Working Group members may also be interested in the following CCT-RT recommendations that were directed at, and passed through by the Board to, the GNSO Council: Recommendation #27: “Since the review team’s initial draft recommendation, the PDP “Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs (RPM WG)” has started reviewing the Uniform Rapid Suspension system in detail and this is currently ongoing. Given this ongoing review, the CCT Review Team recommends that the RPM WG continues its review of the URS and also looks into the interoperability of the URS with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Given the current timeline, it would appear that the appropriate time to do so will be when the UDRP review is carried out by the PDP WG and at this time consideration be given to how it should interoperate with the UDRP. The review team has encountered a lack of data for complete analysis in many respects. The RPM PDP WG appears to also be encountering this issue and this may well prevent it drawing firm conclusions. If modifications are not easily identified, then the review team recommends continued monitoring until more data is collected and made available for a review at a later date.” Recommendation #28: “A cost-benefit analysis and review of the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) and its scope should be carried out to provide quantifiable information on the costs and benefits associated with the present state of the TMCH services and thus to allow for an effective policy review.40 Since our initial draft recommendation, the RPM PDP has started reviewing the TMCH in detail and ICANN has appointed Analysis Group to develop and conduct the survey(s) to assess the use and effectiveness of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims RPMs. Provided that the RPM PDP has sufficient data from this survey or other surveys and is able to draw firm conclusions, the CCT Review Team does not consider that an additional review is necessary. However, the CCT Review Team reiterates its recommendation for a cost-benefit analysis to be carried out if such analysis can enable objective conclusions to be drawn. Such cost-benefit analysis should include but not necessarily be limited to looking at cost to brand owners, cost to registries, and cost to registrars of operating with the TMCH now and going forward and look at the interplay with premium pricing.” More generally, and possibly apropos of the challenges and data collection in our PDP, the CCT-RT’s Recommendation #1 was that ICANN Organization should “formalize and promote ongoing data collection”. In addition, a number of recommendations were also passed through to the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group. The full set of recommendations, and an indication of which were adopted by the Board and which passed through to various working groups and stakeholder groups, can be found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-score.... Cheers Mary From: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com> Date: Monday, June 10, 2019 at 21:03 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Message regarding specific recommendations from the CCT Review Team So number 9 is this: “The ICANN community should consider whether the costs related to defensive registration for the small number of brands registering a large number of domains can be reduced.” Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 2:48 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-RPM-WG] Message regarding specific recommendations from the CCT Review Team Dear RPM Working Group members, Please see below for a message from Larisa Gurnick, Vice-President of ICANN org’s Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) department. It concerns several recommendations pertaining to RPMs which the ICANN Board has passed through to our Working Group, as it also did with several other recommendations directed toward other GNSO working groups, the GNSO Council and a number of other stakeholder groups. Kathy, Brian, Phil and everyone – please let Julie, Ariel and me know if you’d like to discuss or have questions for Larisa. Thank you! Dear Members of the RPM WG, The purpose of this note is to highlight the Board resolution passed on 1 March 2019 - see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...> - that calls for a set of Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) Final Recommendations to be passed through to community groups. As articulated in the Board resolution, “recognizing that the Board has the obligation and responsibility to balance the work of ICANN in order to preserve the ability for ICANN org to serve its Mission and the public interest, the Board decided on three categories of action”: * Accepting recommendations, subject to costing and implementation considerations; * Placing recommendations (in whole or in part) in "Pending" status, directing ICANN org to perform specific actions to enable the Board to take further actions; * Passing recommendations (in whole or in part) to community groups the CCT-RT identified for their consideration. The Board noted fourteen such recommendations (9, 10, 12, 16, 19, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35). We invite you to refer to pages 1-4 of the scorecard https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-score... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...> which compile pass-through recommendations, including the groups they are addressed to. Accordingly, ICANN org wishes to notify you of the recommendation the ICANN Board resolved to pass through to you, in whole or in part, for your consideration: * Recommendation 9. Note: this recommendation was also passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, as suggested by the CCT-RT. We would like to highlight the following language of the Board resolution: “in passing these recommendations through, the Board is neither accepting, nor rejecting the recommendations. […] Passing recommendations through to community groups is not a directive that the groups identified should formally address any of the issues within those recommendations. It is within the purview of each group to identify whether work will be taken on and the topics that the group will address.” As indicated in the resolution, the Board encourages community groups to be “mindful of any interdependencies with ongoing work and discussions”. Additionally, the Board suggests “to the referenced community groups that the CCT-RT's proposed priority levels be taken into account as the groups decide whether, how and when to address the CCT-RT recommendations that are being passed through […]”. Additionally, we would like to flag the Board suggestion that for transparency purposes, “it would be helpful to have records or reporting made available to the ICANN community on how the community group considered the items coming out of the CCT-RT. The Board encourages any level of reporting that the groups are able to provide as the ICANN org and Board track action on the CCT-RT's recommendations”. Please consider providing updates on your progress in addressing (as appropriate) this recommendation, to be included with ICANN org’s reporting. Background The Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) released its Final Report on 8 September 2018 – see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-final-08sep18-en.pdf [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...>. The CCT-RT Final Report contains 35 recommendations and is the culmination of nearly three years of work, reviewing how the expansion of top-level domain names impacted competition, consumer trust and choice. For more information on the CCT Review and Specific Reviews, please read https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#article4.6 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...>. The ICANN Board took action on each of the 35 recommendations produced by the CCT-RT - see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...> - on 1 March 2019 and was informed by public comment input received on the Final report (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-final-recs-2018-10-08-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2D...>). The Board’s decisions on each recommendation is documented in the scorecard published at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-score... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...>. A blog post on the Board action can be found at https://www.icann.org/news/blog/board-action-on-competition-consumer-trust-a... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blog...> for more context. We thank you for your collaboration in considering the CCT-RT output. Please let us know whether you have any questions. Thank you. Best regards Larisa Gurnick Vice-President, Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives, ICANN