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

Call for Additional Volunteers to join the new RPM Sub Team
by Mary Wong Oct. 6, 2017

Oct. 6, 2017

Dear Working Group members, As noted in the action items from the last call, staff is hereby circulating a call for additional volunteers to join Lori Schulman, Kristine Dorrain and Michael Graham (the co-chairs of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams), Kiran Malanchandruvil, Susan Payne and Kurt Pritz on the new Sub Team that is forming to perform the following tasks (our Working Group co-chairs Kathy, Phil and J. Scott will be “ex officio”, as they have been to the other Sub Teams): * Review the list of data identified as needed to answer the Additional Marketplace RPM questions as approved by the Working Group, including looking at the information staff has compiled on the Additional Marketplace RPMs currently provided by Donuts, M+M and Rightside, and sharing with the Working Group which questions these appear to address (in whole or in part); and * Review the Working Group’s Council-approved data request relating to Sunrise and Trademark Claims in light of the Council’s additional direction for us to maximize the value of the data gathered, with recommendations for the Working Group of any revisions or changes. As noted previously, it will be particularly helpful to get volunteers who have had experience and/or expertise in designing and running surveys. The first meeting of the new Sub Team is tentatively scheduled for Friday 13 October at 1400 UTC. Although it is fine if you are not able to attend this particular meeting, please note that the Sub Team meetings are more than likely to take place on Fridays at either 1400 or 1600 UTC as you consider whether you wish to volunteer at this time. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 16:00 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Action items from 4 October Working Group call Dear all, The action items noted by staff from the Working Group call held yesterday, Wednesday 4 October, are as follows: * Staff to check with ICANN Legal, to see if a redacted version of ICANN's contracts with the TMCH Providers can be provided. * Staff to recirculate the summaries of those contracts, previously posted to the WG wiki space. PLEASE SEE THESE LINKS FOR THE SUMMARIES: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/validation-fram… (Deloitte contract); https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/database-framew… (IBM contract, with these supplementary Statements of Work: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/database-platfo… and https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/sunrise-claims-…) * Staff to find out what information Analysis Group has about the Ancillary Services and what they analyzed. * Staff to put out call for additional volunteers to the Sub Team being formed to review the data requests for Sunrise and Trademark Claims on the mailing list. The notes from the call will be posted shortly to the Working Group wiki space, together with the call recording, transcript and Adobe Connect chat and attendance records. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Action items from 4 October Working Group call
by Mary Wong Oct. 5, 2017

Oct. 5, 2017

Dear all, The action items noted by staff from the Working Group call held yesterday, Wednesday 4 October, are as follows: * Staff to check with ICANN Legal, to see if a redacted version of ICANN's contracts with the TMCH Providers can be provided. * Staff to recirculate the summaries of those contracts, previously posted to the WG wiki space. PLEASE SEE THESE LINKS FOR THE SUMMARIES: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/validation-fram… (Deloitte contract); https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/database-framew… (IBM contract, with these supplementary Statements of Work: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/database-platfo… and https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/sunrise-claims-…) * Staff to find out what information Analysis Group has about the Ancillary Services and what they analyzed. * Staff to put out call for additional volunteers to the Sub Team being formed to review the data requests for Sunrise and Trademark Claims on the mailing list. The notes from the call will be posted shortly to the Working Group wiki space, together with the call recording, transcript and Adobe Connect chat and attendance records. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Recordings, Attendance, AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 04 October 2017 17:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 5, 2017

Oct. 5, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Wednesday, 04 October 2017at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/U4ZEB MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-04oct17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p19dews6acg/<https://participate.icann.org/p19dews6acg/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=0555d3b4d0c723a6…> 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, Terri Adobe Connect chat transcript for 04 October 2017: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Wednesday, 04 October 2017 at 17:00UTC for 90 minute duration. Terri Agnew:agneda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… George Kirikos:Hi folks. George Kirikos:We've got Berry, Merry, and Terry. It seems ICANN only hires people with the "-airy" sound at the end of their name, based on these 3 observations. :-) George Kirikos:Oops, I meant *Mary. George Kirikos:OOps, and Terri. George Kirikos:lol Mary Wong:It's ok George, Starbucks baristas are even more creative with spelling! Philip Corwin:Hello all (and noting that Mary is almost always merry ;-) J. Scot EVans:I am dialing in. Mary Wong:Kathy, J. Scott, Phil - please let us know which version of the document you'd like us to upload. We have the version that staff circulated about 12 hours ago, and the one Kathy just circulated to the mailing list about 30 minutes ago. Paul Tattersfield:Hi everyone J. Scot EVans:Let's put up the document Staff circulated earlier. Paul McGrady:Hey fellow nerds. Mary Wong:Amr has resigned from ICANN staff. Colin O'Brien:Was this capture based on a review of the transcript? George Kirikos:@Colin: maybe it was from the "Notes" pod? (bottom right) [from last week] Mary Wong:Yes we have both Colin O'Brien:I'm a little confused Kathy is impliing that Amr might not have been taking the best notes and she tried to capture the comments. Was this capture based on a review of last week's transcript? Mary Wong:The AC room is displaying the version circulated by staff. Lori Schulman:Hello. Sorry to be late. susan payne:Yes - why don't we stick with the version Mary circulated, rather than something none of us have looked at and agreed to as it came around less than an hour ago Bradley Silver:+1 Susan Sara Bockey:Just wanted to note that I will need to drop at the top of the hour for another meeting. Marie Pattullo:+1 Susan too Lori Schulman:Agree with Susan Payne. Terri Agnew:thank you for this notice Sara Mary Wong:We have circulated the summary and links to the different RO's Additional Marketplace RPMs information, and posted it to the wiki. Louise Marie Hurel:However, we also have to critically assess the quality of the data we are going to gather. Noting that there might be challenges to having more info from registries, we should consider incorporating registrants and other sources. Its not only about increase in costs but about the whole. Lori Schulman:Per the notes from last year, my understanding is that Martin's suggestions had not been agreed to from the group. I think reflecting suggestions in meeting minutes is one thing. Changing the discussion document is another. Cyntai King:+1 Lori Lori Schulman:I meant last week. Not last year. My apologies for the typo. susan payne:+1 Lori Greg Shatan:+1 Lori. George Kirikos:Conceivably a DIDP request could be made, to receive a copy of the contract (perhaps redacted). George Kirikos:That would set out any restrictions, in writing. George Kirikos:Loud and clear, Louise. susan payne:to what purpose George. surely ICANN has an incentive to enforce if the TMCH provider were in breach Greg Shatan:I have not looked at Kathy's notes. Was my suggestion that certain questions should be directed to consumers/end-users? Greg Shatan:captured in the notes? Mary Wong:I can explain the cost issue if appropriate. George Kirikos:See question 2(b), Susan. It helps answer not just what arrangements exist, but what *could* exist. Mary Wong:@Greg, all - here are the notes from the call that Kathy is reading from: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Lori Schulman:How will registrants be identified? George Kirikos:@Lori: perhaps like the WHOIS study, a random sample of domains? Cyntai King:@George - why would we need to know what arrangements could exist? This isn't a theorectical exercise; this is an assessment of the mechanisms. We are not tasked to assess mechanisms that don't exist. George Kirikos:(statistically significant in size, of course) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:First, I think we're already proposing to ask Registrants about their interactions with claims (regardless of pre- or post- 90 days). Lori Schulman:ok, I would want to understand the pool and a way to cost effectively identify willing registrants Cyntai King:Lsat week we briefly discussed Registrant surveys, at which time it was noted that to do a statistically relevent survey would increase the budget by an order of magnitude Lori Schulman:Yes, I also had raised the point of prioritizing the date that we need and we don't seem to be doing that. Mary Wong:@Lori, the cost issue relates to the scope of the target group. Reaching out to registry operators, brand owners and service providers is a relatively closed universe, the broader, bigger and less defined the group means that there is a massive increase in cost that we may not have the budget for. George Kirikos:I already posted a link to a registrant study ICANN had already done, last week. Martin:I thin we SHOULD ask registrants because if we don't we might loose a very different, and relevant perspective, maybe we don't find something usefull, but the point of view is, and that's what neutral data collection is about Mary Wong:@George, if that is the CCT global survey, that survey alone cost about 200,000 dollars Lori Schulman:@George, do you happen to know how the pool was identified? Cyntai King:Yes, @George, you did. At which point I noted that the study was conducted by Nielsen at significant cost. George Kirikos:@Greg: It's already been done, see: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann… George Kirikos:"The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) today published [PDF, 2.85 MB] findings of its Phase Two Global Registrant Survey. The study, conducted by Nielsen, examines domain name registrants’ perceived sense of trust, choice and experience in the current domain name landscape." susan payne:my point is not that we shouldn't ask a registrant anything, necessarily, but why are we asking them THIS question. Read it, it's irrelevant George Kirikos:@Mary: doesn't ICANN have roughly $500 million in the bank? George Kirikos:$200K is how many days of bank interest? :-) Michael R Graham:Agree with Susan. Both the universe and scope of the questions would be nebulous and would only enable us to identify new questions/areas of inquiry, rather than answering the question. We are trying to identify Ancillary Services and their utility I think, but asking registrants or others these questions would be far too open-ended and (as noted) expensive to be truly valuable or provide useful information -- and no metrics. Lori Schulman:Perhaps we need to agree to certain principles and then focus on a narrow and prioritized set of questions be developed by a subteam after we understand cost parameters? Cyntai King:@George Enough. No matter how much money ICANN has/doesn't have, we've been given a budget Martin:adittional RPMs are VERY relevant to registrants since they can become blocks for the civil use Lori Schulman:That is how I view subteam questions: principles but we need to be practical as to how we get objective data Martin:or non-com Martin:And what's the cost of NOT asking REgistrants about Ancillary Services, if we DO have information! George Kirikos:Well said, Martin. Lori Schulman:Agree, we have to trust the work product of the sub teams or why have sub teams? Mary Wong:Please note that staff is NOT taking a position on who, how or what should be asked. We are only noting some feasibility issues. George Kirikos:@Lori: actually, we decided very early on in this PDP that subteams would NOT be making final decisions on anything. It's always to go through the entire membership. Lori Schulman:BTW, registrants includes everyone including TM owners which is why I have difficulty with that term Lori Schulman:@George, agree that plenary needs to agree but it seems that we are spending too much time on reworking susan payne:not harsh at all Paul Brian Cimbolic (PIR):+1 Paul George Kirikos:LOL @ PaulM; Straw man. Cyntia King:GNSO is already unhappy we are so far behind in our task. We will never move forward if we continue to re-litigate the work of each sub-group Greg Shatan:The job was to inform ourselves of how the marketplace protections work, not to evaluate their efficacy, etc. George Kirikos:No one suggested surveying 7 Billion people. Lori Schulman:@Mary, understand about staff role. Keeping us in our lanes on the logistics not substance. Thank you. George Kirikos:It's always a statistically siginificant SAMPLE. George Kirikos:@PaulM: who, other than yourself, is suggesting surveying 7 billion people???!!??? George Kirikos:(classic strawman faulty argument) Kurt Pritz:I am NOT for changing the direction now. But a sample size of 1300 will give you a +/- 5% error on a population of billions Michael R Graham:@George -- And entire group did agree on these questions upon the report by the subcommittees. Paul McGrady:@George, if it is a survey to registrants or potential registrants, that would be anyone over 18 years old. George Kirikos:@PaulM: are you serious? We do statistical sampling so that we don't have to survey everyone. George Kirikos:That's the entire reason we sample. susan payne:louise please explain what benefit you get from asking this Q 2 Paul McGrady:@George - imagine the cost of survey sampling in 200+ jurisdictions. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:We're getting so far away from the purpose of these questions....we want to find out how SUNRISE REGISTRATIONS were impacted. Lori Schulman:are we surveying SGs? George Kirikos:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". Lori Schulman:Now I am confused. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Digging into the impact of Addtional Mechanisms on registrants is WHOLLY UNRELATED to how many Sunrise Registrations were impacted. Cyntia King:Agreed Kristine Brian Cimbolic (PIR):+1 Kristine susan payne:totally Kristine Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:We are rapidly falling down a rabbit hole here. Marie Pattullo:Agreed also - I'm not sure what the point of this is? Lori Schulman:Paul was using rhetoric to make a point about scope. Greg Shatan:What Kathy said now was not what was suggested on the call last week regarding reaching "registrants". Lori Schulman:That is all. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:there are proposed survey questions for claims subteam that target registrants... Kiran Malancharuvil:Obviously Paul's comments were hyperbole with a purpose of demonstrating the ridiculousnes of the sample size arguments that have been made. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:It's not appropriate for THIS subteam. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:For these questions. George Kirikos:Maybe we should survey 33 registrants, given INTA claims that is good enough. :-) George Kirikos:(that was a joke, for the humour-impaired) Greg Shatan:There must be a name for mischaracterizing hyperbole for rhetorical purposes. Martin:straw man fallacy Kurt Pritz:Isn't hyperbole already mischaracterization? Greg Shatan:George, a lot more than 33 trademark owners were surveyed. You seem to be confusing survey size and response size. Georges Nahitchevansky:Or maybe George K we can speculate with anecdotal evidence given some prior claims made by others with no real evidence Greg Shatan:@Kurt, no it is a rhetorical device. Pretending that a hyperbolic statement is a literal statement is a nice tactic for needling your opposite number. Kathy Kleiman:There were no data gathering questions discussed in subteam Kathy Kleiman:J. Scott, it did not Greg Shatan:If we weren't discussing data gathering what were we discussing? Cyntia King:My connection has been reset twice now. We must be working REALLY hard today. Michael R Graham:+1 Kristine Greg Shatan:Maybe we should send this back to the Subgroup. Paul Tattersfield:greg +1 Brian Cimbolic (PIR):very well said, Susan Rebecca L Tushnet:I appreciate the clarification, J. Scott. Greg Shatan:Some s/ in that point.... Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks for making that point on audio Susan! Michael R Graham:@Kathy -- I do believe we did discuss data gathering questions in the Claims subteam. Am I right, Kristine? Rebecca L Tushnet:I can't stay in Adobe long but I didn't want to interrupt the main discussion w/my thanks. Cyntia King:@Susan agree on analysis of Q2 Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes, Michael. I've said it twice in the chat....we do propose gathing data on claims. Philip Corwin:Noting that only about 3 billion, not 7 billion, currently have Internet access Rebecca L Tushnet:So wait, are you opposing surveying registrants/potential registrants in assessing the claims process? David McAuley:sorry to be so late Brian Cimbolic (PIR):this exercise seems like running down a rabbit hole intentionally, simply for the fun of it. The information gathered seems to fall well outside the scope of the review of the additional marketplace RPMs George Kirikos:https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-09-15-en "In Phase Two, Nielsen surveyed 3,349 domain name registrants aged 18+. The survey was administered in 18 languages in June 20-July 11, 2016. Participants were drawn from 24 countries across Africa, Asia, Europe, North America and South America. Domain name registrants were selected based on their having registered at least one domain name and being a decision maker in domain name registration. Significance testing was performed at a 95 percent confidence level throughout the report." Greg Shatan:How many unique registrants are there across all gTLDs? Cyntia King:@Rebecca - the purpose would be to survey registrants w/ questions taht pertain to them Mary Wong:@George, I think that was the survey that cost 200,000 dollars, I think Paul McGrady:Unique registrants AND potential registrants. Rebecca L Tushnet:Cyntia, I agree. But the objection "there are 7 billion potential survey respondents" seems to go to whether we will survey them at all Lori Schulman:@Georges humor noted. INTA survey 1000 participants. Nearly 100 responded. 33 completed. Feedback was that questions were complex and took too much time to prepare for and answer. We need to take lessons from this as survey was developed in close consultation with CCTRT team. We need a reality check about what we ask and how we ask it. Lori Schulman:I meant @George K. Humor noted. Paul McGrady:@Mary - Yikes! $$$$$$$ George Kirikos:@Lori: The ICANN survey above had responses from 3349. George Kirikos:INTA's survey had 33 responses. QED John McElwaine:This is under the Section "Questions Directed to the TMCH Providers" Cyntia King:@Rebecca Thinking 7B would blow our budget for sure......... Greg Shatan:@Brian C., I agree with you completely. Lori Schulman:Did we get a final number from ICANN org for survey budget? Mary Wong:We have more work to do on the Sunrise and Claims data request, bearing in mind the Council's direction for us to maximize the value of the responses that we expect to get. Some of that work will be to refine and define exactly what we need to ask so that we can instruct the professional survey designer accordingly. This may involve being more specific in identifying the target groups of respondents. George Kirikos:@Lori: It was asked publicly for INTA to have Nielsen provide the margin of error behind the INTA survey. No response so far. Paul McGrady:+1 - Mission drift! We have lots to get done to get the full Phase 1 done before the launch of Round 2. We still have the URS to tackle. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+ 1 to mission drift Brian Cimbolic (PIR):+1, Cyntia Greg Shatan:I think that saying "you are hearing X from the Working Group" when talking about a particular viewpoint within the WG is neither accurate nor is useful. Paul McGrady:@Greg - +1 Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Mission: what is the impact on participation in ICANN RPMs? Mary Wong:@Lori, we will need to do that work I just referenced before getting a final number. Realistically, though, I do not know where in the budget we will be able to find a substantially larger amount than what the Council approved. Paul Tattersfield:@Greg https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ntldstats.com_registra… might be less than 330 million Verisign have mentioned Lori Schulman:@George: thank you for reminder about questions for Nielsen. Will follow up. Greg Shatan:Especially when coming from a Co-Chair. (Unless I missed a hat-change.) Georges Nahitchevansky:Agree that mission drift is becoming a major issue and impediment to our work. We need to move forward Kathy, Jay and Phil Greg Shatan:Mission veer is probably more accurate.... Georges Nahitchevansky:I meant J Scott not Jay Cyntia King:*** Can staff & the co-chairs create/provide a timeline our work w/ major milestones identified? I believe our group needs to have deadlines & a view of our objectives to keep from wandering off as we are. Paul McGrady:"Hit by URS" isn't very neutral. :) Paul McGrady:Smily face Phil. Sara Bockey:Excellent idea @Cyntia Brian Cimbolic (PIR):Cyntia - that is a very helpful request. The voluntary marketplace RPM group does not and cannot say which RPMs are " Mary Wong:@Cyntia, we need to figure out the extent and timeline for the data effort first. Hopefully by ICANN60 we will have a better idea. Brian Cimbolic (PIR):"proper or not" and it feels like thats where this is going susan payne:+100 Cyntia Brian Cimbolic (PIR):we need to move on George Kirikos:Subgroups don't decide anything, though. It doesn't matter if "the battle" took place in a subgroup. Cyntia King:@George Respectfully, you are mistaken. Sub-groups do the work we approve/disapprove. If necessary we remand back to the sub-group. George Kirikos:@Cyntia: no, it all goes through the "plenary". Lori Schulman:Document was created by working group Cyntia King:@Kathy - the changes you proposed were debated last week & again this week. Please let's move forward w/ the Staff doc. Brian Cimbolic (PIR):we're at that point J Scott, IMO Lori Schulman:I recall voting on certain changes last week with buttons. Is that not right? Kathy Kleiman:We did not vote last week with buttons. Mary Wong:Staff has attempted to explain why we made the limited edits we did this week by email. We are happy to correct any mistakes we made, but we really cannot tell what the WG's directions to us are. Brian Cimbolic (PIR):we have the green agree, red disagree - this process is inexplicably long. It's like we're in the 6th unecessary cog in a Rube Goldberg machine Michael R Graham:Cyntia +1 -- Accept Staff doc and move forward or Redline plus vote on each change separately. Cyntia King:If the plenary disagrees w/ teh sub-groups work they should remand back, not have unending whole-group debate over every item. Brian Cimbolic (PIR):+1 Cyntia Greg Shatan:A number of ideas were thrown around. I don Lori Schulman:My apologies about faulty memory re: buttons. Maybe that was another call? Paul McGrady:Let's vote up or down on Kathy's proposal to survey "registrants". With an up or down on that, we can look at non-substantive edits through that lense. Greg Shatan:I don't recall adopting any of them. Terri Agnew:reminder, transcripts are posted on the GNSO Calendar: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou… and agenda wiki pages Brian Cimbolic (PIR):+1 Paul Greg Shatan:+1 Paul Lori Schulman:Paul's suggestion makes sense. Georges Nahitchevansky:We discussed all this in the past, we voted last week and yet we keep coming back to things already discussed and voted on. Agree that we move with the staff document. Maybe have anotehr vote to bring this to a close once and for all Cyntia King:@George - Sub-groups are supposed to be well-informed in the subject matter They discuss, advise then make recommendations based on their considered discussion. Paul McGrady:It was approved by the subteam. Let's vote up or down on Kathy's proposal to survey "registrants". With an up or down on that, we can look at non-substantive edits through that lense. Cyntia King:I feel your frustration, @J SCott Brian Cimbolic (PIR):Paul was chair of the subteam and his request makes perfect sense. Let's please vote up or down Greg Shatan:Agree with Paul McG's suggestion as well. Michael R Graham:+1 Paul -- Let us vote on proposal to also survey "registrants" Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:There are two "bubbles" on this doc. Paul's suggestion directly addresses the second bubble. Mary Wong:As noted previously, staff suggests that some of the factual information that we believe is being sought by this question already exists via the information from the relevant ROs and the TMCH providers. Cyntia King:+1 Paul Mary Wong:I can clarify Rebecca's question, if appropriate. Cyntia King:Thanks, @Mary. Very helpful. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 Paul, and that goes directly to the second comment in the doc on the screen. Georges Nahitchevansky:Please take a vote and get on with this as opposed to continuing down this unproductive path susan payne:exactly Phil Greg Shatan:needle in a haystack Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Phil, Q5 is already included on the claims subteam recommendations.... Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:*matching your trademark* Greg Shatan:registrants don't receive notifications in the post-90 day period. Isn't this right? Greg Shatan:By registrants I mean applicants. Lori Schulman:Just want to point out that the numbering is out of whack if someone hasn't already. Questions should be numbered in order. We seem to missing a "2". That appears to be a typo not a true omission of question. Kathy Kleiman:+1 Lori Mary Wong:@Greg, I may be wrong, but I think that is correct if you mean the extended service offered by Deloitte (which is the only Ancillary Service approved by ICANN so far). Lori Schulman:I don't think we caught that last week. That's not substance just clarity. Griffin Barnett:All of the questions here are already categorized by whom they are directed to... Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 Griffin Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Q2 is on the last page, Lori. :) Lori Schulman:oops... Lori Schulman:Oh, I see. The grouping by staff including old numbering. Paul McGrady:Needle in the haystack designed to make up for the fact that registrars did not collect this data while these things were occuring. This will add cost and burn time we don't have. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I suspect when staff sorted them, staff wanted to ensure that we undertand all of our questions were included. Lori Schulman:Got it. Lori Schulman:So all text is here. Nothing is missing. Thanks for clarifying. susan payne:why does it actually matter if blocked by a sunrise registration or a "block" Mary Wong:@Lori, @Kristine, that is correct - we kept the Sub Team's numbering so that it is clear that nothing was omitted and no text was altered for the questions by staff. susan payne:the "blocks" are no different to there being a prior registration. FCFS Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:a RO could have a claims notice to the applicant be for as long they want. Paul McGrady:@Griffin - correct. The Staff labeling them was just for clarification. The questions themselves make it clear who they were meant for. That is why the "let's survey potential registrants" is so completely out of the blue. Philip Corwin:Adding, BTW, I will be happy to share the post-90 day URS and DPML blocking questions with ICA members to see if that subgroup of professional domain investors/registrants believes it can provide any useful data on those questions. Griffin Barnett:right Susan - except within the first 90 days of claims, there doesn't seem to be any way a prospective registrant could distinguish a situation where they could not obtain a registration because it was subject to a DPML/block, a Sunrise registration, or any other kind of prior registration Paul Tattersfield:You could just the question on a domain forum, though it would be a subset of a certain type of registrant Kathy Kleiman:@Phil is your question preempted by the vote taking place? Philip Corwin:@Paul T - agreed/and it is a subset that might have a more sophisticated and knowledgeable response than a general registrant Jay Chapman:Agree, Phil Philip Corwin:I checked green but it is only for the two narrow questions I just discussed, not all the questions Cyntia King:Specific to the TMCH,/sunrise questoins on-screen Mary Wong:I think there are about 21 crosses and 7 checks Philip Corwin:Most of the questions are factual or otherwise so narrow that registrants would not have relevant data Mary Wong:Apologies, 25 crosses David McAuley:you must have cross-checked Mary Paul Tattersfield:(Yes - along Phil's lines too) Mary Wong:25 crosses, 9 checks (counting Claudio and Rebecca) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Exactly Rebecca....we're ALREADY asking. It's not in scope for THIS sub team. Griffin Barnett:+1 Kristine Paul McGrady:+1 Kristine George Kirikos:26% believe there should be. susan payne:@Rebecca, and as you rightly point out, the registrant almost certainly doesn't know the cause of the blocki, so they can't inform this discussion Kiran Malancharuvil:+1 Kristine George Kirikos:What's the level for "divergence" vs. "consensus"? Michael R Graham:25 votes Disagree -- 9 Agree Greg Shatan:I think Rebecca's point shows that we'll get useful information related to this in another way. Michael R Graham:With Kristine -- I would agree to serve Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I agree to servce Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:serve susan payne:happy to volunteer Lori Schulman:Ok. I am a glutton for punishment. Kurt Pritz:I can work on this Griffin Barnett:Exactly Greg - I don't think we are foreclosing asking "registrants" certain questions, just not in connection with the questions relating to voluntary RPMs that are reflected in this particular doc Mary Wong:Will do, J Scott Lori Schulman:+1 Griffin. That is exaclty how I see it. Mary Wong:We have Susan and Kurt joining Lori, Kristine and Michael G Lori Schulman:I have no problems asking whomever we define as registrants relevant questions Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Well, it's a small list, I guess. Martin Silva Valent:voluntary RPMs are dangerous for noncom users and small business, they are usualyl the one that suffer the abuse of these sobsure mechanisms Kurt Pritz:Kurt does volunteer Kiran Malancharuvil:I can help where I can Mary Wong:Done Philip Corwin:Co-Chairs are Ex Officio members of all subteams, so we receive constant punishment ;-) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Martin, we aren't reviewing "voluntary mechanisms" that's outside the scope - that the key issue Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:We're reviewing ICANN mechanisms and getting relevant data about the voluntary ones. Martin Silva Valent:We could discuss if ICANN should work to regulate them Martin Silva Valent:becaus ethey are contracted parties Lori Schulman:I think we all agree that ICANN is not a regulator. Greg Shatan:@George: Divergence is where there isn't strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Maybe, but that's outside the scope of this PDP susan payne:@Martin out of scope for this PDP. Martin Silva Valent:if a voluntary action goes against the policy we do here, it frustrates our policy, then we should enforce them by contract tools George Kirikos:Bye folks. Martin Silva Valent:no ALL voluntary actions of registrar are out of scope Martin Silva Valent:any how Brian Cimbolic (PIR):martin that's a question for ICANN Compliance Greg Shatan:yes ALL are out of scope. Brian Cimbolic (PIR):this PDP is not a contract enforcement body Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 Brian Paul Tattersfield:thanks all, bye Terri Agnew:next call: Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 11 October 2017 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minute duration. Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks J. Scott! Colin O'Brien:bye all Philip Corwin:Bye all Griffin Barnett:thank you J. Scott, all....until next time... Martin Silva Valent:let's pick it up :-P Louise Marie Hurel:thanks all, bye Steve Levy:Thanks all Martin Silva Valent:bya all susan payne:thanks all. David McAuley:Thanks J. Scoot and all, good bye Lori Schulman:cioa Lori Schulman:ciao

1 0

Agenda and documents for RPM Working Group call on Wednesday 4 October
by Mary Wong Oct. 4, 2017

Oct. 4, 2017

Dear all, Here is the proposed agenda for the Working Group call scheduled for 1700 UTC on Wednesday 4 October 2017: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Complete discussion of Additional Marketplace RPM questions, and agree on next steps 3. Staff presentation and Working Group discussion of initial staff compilation of Sunrise registration data 4. Next steps/next meeting For Agenda Item #2, staff has updated the Additional Marketplace RPMs document from last week, based on the discussion on the last call – please see the attached document. We note that the Working Group discussion last week ended at Question 2 under Section V on Page 5. The call this week will continue to cover the following topic that was not addressed on the call last week due to lack of time: * The co-chairs’ suggestion of the creation of a small, fast-moving subgroup to: * Review the list of data wanted and needed for Additional Marketplace Protections Questions, with input of the WG meeting, looking at the information staff provided at the end of last week on the Additional Marketplace RPMs provided by Donuts, M+M and Rightside; and sharing with WG which questions these appear to address (in whole or in part); and * Review the approved data request in light of the Council’s additional direction for us to maximize the value of the data gathered with recommendations for the WG of revisions or changes. * Assuming there is general agreement on this approach, a Call for Volunteers will start following this call. The Working Group co-chairs would like to ask the chairs of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams (Lori Schulman, Kristine Dorrain and Michael Graham) to participate, and encourage Working Group members familiar with survey work to join as well. In addition, there was some discussion on the last call over where and how to find information on the Additional Marketplace RPMs currently being offered by some registry operators. The Working Group co-chairs have asked staff to recirculate the staff-prepared summary of that information. Please be sure to review the document for information on the current Additional Marketplace RPMs, which can be found here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/71598243/Current%20AddlMkt… Finally, for Agenda Item #3, please find attached a set of charts concerning Sunrise registration data that staff will take the Working Group through in detail on the call. Please note the following: * The document is lengthy, but for purposes of the presentation and discussion on the call, we will be focusing only on the eight charts on the first seven pages. The remainder of the document is the actual data for each new gTLD relating to its type, delegation date and Sunrise dates and duration. * This is only the initial results of staff compilation of data related to Sunrise registrations that is available in the form of the reports provided to ICANN by registries, registrars and IBM as the TMCH Database provider. We anticipate refining these results further, and possibly adding more informational charts, depending on the Working Group’s questions and suggestions following the staff presentation. * ICANN does not collect or require the reporting of Sunrise pricing or the launch dates, pricing and usage of Additional Marketplace RPMs such as Protected Marks List services. Thanks and cheers Mary

3 5

Action Items and Notes from GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 28 September 2017
by Amr Elsadr Sept. 29, 2017

Sept. 29, 2017

Dear Working Group Members, Below are the action items from the WG call on 28 September 2017. The action items, notes, meeting documents, AC room chat and recording have all been posted on the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/o4BEB. The transcripts of the meeting will be posted on the same wiki page, when they are available. Additionally, as per action item 2, staff has revised the language of the Additional Marketplace RPMs question 4 (first bullet) in its second occurrence, when it is being asked of trademark owners as opposed to Registry Operators. Please see the attached updated “Additional Marketplace RPMs Questions - categorized by respondent” document. Working Group members are invited to provide feedback as to whether this current phrasing adequately addresses the concerns raised during yesterday’s WG meeting. The updated text of the question is as follows: Have you been blocked from registering a second level domain name matching your registered trademark in any of the gTLDs for which Additional Marketplace RPMs are provided, as a result of the same trademark being held by another trademark owner, but for a different class of goods or services? Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to compile Sunrise Registration data for Registry Operators that provide Additional Marketplace RPMs 2. Staff to revert Question 4 targeting trademark owners to match the original wording in bullet one of Question 4 being asked of gTLD Registry Operators

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP WG call on Thursday, 28 September 2017 03:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Sept. 28, 2017

