Page History

PROPOSED AGENDA

Sub Team to continue with review of the "reverse redline" Questions document, picking up from where the discussion ended last week.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Additional Marketplace RPM Questions - updated 31 July 2017

Mp3

Adobe Connect Recording

AC Chat

Transcript

Attendees

Apologies: Jon Nevett

Action Items:

1. Staff to rephrase the relevant parts of question 2 based on suggestions from Kurt P. on question of costs – cost to parties in the value chain (e.g., brand owners, registrars, registries, registrants) – and from Phil C. on the framework of rules applicable to the TMCH
2. Staff to place deleted question 2 at the end of the document as a placeholder to review what issues may have been dropped as a result of its deletion, once revision of other questions is complete
3. Staff to review document and replace previous usages of “blocking services”, “private protections” etc. with the phrase "Additional Marketplace RPMs" for consistency, where appropriate
4. Staff to replace question 4 with proposed alternative wording: “For registry operators that extended the trademark Claims Service beyond the required 90 days, what has been their experience in terms of exact matches generated beyond the mandatory period?”
5. Staff to replace question 5 with proposed alternative wording: “How does use of Protected Marks Lists (e.g.: blocking services) affect the utilization of other RPMs, especially Sunrise Registrations?”
6. Staff to move question 7 to become a sub-question to question 3
7. Staff to split question 8, and move the first and second parts of it to become sub-questions to questions 3 and 2 respectively

Notes:

• Discussion on the overarching issue of scope of this Sub Team has not been discussed by the full WG - Sub Team to proceed, as planned, with refinement of questions being considered by the Sub Team, and identify data requirements, where necessary – pending clarification by the WG and WG co-chairs
• Revised Question 2:
  • Question on the presence of "Does the current adopted policy allow this use" - is this a question for the full WG to answer, for the TMCH operator or for the contracted parties that provide additional marketplace protections?
  • Question was placed in question 2 to address a comment raised regarding the scope of implementation that has been described and developed by the community, and implemented by the TMCH – WG will need to consider the scope of the existing framework/rules surrounding the TMCH, and whether the use of the TMCH to provide additional marketplace RPMs is within or outside that framework
  • From AC Chat: We might want to know what their justification is in those terms
  • Question of increase to cost should be generalized, in terms of effects beyond cost as well as which stakeholders who may be affected - Cost to parties in the value chain (e.g., brand owners, registrars, registries, registrants)
  • What adopted policies are being referred to? A Consensus Policy developed by the GNSO, the AGB, a contract or something else? "current adopted policy" needs to be defined
  • From AC Chat: How about -- Is there language in the current adopted TMCH policy or related documents that expressly permits or prohibits such use? -- That converts the question from one that calls for a judgment to one that focuses on document language.
  • WG will need to decide on what policy references are relevant to this question, but does not necessarily need to be defined in the question
  • From AC Chat: @Paul, all - that is why I used the words and phrases "scope", "framework", and "rules" - so that we understand we are talking about the entirety of what the TMCH was developed to do, instead of limiting it to Consensus Policy (nothing specific for each RPM), or AGB (implementation).
  • From AC Chat: Here’s what I think the policy is: “New TLDs shall not infringe the rights of others,’ augmented by the Protection of Rights Working group report plus the IRT STI-approved recommendations.
  • ACTION ITEM: Staff to edit question 2 using statements by Kurt P. and Philip C. on question of costs and the framework of rules applicable to the TMCH – Sub Team to review edits made by staff
  • ACTION ITEM: Placeholder to revisit the decision to delete the former question 2 - Staff to place it at the end of the document
• Question 3:
  • Additional Marketplace RPMs were formerly referred to as "private offerings" - should be replaced to reflect adopted phrasing (Additional Marketplace RPMs)
  • Question 3 may be approached as a data gathering exercise, and answering it may result in the provision of URLs to relevant information on the websites of registry operators that provide Additional Marketplace RPMs – answers to this question are made publicly available by registry operators who provide such services
• Question 4:
  • May be worthwhile from an information gathering perspective to also consider advantages and disadvantages of the ongoing notification service beyond the required 90 days
  • What is and isn't working regarding the Claims Period, including pros and cons of length of the period, has already been asked by the review of the Trademark Claims Sub Team and will be reviewed by the broader WG before it begins consideration of questions on Additional Marketplace RPMs
  • Experiences of registry operators on exact matches generated beyond the mandatory period is likely data that registry operators do not have
  • Might be useful to coordinate questions like this with the broader WG and other Sub Teams to ensure that if questions are sent to contracted parties, as part of a survey for anecdotal evidence, that these questions be collected and sent together
  • Proposed alternative rephrasing: For registry operators that extend the trademark Claims Service beyond the required 90 days, what has been their experience in terms of exact matches generated beyond the mandatory period?
  • ACTION ITEM: Staff to edit question 4 as proposed by Paul M. above
• Question 5:
  • This question is the overarching question this Sub Team has been formed to ask – what is the effect of the Additional Marketplace RPMs on the RPMs this PDP is tasked with reviewing?
  • Any place where phrases are used to refer to Additional Marketplace RPMs, the change needs to be made to have consistent terminology throughout the document
  • Blocking services in particular has a very specific effect on Sunrise Registrations, so question should specifically address it - if replaced, should be replaced by something that specifically refers to the same or similar services, not just Additional Marketplace RPMs in general
  • From AC Chat: Should we say "Protected Marks Lists" then for this Q
  • ACTION ITEM: Staff to comb through the document, and replace phrases referring to private protections with "Additional Marketplace RPMs", where appropriate
  • Need to convey, when asking this question, that “Protected Marks List” is an Additional Marketplace RPM, not a result of a Consensus Policy
  • Proposed alternative wording: How does use of the Protected Marks List (e.g.: blocking services) affect the utilization of other RPMs, especially Sunrise Registrations? ACTION ITEM: Staff to add this rephrasing to the document
• Question 6:
  • Discussion on question 6 deferred to next Sub Team call
• Question 7:
  • Answer to question 7 should be provided in the process of answering question 3 - if there is a need to specifically address blocking services in this context, might be logical to move the questions to be a sub question of question 3
  • Need to standardize the terminology in this question
  • Factual information already available that may address questions 3 and 7 may be collected and linked to both questions 3 and 7 together (in the event that question 7 becomes a sub-question of question 3)
  • ACTION ITEM: Staff to move question 7, to be consolidated with and placed as a sub-question to question 3
• Question 8:
  • First question in question 8 should also be consolidated with Q3
  • Second question in question 8 can be consolidated with question 2
  • ACTION ITEM: Staff to split question 8, and consolidate/place the first and second parts of it as sub-questions to questions 3 and 2 respectively
  • 8(a) to Q3, 8(b) to Q2
  • Q: Do the rules of a registry operator include how they use SMD files? A: DPML rules do indicate to the brand owner whether or not they require a valid SMD file to be submitted
• As the Sub Team completes its review of these questions, should overarching questions be identified, and explicitly placed to be addressed as such - do other questions require reordering?

Next Sub Team call on Friday, 11 August at 16:00 UTC