Claudio, thanks for this explanation. I want to follow up on your last point about discussing LRPs. Limited registration periods are unrelated to RPMs. They are periods during which the registry operator can select certain groups for “first come” access to the TLD based on the RO’s business plan for that TLD. If an RO wants to use the TMCH, or a GI list, or some organization’s membership list, or some other criteria to validate their LRP criteria, then that’s up to them. Can you help me understand what about LRP you think is ripe for discussion on the RPMs WG? Thank you, Kristine From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of claudio di gangi Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 11:37 AM To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from the GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 8 June 2017 Dear all, I was on the call but not on the chat, so helpful to read the chat comments. As Jonathan suggested on the call, I think we need to get more info from Deloitte about the 75 records in the TMCH that went in under the Statute or Treaty category. Specifically, we need to find out if, how many, and which of 75 records (out of the 40,000+) consist of GIs that are not protected as certification or collective marks. I don't think Deloitte has provided an answer to this question because I don't think they organized things in this manner but I leave it up to them to respond. Also, I wanted to inform the full group that I withdrew my proposal about including GIs in the TMCH because it was based on my misunderstanding of the work plan, as I joined the WG midstream. I'm sorry for any confusion that caused. So the upcoming poll questions on GIs will be based solely on Kathy's and Paul's proposals that GIs be removed from the TMCH (hence the importance of determing more about the 75 records discussed above if folks want to remove any of them). The question I asked Phil last night was whether the TMCH questions will forclude discussion of other issues relating to GIs further down the road, such as the voluntary RPMs. Phil responded that those issues will not be closed off based on the TMCH questions, which makes sense to me. The example that I provided was .PARIS, which describes a limited registration period in their launch plan in which GIs can be protected after the Sunrise. Since this is not related to the TMCH proposals we have been discussing, Phil stated these issues can be reviewed in that context, which is consistent with my understanding. Best regards, Claudio On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:41 PM Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>> wrote: 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 _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

Thanks Claudio, Reserving my opinion on the substance of your suggestion, let me see if I understand. You are saying that: The WG has the right to review a circumstance where a registry operator chooses to offer an LRP where that LRP has, as one of its criteria, the requirement that a domain name registrant be associated with particular intellectual property rights. Did I summarize that correctly? You don’t propose that the WG can look at all ROs who offer an LRP, just the ones that use IP rights as eligibility criteria? Hypothetical: The RO has already fulfilled its obligation to TM holders by offering a Sunrise to all SMD holders. If the RO then decides it wants to offer a second exclusive access period to a particular subset of TM holders (for fun, let’s say the RO wants to offer an exclusive registration period for two weeks to brands that have a French trademark registration for bakeries filed between May 1, 2016 and June 1, 2016). In this situation, you believe there is some aspect of this offering that the WG has the right to examine? I’m not sure what an IPR-related registry service is. Thanks, Kristine From: claudio di gangi [mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 1:21 PM To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org>; Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from the GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 8 June 2017 Thank you , Kristine. Just to be clear, I was using the LRP as an illustrative example of a type of "voluntary" RPM, or maybe we should refer to these as IPR-related registry services. I would put it in the same category as the DPML service that will be discussed by that subteam. Hope that clarifies, and I'm happy to answer other questions you may have. Best regards, Claudio On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 3:53 PM Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>> wrote: Claudio, thanks for this explanation. I want to follow up on your last point about discussing LRPs. Limited registration periods are unrelated to RPMs. They are periods during which the registry operator can select certain groups for “first come” access to the TLD based on the RO’s business plan for that TLD. If an RO wants to use the TMCH, or a GI list, or some organization’s membership list, or some other criteria to validate their LRP criteria, then that’s up to them. Can you help me understand what about LRP you think is ripe for discussion on the RPMs WG? Thank you, Kristine From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of claudio di gangi Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 11:37 AM To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from the GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 8 June 2017 Dear all, I was on the call but not on the chat, so helpful to read the chat comments. As Jonathan suggested on the call, I think we need to get more info from Deloitte about the 75 records in the TMCH that went in under the Statute or Treaty category. Specifically, we need to find out if, how many, and which of 75 records (out of the 40,000+) consist of GIs that are not protected as certification or collective marks. I don't think Deloitte has provided an answer to this question because I don't think they organized things in this manner but I leave it up to them to respond. Also, I wanted to inform the full group that I withdrew my proposal about including GIs in the TMCH because it was based on my misunderstanding of the work plan, as I joined the WG midstream. I'm sorry for any confusion that caused. So the upcoming poll questions on GIs will be based solely on Kathy's and Paul's proposals that GIs be removed from the TMCH (hence the importance of determing more about the 75 records discussed above if folks want to remove any of them). The question I asked Phil last night was whether the TMCH questions will forclude discussion of other issues relating to GIs further down the road, such as the voluntary RPMs. Phil responded that those issues will not be closed off based on the TMCH questions, which makes sense to me. The example that I provided was .PARIS, which describes a limited registration period in their launch plan in which GIs can be protected after the Sunrise. Since this is not related to the TMCH proposals we have been discussing, Phil stated these issues can be reviewed in that context, which is consistent with my understanding. Best regards, Claudio On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:41 PM Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>> wrote: 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 _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

