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

Private Protections Sub Team - Sub Team Name and Members List
by Amr Elsadr June 10, 2017

June 10, 2017

Dear Working Group Members, During the last WG call on Thursday, 8 June, there was a request to circulate the current list of members signed-up for the Private Protections Sub Team. You will find the updated list of members posted here: https://community.icann.org/x/tcrRAw. If you would like to be added to this Sub Team, please contact Mary, myself or the GNSO Secretariat. Additionally, I’d like to remind everyone that there is still an open action item from the 31 May Working Group call to suggest/discuss, and agree on a different name for this Sub Team. Thanks, and have a good weekend. Amr

1 1

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Correction to UDRP data on 2-June TM Claims Sub-Team call
by Nahitchevansky, Georges June 9, 2017

June 9, 2017

‎George K Again you are trying to sweep a major problem under the rug. First, let me ask you this: Have you ever litigated in court and in particular litigated a case to a full resolution. If you have, the cost of litigating is huge. So, in your world, I register a domain name for $35 US and you then spend hundreds of thousand dollars pursuing me in court. Even if I default and don't oppose your court action, you will end up spending thousands of dollars in the matter. Oh, and by the way if you have to sue in me in certain jurisdictions, we might be litigating together for many years. The court system is certainly one tool to use to resolve these problems, but the UDRP and URS are way faster and more cost effective. Second, you keep talking about the harm as a hill of beans‎. If you spend any time reviewing the mounds of literature and studies done on cybersquatting, fraud, brand hijacking, counterfeiting, phishing etc perhaps you might realize that what you are arguing is not supportable. The harm is real, is growing and ultimately has an impact on consumers. Your attempt to say that because there are only x number of proceedings in relation to Y number of domain names registered shows this is not a problem is a red herring at best. My car example was meant to illustrate that. If there are hundreds of billions of car rides a year and the total number of accidents due to drunk driving or texting, for example, are less than 0.1% of all car rides, that doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Lastly, your parallel system of justice argument simply does not hold up. If you want to go down that road, then look at all the parallel systems that exist in various areas such as housing, health care, insurance, securities trading, wealth management, ‎trade disputes, car accidents etc. These systems all exist, for example, to deal with specific problems, to streamline processes and provide efficient resolution of specific matters, and to not clog up the courts with thousands upon thousands of additional cases. At this point, I think we have both staked out our positions, so for the sake of the group I do not think further communications on this are necessary. You have made your position clear. Let's just say that we agree to disagree and move on. Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 8:19 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Correction to UDRP data on 2-June TM Claims Sub-Team call Hello, On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn(a)kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote: > Unfortunately, I think you are going down the wrong rabbit hole and ignoring the big picture problem. The UDRP and URS are not the only aspects of this issue. They are tools that were created to help address problems of cyberquatting -- problems that include myriad ways that fraud, counterfeiting, brand hijacking and other harms have been perpetrated on consumers and brand owners. Yes, I'm certainly aware that there are other ways to deal with the alleged problem. Fraud, counterfeiting, brand hijacking and other harms also exist in the offline world, and in the online world that don't involve domain names. Somehow, the world hasn't stopped spinning despite the lack of a special "RPM" that parallels the courts for those matters. Explain to me what is so special about domain names that a parallel justice system has arisen for what is at best a "de minimis" problem. Courts are certainly sufficient. > If I registered GeorgeKirikos.xyz and used the domain name to attempt to steal ‎personal information from consumers or sell them junky products, you might have a different view of the issue. No, not at all. There are courts to handle such situations. > The problem here is far greater than what you try to portray. Every day there are probably thousands of demand letters sent out around the world to try to address these problems‎, there are thousands of hours spent investigating and addressing these matters etc. The costs, needless to say, are staggering and substantially more than the small registration fee that many cybersquatters pay to get a domain name for the various schemes that we now have seen for over 20 years. Yet, out of all these alleged cases, only a tiny, tiny fraction amount to more than a hill of beans, and are worth pursuing even using a relatively low cost procedure such as the UDRP. There are many, many personal and contractual disputes between individuals, companies, etc. (unrelated to domain names). By your reasoning "the problem" between those members of society are "far greater" than what appear in the court system. The costs of uploading a copyright infringing song or video are also quite low, in fact less than the cost of a domain name. The cost of sending out a defamatory email, tweet or Facebook post is essentially zero. Yet, there's no parallel system of justice in those cases, and instead bad guys are brought to court in the most egregious cases. > To put things in perspective, there are hundreds of millions of cars in the world and everyday millions if not billions or car rides are taken around the world. The percentage of accidents are relatively small by comparison, and the number of car accident matters that end up in court is even a much much smaller number. The point is that we don't sit around and say their shouldn't be laws that govern driving and/or to use to resolve car accidents, that there shouldn't be arbitration or court regimes for resolving car accidents etc or that we shouldn't have commissions rethinking or discussing the laws or ways to handle car accident matters. We have laws and procedures for handling these issue. The rights protection mechanisms are in the same fashion regimes put in place to help address ongoing problems -- real problems that exist and which by every legitimate study (FBI, Interpol and others) I have seen are growing in scope. You seem to be arguing my position. I'm arguing that courts and laws are sufficient. Why is a non-profit corporation trying to reinvent the global judicial system? In the 1990s, an immature internet organization was pressured into developing a parallel justice system. 20 years later, the internet is far more mature, and has been incorporated into everyday life. No "special" forums are needed for "internet disputes". There's no need for the adjective "internet" -- they're just disputes, everyday disputes that can be handled by the "everyday" law. It's time to re-think mistakes of the past. If I smash into your car, you can't foist a parallel justice system upon me. And there are far more car accidents than there are domain name disputes. > So, in closing, while I understand that you may have hostility to the notion of RPMs, I would ask that you try to focus on the big picture here of the overall harm that has and is occurring and how best to address it. And I would ask you to also keep an open mind, and think deeply about why this parallel system of justice exists, and who exactly it is serving. In many ways, it's a small "cottage industry", that serves a tiny percentage of vocal groups that have a selfish stake in perpetuating it. When one looks at the big picture, the world could certainly adjust if it disappeared. 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.

4 5

TMCH data on abandonment
by Beckham, Brian June 9, 2017

June 9, 2017

Dear all, I'm not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the sub-group, of which I am not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it is offered merely to help fill out some of the questions/discussion around seeking various TMCH/Claims-related data. In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02 June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates. In summary: Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful to compare non-TMCH-related abandonment vs "regular" abandonment. Jeff Neuman recalled that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment. Phil Corwin suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may be reasonable to conclude that there's not a material difference between those subject to claims notices. Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired data (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that "An average website loses 69 percent<https://baymard.com/lists/cart-abandonment-rate> of sales to abandoned carts." A second GoDaddy article suggests it is 67%. See https://www.godaddy.com/garage/smallbusiness/market/effective-strategies-to… and https://www.godaddy.com/garage/industry/retail/ecommerce/want-to-to-increas…. There are many articles on this topic with varying figures, but they tended to generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%. The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here in the WG, while different/higher, are arguably not materially different than e-commerce statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by Phil Corwin as signaling "a significant difference in the completion of registration."). It is important here to recall too that many members of the WG have noted that (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars, and registrants may have been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing the data upwards. 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/>

10 20

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017
by Phil Corwin June 9, 2017

June 9, 2017

Jon: I can’t speak for the other two co-chairs, but so far the task of our subteams has been largely confined to refining and filling gaps in the draft questions, and identifying the data needed to provide answers and the feasibility of finding such data. I would think that would be the same for the subteam doing scout work on these non-mandated, market-supplied RPMs. I guess we may have some further discussion of what we are seeking this subteam to do during Wednesday’s call, but once we hand it off to them the subteam members will get into the details and decide how to proceed. I welcome further thoughts from the other co-chairs, or from any WG members. Best, Philip From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@donuts.co] Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2017 1:36 PM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Jon Nevett; Scott Austin; Susan Payne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan; icannlists; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017 Thanks Phil. I'd like the co-chairs agreement that the sub-group's charge is limited to such information gathering. Otherwise, we do have an issue for the full committee and I would object to the sub-group starting work without knowing the scope of its work. Best, Jon On Jun 4, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: Thanks for your feedback, Jon, and for your proposed edit of the draft Subteam questions. I appreciate your agreement “that information about additional protections voluntarily offered by some registries in the marketplace may be helpful to the WG in evaluating the actual RPMs that we are chartered to review”, as that is consistent with the Co-Chairs’ view that we have to understand the full scope of and interplay between available RPMs – ICANN-mandated plus additional services provided by the TMCH and registries – to comprehend the entire ecosystem and make informed decisions going forward. On Friday’s Co-chair call we reached general agreement that further development of the draft questions prepared by us should fall to the Subteam charged with reviewing and refining them and then sending them back to the full WG for additional work. Hopefully the subteam members will reach consensus on the scope of our inquiry and their consistency with our Charter. As the discussion on Wednesday’s call of this subject should be largely confined to our decision to delegate further refinement you shouldn’t miss much and in any event will be able to review the mp3 and transcript. I believe that you have volunteered to be a subteam member so you can are assured that your views will be fully considered as it engages. Best regards, Philip From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@donuts.email] Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 6:26 PM To: Scott Austin Cc: Susan Payne; Phil Corwin; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan; icannlists; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017 WG Members: I would like to remind folks that our Phase 1 charter defines the RPMs for us to review as the URS; the TMCH and as used in Sunrise and Trademark Claims; and the PDDRP. We are not chartered to evaluate Commercial Online Protection Services; Non-Mandated RPMs; Registry Specific RPMs; Voluntary Registry Protections; Voluntary Registry Mechanisms; Voluntary Registry RPMs; or even Private RPMs. With that said, I have long agreed that information about additional protections voluntarily offered by some registries in the marketplace may be helpful to the WG in evaluating the actual RPMs that we are chartered to review. With that context in mind, I offer the suggested changes to the proposed draft questions in the attached. I deleted certain references/questions about how/whether ICANN approves such additional private protections; whether they are consistent with policy decisions; commentary on an RPM that wasn't approved and how it may relate to some additional protections currently offered. Some of those questions and commentary are superfluous and irrelevant to our task at hand and would just lead us down a proverbial rabbit hole. What I hope we want from the sub-group is information about additional protections in the marketplace to help inform our task of reviewing actual RPMs and not an attempt at an extra-charter review of individual registries services. I am supportive of the former and happy to provide information as such, but am definitely opposed to the latter. Unfortunately, I am taking a red-eye flight on Wednesday and will not be available for our next call. I would appreciate this issue being kicked to the following call if there is any need for discussion of the group. Much appreciated. Best, Jon

13 27

Action Items from the GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 8 June 2017
by Amr Elsadr June 9, 2017

June 9, 2017

Dear Working Group Members, Below are the action items from this morning Working Group call. The action items, notes, documents/materials, recordings and transcripts will be posted on the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/XjfwAw, when they are available. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Working Group Co-Chairs to review the draft poll questions regarding the open TMCH questions on Design Marks and Geographic Indications, before they are circulated to the full WG mailing list for responses. 2. Staff to send original draft questions on private protections to the Sub Team, along with edited version (edited by Jon Nevett and Susan Payne) 3. Private Protections Sub Team to determine adopting, rejecting or rewriting questions as it deems appropriate, and provide recommendations to the full Working Group for its consideration 4. Staff to send a reminder to the WG mailing list indicating that membership in the Private Protections Sub Team is still open 5. Staff to compile any comments made on the Working Group mailing list regarding the Co-Chairs' questions on private protections, and send them to the Sub Team for its consideration 6. Staff to recirculate previous questions sent to, and answered by Deloitte to the Working Group mailing list 7. Trademark Claims Sub Team to synthesize the three proposals (by Greg Shatan, Michael Graham and Brian Winterfeldt) into an appropriate Charter question(s), and suggest (if appropriate) what data might be needed to be collected

5 6

Correction to UDRP data on 2-June TM Claims Sub-Team call
by Beckham, Brian June 9, 2017

June 9, 2017

WG members: A reference was made to UDRP cases involving new gTLDs, specifically that half of WIPO's cases last year involved new gTLDs. While such cases did comprise an increased case load share vs 2015 and 2014, it was in fact closer to 16%, see e.g., www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2017/article_0003.html<http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2017/article_0003.html>. (It could be that I said "15" at INTA, and it was heard as "50".) In any event, as to whether these are exact matches, merely anecdotally, while the vast majority of UDRP cases involving new gTLDs do appear to be exact matches (and in greater proportions than in non-new gTLD cases), this seems to be shifting slightly over time to increasingly include mark+term variations (and some "spanning the dot" cases). Also, even for UDRP cases involving new gTLDs, very few invoke mention of the TMCH or Claims Notices. Thanks for noting, and have a nice weekend. 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/>

4 8

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment
by Paul Keating June 9, 2017

June 9, 2017

Hi Brian, Sorry I don¹t buy that one. 1. The significance of the abandonment rates is the relative percentage INCREASE of abandonments. For example, a rise from 20-40% is only 20 points. However, it represents a 100% increase obviously a significant event. 2. More importantly, in the case of cart abandonment, it is material to consider why the customer abandoned the transaction and WHEN during the purchase process it is all about attempting to decree the client¹s intent. In relation to the TMCH notification, the customer has clearly evidenced his/her intent to purchase but THEREAFTER abandons the transaction. It is safe to say that the notice was THE reason for the abandonment. 3. GoDaddy and certainly most other serious registrars must measure the place along the transaction line where abandonment occurs. They certainly want to track this data so as to improve and correct any issues with the purchase routine. So, instead of guessing (and what appears to me to issue an expression of bias in favor of ³no harm so no foul lets not change the TMCH²) lets ask those who may actually know the numbers and then use the actual evidence to support a given position. Paul Keating From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Beckham, Brian" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int> Date: Friday, June 9, 2017 at 10:56 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment > Dear all, > > I¹m not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the sub-group, of which I am > not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it is offered merely to > help fill out some of the questions/discussion around seeking various > TMCH/Claims-related data. > > In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02 > June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates. In > summary: Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful to compare > non-TMCH-related abandonment vs ³regular² abandonment. Jeff Neuman recalled > that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment. Phil Corwin > suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may be > reasonable to conclude that there¹s not a material difference between those > subject to claims notices. > > Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired data > (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were raised on > the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that ³An average website loses 69 > percent <https://baymard.com/lists/cart-abandonment-rate> of sales to > abandoned carts.² A second GoDaddy article suggests it is 67%. > > See > https://www.godaddy.com/garage/smallbusiness/market/effective-strategies-to… > ost-abandoned-cart-email-conversion-rates/ and > https://www.godaddy.com/garage/industry/retail/ecommerce/want-to-to-increas… > ales-reduce-shopping-cart-abandonment/. > > There are many articles on this topic with varying figures, but they tended to > generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%. > > The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here in the WG, while > different/higher, are arguably not materially different than e-commerce > statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by Phil Corwin as signaling > ³a significant difference in the completion of registration.²). > > It is important here to recall too that many members of the WG have noted that > (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars, and registrants may have > been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing the data upwards. > > 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/> > > _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

2 2

Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group
by Nathalie Peregrine June 8, 2017

June 8, 2017

Dear all, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Thursday, 08 June 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/XjfwAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-08jun17-en.mp3<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailer.samanage.com_wf_…> Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p3qcejpbyam/<https://participate.icann.org/p3qcejpbyam/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=1d0b66cd3929354d…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: 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/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Adobe Connect chat transcript for 08 June 2017: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Thursday, 08 June 2017 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minute duration Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… George Kirikos:Hello. Michael Flemming:Is audio working? George Kirikos:These 11 pm Eastern time calls conflict with the ending of Fargo. :-( I've set my PVR, though. George Kirikos:It is on the telephone bridge, Michael. George Kirikos:(I have the PC muted) Michael Flemming:Wonderful. Michael Flemming:I can hear now. Michael Flemming:Thank you. Philip Corwin:Hello all from tonight's Chair. Nothing I'd rather be doing at 11 pm ;-) Steve Levy:Hi all and kudos for joining the call at this odd hour (for most of us, anyway) Jonathan Agmon:It is 11am here... Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello all, 6am Brian Cimbolic:glad you asked that Phil Michael Flemming:There should be two of us. Petter Rindforth:It is in fact a very very early morning here in Sweden ;-) Michael Flemming:I believe he is in Singapore. Amr Elsadr:I believe Justine is in the APAC region as well. Jeff Neuman:I think there are 3 Brian Cimbolic:hasn't seemed like we've gotten any increased participation in these shifted slots Jeff Neuman:Justine, Michael and Jonathan Justine Chew:yes, hi, I'm in Apache region Justine Chew:apac I mean Jeff Neuman:We had an interesting discussion last week, but not sure where we left off Jeff Neuman:The leadership was going to discuss with Lori and figure out what the next steps were Jeff Neuman:We are not sure which draft we are working from Jeff Neuman:Is this the ocument from Kathy or the one before that Mary Wong:There have been (as Amr noted) some suggested edits to the Google Doc that are not shown here as they haven't been discussed by the Sunrise Sub Team Mary Wong:@Jeff, the one before Jeff Neuman:Thanks Mary Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it was an issue with multiple files and versions and during the last sunrise call (hypothetically staff should track progress, but something went wrong) George Kirikos:It seems that The Analysis Group isn't being very cooperative in handing over data they already have..... J. Scott Evans:I just joined J. Scott Evans:Due to my cough, I am on mute George Kirikos:(the 2 requests I made should have been completed long ago, as the data is easy to provide) J. Scott Evans:thanks, phil Mary Wong:@George, we will pass your comments on to our colleagues who have been dealing with the Analysis Group. We (Amr and I) are not in a position to know what the Analysis Group has in terms of data or in what form. J. Scott Evans:I reviewed one earlier this week. George Kirikos:@Mary: one can infer what data they have, by what they already produced in their report. J. Scott Evans:I think a week is a reasonable amount of time. Amr Elsadr:Thanks Phil. Will resend the link for the draft poll to the co-chairs. Mary Wong:@George, what data should the group collect on design marks and GIs? There haven't been any suggestions on those if I recall correctly. Mary Wong:(Those being the two topics of the poll as the 2 open TMCH questions) Jeff Neuman:@george - What are the other options Jeff Neuman:if we dont do a poll Mary Wong:The current draft version of the poll allows for free form text. Georges Nahitchevansky:I disagree with George K on this. What specific data are you referring to. We have discussed design marks and GIs ad nauseum. It's time to take a vote on these issues. George Kirikos:I'd be against anonymity, to be clear. George Kirikos:Good, Amr. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):but with anonymity will not allow to identify whom to ask for clarifications Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):*it Jonathan Agmon:Having technical issues, apologies if I disappear Terri Agnew:@Jonathan, please let us know if a dial out on the telephone would be helpful Amr Elsadr:Also noteworthy is that this poll is not meant to be interpreted as a formal consensus call on any WG recommendations. It's really only a snapshot of where WG members stand today. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):also it helps to identify own answers out of a hundred George Kirikos:+1 Kathy Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):*adding names Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 Kathy George Kirikos:Audio died? George Kirikos:Maybe type the question/statement? George Kirikos:(if your typing speed is good) Terri Agnew:@Jonathan, we are no longer able to hear you Scott R. Austin:+1 Greg Greg Shatan:If I'm not mistaken, the RDS group only uses names when comments are being cited. In any case, it is not being used to attempt to substantiate accusations of "capture." Kathy:Staff... Mary Wong:The poll questions try to synthesize in various statements/questions the state of the WG dsicussions to date on the various proposals. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Greg, but it allowes group to ask for clarifications to better understand , what was meant by a particular use of "other" field J. Scott Evans:on the call that I chaired, it was determined that we would not consider the issues of the inclusion of GIs as a broader issue. J. Scott Evans:We advised the proponents of that proposal that they could petition the GNSO counsel to institute a separate working group to consider that issue. J. Scott Evans:that is our plan, phil, yes. Georges Nahitchevansky:That is correct J Scott, but it appears that the proponents are trying to raise the issue again. We really need to get to closure before the next millenium is upon us Greg Shatan:@Maxim if it's used for that limited purpose, that doesn't raise the same issues. Greg Shatan:"Non-Mandatory Protections"? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):"Additional protections" sounds better, I think Brian Cimbolic:I still like Registry-specific RPMs Amr Elsadr:Note that there is an open action item for suggestions to rename the Sub Team. Brian Cimbolic:Thanks @Amr - you're right, no reason to try to solve here Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and Registry-specific RPMs is more informational jonathan agmon:apology for these technical issues Terri Agnew:Jonathan is now on the telephone as well Mary Wong:First meeting can be scheduled next week if it's agreed to hand off Kathy:@Mary, could we see the original document? Mary Wong:18 members Kathy:21 is a good subset of our WG Mary Wong:What's on screen now is the version with Jon's and Susan's edits. As Kathy has requested, we can also show the original version. Greg Shatan:I support Jon and Susan's edits as well. George Kirikos:So, a .food TLD could have a GI sunrise, for example, and GIs might not be in the TMCH.... J. Scott Evans:agreed. J. Scott Evans:let Georges Nahitchevansky:I support the edits J. Scott Evans:let's send our original questions and the edited document and let them sort it out. Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):For folks who volunteered for this sub team, should we have recieved a confirmation email yet, or is that forthcoming? Mary Wong:@Phil M, we haven't set up a call or scheduled anything, pending the outcome of today's discussions. Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Thanks Mary. Greg Shatan:Agree with J Scott. Agreement by exhaustion (literally and figuratively). J. Scott Evans:that is my thought. i agree brian Kathy:+1 Kathy:Let's send that statement of concern to the subteam as well. Rebecca Tushnet:+1 Kathy Mary Wong:@Kathy, all - can you clarify what statement of concern you mean? Greg Shatan:Let's send all the comments pro and con, if we're going to do that. Steve Levy:As a member of the sub-team, I support Phil's proposal Mary Wong:No he hasn't J. Scott Evans:I support sending as much as possible. Brian Cimbolic:Absolutely - all comments, pro and con - should be provided. It would be ideal if Jeremy could actually mark up the draft that is circulated, however Brian Cimbolic:so we're not working with different peices of the same puzzle Greg Shatan:I have responded to Jeremy's "Statement of Concern." Michael Flemming:How about we just send them the entire email thread? Mary Wong:Maybe next Friday, to take the Claims Sub Team slot (assuming that group can complete their task this week)? Mary Wong:@Michael, that was the staff thought as well. Greg Shatan:on the list. Perhaps those who suggested sending Jeremy's statement merely missed my response.... J. Scott Evans:agreee Justine Chew:agree with Phil's approach Kathy:Agreed - the whole thread! Greg Shatan:The more the merrier.... George Kirikos:Perhaps instead of calling it a "poll", it might instead be termed a "Survey". Mary Wong:@Phil, correct Mary Wong:If I recall correctly, that question is phrased as a summary of the preliminary decision, and asks respondents if they agree, disagree, or don't feel strongly either way. Mary Wong:Together with a free form text comment box. Brian Cimbolic:+1 Phil. Goes to my prior comment that each indivual Registry-Specifc RPM should be presumed to be its own animal. Kathy:Copenhagen meeting J. Scott Evans:Again, we have closed off the issue of whether GIs should be included. What is being considered is if GI's that are ALSO registered trademarks. J. Scott Evans:The statements are conclusory and give the group a choice to support or not support. Kathy:There are GIs registered in the TMCH database - according to Deloitte. But they are unlikely to share exactly which ones. J. Scott Evans:Deloitte has already said they have registered GIs. We have that affirmed by the Deloitte. George Kirikos:If we look at the .AFRICA sunrise regs, there doesn't seem to be any GIs that were registered, see: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.thedomains.com_201… George Kirikos:(930 sunrise registration sample) Greg Shatan:I think we know that there are some GIs that came in under the statute or treaty. Mary Wong:Deloitte has also said it does not check which are GIs as that was not the criteria. George Kirikos:Although, perhaps they just decided not to utilize the sunrise for .africa. Michael Flemming:I don't think they will provide those 75 records if they won't make the whole list public. Just because it is a small number, that won't disclose the confidentiality of those marks. Greg Shatan:The overlap between Africa and GIs is probably relatively small "in the wild." Kathy:@Mary: I believe what Deloitte said in Copenhagen that it does not check which GIs are registered trademarks. George Kirikos:@Greg: but, it need not be a GI located in Africa. A European GI might want to snag the relevant .africa, just like they might want it in any other TLD. Mary Wong:@Kathy, I had thought they said they do not check whether the marks submitted under the "protected by statute or treaty" category are, or are not, GIs. Jeff Neuman:I believe the response was a combination of GIs and marks protected by statute Jeff Neuman:and they would not separate them out Jeff Neuman:as there was no way in their system to do that Mary Wong:@Jeff, yes Greg Shatan:With apologies I did not have time to update this proposal before the call.... George Kirikos:They did propose both, I believe. Kathy:@Mary: has the document being shown now been updated for the TM Match proposed Amendments by Greg and Brian, in addition to Michael G? Amr Elsadr:@Kathy: No, and apologies. We'll upload an updated version momentarily. Kathy:Great, tx Amr! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I think then the word sunrise should go from the text (initial one contained "sunrise and/or claims") Greg Shatan:Will edit, Maxim, Rebecca Tushnet:The subteam has a placeholder question: how would its answers be affected by the proposed changes? Justine Chew:yes, agreeing Rebecca's comment Justine Chew:I think these please answer is "no" Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Greg, thanks Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):What happens with TMCH entries of single letters and two letters - are they going to cause almost 100% claims generation? Justine Chew:sorry handcuffed by mobile autocorrect Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Do we expect chilling effect of the whole industry due to frightened potential registrants? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):laso - combined all 11 rules will make too much wildcards ... paris would be "almost equal" to bottle George Kirikos:Indeed, Brian. George Kirikos:It adds huge friction to the registration process for good faith registrants. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and the same would cause rise in prices for most Registries with low prices (.25USD per claim from ICANN Accounting) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and we need to understand = how many claims will the single registrant recieve ... imagine few notes from different marks Brian Cimbolic:hadn't thought of that scenario, Maxim. Good point. If all of Gregs/Michaels/Brian's proposals were adopted, any sort of dictionary word, or really combination of dictionary words would be likely to receive multiple notices Lillian Fosteris:With regards to Brian's point and going back to the discussion on the language of the TMCH Claims notices (a few months back) and the effectiveness/consequences of the wording, there would likely need to be a numer of different Claims notices going out...likely causing more confusion. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I have a suggestion : we need to recommend a pilot project before the implementation if any George Kirikos:@Brian: yes, I pointed that out in my response to Greg's proposal on the mailing list, and on previous calls. Greg Shatan:I think the magnitude of the objection is based on a series of faulty assumptions. Mary Wong:@Phil, are we asking the TM Claims Sub Team to take the three proposals/suggestions, and synthesize them into an appropriate Charter question on Claims? George Kirikos:Imagine if the USPTO had an equivalent notice/claims process for every applied for mark, where a warning was generated for the TM applicant, and notices sent out for every other mark holder, using these kinds of matches.... Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Greg, the suggestion looks like set of semantic rules. We do need rules of combination of these rules. without it we face too much ways to interpret it Kathy:@Mary: The proposals may fall into the general questions of the TM Claims. Kathy:... as refined by the subteam. Steve Levy:I'd like to support something that Rebecca said. I send out many demand letters and file many UDRP complaints. A common refrain I hear from registrants is "but I didn't know it was illegal to register this domain name." jonathan agmon:I think Greg's rules are important and would not be difficult to implement Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):non exact is not a match actually, I think it looks like "degree of similarity " Rebecca Tushnet:Calculating those on the fly is not going to be particularly easy. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Jonathan , such set of rules is a set of wildcards, and it is not easy to implement without strict rules of combination George Kirikos:For any short marks (under 7 characters), there would be a huge number of collisions. jonathan agmon:@Maxim, perhaps this requires some technical advice, but in general these rules are important to provide notices that make sense. Greg Shatan:Count me in the subteam, please. jonathan agmon:I'd be happy to join the subteam too George Kirikos:Take a look at the marks registered in .AFRICA for sunrise: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.thedomains.com_201… and try employing some of the rules Greg stated, and you'll see. Mary Wong:Hi Greg and Jonathan - which Sub Team, please? Greg Shatan:Claims jonathan agmon:Claims Mary Wong:OK Mary Wong:And thanks :) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 George George Kirikos:A large number of those .AFRICA sunrise registrations were short domains too, the exact kinds of marks that generate more collisions when you start using those rules to generate variations. Greg Shatan:I can revise my proposal in light of the various comments on the list. jonathan agmon:@George, the issue of short domain names is correct and should be reviewed. If it doesnt make sense, some limitations can be applied. Greg Shatan:George, that's a good question that you have framed in the form of a conclusion. Mary Wong:It was sent out a short while ago George Kirikos:@Greg: based on my experience, it's a solid conclusion. Mary Wong:April 2018 Amr Elsadr:URS review is scheduled to commence following ICANN 60. Greg Shatan:Show your work, please, George. Mary Wong:April 2018 to publish initial Phase One report George Kirikos:@Greg: sure, if I'm paid accordingly. :-) Mary Wong:(Sorry I can't speak, am in a noisy place) jonathan agmon:+1 Greg Mary Wong:40 days Mary Wong:ICANN rule for public comment Greg Shatan:You're paid the same as the rest of us. Zilch. Kathy:40 days is a biblical period Kathy::-) jonathan agmon:I was confused there for a moment... Mary Wong:Note that the WG can also elect to have a longer public comment period George Kirikos:Right, Greg. But, if's obvious (as I pointed out in my email to the list) that if you generate all the variations you specified for marks under 7 characters, that there will be a huge number of collisions. George Kirikos:I shouldn't be forced to spend hundreds of hours to generate all those variations. jonathan agmon:@George, I can recommend a small DSP... George Kirikos:I pointed out in the email the math on those variations, and the combinatorial explosion it generates. Kathy:ICANN61 10-15 March 2018 Greg Shatan:No, not obvious that there will actually be collisions. The math is based on faulty assumptions. Steve Levy:Sorry folks but I've got to drop off the call. Speak with you again soon Mary Wong:The WG can do a F2F and a community session - we will need to request it jonathan agmon:What are collisions? George Kirikos:@Greg: generate the combos for 3 letter marks like IBM, and you'll see. Greg Shatan:The question is how many collisions would actually occur. Many if not most theoretical cases will never occur. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Greg, the set of suggestion needs to be transformed into implementale set of rules and it can be ran agains the historical data Kathy:Another birthday with Phil! George Kirikos:@Greg: every single 4 letter .com is registered. Perhaps you don't know that. Greg Shatan:@Maxim, that sound like a helpful suggestion. Kathy:Will people have started their travels? Greg Shatan:George, I did know that, but thanks for assuming my ignorance. Brian Cimbolic:will anyone have started travelling? Brian Cimbolic:Speaking for myself, don't leave until Friday Amr Elsadr:There are a few meetings prior to day 1 on Monday. Petter Rindforth:More practical to have it in Johannsburg rather than the week before Amr Elsadr:As Phil just noted. :-) Greg Shatan:I am leaving Friday morning. George Kirikos:@Greg: that demonstrates that due to the high density of registrations of short domains, *any* rules that generate variations of those short marks that are also short will collide. Greg Shatan:Check with Heather Forrest..... Brian Cimbolic:We have a lot of work to do, and it's not a meeting instead of the F2F. I think we should keep it Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):also we might face load issues (combinatorics will give a lot of operations per registration) causing rise in prices for TMCH (more CPUs and Memory) Mary Wong:We're only asking because typically we don't do WG meetings the week before an ICANN meeting. Greg Shatan:How's that penetration going in the new gTLDs George? Terri Agnew:Next call: Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minute duration. Greg Shatan:I think anyone. who is "spinning the wheel" on IBM+ registrations is going to ignore any notice they get.... George Kirikos:@Greg: you have to look at the increased coverage that it causes. George Kirikos:Whether folks actually attempt the registration, it's up to the market. Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all jonathan agmon:Thanks! Brian Cimbolic:thanks all Marina Lewis:thanks - bye all

1 0

Agenda for upcoming RPM Working Group call on 8 June
by Mary Wong June 7, 2017

June 7, 2017

Dear all, The proposed agenda for the next Working Group call, scheduled for 0300 UTC on Thursday 8 June (for members in the Americas, that will be Wednesday evening/night), is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect/phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Status updates from chairs of the Sunrise & TM Claims Sub Teams * This meeting will be the last call for your comments on the proposed TM Claims questions (circulated earlier this week, recirculated yesterday, and posted to the Working Group wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/EQbwAw) * [if available] Working Group to discuss data collection report from TM Claims Sub Team 1. Agree on next steps for open TMCH questions on design marks and GIs * Co-Chairs to describe suggested poll on these issues, and propose deadline for closing the poll 1. Discuss Working Group members’ feedback on proposed Private Protections questions * The questions will be referred to the Sub Team for refining and to develop suggestions on data collection * This meeting will be the last call for your comments on the draft questions before they are referred to the Sub Team (circulated earlier this week, recirculated yesterday, and posted to the wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/EQbwAw) 1. Discuss next steps on Exact Match proposal(s) (i.e. proposals/ideas received from Michael Graham, Greg Shatan, Brian Winterfeldt) 2. Discuss draft updated Work Plan (to be circulated by staff prior to the call) 3. Poll members on whether to have a call on 21 June 2017 Thanks and cheers Mary

1 1

Responses to previous follow up questions by the Analysis Group
by Mary Wong June 6, 2017

June 6, 2017

Dear all, As noted in my previous email, please find below the responses from the Analysis Group to those questions that were raised by a few Working Group members (identified in parenthesis in the applicable questions) on the call that we did with the Analysis Group some weeks ago. Some of these responses have been shared with the Trademark Claims Sub Team as part of their mandate to identify additional data collection that may be needed. Follow Up Questions from the Working Group Call with the Analysis Group: 1. On page 9 of the Revised Report, it says the median TMs registered in the TMCH was 1. Can we get more detail in buckets? (e.g. # that registered 2-5, 6-10, 11-50, 51-100, etc.) (George Kirikos) * We would be happy to provide this information, subject to a new/amended revised SOW with ICANN as this will entail some additional analysis. 2. On page 9 of the Revised Report, the top 10 most popular strings (e.g. SMART, FOREX, HOTEL, etc) were listed. Can we get the top 500? (George Kirikos) * Yes, we can provide this information under the new/amended revised SOW as this will entail a small amount of additional work. 3. The Revised Report indicates in several areas that conclusions could not be reached because various parties failed to respond to requests from Analysis Group for additional data. It would be great to receive additional context from Analysis Group on the specific requests it made, to whom, and any reasons given for failure to respond or provide the requested data. (question from Phil Marano) i. Registration attempt and abandonment rates outside the Claims Service Period * Our data request was sent to a sample of registrars that offer registrations in the most popular new TLDs. * We requested data on all new gTLD domain registration attempts: the attempted domain name (e.g., Domain.newTLD), the date of the registration attempt, and indication for whether a Claims Service notification was sent, and an indication of whether the registration was completed. * We received data from one registrar. ii. Commercial Watch Services and Global Blocking Programs data * To understand how these services interact with TMCH services, we would want to see which trademark holders are enrolled in commercial services, what services they use, how much they pay, and how this seems to affect their use of TMCH services (e.g., does it reduce their probability of making Sunrise registrations?). * We did not request this information from commercial watch services or registries offering global blocking programs. iii. Sunrise registration price data * Our data request was sent to a sample of registries who had shared general availability and (in some cases) Sunrise pricing data with us for AG's New gTLD reports. * We requested data on Sunrise and general availability registration pricing. * We did not receive enough responses to generate a meaningful sample of pricing data to conduct a comparison of Sunrise prices and general availability prices. 4. If the registration application was abandoned, Analysis Group could not see the DOMAIN applied for, so there's no way of tracing duplicate pings, etc.? (question from Michael Graham) * That is correct. If no registration was made, it is possible that multiple abandoned attempts were made to register the same domain. 5. Do we know if a user who got a Claims Notice and abandoned their attempt to register then subsequently decided later to go back and register the domain despite the Claims Notice? (question from Kristine Dorrain) * We cannot trace potential registrants in the data (for example, we do not have ISP addresses), so we're not able to identify return applicants. 6. Are there data on abandonment of registrations where there is no Claims Notice (e.g. legacy TLDs)? Do we have any data on abandonment during the same periods for those starting the registration process but not receiving a Claims Notice? (question from Griffin Barnett) * Data on abandonment outside of the Claims Period would be ideal (as listed above in the response to question #3), however we were not able to collect this data. We requested registration attempt and abandonment data from registrars, however, we only received data from one registrar. We do not have information on registration activity for legacy TLDs, but legacy TLD registration activity may not be a good comparable for registration activity in new gTLDs, since domains in legacy TLDs may have a different value to registrants than new gTLD domains. Legacy TLDs were also available at a different time than new gTLDs, and it is possible that registrant behavior has changed over time. Thanks and cheers Mary

2 1