Dear all, In advance of the Working Group call this week, and pending circulation of the finalized agenda, please find attached the following documents for your review and further discussions: (1) A draft statement from our Working Group co-chairs regarding the provision of additional rights protection mechanisms by the TMCH and registry operators (i.e. in addition to the minimum mandatory RPMs prescribed by ICANN and which form the basis of our current Policy Development Process); and (2) A table of all the TMCH-related Charter questions, as refined and suggested by the Sub Team and including notes and questions from several Working Group members as of 4 December. This document essentially replicates the Proposed Edited Questions that were circulated in the form of the more comprehensive table that was discussed by the Sub Team, but hopefully aids your deliberations as it sets out all the proposed questions in one spot. Thanks and cheers Mary On 12/5/16, 07:52, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote: I think the 2nd formulation of Question #15 is better, as it's more open-ended, yet also asks for specifics on how concerns can be addressed. As an aside, the "Original Question" of #15 suggested "of course with a central database" --- there's no technical reason why a central database would be required. There could instead be multiple independent databases, which registrars and/or registries could query in parallel via a standardized API. There'd only need to be a central *list* of which TMCH providers needed to be queried. From a coding perspective, the registrar/registry could simply query the entire list of providers, and collate the results. Most registrars already have this technology/capability, as they often query multiple registries (and secondary marketplaces) in parallel when customers attempt a new domain name registration (e.g. customer searches for EXAMPLE.COM, but they'll query not only the Verisign-operated .com registry, but also .net/org/biz/info/us and hundreds of other TLDs, marketplaces like Sedo/Afternic, and they'll even generate and query variations of "EXAMPLE.TLD" for availability, presenting the customer with a list of hundreds of alternatives). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DgICAg&c... On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 12:25 PM, David Tait <david.tait@icann.org> wrote: > Dear All > > > > In advance of the meeting of the Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group > on Wednesday at 1800 UTC, I am pleased to enclose the updated review of the > TMCH Charter questions which has been prepared by the Sub-Team tasked to > conduct an initial review of these questions. > > > > Staff have been expressly asked to draw your attention to Question 15. Two > possible formulations of this question have been prepared and the Sub-Team > is seeking the view of the Working Group as to which of these should be > adopted. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > David Tait > > > > David A. Tait > > Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland, non-practicing) > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > > > Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 > > Email: david.tait@icann.org > > www.icann.org > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg