The call for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Thursday, 28 September 2017 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minute duration.
(Wednesday) 20:00 PDT, 23:00 EDT, (Thursday) 04:00 London, 05:00 CET
For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y7bak4o3
- Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest
- De-briefing: GNSO Council discussion of and decision on our data request (Phil, Kathy, staff)
- Group discussion: what existing information there is, and what additional data/information may be required for further discussions on the current Additional Marketplace RPMs (see further notes below for more details and questions for consideration)?
- Next steps on Additional Marketplace RPMs
- Next steps on data research / next meeting
For Agenda Item #2, members may wish to review the recording and/or transcript of the Council’s discussion prior to our meeting:
- http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20sep17-en.mp3 (recording, starting around 20 minutes into the call till around the 70-minute mark);
- https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-20sep17-en.pdf (transcript, pages 10-32);
- https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-20sep17-en.pdf (AC chat transcript, pages 3-7).
For Agenda Item #3, please review the information that staff had compiled on the current Additional Marketplace RPMs being offered by several Registry Operators and circulated last Thursday. This document has been uploaded to the Working Group wiki space here as well:
Your review will assist in the Working Group’s discussion of the following questions:
- What data do we need to answer the questions related to the Additional Marketplace RPMs?
- To who and how do we go to gather it?
- Can any of these data requests be quickly/easily/cheaply added to the surveys of "anecdotal data" requests approved by the GNSO Council last week that will be going out to Registrars, Registrars, Trademark Owners, Registrants, etc.?
For Agenda Item #4, the co-chairs’ suggestion for Working Group consideration is the creation of a small, fast-moving subgroup to:
- Review the list of data wanted and needed for Additional Marketplace Protections Questions, with input of the WG meeting, looking at the information staff provided at the end of last week on the Additional Marketplace RPMs provided by Donuts, M+M and Rightside; and sharing with WG which questions these appear to address (in whole or in part).
- Review the approved data request in light of the Council’s additional direction for us to maximize the value of the data gathered with recommendations for the WG of revisions or changes.
For the subgroup, and assuming there is general agreement on this approach, a Call for Volunteers will start following this call. The Working Group co-chairs would like to ask the chairs of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams (Lori, Kristine and Michael G) to participate, and encourage Working Group members familiar with survey work to join as well.
GNSO Council Motion on RPMs PDP WG DMPM Request - 20 September 2017 GNSO Council Meeting - This motion is also posted on the GNSO Council wiki page here.
Apologies: Marie Pattullo, Lillian Fosteris
Notes/ Action Items
- Staff to compile Sunrise Registration data for Registry Operators that provide Additional Marketplace RPMs
- Staff to revert Question 4 targeting trademark owners to match the original wording in bullet one of Question 4 being asked of gTLD Registry Operators
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.
1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest
- No SOI updates declared
2. De-briefing: GNSO Council discussion of and decision on our data request (Phil, Kathy, staff)
- GNSO Council had questions on how the request for data collection would affect the PDP’s timeline, which were answered by Co-Chairs
- Additional Resolved Clause 2 to the motion during the Council meeting requiring the WG to maximize the relevance of the data being gathered
- WG Co-Chairs explained that the WG would be rearranging its work to compensate for the time used to contract with third-party assistance, develop survey questions and collect the data required to answer Charter questions relevant to Phase 1
- WG will be in a better position to adjust the PDP timeline once there is a clearer understanding of how long it will take to select and contract with professional assistance, as well as the time required to develop survey questions and distribute them in order to collect responses that will inform the WG to the maximum extent possible
- Estimated budget that was approved was for a minimum of $50k, and this was an estimate provided by staff that the Co-Chairs relied on, but this may change depending on a clearer understanding of what funding is required to acquire professional assistance for data collection
- Much of the data that will be collected can be collected by staff without professional assistance – this was communicated to the GNSO Council
- Prioritization of data gathering may be required, should the budgetary requirements prove to be high
- From AC Chat (staff): By way of context, please note that the budget for data collection isn't that big; so the broader we cast the net, the more pressure we bring to bear on the budget that we have to do the surveys we have identified as necessary
3. Group discussion: what existing information there is, and what additional data/information may be required for further discussions on the current Additional Marketplace RPMs (see further notes below for more details and questions for consideration)?
Review of the document on Additional Marketplace RPMs questions categorized by respondent (last updated 21 September):
- Order of questions was adjusted for categorization by target respondent
- Question 1:
- Should this question be added to the survey questions being sent out to different stakeholders?
- Assumption that the data for Sunrise Registrations broken down for each TLD will be available to answer this question - this data will be helpful in understanding any overlaps between Sunrise and Additional Marketplace RPMs for each TLD, and allow for one basis of comparison with other TLDs for which no Additional Marketplace RPMs were provided
- ACTION ITEM: Staff to compile Sunrise Registration data for Registry Operators that provide Additional Marketplace RPMs
- Question 3:
- Suggested expansion of this question:
- Can the TMCH providers provide additional insight to this question and its sub-parts?
- To what extent are Registry Operators allowed to provide Additional Marketplace RPMs - do their contractual obligations with ICANN somehow create a restraint on Registry Operators providing these services?
- What is the cost on various Internet stakeholders (particularly registrants) resulting from the Additional Marketplace RPMs being provided?
- Suggested question in second bullet was reviewed and rejected by the Sub Team, and question in third bullet may be out-of-scope of this PDP
- From AC Chat: Again, we are not reviewing the Additional Marketplace RPMs -- the second bullet was rejected by the subgroup
- Review of this document should be limited to who the questions should be targeting, but should not include another review of the questions themselves - these questions have already been reviewed and agreed-upon by the WG
- Possible to expand the target respondents of these questions - current document includes tentative suggestions prepared by staff subject to review by the WG
- Purpose of these questions is not to analyze or evaluate the Additional Marketplace RPMs themselves, but only to understand them in order to assist the WG in evaluating the ICANN-mandated RPMs, and whether there is any significant interplay between them
- Suggested expansion of this question:
- Question 4:
- First bullet of Q4 also being asked of trademark owners, as per WG suggestion during review of the Sub Team's recommendations
- Are Registry Operator rules governing Additional Marketplace RPMs publicly published, and what are the sources for this data (Registry Operators and other sources)?
- This question can only be answered by Registry Operators who actually provide Additional Marketplace RPMs - other Registry Operators would simply respond by saying that they do not provide the services - should they still be asked?
- Question 5:
- Registrants may be able to provide insight into this question
- Notices beyond the mandatory Claims period are only sent to trademark owners for exact matches of their trademarks - not clear how registrants will be able to provide insight, except possibly those who are contacted by trademark owners following a claims notification (example: resulting from UDRP cases being filed)
- Apart from the TMCH, need to confirm whether Registry Operators provide ongoing notification services to trademark owners as well as registrants, or not
- How could registrants who received claims notifications past the 90-day period be identified in order to target them for survey responses?
- Question 4 (first bullet targeting TM Owners)
- Rephrased question should not include the names of specific Registry Operators, rather should be broader addressing new gTLD Registry Operators, as responses from Registry Operators apart from the ones named may also provide responses - should stick with the original wording of the question with minimal rephrasing
- Trademark owners may be blocked because the domain names they were seeking to register had already been registered, not only because of DPML or similar services
- ACTION ITEM: Staff to revert Question 4 targeting trademark owners to match the original wording in bullet one of Question 4 being asked of gTLD Registry Operators
- Question 5 (same as above, but being asked of Registrars)
- Question can be added to questions being asked of Registrars regarding Sunrise Registrations and Trademark Claims
- Question 2
- Suggestion to expand target respondents of this question beyond TMCH providers (such as non-commercial registrants, small businesses, take geo-location into consideration)
- From AC Chat: Given so many registrants of new gTLDs were from China, attention should be paid to ensure any survey of registrants cover China in particular.
- This question seems to be seeking an objective factual response from the TMCH providers, not experience-based anecdotal responses, so not clear why sending it to stakeholders other than the TMCH providers will be helpful - may be possible for staff to collect this information from the TMCH providers
- Broad concern not specific to this question, that consumers and end-users are not being asked (as beneficiaries of RPMs) any of these questions – consumer and end-user harm is a factor that should be taken into consideration
- Expanding the target respondents of questions should not be decided on this call (factoring in budgetary limitations) - decision should be deferred until a time when more information is available, and prioritization of questions may become necessary
- If additional questions are to be considered, the WG should be polled on this decision
4. Next steps on Additional Marketplace RPMs
5. Next steps on data research / next meeting
Next meeting to take place on Wednesday, 4 October 2017 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes