

REMINDER: Agenda & Materials for 28 November Working Group Meeting 1300 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 26, 2018

Nov. 26, 2018

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, On behalf of the Co-Chairs, please see the draft agenda below for the Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 28 November at 1300 UTC for 90 minutes. Please note the following action items as background for the next meeting: Ask Analysis Group to respond to all clarifying questions/comments (SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT and files on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=90771305) Schedule a follow-up Working Group call with Analysis Group to go through their responses on Wednesday, 28 November (scheduled) Draft Agenda: Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates Review and Discussion on Analysis Group responses to all clarifying questions/comments Next Steps/Timeline AOB Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

1 0