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

PROPOSAL: to amend the SDRP
by Beckham, Brian July 17, 2017

July 17, 2017

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-policy<http://www.donuts.domains/about/policies/sunrise-and-dpml-dispute-resolutio…>) 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<http://www.wipo.int/>

2 1

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Inferences (was Re: Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group)
by Nahitchevansky, Georges July 17, 2017

July 17, 2017

George K: We can obviously go round and round on this, but to what end. The issue, to put it quite succinctly for you, is as follows. You and others want to get rid of sunrise and claims protections. In that endeavor you have argued that there is some sort of widespread abuse by brand owners of the TMCH for sunrise and claims purposes. That claim is simply not supported by the evidence and does justify wasting tons of people's time trying to pursue data etc. The only real evidence has been of limited abuse conducted by domain name speculators -- not brand owners. So instead of rehashing the same old arguments, you should spend time thinking of ways of fixing the bumps in the existing system to address gaming by speculators. Put another way, I do not agree with you about removing the sunrise and claims protections. I am, however, interested in working with you and others in finding reasonable solutions to improve the system and address the limited gaming by a handful of parties. Let's move on. -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 11:46 AM To: George Kirikos Cc: 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) Thanks George for taking the time to find some of the quotes. Let's move on. Jon > On Jul 17, 2017, at 11:44 AM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 1. I don't believe there was anyone who denied there was any abuse >> of the TMCH. Viewpoints are polarized enough in the WG; it makes >> matters worse to portray them as even more polarized than they >> actually are. This has the secondary problem of "enabling" others to build on these specious claims. >> Not 3 minutes went by after your email, when George Kirikos leveled >> the "fake news" allegation at Georges Nehitchevansky that he >> "repeatedly denied that there was any abuse of the TMCH to begin >> with." Georges has already stated in this thread that that was not >> the case, but I guess that was not sufficient for some people. > > Folks seem to be interpreting "widespread" and "evidence" differently. > When Georges says something like: > > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001506.html > > "Paul. I don't think you understand the point we are all making. > There is no need for the type of review you are asking for. The > alleged abuse simply is not there. So apart from being a waste of > time, and apart from the confidentiality reasons previously raised, > there is no need for this unless one is hell bent on conducting a > witch hunt in the name of so-called transparency in order to try and > prove what is essentially a negative." > > I read that as him being in denial of abuse at all existing, > widespread or not. i.e. "the alleged abuse simply is not there". > > But, then there are variations, when he's used the terms "widespread > abuse" or "widespread evidence of abuse", e.g. from: > > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001458.html > > "Actually it touches on the point here. If you are going to make > various arguments of alleged abuse in support of claimed transparency, > then it would it is relevant to know whether you are supporting a lack > of transparency in the whois side of things where abuse has been > rampant. While the TMCH and Whois are different animals a number of > the arguments being made here to support transparency have actually > been mirrored in the other context and rejected by those seeking > opacity. And one major difference between ‎the two situations is that > there is widespread evidence of abuse of the whois system whereas here > in the TMCH context you do not have evidence of a widespread abuse of > the TMCH by brand owners. Nevertheless, you and others persist on > wanting to conduct a fishing expedition under the guise of so called > "transparency" to try and find some alleged widespread harm that > simply does not exist. To many folks on the other side of the aisle, > it appears that this is not about transparency but more about some > effort to gut existing protections and to obtain the release of > confidential information of brand owners as to what they did or did > not register. Perhaps this may not be the intent, but we all know > that once that information is out the gaming will really begin. > ‎Again, perhaps there are tweeks that could be made to improve the > current system, but there is no real basis for undertaking the broad > review that is being sought and certainly not for undoing the entire > existing system." > > or more recently: > > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-July/002187.html > > "I think the basis problem has been and remains that the basis for all > this hunting around and data requests is an unfounded claim that there > is an abundance of “abusive and overreaching tmch registrations.” The > evidence of such alleged widespread abuse has not been presented, > because it doesn’t exist. What all this sound and fury about data > etc. reminds me of is Donald Trump claiming with basically no evidence > that there was widespread voter fraud to explain why he do not get the > majority of the popular vote in the US and then setting up a special > commission to investigate the matter in the hope of cobbling together > some sort of proof. In the end it’s a waste of everybody’s time and > money." > > (quoted in full, to not be accused of misquoting). Here's the thing, > though. When you say something like "the evidence of such alleged > widespread abuse has not been presented, because it doesn't exist", > that doesn't make any distinction between EVIDENCE and PROOF. Perhaps > Georges N. intended to write "proof" instead of "evidence". How do you > prove "widespread abuse"? You start by presenting any "evidence of > abuse". It's only once you have a LOT of evidence of abuse that you > can then say that you have proof that there was "widespread abuse." > Georges N. might disagree that the total amount of evidence has yet > proven "widespread abuse", but when you start saying "evidence hasn't > been presented", that denies the evidence itself of any abuse. > > We already know that the percentage of gamed/abused sunrise > registrations exceeds the proportion of domains that lead to a UDRP. > i.e. is the term "widespread" (in percentage terms) somehow applied > numerically differently when saying "the cybersquatting problem is > widespread", than when saying "there are widespread abuses of the > sunrise periods"? > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > http://www.leap.com/ > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

1 0

PLEASE READ: Changing the rotational times for some RPM Working Group calls
by Mary Wong July 17, 2017

July 17, 2017

Dear all, Reverting to our usual call rotation following ICANN59 has meant that our biweekly call time of 1600 UTC now clashes with the biweekly Registries and Registrar Stakeholder Group meetings. Following consultation with our Working Group co-chairs and in view of the overall GNSO community work calendar, we would like to seek your feedback on changing the RPM Working Group rotational call times as follows: Calls for three consecutive weeks to be held on Wednesdays at 1700 UTC (i.e. a change from the 1600-1700-1600 UTC rotation); and The fourth rotating call to remain scheduled for Thursdays at 0300 UTC (i.e. no change from the current practice). Please let me know if you cannot make the new proposed times as a direct result of this change. Thank you. Cheers Mary

3 2

Agenda & updated documents for next RPM Working Group call on 19 July 2017
by Mary Wong July 14, 2017

July 14, 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

FOR ACTION: DEADLINE EXTENSION: Working Group Members' Poll on Open TMCH Questions
by Amr Elsadr July 14, 2017

July 14, 2017

Dear Working Group Members, In response to requests to extend the deadline, and following consultation with the Working Group Co-Chairs, the deadline to fill in the poll on open TMCH questions has been extended. The new deadline is Friday, 14 July at 23:59 UTC. This new deadline will not be extended. To fill in the poll, please follow this link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WV26DQK. Additionally, a reference guide to assist with the poll questions is attached to this email, and can also be found on the WG wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/3CWAAw. Thanks. Amr

1 1

Action Items from GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 12 July 2017
by Amr Elsadr July 13, 2017

July 13, 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 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

Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group
by Terri Agnew July 12, 2017

July 12, 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, 12 July 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/Z2jwAw> https://community.icann.org/x/Z2jwAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-12jul17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p7pwl0mzymq/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=1ac87b02e9bd1147 de0e9f48df70165362dd3aaef16709dc4c1621aa6a9addbb> https://participate.icann.org/p7pwl0mzymq/ 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 12 July 2017: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minute duration. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_Z 2jwAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ Z2jwAw&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=_Ms6W-fk8dN52UxwqPh90e7MlRUIHZFUisB5d4YJVW E&s=DHDP8pShcMr1jxv0PwV6XdbcokEAtnid75aJFlLpujo&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=_Ms6W-fk8dN52UxwqPh90e7MlRUIHZFUisB5d4YJVWE&s=DH DP8pShcMr1jxv0PwV6XdbcokEAtnid75aJFlLpujo&e= George Kirikos:Hi folks. I'm trying out the iPad app today. Michael R. Graham:Morning. Mary/Amr-- apologies that I'm still under the weather -- but I will try to address/assist on the Claims Questions. Amr Elsadr:Get well soon, Michael. We should be starting with Sunrise Registrations, and then let's see where we can go from there. Kathy Kleiman:Sure! Paul Tattersfield:Hi everyone Michael R. Graham:@Amr -- Sounds good. Philip Corwin:Good day to all Kathy Kleiman:Terri, have you resent the call instructions around for the WG? Kathy Kleiman:Great, tx Rebecca L Tushnet:Question: what's the best way to update a statement of interest? George Kirikos:Summertime attendance might be expected to be lower... Rebecca L Tushnet:I'm searching the wiki but doing it ineffectively so far Lori Schulman:hi Lori Schulman:just connecting to audio Mary Wong:@Rebecca, if you send an email request to the GNSO Secretariat at gnso-secs(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> , they should be able to assist you. Louise Marie Hurel:Hi everyone Terri Agnew:@Rebecca, I will send you directions to update your GNSO SOI Lori Schulman:Please send them to me too Terri. Rebecca L Tushnet:Thanks! George Kirikos:Rebecca: I think you need to log in to the wiki to be able to edit your SOI. Lori Schulman:I tried to update mine and found it confusing on the wiki George Kirikos:iPad app doesn't support colour, so apologies for the boring font. :-( Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I will have to drop on the top of the hour - my train Amr Elsadr:@George: That's no good at all. Hopefully, colors will be available with updates. :-) Terri Agnew:@Lori, will send you directions as well Lori Schulman:thanks, my pdp's need to be updated Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I added "New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP" tomy SOI Steve Levy:Sorry for joining late! Paul McGrady:Sorry for being late. Adobe had a new plug in that it took a few minutes to get through. Also, sorry for leaving early. I scheduled to give a webinar to the Iowa State Bar Association on domain names prior to adding this call to my calendar. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Amr, I am still working on the letter about non-exact matches assesment (via using historical data and machine readable language sintax) Michael R. Graham:@JScott -- I'll do my best-- though I'm pretty sure no one will want to listen to my hacking. Amr Elsadr:Thanks Maxim. Appreciate that. Georges Nahitchevansky:Sorry for being late Amr Elsadr:@Lori: Your audio is not coming through very clearly. Do you have a mic you can connect? Susan Payne:someone is banging about - can you mute please Rebecca L Tushnet:I agree with Amr. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):the Comments field added - it allows to understand the reasons for suggested changes Terri Agnew:we are hearing a lot of background noise, please remember to mute when not speaking George Kirikos:Sounds like someone cooking in the background with pots/pans clanking. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George , it sounds like Wok Michael R. Graham:I would appreciate a breakfast burrito. Thanks. Lori Schulman: still waiting for dial out Lori Schulman:i have a new headset. it must not be working Terri Agnew:the op is dialing out now Terri Agnew:Lori is on the telephone Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):COMMENT: we should be aware that some TLD's usual pricing might be well higher than other's premium pricing, so it is relevant to a particular TLD only Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):so we are not talking about USD pricing, more about difference between generic price of doamins in a particular TLD and premium prices for the same TLD Michael R. Graham:@Maxim: I think that is correct. The definition should therefore be more along the lines of Premium pricing is the practice of charging an increased price for domains in Sunrise or General registration that consist of trademarks or other desirable terms. Jon Nevett:should have been "unfairly" limits Brian Cimbolic:yep, I emailed that proposed change in as well Michael R. Graham:@Jon -- I would ask first if it has an effect and then, if so, if that effect is "unfair" -- problem is that "unfair" is a charged term -- Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):in GEOs Police is in Reserved list, and not in premium (it is against the public interest) Jon Nevett:ok with that Michael -- the answer to the first part is clearly yes Mary Wong:@Maxim, we tried to capture your comment on reserve vs premium names in one of the comment boxes (see Q4) Jon Nevett:we had a change to 2 in the chat Brian Cimbolic:@Michael, not sure I agree unfairly is charged - that's the heart of the matter - limiting it by virtue of the fact that the price is higher doesn't necessarily make that practice unjustified Michael R. Graham:@Jon: So 1) Is there an effect (shown by empirical data), and 2) what is that effect ? Jon Nevett:this is an impact -- don't need data -- it is obvious Brian Cimbolic:does it "unfairly limit" participation is the real quest Brian Cimbolic:ion Mary Wong:@Brian, that is how we updated the previous question (as you'll see in this redline of Q4) Jon Nevett:we asked for the same change to #2 -- please don't lose it Brian Cimbolic:@Mary - thank you, as Jon notes, I think it belongs equally in #2 Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):on the other hand most premium names lists constist of generic terms, and it is not fault of the registry that TM owners decided to register a mark with matches well used generic term Mary Wong:@Jon, we tried to capture that request in a comment box to Q2, we (staff) just did not believe we had the mandate to go ahead with an actual rephrasing of the text of the question. Hopefully this discussion will assist the WG in doing so. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):please do not forget Name Collisions - one of the resons for lots of names to be in reserved names lists and not in sunrises Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and it was totally due to ICANN Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):one registry out of more than 1000 is less than 0.1% Michael R. Graham:@Paul: I think that's truly the question -- whether Premium pricing is Discriminatory against any particular types of domain names (e.g. trademark premium lists,geo, etc.) Jon Nevett:two sets of prices would go to the "unfairly" issue Brian Cimbolic:exactly Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):are we trying to justify that all prices - needs to be premium and to avoid the generic prices , so it is fair? Paul McGrady:Sorry Paul Tattersfield:There was also founder programs perhaps we should look at the interaction between these and sunrise Michael R. Graham:@Jon -- Agree. Question should be whether differential pricing has an adverse effect on 1) RPM of Sunrise, 2) Applicants, 3) others? Mary Wong:@Michael, @Jon - see Paul Tatterfield's suggestion for Q4 (in the comment box marked MW7) - does this more or less cover what you are saying? Paul McGrady:"Reserved Forever" v "Reserved to Be Released Later" Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):a premium name can be reserved , please do not mix premium and reserved (it is not equal) Amr Elsadr:Yes. Captured. Thanks. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):for example 2 letters, when a registry is waiting for RSEP to release them ... 2 letters are premium, but can not be used until allowed Susan Payne:on Q3 this should be addressing both the designation as premium (and thus the pricing) and, potentially reserving the name because it is "premium" so that it is not available until after the sunrise. This latter issue should be picked up in the question 4 on reserved names Kathy Kleiman:many or some? Mary Wong:@Jon - would this rewordiing of the "Is there evidence ... " bullet point question in Q2 work - "Are registry operators' pricing practices unfairly limiting participation in Surnise by trademark owners?" Michael R. Graham:@Mary -- Yes, but I would say "usefulness of Sunrise Registration as an RPMapplications or registrations" Michael R. Graham:Sorry -- end after "RPM" --"usefulness of Sunrise Registration as an RPM" Mary Wong:@Michael, thank you and noted. Paul McGrady:Apologies all. I need to drop shortly. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Do we understand who decides the level of fair vs unfair pricing? How? In which economical situation (prices differ from market to market)? Jon Nevett:@mary ok with me Mary Wong:Q9 (which Lori is reading now) - the rewording in this column was suggested in Joburg. The additional comment was to add a consideration for geoTLDs. Michael R. Graham:Maxim: I believe "fair vs unfair" can only be understood contextually -- If all Sunrise Registrations/Early Registrations are priced the same, it is fair, if there is difference there may be unfairness -- unless explainable by economic factors. Terri Agnew:@Maxim, your line is cutting in and out Terri Agnew:please let me know if a dial out on the telephone would be helpful Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):ok J. Scott:Maxim, an you put your comments in the chat. Your phone is cuttin out. Amr Elsadr:@Maxim: I tried to capture what you were saying in the notes pod. Please review, and let me know if I got it right. Thanks. Mary Wong:Label Generation Ruleset Amr Elsadr:LGR: Label Generation Rules Mary Wong:The LGR is a process to develop rules for each of the designated scripts relating to IDN variants. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):We should not forget that there is a thing called Picket Fence - basically it is a set of provisions in RA (Registry Agreements) & RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreements) - that Consensus Policies shoud not "prescribe or limit the price of Registry Services;" Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):so even if out output comes to the state where there is an idea of price regulation it will have no power, even if it comes into Policy state Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):the same for Registrars : shall not "prescribe or limit the price ofRegistrar Services;" Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Amr, please add it to the notes Kathy Kleiman:We heard a lot about specialized gTLDs in the third hour of our F2F Kathy Kleiman:I would not recommend changing that Susan Payne:we heard from a couple of Geos Michael R. Graham:@Maxim -- I do not believe the consideration whether discriminatory premium pricing, etc. has an effect on theeffectiveness of RPMs crosses the Picket Fence since in the end the issue is not pricing as such, but discriminatory or predatory practices. Susan Payne:By specialised do you mean Geo? this is my point, we don't have that defined Susan Payne:and we don't need it - the language is fine without the highlighted bit Kathy Kleiman:Lori/Amr: where would we put the concerns that Maxim has now raised on audio and in chat Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Michael, RA is between Registry and ICANN, and if we create non enforceble policy - it will not be followed , due to the contractual language Mary Wong:Does "specialized" = just geoTLDs, or broader? Should we avoid the use of the word "specialized" but find a way to specify that a geoTLD is a type of TLD (and there may be others) that may warrant a different rule (per Susan's comment)? Amr Elsadr:@Kathy: Captured Maxim's note in the notes pod. Thanks. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Mary - it is Community, GEOs Jeff Neuman:I would say keep everything Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):mostly George Kirikos:I think it's better to just use the final ones. Jon Nevett:makes sense Lori -- let's move forward with the new questions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):for example community of pan owners, and to keed a domain you need to own a pan at all times ... Jeff Neuman:Either way, is it time to answer the questions :) Kathy Kleiman:@Amr, where might we capture them in the comments now in the document? Michael R. Graham:Use the final/updated questions for the discussion -- the Charter questions are clarified by these. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all, need to drop to be on time for my train . see you next time David McAuley:agree to using refined questions - believe the form of how we got here should be saved George Kirikos:This doc is that record. Kathy Kleiman:@Mary: I agree with Maxim - specialized gTLDs includes Community, Geos and perhaps others. Amr Elsadr:@Kathy: My understanding is that this is a consideration that needs to be taken into account, when answering the question, but will not result in refinement of the question itself. Is that right? Jeff Neuman:ok...what is the process to answer the questions :) Mary Wong:@Kathy, I'd asked upthread if Q12 can be rephrased to capture the concept of a specialized TLD without needing to use the word or create a definition, e.g. use community and geo TLDs as examples of gTLDs that may warrant a special/different rule. Philip Corwin:Agree that it is time to archive the original Charter questions and proceed with addressing the consolidated and clarfied versions. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):.mil and .gov looks to be special gTLDs too Kathy Kleiman:@Mary, I think the term "specialized gTLDs" in small letters opens the discussion. The word is important Brian Cimbolic:verified/validated is often how they're described among registries Brian Cimbolic:there's a verified TLD consortium - each containing eligibility requirements to register Kathy Kleiman:@Amr, I think we have now heard the issue of picket fence from many - in Jburg and now from Maxim. That would seem worthy of a comment in the appropriate questions to embody it... do you agree? Amr Elsadr:@Kathy: Will take an action item to put it in the document. Thanks. Jeff Neuman:The "Picket Fence" issue is not something we as a group can (or should) try to define Mary Wong:@Kathy, as it is a more general concern we can perhaps add a sentence in the opening introductory text as a reminder/scope comment. Jeff Neuman:The Picket Fence issue only addresses whether ICANN can force registries to accept the recommendations, but does not control whether we can make any recommendations. If we go down that path, we will never get to addressing the issues George Kirikos:Sorry, got disconnected by phone.....will call back. Kathy Kleiman:@Mary, that's pages away from the question. Jeff Neuman:Wholesale Pricing or Retail pricing? Kathy Kleiman:It's been discussed in the subteam that anecdotal data may include some of the stories published by reporters - with their investigations and evidence Mary Wong:For the Claims document, the yellow highlights are the suggested actual edits to the questions from Joburg, the turquoise comments are additional suggestions that provide context or that offer additional input. Susan Payne:Yes agree - it is meant to be both parts of the claims service Mary Wong:@Jon, it was captured for Q2 but we can add it to Q1 as well. Jon Nevett:Thanks Amr Jon Nevett:and Thanks Mary! Jon Nevett:it doesn't Greg Shatan:There's no definition or common meaning to "widely used". Griffin Barnett:"widely used" seems pretty vague to me Griffin Barnett:agree Greg - seems like it would be really problematic to try and define what that might mean Mary Wong:@George, @Michael - perhaps instead of wrangling over whether to say "dictionary" or "widely used" etc., the WG can just agree on a set of words/terms to be tested? Kathy Kleiman:how about Kathy Kleiman:"dictionary terms and other widely used terms" Jeff Neuman:what is the specific information we are trying to solicit here? J. Scott:HOw about stating something lke terms/acronyms that also have non-tradeamrk significance Jeff Neuman:That is more important than the label Susan Payne:what are we trying to do here? Kathy Kleiman:"dictionary terms and other widely used terms" Jeff Neuman:We should not be discussing trademark law here or the different levels of distinctiveness Griffin Barnett:+1 jeff Susan Payne:too right Jeff Susan Payne:Lowered hand as Greg is saying it Jeff Neuman:Before asking about "unintended consequences", what are the "intended consequences"? Lori Schulman:Agree that we need to focus on intentions first. George Kirikos:We're t ruin George Kirikos:We're trying to infer that, by having that more granular data. Mary Wong:@Kathy, we know - we are just wondering how to gather the granular data and from where. Who decides what is dictionary and what is distinctive for the purpose of collecting the data (assuming we know where to get it)? Greg Shatan:"Dictionary terms" is a class of words. -- agree we should not try to identify the class beforehand. Mary Wong:@George, we (ICANN) do not - that is my point :( Kathy Kleiman:@Mary, if we ask the question as phrased, registries will respond. They've already started, e.g., Bret Fausett at an early outreach session... Susan Payne:can you speak up george. Greg Shatan:We should just collect the data without trying to characterize it on the way in. Jeff Neuman:I think we need to take a step back and be honest with ourselves. We are not going to get data from supposed applicants (other than perhaps injustry insiders) on whether they dropped applications or now. We will not get that data from registrars, registries or the TMCH (as that is confidential customer data - assuming it was even collected). As far as newspaper stories, that is biased as well as they are seeking the controversial Greg Shatan:I'm also having trouble hearing George. Seems very quiet. Kathy Kleiman::-) Amr, I think the note is that -- Reporters and the articles would be a one source of data for 1b. George Kirikos:Sorry, am on a cordless today....waiting for courier deliveries. Lori Schulman:John Crittenden comes to mind. He is an excellent litigator that I am sure has handled these cases. He is in SFO area. Another idea would be contact Anne Lalonde. Jeff Neuman:The only way we can get data is in the future if we get registrars to survey consumers as to why they didnt go through (or did go through) with a registration Lori Schulman:Sorry. Please disregard chat. Greg Shatan:Whether they are a source of "valid" data is another question.... See Jeff Neuman's notes. George Kirikos:We already asked for too 500. But if we had the ratio for each one? David McAuley:I think Jeff is making a fair point about getting data that has not been formally gather heretofore Mary Wong:@Jeff, that is the staff concern as well - whether we can get adequate data at all, realistically. George Kirikos:top 500 Greg Shatan:I don't believe we can infer anything about WHY applications are dropped by collecting or analyzing data solely on WHICH strings were dropped. Lori Schulman:Agree with Jeff's points and Greg. Amr Elsadr:To Jeff's point, the WG could recommend that certain data be collected in the future to assist with future reviews. John McElwaine:+1 @Jeff Susan Payne:too right and we are spending far too much time talking about this Lori Schulman:Agree but much of what we need is based on individual experiences. How do we get around that? Susan Payne:speak up george please Greg Shatan:Agree with Jeff, the amount of "man bites dog" stories, blog posts, etc. on domain name matters is truly amazing. Jeff Neuman:@George - I disagree; That does not tell you anything Mary Wong:@George, ICANN cannot "force" registrars to do anything that is not part of the RAA (contractual commitment). Susan Payne:we've asked it alread Susan Payne:already Greg Shatan:Why do you assume that these are "people"? Jeff Neuman:@Kathy - I expected it based on the very high percentage of people not going through with registrations in .biz in 2001 George Kirikos:One can draw inferences, Jeff. Amr Elsadr:@George: To be clear, the AG was not able to confirm that the Claims service data downloaded did indeed represent attempted registrations, so their data, in its entirety, would still not be absolutely useful in this context. Jeff Neuman:Look at the Summit Strategies Report in 2004 or 2005 John McElwaine:Have we received the Analysis Group's answers to our questions yet? Kathy Kleiman:It was not in the scope o fthe Analysis Group work Jeff Neuman:Registrars did not collect the information as to why people proceeded or not Jeff Neuman:Registries dont have access to that information Jeff Neuman:I just think we need to be realistic here Mary Wong:@John, we are following up John McElwaine:@Mary Thanks! Greg Shatan:One can draw baseless and prejudicial inferences.... Drawing valid inferences is harder. Calling the first "inferences" is probably too kind.... 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 Susan Payne:thanks Mary Steve Levy:Bye all! Lori Schulman:Thank you JScott for good moderating George Kirikos:It's funny folks criticize the inferences that haven't even been made yet. Denise Michel:Thanks. Byes George Kirikos:Bye folks. khouloud Dawahi:bye Jeff Neuman:@George - people came in to this proces with inherent inferences

1 0

Updated Sunrise Registrations and Trademark Claims Sub Teams Documents + AC Room Chat Questions and Comments
by Amr Elsadr July 10, 2017

July 10, 2017

Hi, Please find attached documents from the two Sub Teams on Sunrise Registrations and Trademark Claims updated with further refinements to the Charter questions following WG members and community input. These documents contain two sets of updates each: * Updates from the WG call on 21 June prior to ICANN 59, as captured in action items posted here: https://community.icann.org/x/qlDwAw. These updates were already incorporated into the documents that were presented in Johannesburg, but are being recirculated in the original formatting developed by the two Sub Teams. These updates can be identified as track changes to the original text. * Updates from the WG face-to-face meeting on 29 June at ICANN 59 in Johannesburg. These are new updates, as per the action items captured and posted here: https://community.icann.org/x/qwffAw. These updates can be identified as track changes highlighted in yellow to distinguish them from the track changes resulting from the 21 June call. In addition to the two documents on Sunrise Registrations and Trademark Claims, a third document has been attached to this email. This document contains the list of questions and comments from the AC room chat, which were marked to be read out loud during the face-to-face meeting. Along with the recordings, transcripts and meeting documents, the full text of the AC room chat is posted on the face-to-face meeting wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/qwffAw. Thanks. Amr

1 0

Proposed Agenda for RPMs WG Call on Wednesday - 12 July at 16:00 UTC
by Amr Elsadr July 10, 2017

July 10, 2017

Dear Working Group Members, Below is the proposed agenda for this week’s WG call: 1. Roll call/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review suggestions and feedback from ICANN59 open community session, on refined questions and data collection for Sunrise and Claims 3. Confirm if further work is required from Sunrise and/or Claims Sub Teams 4. Next steps/next meeting Regarding agenda item #2, please find the notes captured by staff below. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/qwffAw To best prepare for the call, please review the documents, recordings and transcripts found on the wiki page linked to above, particularly for the last 45 minutes of the face-to-face meeting, in which a discussion took place on how to address the refined Charter questions, and how to consider the data required to answer them. Thanks. Amr Discussion on Sunrise Registrations Charter Questions: * Preamble: * Sunrise registrations for trademarks registered in the TMCH in scripts other than Latin are non-existent (examples: Arabic and Cyrillic) * How are trademarks in languages such as French, German and Spanish, that use accents being registered and protected in the TMCH? * ACTION ITEM: Suggestion to add bullet in preamble: Have abuses of the sunrise period been documented by registries and registrars? * Should trademarks registered in the TMCH only be allowed access to Sunrise registrations in the context of the sector in which they have relevance? * Data collection relevant to the preamble might be found in relation to other questions – missing data that is required should be identified by WG members * ACTION ITEM: Suggestion from AC chat: For consistency between the Sunrise Sub Team document and TM Claims Sub Team documents, perhaps ICANN staff could propose/highlight requisite standardization in use of terms such as 'registrants' vs 'applicants' * Question 2: * On the question of whether registry pricing is within the scope of the RPMs review or ICANN, suggestion to refer this to the GNSO Council (then possibly to ICANN Legal), and not have the WG pursue further – question likely to prompt different and conflicting responses, and potentially consume time and effort without resolution * WG may choose to note that pricing of Sunrise Registrations has had an impact on the ability of brand owners to take advantage of it as an RPM * A change in pricing of Sunrise Registrations is not a change in the actual RPM – might be a more appropriate question for the Subsequent Procedures PDP * Is limiting the prices of registry services within ICANN’s remit (within the picket fence)? * Question of pricing of Sunrise Registrations acting as a deterrent will not be useful on its own, but requires qualification (examples: was the pricing justified, was it abusive) * Question might be useful in that an answer may determine that a trademark owner should have an opportunity to challenge a premium name designation * Question 3: * There needs be a standard against which this question should be answered * Important to not mix considerations for premium names, and those for reserved names – reserve names have local implications, including applicable laws, which may affect registry operators * Question may need to address both premium names and reserve names, but do so separately, and against agreed upon standards * Remote suggestion for question: Should we also be asking whether the list of trademarks in the TMCH are being used in an abusive way to create premium name lists in some registries? * Remote suggestion for question: Is differential pricing between sunrise and open registrations impacting registrations? * Question 4: * Registry operators do notify trademark holders when a reserved name corresponding to a TMCH registration is released – is a common practice * Open and unrestricted TLDs need to be considered separately from geo or community TLDs * Some reserved names under geo TLDs are meant to support the public interest (examples: police, firefighters, metro, etc…) * Question should be rephrased to ask whether reserved or premium names unfairly limit participation in Sunrise, not effectively limit them * Question 5: * Question should ask about a 60-day Sunrise period, as that is the common practice – not 30 days * Question 8: * Question should be rephrased to not require a “yes” or “no” answer, or add “what aspects of the programs need to be reviewed?” * Question 9: * ACTION ITEM: Question to be reworded to provide more clarity on its purpose * Suggested rewording: Should the scope of Sunrise Registrations be limited to the categories of goods and services for which the trademark is actually registered and put in the Clearinghouse? * Question 12: * Question might ask whether Sunrise should have priority over other registrations under specialized TLDs, not whether Sunrise should be mandatory * Question should not prompt a “yes” or “no” answer, but should be more nuanced – should some registries have slightly different rules concerning how Sunrise works? * A lack of ability to transliterate local trademarks in the TMCH required that some geo TLDs invented special Sunrise/special limited periods for local trademark holders * For small businesses, the price of registration in the TMCH acted as a deterrent of use, and also in some cases, required special protection * Definitions (Premium Pricing) * ACTION ITEM: Standard pricing at general availability should be defined by the WG, possibly as a baseline to compare Premium Pricing to * Might also be worthwhile for the WG to distinguish between Premium Pricing at registration, and prices of renewal of registration, which may be different * Question - the definition for Premium Pricing seems slightly oddly worded - it is still defined as "second level domain names that ..." Shouldn't it more simply be "Higher prices charged for premium names"? Discussion on Trademark Claims Charter Questions: * Trademark Claims Notices consist of a notice to potential registrants (domain name applicants) who attempt to register an exact match to a TMCH entry during the Claims period, as well as a notice to the trademark holders once a registration of an exact match to a TMCH entry has been completed * Data gathering might include the text/content of the notice sent to trademark holders * Question 1: * There has been special interest in abandonment of domain name registrations as a result of a display of a Claims Notice * Important questions identified include the intent of a domain name applicant (whether there really is an intent to register a domain name), what process is involved, and at what stage in the registration process a registration is abandoned - what steps in the process are they facing and where are they dropping (before or after display of a Claims Notice)? * Have the AG considered other scenarios, such as software defects that may present as Claims Notices being triggered, and claims harvesting, where intent is only to get the Claims Notice, and not actually register the domain name? * Deterrent to registration during the Claims Notice period might also be attributable to registrars and resellers not participating in registration under gTLDs with running Claims Notification periods – registrar abandonment, as opposed to registrant abandonment * On last bullet in the data gathering column, the data should include number of domains that did not result in UDRP/URS cases relative to the total number of domains registered under any gTLD * UDRP and URS are not the only method of dealing with registered domain names that infringe on trademarks – this should be taken into consideration * Abandonment needs to be contextualized – there may be other reasons why domains are abandoned, which may be unrelated to a Trademarke Claims Notice * Charter questions 2 and beyond might be more useful if divided into two; one question asking about the notices sent to registrants, and another question about notices sent to trademark holders – these might have different considerations, and might result in different answers * Question 3: * Suggestion from AC chat: We could survey brand owners and/or registrants regarding cease and desist letters sent/received. Getting the entire universe of C&D letters would be hard, since there is no central repository and so many potential sources. * Question 4: * Considerations need to be made on the potential volume of Claims Notices being generated by non-exact matches, and what that volume will mean to registrars and trademark holders from a business workload perspective * Will non-exact matches that generate Claims Notices create additional costs (financial and technical)? Who will bear those costs? Will they be shifted to those involved in the domain name registration process? * Does generation of Claims Notices in response to non-exact matches create a new right for trademarks? * Suggested additional question by remote participant: Should the proof of use requirements for sunrise names be extended to all TMCH name, i.e. for the issuance of TMCH notices? The reason being, some jurisdictions allow trademarks for which there are no underlying goods and services to protect? * Suggestion from the AC Chat: Have a sub group look at “claims clarifications about semantics & historical data & spam rate and near 100% potential rate of claims” * Should Claims Notifications only be sent to registrants who complete domain name registrations, as opposed to those who are attempting to register domain names that are matches to entries in the TMCH?

1 0

Proposed Implementation of GNSO Consensus Policy Recommendations for the Protection of IGO&INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs
by George Kirikos July 10, 2017

July 10, 2017

FYI, ICANN published this last night: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-protection-2017-05-17-en and conceivably it might impact our work to some degree. For those concerned about having multiple databases of protected names (i.e. TMCH, GIs, etc.), there seems to be multiple lists here for claims notices for IGOs and INGOs, and it's not clear if those are simply being incorporated into the existing TMCH. More comments later, once I've had time to analyze it fully. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

3 3