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

FOR REVIEW: Updated Trademark Claims document
by Mary Wong July 20, 2017

July 20, 2017

Dear all, Please find attached an updated version of the Trademark Claims document that was discussed on the Wednesday call. In addition to the new substantive edits that were made, based on the Action Items numbered 1, 2 and 3 from Amr’s notes (below), you will see the following changes: * We have removed the previous highlighting (since all the comments from ICANN59, which were highlighted previously, have already been discussed by the Working Group), and have highlighted (in yellow) only those new additions and edits from the call this week. * We have, however, retained most of the comments from either the last Sub Team call or the community discussions at ICANN59, in order to present a more complete picture of where the discussions stand currently. * In a few instances, we have placed what were previously comments (annotated in comment boxes and brought to the WG’s attention during the Wednesday discussion) into the main text. These include incorporating the IDN-related suggestions from Amadeo Abril from ICANN59 and rephrasing certain questions in light of specific requests directed toward further refining those particular questions. Where this has been done, we have indicated as much in a comment box. We hope you find the updates useful. Please review the updated document – as well as the updated document for Sunrise (circulated on Friday 14 July) – and provide your comments to this email list for further discussion. In the meantime, staff will continue to work with the co-chairs to develop a proposal for handling the various data collection requests, and update the Open TMCH Questions poll in accordance with the last Action Item (#4) from the Wednesday call. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 13:35 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items for GNSO Review of all RPMs for all gTLDS PDP WG Call - 19 July 2017 Dear Working Group Members, Below you will find the action items from yesterday’s WG call. The action items, notes, recordings, transcripts and meeting documents have all been posted on the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/c3vwAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to replace threshold question of Question 4 of Trademark Claims with: Is the exact match requirement on Trademark Claims serving the intended purposes of the Trademark Claims RPM? 2. Staff to updated Question 4 of Trademark Claims with the proposed question addressing IDN issues, and include additional examples provided by Amadeu Abril during WG face-to-face meeting in ICANN 59 3. Staff to propose a rewording of question 6 of Trademark Claims, and suggest where to place it – as a sub-question in question 2 or 3 4. Staff to provide a breakdown of responses for each question in the poll by stakeholder group, as responders identified themselves in the responses to Question 2 of the poll

1 0

Action Items for GNSO Review of all RPMs for all gTLDS PDP WG Call - 19 July 2017
by Amr Elsadr July 20, 2017

July 20, 2017

Dear Working Group Members, Below you will find the action items from yesterday’s WG call. The action items, notes, recordings, transcripts and meeting documents have all been posted on the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/c3vwAw Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to replace threshold question of Question 4 of Trademark Claims with: Is the exact match requirement on Trademark Claims serving the intended purposes of the Trademark Claims RPM? 2. Staff to updated Question 4 of Trademark Claims with the proposed question addressing IDN issues, and include additional examples provided by Amadeu Abril during WG face-to-face meeting in ICANN 59 3. Staff to propose a rewording of question 6 of Trademark Claims, and suggest where to place it – as a sub-question in question 2 or 3 4. Staff to provide a breakdown of responses for each question in the poll by stakeholder group, as responders identified themselves in the responses to Question 2 of the poll

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Data Collection Suggestions for Q4 of Trademark Claims - machine readable semantics of the non-exact matches document, analysis of the historical registration data and potential Issues for Registries and Registrars.
by Mary Wong July 20, 2017

July 20, 2017

Thank you very much for this very detailed and helpful follow up, Maxim. As you may have noticed, staff put a very brief placeholder on this point in the updated Trademark Claims document that was used for the call earlier today. We will find a way to incorporate these additional details you have just provided, and I am sure the co-chairs will take this suggestion into consideration as well, when preparing a proposal for how to go about collecting all the data requested for the Working Group. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba(a)gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 12:44 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] Data Collection Suggestions for Q4 of Trademark Claims - machine readable semantics of the non-exact matches document, analysis of the historical registration data and potential Issues for Registries and Registrars. Hello All, Here are my thoughts about machine readable semantics of the non-exact matches document, analysis of the historical registration data and potential Issues for Registries and Registrars. The following text is based on analysis of "PROPOSAL FOR SMARTER NON-EXACT MATCHES", 29 MAY 2017 DRAFT v1.0. The assumption was made by me that the wording "Sunrise and/or" are to be removed according to the recent conversations during meetings of the PDP WG. For simplicity of the text I will use word 'rule' from computer science for particular suggested 'non-exact match criteria', so 'Character Removal non-exact match criterion' will be shortened to 'Character Removal rule'. To avoid confusion of traditional Claims with the Claims caused by potential implementation of the suggested Non-Exact Matches I will use term 'potential claims' for the latter. During the last month (including our F2F meeting in Joburg) we heard many voices saying 'too many hits are to be expected' and almost the same number of voices saying 'it is not going to be a lot', and it means that we do not have enough material for making proper judgment. So this text is a simplified description of the way we might take in order to quantify numbers/frequency of potential claims by applying mentioned 'Rules' to historical registrations (available to ICANN via escrow) and historical TMCH records (available to ICNN via Deloitte & IBM). I'd like to underline from the very beginning, that we will not need to disclose commercially sensible information, only anonymized results of the processing will be required ( number of claims per historical registration (average/ maximum) for marks of different length of symbols , the number of variants = number of non-exact matches for all applicable rules combined for historical registrations (average/ maximum) and the number of potential claims combined ). Why I am talking about those two sets of numbers: first will give us understanding of how many notifications would be required in the past with the new rules applied, and the second will allow software/hardware engineers (IBM, most probably, given the structure of TMCH) to estimate methods to use for implementation, size of the database, speed of it's growth with the current rate of TMCH increase, and what is quite important costs (I am not sure we will be happy to know that all we need for the implementation .... is a supercomputer of a sorts). The last will give us understanding of the percent of potential claims for historical registrations. To make such an assessment the rules needs to be converted to machine readable semantics, so, for example Rule 7, Digit Addition, will be something like : string OR string +'1' Rule 8, “Cheap” and “Buy”, will be : string OR string+'cheap' OR 'cheap'+string OR string+'buy' OR 'buy'+string (The particular semantics will depend on the programming language used for the assessment, the examples provided are enough for an average programmer to understand the idea). Rules 11 (Goods and Services and Industry Keywords) and 12 (Commonly Abused Terms) can not be assessed as easily, they require creation of dictionaries of words , and it is a separate task, and it is not simple (but having the results of the suggested assessment it will be easy to understand growth of numbers from the number of entries in those dictionaries of strings). Important note: to make such an assessment we will need to establish the Rules of Combination (which rules and in which order can be applied to the string in question prior to the comparison of the result and TMCH entries). Additional thoughts: 1. Issues for Registrars due to Spam: The amount of potential claim notices (needs to be quantified via test v.s. historical data, current ideas vary from "not many" to "almost 99%") might generate additional amount of unwanted claim notices from Registrars. And to answer how many - we need the suggested assessment. Spam lists usually need few signals of unwanted activity from different persons/organisations, and rise in number of unwanted notices (not all registrants want a lot of e-mails from registrars) might lead to rise of positive hits (from perspective of the spam list organisation) which might endanger business activities of registrars (inclusion of Registrar IP addresses/AS/domain names in the spam lists will cause technical and operational issues, such as non-visibility to Internet, inability to e.t.c.). 2. Potential chilling effect on the market. Claim registrations add additional 0.25 USD for each domain, and currently it is around 100 out of 10k domains, and now Registries can cope with it, increase in probability of claim registrations (coupled with evergreen claims for the proposed additional services) will make the numbers higher and Registries will have to share the costs with the Registrars and via Registrars with Registrants. 3. The current design of the non-exact match document seems to be ASCII centric and it could be an area for further improvement for support of IDN and non-English latin script languages . 4. Rule 2 (Fat-finger Typos) needs to take into account AZERTY keyboard layout (second largest number to QWERTY ... it might be history soon, but not yet). I am not against the implementation of the proposed model (after proper assessment) if it is used solely for notification of the TM owners, who have registered their trade marks in TMCH. The reason to think so is that only a person from the potentially affected organisation (owner of the TM, registered in TMCH) may say which of the suggested hits (potential claims) are dangerous for their organisation and which to protect (to avoid effect of a death of a 1000 cuts, where company gets involved in too many unnecessary processes at the same time). Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On Jul 12, 2017, at 00:13, Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Maxim, I hope this email finds you well. I’m reaching out to you to follow up on an action item for you from the WG F2F meeting in Johannesburg. During the meeting, it was indicated that you may have some follow up suggestions on data collection regarding question 4 on Trademark Claims (the newly added question on the proposals of non-exact matches). Please do review the attached updated table, and send any suggestions you have to the WG mailing list. It is our hope to wrap up the refinement of the questions, and the identification of data requirements this week. Thanks, Maxim. Amr

1 0

New rotation cycle for RPM Working Group calls
by Mary Wong July 19, 2017

July 19, 2017

Dear all, To follow up on what was announced at the end of the RPM Working Group call held earlier today, please note that the new rotation cycle for the Working Group calls will be as follows: * For three Wednesdays in a row, the call will be at 1700 UTC; and * For the fourth Wednesday, we will keep to the more APAC-friendly time of 0300 UTC (Thursdays). The co-chairs and staff are very aware that this new rotation does not necessarily improve things for our APAC-based members, and that there’s at least one or two members who may not be able to do the Wednesday calls at the new time. However, given that Wednesdays have generally been the day allotted to RPMs (with the other GNSO Policy Development Processes, working groups etc. taking slots on the other weekdays), it seemed appropriate to keep the calls to mostly Wednesdays, but to change the rotation from 1600 to 1700 UTC. As has been the usual practice, the co-chairs and staff will review this rotation following the next ICANN meeting at the end of October/early November. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <ntfy-gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 14:52 To: "ntfy-gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <ntfy-gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [ntfy-gnso-rpm-wg] Meeting Invitation: Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Wednesday, 26 July 2017 at 17:00 UTC Dear All, The call for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 26 July 2017 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minute duration. 10:00 PDT, 13:00 EDT, 18:00 London, 19:00 CET For other times: http://tinyurl.com/ya8au8dg Adobe Connect LINK WITH AUDIO enabled: https://participate.icann.org/gnso-rpm For those of you using the Adobe Connect audio, you may do so by activating your computer microphone via the Adobe room (Using a headset is preferable here). Make sure your speakers and microphone are not on mute. - Select the TELEPHONE ICON at the top of the AC toolbar and choose CONNECT MY AUDIO (only option). - Select USING COMPUTER twice - Select ALLOW access to the ICANN Adobe room - the TELEPHONE ICON at the top of the toolbar should then have changed into a MICROPHONE ICON - You may click on this MICROPHONE ICON to mute yourself (Icon will then have a line through it) and to unmute yourself (Line disappears) Participants must ALWAYS have their microphone or telephone on MUTE as default setting. You are requested to RAISE YOUR HAND if you wish to participate to avoid disruption. Dial-in details are below. Please confirm your apology or dial-out requests to GNSO Secretariats gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> ______________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: RPM MEMBER For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL RIO DE JANEIRO: 55-21-40421490 0800-7610651 BRAZIL SAO PAULO: 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 EGYPT 0800000-9029 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 351-2-10054705 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 VIETNAM 120-11751 Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group
by Terri Agnew July 19, 2017

July 19, 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, 19 July 2017 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/c3vwAw> https://community.icann.org/x/c3vwAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-19jul17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p3u8rx9s8w3/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=3011643f1f7b0839 e912cc31b822a52f47df76a428b3e4dce623421de5d0964f> https://participate.icann.org/p3u8rx9s8w3/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw> https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Adobe Connect chat transcript for 19 July 2017: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Wednesday, 19 July 2017 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minute duration Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_c 3vwAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ c3vwAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=K0E_Ln9JKLCdlQTTIrDhIlTMVoWmitPEj1v00Wqt1f 8&s=uArRhDcI5wlxGp7AYrq7FN9t6sujkdgg6wQXqiOsQjg&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=K0E_Ln9JKLCdlQTTIrDhIlTMVoWmitPEj1v00Wqt1f8&s=uA rRhDcI5wlxGp7AYrq7FN9t6sujkdgg6wQXqiOsQjg&e= Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):пщщв Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):good George Kirikos:Hi folks. Paul Tattersfield:Hi George,Everyone George Kirikos:*6 to mute/unmute George Kirikos:Hey Paul. Steve Levy:Hello all! Terri Agnew:everyone can scroll themselves Philip Corwin:Hello all Mary Wong:We stopped at the end of Q1 Jeff Neuman:All - For some reason Susan Payne is not able to get in David McAuley:Sorry to arrive late Mary Wong:@Jeff, can she reboot AC? Susan Payne:Hi, I'm in Kathy Kleiman:Mary, could you post the link? Terri Agnew:all documents are on the wiki agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_c 3vwAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ c3vwAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=K0E_Ln9JKLCdlQTTIrDhIlTMVoWmitPEj1v00Wqt1f 8&s=uArRhDcI5wlxGp7AYrq7FN9t6sujkdgg6wQXqiOsQjg&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=K0E_Ln9JKLCdlQTTIrDhIlTMVoWmitPEj1v00Wqt1f8&s=uA rRhDcI5wlxGp7AYrq7FN9t6sujkdgg6wQXqiOsQjg&e= George Kirikos:If you click the top right corner of the pod, then do a "Save As", you can get the file in PDF to open on your own computer. Poncelet Ileleji:Good day all Mary Wong:The updated Claims document is here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dow nload_attachments_66091891_Trademark-2520Claims-2520Sub-2520Team-2520report- 2520-2D-2520updated-252014-2520July.docx-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D 1500076075000-26api-3Dv2 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do wnload_attachments_66091891_Trademark-2520Claims-2520Sub-2520Team-2520report -2520-2D-2520updated-252014-2520July.docx-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3 D1500076075000-26api-3Dv2&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4 I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=K0E_Ln9JKLCdlQTTIrDhIlT MVoWmitPEj1v00Wqt1f8&s=8jnCQLKITR86VqO8ueYXyf2ZYBM9TOat9zXuOP2lCbI&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=K0E_Ln9JKLCdlQTTIrDhIlTMVoWmitPEj1v00Wqt1f8&s=8j nCQLKITR86VqO8ueYXyf2ZYBM9TOat9zXuOP2lCbI&e= Paul McGrady:HowDEE! George Kirikos:Which question are we on now? Mary Wong:Q2 Mary Wong:The highlighted comments are those from Joburg, those that aren't highlighted were akready in the dcocument before Joburg. Mary Wong:And Jon also requested lat week that the same thing be done for Q1, I think. George Kirikos:We're on page 8 of the PDF (rightmost notes). Kathy Kleiman:Tx Terri and Mary! George Kirikos:New wording looks fine. Susan Payne:sorry, which Q George Kirikos:Page 10, Susan, very bottom. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Q4 Susan Payne:ta George Kirikos:Q4. David McAuley:Think Kathy's point makes sense Susan Payne:+1 Paul George Kirikos:"intended purpose" can be interpreted even more broadly, though, to include "balance" for registrants, etc. Paul McGrady:Happy to Colin O'Brien:+1 Paul George Kirikos:i.e. "intended purpose" isn't just from the perspective of the TM holders. David McAuley:no pressure Paul Michael R Graham:Sorry for the delay in joining -- Unavoidable business meeting. Paul McGrady:"Is the exact match limitation on Trademark Claims serving the intended purposes of the Trademark Claims RPM?" Mary Wong:@Kristine, we can mention this in a footnote, as you suggested. George Kirikos:That presumes that it's a "limitation" --- criteria is more neutral. Kathy Kleiman:instead of limitation, criteria Kathy Kleiman:same comment as George :-) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I am not saying it is not possible, it requires update of the Registrar's software platform, and it takes time and money ... not all Registrars register all TLDs for this reason until Claims over Paul McGrady:Paul Mom: "It's Brilliant!" George Kirikos:Requirement is also fine. Kathy Kleiman:gppd Kathy Kleiman:good Paul McGrady:Requirement is fine. Amr Elsadr:Reminder that question 4 was meant to address the non-exact match proposals Michael R Graham:Agree "requirement" David McAuley:agreed Cyntia King:Good Jeff Neuman:I am honestly confused. Is it that it served the purpose of the Claim Service (narrow) or isnt the real question be "protecting the legitimate rights of others" which is really where claims came from/ But honestly we can tinker with the questions for years and never get to substance Mary Wong:Will do, Kristine George Kirikos:Right, Jeff, that was the point I was trying to make above. George Kirikos:Some noise on Kathy's line? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'm hearing a little static, but can hear her clearly otherwise...anyone else? Mary Wong:@Kathy, as a starting point we can look at what Deloitte does, a laid out in the TMCH Requireemnts. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I hear the same clicks Paul McGrady:There is a little static, but its not a serious impairment (at least on my end of the line) George Kirikos:CIRA has those expansions based on accents, when doing their weekly "TBR" (to be released) expired domains. e.g. click on the "+" to the right of a domain name with characters, to see all the variations https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tbr.cira.ca_-3Fdatet-3D 2017_07_19 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tbr.cira.ca_-3Fdatet-3 D2017_07_19&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXA vSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=K0E_Ln9JKLCdlQTTIrDhIlTMVoWmitPEj1v00 Wqt1f8&s=UBWtOZSTI1lYtZf9Ljcdf5RCcteelpYLWsHsQDT_s6E&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=K0E_Ln9JKLCdlQTTIrDhIlTMVoWmitPEj1v00Wqt1f8&s=UB WtOZSTI1lYtZf9Ljcdf5RCcteelpYLWsHsQDT_s6E&e= George Kirikos:CIRA = .ca ccTLD Terri Agnew:finding line Paul McGrady:Without reaching the answer to Kathy's question, I think her suggestion to include such a question is a good one. Kathy Kleiman:Are there smaller changes to the exact match criteria that should be made to accomodate IDNs more easily? Mary Wong:WE'll add it to the update after this call, along with the additional examples from Amadeo. George Kirikos:MW22 was the "simulation" that I suggested, yes. Kathy Kleiman:[using Amadeau's exampls of umlaut and accents] Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):someone has to do it ... George Kirikos:Although, it basically requires an almost full implementation of the proposal. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):rules 1-10 are more or less simple Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):but 11-12 reuqires creation of dictionaries, and it is an expert work, I am not sure we are into it George Kirikos:I've already analyzed the resultant expansion of the various rules on the mailing list.....it's a huge increase in matches, mathematically. Michael R Graham:I wholeheartedly support the notion of getting real eimpirical information regarding effects of TMCH Claims Notice and Exact/inexact matches. George Kirikos:e.g. all the character swapping rules, dropping letters, adding letters --- many, many false positives. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):without the assesment we can not move further with the non-exact match idea Michael R Graham:Question for me is whether we gain/lose more by moving ahead without empirical information to inform our answers/actions or waiting for that evidence? Michael R Graham:@Maxim -- I agree, depending on answer to my prior question. George Kirikos:Once we get the top 500 terms, we can run a simulation even on a subset of the TMCH data. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George , we need to be sure that this small sample similar to other samples Jeff Neuman:Feasibility from the TMCH point of view, Registry point of view, Registrar point of view, all of the above? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):so it is beter to test on the full historical set of data Lori Schulman:Agree with Greg. Any kind of agnostic, objective modelling that we can start now would help in parallel to looking at other questions George Kirikos:@Maxim: I agree. Just saying that if it failed on a small subset, it is clear one wouldn't need to redo it at scale for the entire dataset. Scott Austin:Is there an existing search model or algorithim used by search firms or USPTO that would be a useful analog Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George, I think we need to have objective assesment to avoid speculations Greg Shatan:Jeff, does there need to be a point of view? I think it should be objective. David McAuley:Good points Kristine - and we need to prepare to be crisp in our requests so that we don't launch unnecessary work Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):also it needs a rule of combination (how to combine rules, how many times, in which order e.t.c) George Kirikos:e.g. applying some of the rules to marks like "THE", it would create a warning for "TH", "HE", "TE", etc. just on one rule (dropping a letter). David McAuley:good points Mary Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George, unfortunately the longer the string the worse the situation Amr Elsadr:Note that financial and technical considerations were already recorded prior to ICANN 59. George Kirikos:@Maxim: yes, but at some point, the "density" of surrounding terms drops, when it's a very long term. So, while there's an expansion, the "collisions" won't change much. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Could we simply add "non-exac match claims" need assesment prior to implementation ? Terri Agnew:finding the line George Kirikos:Post-registration vs. pre-registration notices. Paul McGrady:+1 Susan Michael R Graham:I would object to the question -- it is really a subquestion to whether the Claims Notice is having its desired effect it seems. Jeff Neuman:Pre-registration vs. post registration is an implementation of a potential solution after a problem is identified Jonathan Frost:From a registry persperspective, that flexibility in notice delivery method would reduce the implementation burden substantially. Jeff Neuman:If there are problems identified with pre-registration, then post-registration claims may be a potential solution...but we should not address until pre-registration is shown as the problem Michael R Graham:Benefit of early notice is to prevent outlay of moneys by applicant to develop a site, plan, etc. when the domain name on which it may depend is problemmatic. Michael R Graham:@Kristine -- +1 if it is included. Susan Payne:yes, much better suggestion Kristine Kathy Kleiman:Good idea, Kristine. Paul Tattersfield:timing and presentation David McAuley:good idea Marie Pattullo:And from a brand holder perspective having to enforce ex post rather than ex ante would increase the implementation burden substantially... and not help good faith registrants. Jeff Neuman:Sorry, what is question again George Kirikos:Brandholders already enforce ex post, though, once the 90 days elapses (i.e. once the claims period ends). Marie Pattullo:Only if the registration goes through, George. Griffin Barnett:Completely agree with Brian Beckham Susan Payne:yes that was my point (badly expressed) Brian Jonathan Frost:Part of the purpose of the claims notice is to provide notice for the purpose of future URS/UDRP litigation, which a flexible delivery method could still accomplish. Jeff Neuman:I agree with Brian on this. We are openinig the door to things like, should we have a formal opposition period for trademark owners Jeff Neuman:PRIOR to registration Jeff Neuman:Post-registration claims is a very different RPM than a pre-registration claims service Jon Nevett:It's a reasonable question -- we should have it wherever Kristine and staff think it should go Marie Pattullo:Agree with Jeff & Brian. Jeff Neuman:Volker did present the idea, and registrars are discussing. But it is not because of abandonment Philip Corwin:I believe that the timing of the notices, and who they go to, becomes quite relevant if we add non-exact matches as triggers for a notice to either the registramnt or the mark holder. Jeff Neuman:it is because of ease of implementation George Kirikos:A "quasi" post registration could work, i.e. put the registration into a "pending registration" (not actually processed) by that registrar, and then send the notice by email, and then formally register later. Jeff Neuman:and because of getting more registrars signed up Susan Payne:we have a lot of work to identify problems if any, and address them not to "look at the existing problems" Michael R Graham:Thanks, Kristine! George Kirikos:So, it could be done under the existing rules (at the risk of not registering the domain name immediately, and having someone else swoop in and register it). Jon Nevett:we shouldn't debate the substance of the change now -- we are just asking a question that is well within our charter Jeff Neuman:The issues then with post registration involves refunds, dealing with premium names and post registration claims, customer support, etc. David McAuley:+1 Michael, well managed Kristine Marie Pattullo:It's also fairness to a good faith regsitrant who thinks he's good to go only to get such a notice after he starts putting his DN into his marketing materials etc. Michael R Graham:+1 Marie -- well put George Kirikos:BTW, are we sticking to the 1 pm (Eastern time) starting times now, i.e. followup to Mary's email? http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-July/002211.html George Kirikos:Oops, I guess that's agenda item 5. Michael R Graham:@JScott -- Agree. Subteams useful with data plans, collection and perhaps initial review. Terri Agnew:everyone can scroll themselves George Kirikos:Vote early, and vote often.... ? :-) Michael R Graham:@Mary -- were these results also distributed so we can review at leisure? Michael R Graham:@George -- You from Chicago? ;-) J. Scott:Yes Michael. about 2 days ago the results were sent around to the WG George Kirikos:lol No.....from Toronto. :-) Michael R Graham:Thanks -- wonders of the Spam filter. George Kirikos:These surveys weren't meant to be determinitive of the outcome, though --- just a "lay of the land"?? Mary Wong:@George, that's right - and that's why the comments are probably as important, if not more so, as the actual numbers/percentages. Jeff Neuman:For question 3, of the "Yes" vs "No", what is the breakdown between groups David McAuley:Agree with Mary inasmuch as the lay of the land on @3 is pretty even split David McAuley:Q3, that is Jeff Neuman:in otherwords, did all IP owners say yes, but academics say no Cyntia King:Good question, Jeff Rebecca L Tushnet:It was my understanding that we got so many different questions because of sentiment that there were different kinds of stylized marks possibly meriting different treatment. Though I disagreed,about "meriting different treatment" I though the quiz did distinguish between types of marks, especially with the examples. George Kirikos:@Jeff: right, it'd be interesting to see each individual response (not aggregated/anonymized). Mary Wong:@Rebecca, thanks - that was the idea. Rebecca L Tushnet:Ooh, are there more academics on here? Kathy Kleiman:Do we have a category for academics? Michael R Graham:Agree further breakdowns would be useful to understand.l George Kirikos:Some were disputing that the they were "scholars" (i.e. the EFF letter). :-) Kathy Kleiman:got it, tx Jeff George Kirikos:Astroturfing is a serious charge. Susan Payne:i dont even know whatthat means! George Kirikos:Everyone attached a name to the survey. George Kirikos:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing Jeff Neuman:I went back up....sorry Greg Shatan:I followed Jeff.... Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):does it mean they were confused? Susan Payne:accidental hand Jeff Neuman:i think it would make a differencce, yes Kathy Kleiman:We also had "other" George Kirikos:Comment #1 didn't make sense -- there's no requirement of 3 characters minimum. George Kirikos:(i.e. 2 letters and 1 letter domains have been released in new gTLDs, and exist in legacy ones too, e.g. Elon Musk now owns X.com) Paul Tattersfield:perhaps it's a suggestion for a new rule George Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):lots of 2 char TMs George Kirikos:Right, all the text. George Kirikos:Distinguishes this question from Q4. Greg Shatan:It might be a red herring. If no one thought this was about partial disclaimers, then we're good. Frankly I agree that it's clear. So it's incumbent on those who thought this refers to partial disclaimers to say so. Kathy Kleiman:+1 J. Scott Greg Shatan:I will note that my concerns. with the validity and design of the survey were expressed before knowing any of the results.... Lori Schulman:Agree with J Scott. We are trying to find a way toward consensus. That is the role of the chairs to moderate and find ways toward concensus. Lori Schulman:Taking the pulse helps do that. George Kirikos:@Greg: I too suggested that the questions be circulated beforehand.....but since the results are not binding, i.e. just a 'lay of the land', don't give too much weight one way or the other. George Kirikos:I see this just as a tool to shift the discussion from the mailing list, where it might have been somewhat disorganized, into a structured response system. George Kirikos:I see my comment (#15) in that list. Makes little difference, if sunrise is eliminated. Paul Tattersfield:Could just add some new columns into the all the headings Answer Choice -- Responses -- IP -- Registars -- Individuals -- Totals George Kirikos:Supplemental registered marks haven't yet made it to the principal, that's why. George Kirikos:They're capable of "graduating" to the principal register, but while they're still in the supplemental register, they're relatively worthless. Paul Tattersfield:marks with registration numbers which start 89 ? Scott Austin:they bear a registration notice yet are treated as unregistered, and may have spent millions in advertising but not yet enough for 2f status v a foreign mark THE that is registered without use and appears on the TMCH as registered David McAuley:Thanks Mary - very nice presentation David McAuley:and I agree the comments were quite informative Paul Tattersfield:Yes thanks Mary helpful presentation Paul McGrady:+1 J Scott. George Kirikos:Don't shunt it to a separate PDP, though. We should dispose of the issue here (otherwise it lingers around forever). George Kirikos:i.e.a firm "yes" or "no", instead of leaving it undead, i.e. a zombie issue. Paul Tattersfield:6 ter listing Paul McGrady:@George, there is no way to keep someone from going to Council seeking another PDP on this topic alone. Whether or not Council will take it up is a seperate question. Paul Tattersfield:The GAC won't be very pleased lol Philip Corwin:Agree that we need to find a common understanding of what marks protected by statute or treaty means. George Kirikos:@Paul: the GAC should get used to not being pleased, e.g. .AMAZON. :-) Rebecca L Tushnet:That works fine for me--I would just like to have some discussion about what that means. Paul McGrady:+1 J Scott. A good plan Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I agree George Kirikos:One general question I had --- we have 165 "participants" in the group, according to https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pag es_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D58729950 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pa ges_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D58729950&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfk bPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=K0E_Ln9JK LCdlQTTIrDhIlTMVoWmitPEj1v00Wqt1f8&s=VetXH-VRfkdogV5RHRAiCxFxvfVvZE8t8CK63kS k4rk&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=K0E_Ln9JKLCdlQTTIrDhIlTMVoWmitPEj1v00Wqt1f8&s=Ve tXH-VRfkdogV5RHRAiCxFxvfVvZE8t8CK63kSk4rk&e= George Kirikos:yet only a small minority answered the survey. Why such limited participation? Paul McGrady:6 minutes - use it wisely George Kirikos:Are we on the 1 pm Eastern time from now on? Lori Schulman:6 mins. woohoo! Kathy Kleiman:@ George, we still have the late night call once a month George Kirikos:True, Kathy. George Kirikos:As long as it doesn't conflict with Game of Thrones, I'm good. :-) Philip Corwin:Our task is not to please or displease the GAC, but to provide well considered answers to properly framed questions George Kirikos:(the only show I have to watch live) Terri Agnew:next call: Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 26 July 2017 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minute duration. Paul McGrady:@George - ha! Can't miss GOT Lori Schulman:ciao George Kirikos:Bye folks. Susan Payne:bye all Paul Tattersfield:bye all J. Scott:ciao, ciao khouloud dawahi:bye Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] PROPOSAL: to amend the SDRP
by Mary Wong July 18, 2017

July 18, 2017

Dear all, As it may be appropriate to consider the substantive issues and new suggestions raised as part of the ongoing Working Group email discussions during the Working Group’s review of the Sunrise RPM, staff has noted Brian’s suggestion below regarding the use of Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies, and will continue to track any other suggestions made to this mailing list. If I may, please also take this note as a reminder to review the latest Sunrise Charter Questions document containing the most up-to-date comments and proposed revisions. You can find the document posted here (dated 14 July): https://community.icann.org/x/c3vwAw. Please post any comments you may have on the document to this mailing list. To aid in your further discussions via the mailing list, please also note that the scope of the Sunrise review (as currently envisaged by the updated Charter questions) includes a set of Preamble questions that cover consideration of whether the Sunrise RPM is serving its intended purpose or has unintended effects, and whether abuses have been documented by registries, registrars or registrants. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Beckham, Brian" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int> Date: Monday, July 17, 2017 at 12:56 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] PROPOSAL: to amend the SDRP All, Trying bring the discussions about TMCH/Sunrise abuse together in a more practical way, I would like to offer the following: Using the Donuts SDRP (www.donuts.domains/about/policies/sunrise-and-dpml-dispute-resolution-polic…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.donuts.domains_abou…>) as an example, the relevant sections are: Who can make a Complaint? Any person can raise a complaint under [the SDRP] Fees The fees are GBP 250 for a single complaint relating to up to 5 domain names registered to the same registrant. What you Need to Prove To prevail in a Sunrise dispute under this Policy, a Complainant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following grounds apply: at the time the challenged domain name was registered, the registrant did not hold a trademark registration of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty; […] the Sunrise registrant does not meet the “in-use” standard; Remedies If the Panellist finds that the Complaint succeeds, Donuts in its discretion shall determine the most appropriate remedy for the parties consistent with the decision of the Panellist. The available remedies may include, but are not limited to: [i] revocation or cancellation of the disputed domain name(s) or DPML block without refund of any registration or related fees; or [ii] transfer of the disputed domain name(s) to the Complainant, provided that the Complainant agrees to the same terms as required for registration in the relevant TLD. In an email to this list last Friday (attached for reference), I noted that the LRO and UDRP in their respective ways, address the bona fides of trademark registrations. Perhaps adding some criteria along these lines to the existing SDRP challenge process (which already incorporates the “proof of use” concept) could address the concerns raised about TMCH/Sunrise gaming. Without re-opening debate about the incidence/instigators of such abuse, I am interested to hear your views on whether this could be a starting point for a forward-looking solution. Thanks, and best regards, Brian Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 | E brian.beckham(a)wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int> | www.wipo.int[wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_&d=DwMFAg&…>

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Inferences (was Re: Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group)
by Beckham, Brian July 18, 2017

July 18, 2017

Thanks Jon for the reply, and while I didn't mean anything negative, point taken. I'm still keen to see if this WG finds utility in "enhancing" the SDRP challenge process along the lines I noted yesterday (i.e., adding criteria which go to the bona fides of trademark registrations), rather than simply doing away with the TMCH/Sunrises. Brian -----Original Message----- From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@donuts.co] Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 11:22 PM To: Beckham, Brian Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Inferences (was Re: Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group) Brian: I wished you would have ended your last sentence at the word lost. You make a valid point, but why did you feel the need to go on with the last part ("protecting speculators from other speculators")? Do you think by adding a snarky comment about TMCH abuse only harming other speculators it makes your point any more salient? I'm sorry, but legitimate registrants lost out due to some level of TMCH abuse. We can debate the level of such abuse or what, if anything, to do about it, but denigrating the victims of such abuse by also calling them speculators isn't warranted or persuasive. Jon > On Jul 17, 2017, at 4:28 PM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int> wrote: > > For the event this is discussed: > > This would not only be a loss for trademark owners, who would solely be left to resort to curative RPMs, but for consumers who would be harmed in the meantime, because brand owners could not get ahead of abusive registrations that could be used for fraud such as phishing schemes or distributing malware. > > In my view it is imperative that this public policy angle not be lost in the noise of protecting speculators from other speculators. > ________________________________________ > From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on > behalf of Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm(a)eff.org> > Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 7:29 PM > To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Inferences (was Re: Mp3, Attendance, AC > recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) > PDP Working Group) > > On 17/7/17 3:05 am, Paul Keating wrote: >> If we halted all TMCH use for sunrise purposes I see no huge loss for >> trademark holders. And such would resolve the underlying problematic >> issue - the use of the TMCH in the context of providing a preemptive, >> perpetual, globally exclusive right to a domain name that far exceeds >> any right granted by any trademark law or treaty. > > Very well put. Just a reminder that there is already a proposal on > the table to eliminate the Sunrise. From what I can tell we haven't > officially come to discussing it yet but I trust that we will. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Global Policy Analyst > Electronic Frontier Foundation > https://eff.org > jmalcolm(a)eff.org > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > > Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt > PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

1 0

INTA Cost Impact Report
by Amr Elsadr July 18, 2017

July 18, 2017

Dear Working Group Members, During last week’s WG call, Lori Schulman notified the WG that the INTA Cost Impact Report had been posted to the CCT-RT wiki (Thanks Lori). The report has also been posted to the RPMs PDP WG wiki. You will find it under the “METRICS, REVIEWS & EXTERNAL REPORTS” section of the Additional Documents and Materials on the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) page here: https://community.icann.org/x/0AusAw. The report has also been attached to this email for your convenience. Thanks. Amr

1 0

FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Poll results on Open TMCH Questions
by Mary Wong July 17, 2017

July 17, 2017

Dear all, For your review and discussion on the upcoming Working Group call this Wednesday 19 July, please find attached a collated summary of all the responses that were received to the poll that was conducted on design marks and geographical indications. Notes: * Poll questions #3, #4 & #5 (on “stylized marks”), #6, #7 & #8 (on “composite marks”), and #9 & #10 (on descriptive text in marks) were developed to gauge Working Group members’ views and consensus (if any) on the following open TMCH question: Q7: How are design marks currently handled by the TMCH provider? * Poll questions #11, #12 & #13 (on geographical indications and marks protected by statute or treaty) were developed to gauge Working Group members’ views and consensus (if any) on the following open TMCH question: Q8: How are geographical indications, protected designations of origin, and protected appellations of origin currently handled by the TMCH provider? * The latest version (dated 17 May 2017) of the full document discussed by the Working Group on the topics of design marks and geographical indications, along with the various proposals received from Working Group members on both topics, can be viewed on this wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/egffAw. Please refer to the email below for the full agenda for the call this coming Wednesday, and note that updated documents for the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Charter questions were also circulated along with the agenda on Friday. There are also outstanding Action Items (see below) relating to the Sunrise questions – please send your comments on those to this list as soon as you can. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, July 14, 2017 at 16:12 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Agenda & updated documents for next RPM Working Group call on 19 July 2017 Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next Working Group call (scheduled for next Wednesday 19 July at 1700 UTC). Updated Sunrise and Claims documents (see further below) are also attached to this email for your reference and review. Agenda: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Continue discussion of TM Claims refined Charter questions (30 minutes) 3. Confirm scope of any further work on Sunrise and Claims questions, and whether that is to be done by the full WG or the Sub Teams 4. Review results of poll on Open TMCH Questions and agree on next steps for the general TMCH review 5. Next steps/next meeting Please note: * An updated document for the refined Sunrise Charter questions is attached – updates made as a result of the Working Group’s discussion on the last call of 12 July and as tracked by the Action Items sent out by Amr (below) have been highlighted in yellow. Please review the updates and send any corrections or suggestions to this mailing list at your earliest convenience. * For Agenda Item #2 – a slightly updated Trademark Claims document is attached, showing only one update from the document circulated for the 12 July call. This update (in the form of a comment box) tries to capture the discussion over the collection of data relating to registration abandonment attempts for so-called “dictionary” terms. * For Agenda Item #3 – staff will send a collated report of all the poll responses received on Monday 17 July, following the close of the poll later today (Friday). * Finally, staff will continue to work with the Working Group co-chairs to review the data collection suggestions for Sunrise, to develop a proposal for prioritizing and ordering the collection exercise as well as a sequence for the Working Group’s review of the Charter questions for which data has been identified as needed. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 15:18 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 12 July 2017 Dear Working Group Members, Below are the action items from the WG call on 12 July. The action items, notes, meeting documents, recordings and transcripts can all also be found on the meeting wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/Z2jwAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thanks. Amr Action Items: Action Items for WG members: 1. WG to develop a definition for “Standard Pricing” 2. WG to follow up with a revision of the definition for “Premium Pricing”, to reflect higher prices for Premium Names 3. WG to suggest rewording for Q3 (refined) in the Sunrise Registrations document to include the ability of TM owners to challenge the classification of terms as Reserved Names as well as Premium Names, taking into account the fact that Premium Names may also be Reserved Names. Consider also whether use of the word "release" is appropriate in this context 4. WG to consider how best to rephrase TM Claims refined Q1 & 2, to more clearly delineate between the intent and effect of a Claims Notice and a Notice of Registered Name Action Items for staff/co-chairs: 1. Staff to add “unfairly” to the second bullet of Sunrise Registrations refined question 2, so that it reads “Is there evidence that Registry Sunrise or Premium Name pricing unfairly limits trademark owners’ ability to participate during Sunrise?” 2. Staff to include Maxim’s comment on the scope of the ICANN “picket fence” in the document in reference to Q3 (refined) for Sunrise Registrations 3. Staff to archive the original Charter questions for Sunrise Registrations and use the reworded questions from now on, keeping the new comments from Johannesburg and deleting the older ones that have been resolved (the original questions and older comments will be recorded in an Annex for a comprehensive record) 4. Staff to post INTA survey results to the RPM WG wiki 5. Staff and co-chairs to review the Sunrise data collection questions to determine which would be easier, quicker and more of a priority to collect, to inform the order in which the WG tackles the refined Charter questions

1 0

Inferences (was Re: Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group)
by George Kirikos July 17, 2017

July 17, 2017

Hi folks, Just following up on some statements from today's transcript: On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> wrote: > Adobe Connect chat transcript for 12 July 2017: ... > Jeff Neuman:My belief is that we have a huge rate of people abandoning is > because (i) registrars were mining the system, (ii) registrants were mining > the system to see what was valuable, and to a lesser extent as a result of > the claim (either legitimiate or not) > > Jeff Neuman:But I cant prove any of those theories > > Kathy Kleiman:@Jeff: we have gathered evidence already from registries; > there is probably more > > Jeff Neuman:There just is no way to do so on a backwards basis If one had access to the raw data (and presumably The Analysis Group would have had it, to generate their reports), one could filter such "mining" by examining abandonment rates by (1) registrar and (2) by time relative to the launch date. i.e. presumably those were "mining" the system were not spreading out their queries across all registrars equally. It would be easy to identify the outliers. Furthermore, registrants would be also focused on a few registrars that permit those bulk lookups, and they wouldn't spread their queries over time equally --- they'd be focused at the launch (i.e. the beginning, first few days, etc.) of a TLD. Of course, if need be, one could anonymize the data by registrar (i.e. Registrar 1, Registrar 2, etc.), if there are any concerns about revealing their individual abandonment rates. Registry operators and registrars both have technology to block WHOIS access to those who are "mining" that data. One can use similar detection techniques in this instance. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

13 50