Sept. 28, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Thursday, 28 September 2017at 03:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/o4BEB MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-28sep17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p936cuxk55x/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** 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/o4BEB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle Adobe Connect chat transcript for 28 September 2017: Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Thursday, 28 September 2017 03:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… George Kirikos:Hi folks. Kathy Kleiman:Petter - tx for being on so early in the morning your time! Kathy Kleiman:Hi George and Sara... Sara Bockey:Hi there. George Kirikos:Welcome Kathy, Sarah, Petter et al. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All Michael Flemming:Good morning Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I think we might see more people in 4 minutes Philip Corwin:Hello, night owls and early birds Petter Rindforth:always a good tart of the day ;-) Petter Rindforth:..start... Steve Levy:Petter, you have my utmost respect! Martin Silva:Hi all Lori Schulman:Hi Justine Chew:Great work, Phil, Mary and all involved re GNSO Council decision on our data request. Michael Flemming:Question: So, officially, what is the lead time for the PDP and how far do we see stretching ourselves out? Michael Flemming:as in time wise* Michael Flemming:not necessarrily in regards to content Martin Silva:I do think there is room to wide the scope of some question that would increase data value gathered Amr Elsadr:Thanks. I think Phil did a great job covering it. David McAuley:and what is new plan while data being athered - or will WG develop a new approach while data being gathered David McAuley:gathered, that is Michael Flemming:Alright, thank you. George Kirikos:Some other data has already been requested though on other questions, e.g. the Top 500 TMCH terms, etc. (from March 2017!), i.e. from The Analysis Group. Michael Flemming:I just wanted to know when that would occur. David McAuley:Thanks Phil, makes sense Lori Schulman:I missed the first few minutes of the call, what was the final budget figure? Philip Corwin:The request was a minimum of $50k. What we will actually get is unknown. George Kirikos:Is that for "external" spending? Or does it include ICANN "staff time"? George Kirikos:(i.e. ICANN staff was compiling some stuff) David McAuley:Agree with Lori on prioritization Philip Corwin:We may well need to prioritize, depending on the funds made available. Colin O'Brien:The low dollar amount is worrying. In my experience surveys can become very expensive. Lori Schulman:@George, my understanding is that 50K is for external consulting only not staff time Michael Flemming:Lori, I think you are still on audio George Kirikos:Thanks, Lori. David McAuley:is someone scuba diving? George Kirikos:lol David David McAuley:its not so much data gathering as analysis in light of data received Martin Silva:1) I think we should include this question as part of the survey and outreach we are already doing to the stakeholders Kathy Kleiman:Martin: did you want to come online to speak? Martin Silva:I have several remarks, I will take the mic for some of them. Martin Silva:this one is pretty small remark George Kirikos:I assume we already have the data (TLD by TLD) on number of sunrise registrations (e.g. by The Analysis Group, and/or the monthly registry reports). Do we have that as a public data set? (e.g. in a spreadsheet) George Kirikos:(can then match that up with data on whether there were additional RPMs for that TLD, type, etc.) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):formally to extent that is not breaching RA and RPMs and other Consensus Policies Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and RSEP David McAuley:This series of questions (#3) underscore importance of professional help Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@David, unfortunately most experts in this field are in this PDP Martin Silva:Amr is perfectly capturing the remarks Martin Silva:clap clap clap David McAuley:good point @Maxim Jon Nevett:Again, we are not reviewing the Additional marketplace RPMs -- the second bullet was rejected by the subgroup Jon Nevett:Bullet 3 again is beyond scope Jon Nevett:no George Kirikos:Bullet 3 in the "notes" pod? Or in the top pod? Jon Nevett:notes george Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Maxim: ICANN Compliance does not have power to be the source of the contractually binding opinion Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):RA is a contract and each party see things from their angle Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Registry and ICANN Compliance Jon Nevett:Thanks Phil -- you said it better than I would have and you didn't wake my wife while saying it! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):too early for me David McAuley:I agree w/@Maxim about ICANN Compliance authority – I assume a professional survey person, if he/she asks ICANN, would ask ‘what in your opinion AFFECTS’ not ‘what in your opinion authorizes’ Justine Chew:I agree with Phil. Also, the "acceptability" of additional Marketplace RPMs are commercial innovations not within the remit of this group. Colin O'Brien:+1 Greg David McAuley:Also +1 @Greg Justine Chew:+1 Greg Lori Schulman:Agree with Greg Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 Greg Lori Schulman:Support not changing questions without agreement of subteam and subteam leader Martin Silva:Lori, I would agree that they should be asked, but the agreement of the WG includes and overrun the will of the subteam. And I say it as a subteam member :-P George Kirikos:sub = subordinate Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):if we change list of questions too much, we are at risk of GNSO Council to retract the approval Cyntia King:Re-litigatig every question/point of the sub-groups will make this a very long process. Martin Silva:why? we are making what they asked, to improve them to be as efficient as possible in getting as much relevant data, and relevant means close to reality, non biased, sufficient, etc. Cyntia King:Utilizing sub-groups is a way of dividing work & assigning expertise. Lori Schulman:Agree with Cyntia. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Martin, the approval was granted for the set of questions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it was not a wildcard Martin Silva:we are not erasing the question, we are making them more accurate Martin Silva:is good, is in the sense that the GNSO approved them George Kirikos:As noted last week, one would want to check the historical rules, too (e.g. using Archive.org) because the currently-posted rules might be different. George Kirikos:Although, registrars probably have them too, if they were used as distribution partners for those additional RPMs. Amr Elsadr:Question: Providers = Registry Operators? Amr Elsadr:Question above for Martin. :) Martin Silva:yes Amr Elsadr:Thanks, Martin. George Kirikos:+1 Martin. For question 5, we'd also have the actual registration stats (i.e. in the ICANN monthly reports), to see if that impacted registration volume). Cyntia King:Finding registrants for these highly-specific questions may be dependent on registries providing data that is subject to confidentiality claims, right? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George,it is hypothetical ... even Registrars sometimes do not know what the reason for registration was (or in situation where the Registrant chosed not to be one) Martin Silva:Cyntia, yes, I agree is not an easy task, I just put forward the idea, if is not feasible, we can drop it, but if it is, maybe we improve it Justine Chew:Exactly, Greg is correct. So would be it registrants who have received a TM Claims notice? Cyntia King:I just thought of my own portfolio @Martin. Lori Schulman:I thought that TM owners received copies of the claims' notices. I recall receiving them. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it is hard to reach those comanies which reached the conclusion not to register (they are not in WHOIS) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):We did in Moscow and .xn--80adxhks to extend claims period ... so far two years Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and going Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):the data is on TLD start info portal Cyntia King:@Greg - to your point, how could we get a representative sample of registrants? Greg Shatan:@Cyntia, I doubt there's a way to get a representative sample, without a great deal of planning and effort. More like we'll end up with anecdotes. Justine Chew:So is the effort worth putting in to get the (possible) result? Amr Elsadr:Note that the questions regarding advantages/disadvantages and costs associated with ongoing Claims services should already be covered by the TM Claims questions. George Kirikos:ICANN has surveyed registrants in the past, e.g. see: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann… George Kirikos:"Global Registrant Survey Final Phase Results Available" George Kirikos:No need to reinvent the wheel. Jon Nevett:where is that question? Philip Corwin:Thx George for identifying that. I'd hope that staff would look into the extent to which that registrant survey produced responses. Cyntia King:@George, but why do we need anecdotal data? Aren't we looking for representative samples for data integrity? Jon Nevett:I don't think we should name specific companies Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):answer to question 5 is in ICANN Accounting (they charged for each claims registration additional .25 USD) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):for the lsat bit George Kirikos:@Cyntia: my link *was* to a representative sample, i.e to counter the "anecdotal". David McAuley:Jon - that Q is on page 2, section III, Question 4 David McAuley:I didn't remember it and guess maybe that was rephrased George Kirikos:i.e. it was suggested that creating a representative sample of registrants was hard by Greg above. It's already been done before. Cyntia King:So you want us to engage Nielsen to survey registrants? Is this part of our budgeted deta collection? Greg Shatan:Our budget wouldn't cover it.... Amr Elsadr:Note: Asking trademark owners this question was a WG suggestion, not staff. :) Greg Shatan:I think it George Kirikos:@Cyntia: No, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm just countering the suggestion by Greg that creating a representative sample of registrants was difficult, and that one would necessarily end up relying on anecdotes. Greg Shatan:is the phrasing at issue. Michael Flemming:In any gTLDs that offer a blocking mechanism? Cyntia King:@George. Agreed it's not difficult to survey registrants - just expensive & time-consuming. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I think it is related to ROs using such blocking mechanics Greg Shatan:@George, just because it's been done, doesn't mean it's easy. I'm looking at our budget and approach. Jon Nevett:thx David McAuley:Agree w Phil and Jon George Kirikos:@Greg: same could be said about getting a representative sample of TM holders. Cyntia King:Agree w/ @Phil Cyntia King:Also checked @George's link. Very interesting reading. Michael Flemming 2:You wouldn't. Most Registrars would show the domain as unavailable. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):URS does not work for old TLDs Michael Flemming 2:Unless the query for the domain is recorded Justine Chew:I have to drop off now. Cheers, for the good discussions. Michael Flemming 2:Thanks, Justine. Philip Corwin:@Maxim--neither does claims notices or blocking services/only for new tlds Jon Nevett:xxx had a blocking mechanism, so shouldn't be limited to New TLDs Martin Silva:As kathy said 2 mins ago, Analysys Group might have info on that. Martin Silva:* regarding Q5 Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):.com is not following RPMs and URS George Kirikos:For registration volume, we can see the actual reg volume in the monthly reports. George Kirikos:i.e. it's public data already (just needs to be compiled) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I was saying only that URS is limited Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):to new gTLDs mostly (and few ccTLDs) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):how do we reach non-registrants (those who decided not to register)? George Kirikos:Given so many registrants of new gTLDs were from China, attention should be paid to ensure any survey of registrants cover China in particular. Martin Silva:I promise not to make more remarks Mary Wong:@Maxim, that is a question we will need to addres. Not least because, the broader we cast the net of potenial respondents, the more expansive and epensive the survey. George Kirikos:By the way, for staff, https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__club.domain.cn_forum.p… might be an additional data source for Chinese registrants experiences, on some of the other data collection (i.e. for previous questions). i.e. it's the Chinese equivalent to NamePros.com. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Q2 could be answered only by the relevant party Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):if we ask non relevant parties we just extend unwise spendings Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I suggest we run a poll to understand how many PDP members support these additional side questions Mary Wong:By way of context, please note that the budget for data collection isn't that big; so the broader we cast the net, the more pressure we bring to bear on the budget that we have to do the surveys we have identifed as necessary Michael R Graham:I think the history of the development and approval of these questions answers Maxim's question. David McAuley:agree w/Mary and it underscores Lori's earlier point about prioritization Cyntia King:@Mary - you should have a bell that rings every time we try to expand the budget. Or maybe a buzzer. Petter Rindforth:Good point!! Martin Silva:I just point out what I look is missing, if it is missing for a good reason I am more than happy to agree! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Michael, I was saying that additional changes to our questions can be done with such limited numbers of participants we see now Greg Shatan:@Cyntia, I don't think we could take that much buzzing.... :-) Greg Shatan:It would help to know what the actual experience is when trying to register a "blocked" domain. Is it any different than trying to register an already registered domain? Michael R Graham:@Cyntia +1 David McAuley:Interesting call, thanks all, goodbye Philip Corwin:Good point Greg. That's a question for registrars George Kirikos:Goodnight, folks. Jon Nevett:thx! Martin Silva:good night/day to all! Philip Corwin:Bon Soir Michael R Graham:Thanks from the quiet corner Greg Shatan:I hope it's daytime for someone.... Mary Wong:Next meeting is next Weds at 1700 UTC Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all Cyntia King:Night! Martin Silva:thank you for standing my noisy remarks! Martin Silva:by all Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. Lori Schulman:bye Steve Levy:Bye Greg Shatan:Night!

1 0

FOR REVIEW: Documents on Additional Marketplace RPMs
by Mary Wong Sept. 28, 2017

Sept. 28, 2017

Dear all, As noted in Action Items #2 and #3 following the Working Group call of 20 September (see https://community.icann.org/x/TC0hB for all the action items and notes from the call), please find attached the following documents: 1. Action Item #2 (identifying the target group of respondents for each question on Additional Marketplace RPMs): Staff has prepared a document that lists each of the questions proposed by the Sub Team according to the target group of respondents (viz. registry operators, registrars, trademark owners, TMCH providers). The document also contains some staff notes concerning potential starting points and available information sources for answering the questions. 1. Action Item #3 (linking to and summarizing the Additional Marketplace RPMs (primarily, the various Protected Marks Lists services) currently being offered): Staff has prepared a table showing the service, the registry operator offering the service, a summary of the service, and links to the registry operator’s informational pages and selected industry coverage of the services. We hope these two documents are useful as you consider the questions proposed by the Sub Team. Thanks and cheers Mary

2 1

Agenda, documents and discussion questions for upcoming RPM Working Group call
by Mary Wong Sept. 26, 2017

Sept. 26, 2017

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for our upcoming Working Group call, scheduled for Thursday 28 September at 0300 UTC (reminder: as this is the APAC time zone-friendly rotating call, this means the call will take place on Wednesday evening for members based in the Americas): 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. De-briefing: GNSO Council discussion of and decision on our data request (Phil, Kathy, staff) 3. Group discussion: what existing information there is, and what additional data/information may be required for further discussions on the current Additional Marketplace RPMs (see further notes below for more details and questions for consideration)? 4. Next steps on Additional Marketplace RPMs 5. Next steps on data research / next meeting For Agenda Item #2, members may wish to review the recording and/or transcript of the Council’s discussion prior to our meeting: * http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20sep17-en.mp3 (recording, starting around 20 minutes into the call till around the 70-minute mark); * https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-20sep17-en.pdf (transcript, pages 10-32); * https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-20sep17-en.pdf (AC chat transcript, pages 3-7). For Agenda Item #3, please review the information that staff had compiled on the current Additional Marketplace RPMs being offered by several Registry Operators and circulated last Thursday (21 September). This document has been uploaded to the Working Group wiki space here as well: https://community.icann.org/x/o4BEB Your review will assist in the Working Group’s discussion of the following questions: * What data do we need to answer the questions related to the Additional Marketplace RPMs? * To who and how do we go to gather it? * Can any of these data requests be quickly/easily/cheaply added to the surveys of "anecdotal data" requests approved by the GNSO Council last week that will be going out to Registrars, Registrars, Trademark Owners, Registrants, etc.? For Agenda Item #4, the co-chairs’ suggestion for Working Group consideration is the creation of a small, fast-moving subgroup to: * Review the list of data wanted and needed for Additional Marketplace Protections Questions, with input of the Working Group, look at information staff provided at the end of last week on the Additional Marketplace RPMs provided by Donuts, M+M and Rightside; and share with the Working Group which questions these appear to address (in whole or in part). * Review the approved data request in light of the Council’s additional direction for the Working Group to maximize the value of the data gathered, with recommendations for the Working Group of revisions or changes. For the subgroup, and assuming there is general agreement on this approach, a Call for Volunteers will start following this call. The Working Group co-chairs would like to ask the chairs of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams (Lori Schulman, Kristine Dorrain and Michael Graham) to participate, and encourage Working Group members familiar with survey work to join as well. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Results of GNSO Council vote on our data request
by Paul Keating Sept. 21, 2017

Sept. 21, 2017

Excellent. Thank you Mary and the rest of staff. From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 4:43 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Results of GNSO Council vote on our data request > Dear all, > > As you know, the GNSO Council met yesterday after our Working Group call to > discuss and vote on the data request we submitted to them. Staff is pleased to > inform you that the Council approved the request, following an extensive > discussion of the cost, budget and resource estimate as well as the objectives > and nature of the data to be collected. The Council resolution is appended > below you may wish to note that an added Resolved clause was inserted to the > text of the original motion that was submitted; we have highlighted the new > addition in yellow. > > Staff will now work with our co-chairs to determine how we may best fulfill > the Council¹s directions, including following the next step in the process > which is submission of the request to ICANN Organization for budget work and > approval. > > As Kathy and Phil were both on the Council call and participated actively in > the Council¹s discussions, they may well have additional thoughts and > information for everyone. > > Council Resolution 20170920-1: GNSO Council Approval of Data Collection > Request from RPM Review PDP Working Group > * Submitted by Heather Forrest > * Seconded by James Bladel, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > > WHEREAS: > 1. In October 2015, the GNSO Council adopted all the consensus recommendations > from the Data & Metrics for Policy Making (DMPM) Working Group and instructed > ICANN staff to commence implementation of the recommendations > (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20151021-1) > 2. The Metrics Request Decision Tree and Working Group Metrics Request Form > developed by the DMPM Working Group were consequently incorporated into the > GNSO¹s Working Group Guidelines > (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf) > 3. The Working Group chartered by the GNSO Council to conduct the Policy > Development Process (PDP) to review all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in > All gTLDs has, after extensive deliberations, developed a list of data > collection tasks that it believes are critical in order for it to fulfill its > Charter (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-15mar16-en.pdf) > 4. As part of its chartered tasks, the PDP Working Group was urged to bear in > mind that a fundamental underlying objective of its work is to ³create a > framework for consistent and uniform reviews of these [RPMs] in the future²; > 5. The Competition, Consumer Protection and Consumer Trust (CCT) Review Team > convened under the ICANN Bylaws has noted the lack of, and need for, data in > order to evaluate the effectiveness of the various RPMs that were created for > ICANN¹s 2012 New gTLD Program round > (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-rt-draft-report-07mar17-en.… > f), and > 6. The PDP Working Group has developed and submitted a DMPM data request form, > as required by the GNSO¹s Working Group Guidelines, to the GNSO Council for > its approval on 16 September 2017 > (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-sunrise-trademark-claims-07sep17-en.pdf) > > RESOLVED: > 1. The GNSO Council approves the DMPM request as submitted by the Review of > All RPMs in All gTLDs PDP Working Group. > 2. The GNSO Council instructs the leadership of the RPM PDP to work with ICANN > staff and any outside experts to structure the data request in such a way that > the value and relevance of the data is maximised. > 3. The GNSO Council directs ICANN policy staff to forward the DMPM request to > the appropriate department of ICANN Organization for the requisite budget and > resource approvals, with a further request that the matter be considered and > approved in as timely a fashion as practicable. > 4. The GNSO Council requests a follow up report from the Review of All RPMs in > All gTLDs PDP Working Group on the progress and outcomes of its DMPM request > in time for the GNSO Council¹s meeting scheduled for 21 December 2017, and a > regular written report thereafter, at intervals of not less frequently than > monthly, followed by a detailed status report on the Working Group¹s view of > the utility of the data collection exercise on the progress and timeline of > Phase One of the PDP by ICANN61. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary > _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

2 1

Results of GNSO Council vote on our data request
by Mary Wong Sept. 21, 2017

Sept. 21, 2017

Dear all, As you know, the GNSO Council met yesterday after our Working Group call to discuss and vote on the data request we submitted to them. Staff is pleased to inform you that the Council approved the request, following an extensive discussion of the cost, budget and resource estimate as well as the objectives and nature of the data to be collected. The Council resolution is appended below – you may wish to note that an added Resolved clause was inserted to the text of the original motion that was submitted; we have highlighted the new addition in yellow. Staff will now work with our co-chairs to determine how we may best fulfill the Council’s directions, including following the next step in the process which is submission of the request to ICANN Organization for budget work and approval. As Kathy and Phil were both on the Council call and participated actively in the Council’s discussions, they may well have additional thoughts and information for everyone. Council Resolution 20170920-1: GNSO Council Approval of Data Collection Request from RPM Review PDP Working Group * Submitted by Heather Forrest * Seconded by James Bladel, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben WHEREAS: 1. In October 2015, the GNSO Council adopted all the consensus recommendations from the Data & Metrics for Policy Making (DMPM) Working Group and instructed ICANN staff to commence implementation of the recommendations (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20151021-1) 2. The Metrics Request Decision Tree and Working Group Metrics Request Form developed by the DMPM Working Group were consequently incorporated into the GNSO’s Working Group Guidelines (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf) 3. The Working Group chartered by the GNSO Council to conduct the Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs has, after extensive deliberations, developed a list of data collection tasks that it believes are critical in order for it to fulfill its Charter (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-15mar16-en.pdf) 4. As part of its chartered tasks, the PDP Working Group was urged to bear in mind that a fundamental underlying objective of its work is to “create a framework for consistent and uniform reviews of these [RPMs] in the future”; 5. The Competition, Consumer Protection and Consumer Trust (CCT) Review Team convened under the ICANN Bylaws has noted the lack of, and need for, data in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the various RPMs that were created for ICANN’s 2012 New gTLD Program round (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-rt-draft-report-07mar17-en.…) and 6. The PDP Working Group has developed and submitted a DMPM data request form, as required by the GNSO’s Working Group Guidelines, to the GNSO Council for its approval on 16 September 2017 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-sunrise-trademark-claims-07sep17-en.pdf) RESOLVED: 1. The GNSO Council approves the DMPM request as submitted by the Review of All RPMs in All gTLDs PDP Working Group. 2. The GNSO Council instructs the leadership of the RPM PDP to work with ICANN staff and any outside experts to structure the data request in such a way that the value and relevance of the data is maximised. 3. The GNSO Council directs ICANN policy staff to forward the DMPM request to the appropriate department of ICANN Organization for the requisite budget and resource approvals, with a further request that the matter be considered and approved in as timely a fashion as practicable. 4. The GNSO Council requests a follow up report from the Review of All RPMs in All gTLDs PDP Working Group on the progress and outcomes of its DMPM request in time for the GNSO Council’s meeting scheduled for 21 December 2017, and a regular written report thereafter, at intervals of not less frequently than monthly, followed by a detailed status report on the Working Group’s view of the utility of the data collection exercise on the progress and timeline of Phase One of the PDP by ICANN61. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0