Page History
...
09:00 PDT, 12:00 EDT, 17:00 London BST, 18:00 Paris CEST
For other times: http://tinyurl.com/ydht8oum[tinyurl.com]
Info |
---|
PROPOSED AGENDA BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS Updated Additional Marketplace RPMs Questions - Updated 21 August 2017 |
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
AttendeesAttendance Apologies: Susan Payne |
Note | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Action Items:
Notes: 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.
Update from WG co-chairs on the scope of the Sub Team:
Question 6:
The question should be deleted. It’s asking for a substantive review of the existence of Additional Marketplace RPMs, not data-gathering to support sunrise and claims statistics. It’s unclear from the recording what the proponents of keeping it think they’re getting at by asking this. Registry contracts (and what is required to be part of a registry contract) are a sensitive issue and this is not the forum to dig into that. Those requesting this information should provide a compelling reason for its inclusion. “Informational purposes” or “might be interesting” is not a compelling reason to dig into a contractual relationship that is NOT the subject of this PDP. Question 6 is a fishing expedition.
One test of whether a question should be deleted is whether the answer would affect our analysis and answer. I do not see how the answer to this question affects our analysis of existing and potential RPMs. These additional RPMs exist, regardless of how they have been approved. There is no reason to ask this question on the chance that it could lead to information that could be uncovered through a more direct, data-related question. I think we have asked these data-related questions above.
Question 7:
The question should be deleted. It’s asking for a substantive review of the existence of Additional Marketplace RPMs, not data-gathering to support sunrise and claims statistics. The answer will likely be obtained as part of Question 3, and Question 3 is the right context because Question 3 asks background questions about how these services operate, to the extent those that offer them are willing to provide that information as an educational service to the ICANN community.
Similarly, if question 7 is deleted, I don’t think we would lose any data as it is already being collected elsewhere. Alternatively, this question might be narrowed and placed under question 3 as an additional bullet, e.g., what information do registries require for Additional Marketplace RPMs from the TMCH, trademark holders, other sources?
Question 8:
This question should be deleted. Again, it’s asking for a substantive review of the existence of Additional Marketplace RPMs, not data-gathering to support sunrise and claims statistics.
Similar to question 6, I don’t see how the answer to this question affects our analysis and can be eliminated. There are two other points here. First, the GPML and the Additional Marketplace mechanisms as currently offered are two different animals and should not be held out as equals in the premise to the question. (The GPML targeted the top 100 / 500 brands, granting them automatic protections. The Additional Marketplace protections provide protections to any brand wishing to purchase them.) Second, question 8 is easily answered and does not require data collection. Adoption of services by individual registries do not upset or create new policies. In order for additional, individually adopted RPMs to be violative of policy, the existing policy must prohibit them. The opposite is the case. I believe the Protection of Rights working group recommended that new TLDs adopt RPMs that were not required: "That regardless of other authentication of Legal Rights, all new gTLDs should institute measures to deter abuse of the RPMs and clearly false submissions.” https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/GNSO-PRO-WG-final-01Jun07.pdf
|