It's very one dimensional to characterize RPMs merely as restrictions that "favor trademark holders." RPMs also inure to the benefit of consumers and to security and trust on the Internet. There is a significant correlation between "cybersquatted" domains that violate trademark rights and other forms of abuse (e.g., phishing, spearphishing, malware distribution, data breach, fraud, etc. -- not even mentioning IPR-related forms of abuse). There are a host of reasons that RPMs are consistent with the public interest. If, e.g., trademark-based LPRs are in scope for this group, we should treat them as I (and others) have suggested with so-called private protections -- as objects for study in the larger ecosystem but not within our scope for "regulation." Think of them as "non-playable" characters in this video game. If we are going to study any so-called private protections, should we also be studying RPMs offered completely outside the larger gTLD ecosystem, such as ccTLD based protections, legal recourse, private sales, etc.? Note that I am not expressing an opinion whether GI-based LPRs are in scope for this group. Greg On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Paul Keating <paul@law.es> wrote:

Interesting question that raises the issue of public interest.

To what extent may a policy impose restraints on the ability of a registry to offer domains under such conditions as it feels appropriate?

Currently restrictions have been imposed that favor trademark holders. Has this resulted in over reaching to the detriment of unrestricted registrations by the general public?

Sincerely, Paul Keating, Esq.

On Jun 9, 2017, at 2:02 AM, Dorrain, Kristine via gnso-rpm-wg < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

Thanks Claudio,

Reserving my opinion on the substance of your suggestion, let me see if I understand.

You are saying that:

*The WG has the right to review a circumstance where a registry operator chooses to offer an LRP where that LRP has, as one of its criteria, the requirement that a domain name registrant be associated with particular intellectual property rights.*

Did I summarize that correctly? You don’t propose that the WG can look at all ROs who offer an LRP, just the ones that use IP rights as eligibility criteria?

Hypothetical:

The RO has already fulfilled its obligation to TM holders by offering a Sunrise to all SMD holders.

If the RO then decides it wants to offer a second exclusive access period to a particular subset of TM holders (for fun, let’s say the RO wants to offer an exclusive registration period for two weeks to brands that have a French trademark registration for bakeries filed between May 1, 2016 and June 1, 2016).

In this situation, you believe there is some aspect of this offering that the WG has the right to examine?

I’m not sure what an IPR-related registry service is.

Thanks,

Kristine

*From:* claudio di gangi [mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com <ipcdigangi@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Thursday, June 08, 2017 1:21 PM *To:* Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org>; Dorrain, Kristine < dorraink@amazon.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from the GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 8 June 2017

Thank you , Kristine.

Just to be clear, I was using the LRP as an illustrative example of a type of "voluntary" RPM, or maybe we should refer to these as IPR-related registry services.

I would put it in the same category as the DPML service that will be discussed by that subteam.

Hope that clarifies, and I'm happy to answer other questions you may have.

Best regards,

Claudio

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 3:53 PM Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com> wrote:

Claudio, thanks for this explanation.

I want to follow up on your last point about discussing LRPs. Limited registration periods are unrelated to RPMs. They are periods during which the registry operator can select certain groups for “first come” access to the TLD based on the RO’s business plan for that TLD. If an RO wants to use the TMCH, or a GI list, or some organization’s membership list, or some other criteria to validate their LRP criteria, then that’s up to them. Can you help me understand what about LRP you think is ripe for discussion on the RPMs WG?

Thank you,

Kristine

*From:* gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@ icann.org] *On Behalf Of *claudio di gangi *Sent:* Thursday, June 08, 2017 11:37 AM *To:* Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from the GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 8 June 2017

Dear all,

I was on the call but not on the chat, so helpful to read the chat comments.

As Jonathan suggested on the call, I think we need to get more info from Deloitte about the 75 records in the TMCH that went in under the Statute or Treaty category.

Specifically, we need to find out if, how many, and which of 75 records (out of the 40,000+) consist of GIs that are not protected as certification or collective marks. I don't think Deloitte has provided an answer to this question because I don't think they organized things in this manner but I leave it up to them to respond.

Also, I wanted to inform the full group that I withdrew my proposal about including GIs in the TMCH because it was based on my misunderstanding of the work plan, as I joined the WG midstream. I'm sorry for any confusion that caused.

So the upcoming poll questions on GIs will be based solely on Kathy's and Paul's proposals that GIs be removed from the TMCH (hence the importance of determing more about the 75 records discussed above if folks want to remove any of them).

The question I asked Phil last night was whether the TMCH questions will forclude discussion of other issues relating to GIs further down the road, such as the voluntary RPMs. Phil responded that those issues will not be closed off based on the TMCH questions, which makes sense to me.

The example that I provided was .PARIS, which describes a limited registration period in their launch plan in which GIs can be protected after the Sunrise. Since this is not related to the TMCH proposals we have been discussing, Phil stated these issues can be reviewed in that context, which is consistent with my understanding.

Best regards,

Claudio

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:41 PM Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________ 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

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg