2019-10-16 Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP WG

Notes/ Action Items

Actions:

Open and Deferred TMCH Questions:

Q7 Design Marks: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Kleiman/Muscovitch and Shatan proposals in the Initial Report for Public Comment.

Q8 GIs: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Tushnet proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment.

Q12: ACTION: Staff will work with Maxim to revise the proposal to include context and background, and make it more formal.  Make it clear that this is an implementation recommendation, not policy.  Publish to the WG email list for review.

Q15: ACTIONS: 1) WG agrees to publish Karanicolas proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. 2) ACTION: Staff to draft a new proposal based on suggestions and circulate it to interested WG members and the Co-Chairs.

Q2: Proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent: ACTIONS: 1) Martin to revise the proposal with assistance of other WG members and circulate it on the WG email list for review. 2) Staff will check to see if either party to the contract can seek modifications.

Discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so:

ACTION: WG members are requested to consider discussion on the email list. See the draft survey at:  survey [forms.gle].

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.

2. Status of Questions Q7, Q8, Q12, and Q15:

Q7 Design Marks: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Kleiman/Muscovitch and Shatan proposals in the Initial Report for Public Comment.

Q8 GIs: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Tushnet proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment.

Q12: Proposal from Maxim Alzoba – TMCH Operational Considerations

-- Need to improve redundancy and availability of the TMCH.

-- Question: Are you referring to the TM database, run by IBM?  Deloitte is the validator and IBM is the maintainer of the database.  Answer: Relates to the provision of the database.  Or could be a issue with the design, it’s hard to say.  Need to review how it works.  Might not be limited to software functions.  Could be dataflow design.

-- Need to get background on the cases reported to GDD colleagues.  The validation function is kept separate from the database function.  If the WG wishes to investigate this further this is probably an issue with implementation as to SLA (there are applicable SLAs).  Need also to go back and look at the deliberations concerning the original design of the TMCH and database.

-- Information about the SOW with IBM (and for that matter the SLAs with Deloitte) on this Working Group wiki page, under TMCH Contracting: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864


ACTION: Staff will work with Maxim to revise the proposal to include context and background, and make it more formal.  Make it clear that this is an implementation recommendation, not policy.  Publish to the WG email list for review.

Q15: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Karanicolas proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment.

-- Hoped that we could get consensus. 

-- Could allow a limited group to access the data, perhaps a future review team?  Can’t just open up now when those who participate have been assured of confidentiality.

-- Question - is there a way for the WG to reach agreement on how to ensure there is some kind of specific, limited access to the data in the TMDB for oversight purposes only (including future reviews)?

ACTION: Staff to draft a new proposal based on suggestions and circulate it to interested WG members and the Co-Chairs.

3. Remaining Deferred Charter Questions (see the attached Status of WG Discussions on Agreed TMCH Charter Questions):

 Close Discussion: TMCH Category 6: Balance: Charter Question 16: Close discussion.

Discussion: TMCH Category 1: Education: Charter Questions 1, 2, and 3 – Proposal submitted by Martin P Valent for Q2 (1 Oct 2019) 

Q1: Close discussion.

Q2: Proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent:

-- TMCH should educate rights holders; it is already doing outreach and should do more.

-- Needs to be revised to be in the form of a recommendation.

-- Amendment: this effort would work in conjunction with whatever marketing ICANN is doing to support knowledge around new gTLD program in general and the TMCH.

-- Not clear as drafting what is the remit of Deloitte and what falls elsewhere.  Some of this should be done at an ICANN level.

-- Not sure involving ICANN at this level is required.

-- ICANN is not involved in marketing gTLDs.

-- Needs to be some definition/scope.  Don’t see TMCH providing education on RPMs.  We also need to clarify what is meant by “education.” Is this essentially “awareness” or is something more contemplated?

-- In the end we need much more in terms of education.  If it’s not in the current contract then it’s worth considering in future discussion.

-- Need to be careful how to express this.

-- From staff: ICANN Org does not have control over the TMCH provider’s website and information.  The contract was an initial 5-year term that expired on the first anniversary of the entering into force of the new gTLD program, and followed by consecutive 1-year renewal terms unless there’s a 180 day notice of termination. See: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864 .  We are in the 1-year renewal term.

-- Should look at what Deloitte already provides on their website. 

-- There's a lot of talk about what should be done - but no-one identifying anything actually glaringly missing.

-- Maybe it’s more of an outreach question, if the education already exists.

-- We should be identifying what’s not being done.  Otherwise, we’re just endorsing education conceptually, or providing a generic roadmap for what could be done that will include many things that are already being done.

ACTION: Martin to revise the proposal with assistance of other WG members and circulate it on the WG email list for review.

ACTION: Staff will check to see if either party to the contract can seek modifications.

4. Discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so.  See the draft survey at: survey [forms.gle]:

ACTION: WG members are requested to consider discussion on the email list.