2017-08-25 Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team

Action Items:

1. Staff to circulate Greg Shatan’s suggested reformulation of Question 6 to the mailing list for Sub Team consideration (Which Additional Marketplace RPMs were submitted for RSEP approval, and which Additional Marketplace RPMs were submitted to ICANN for some other form of approval?)
2. Staff to incorporate Question 7 as an additional bullet point under Question 3 for review by the Sub Team
3. Sub Team to discuss whether Question 8 may be deleted from the main text but placed at the end of the Sub Team document, under the heading “Deleted as outside the remit of the group, but archived for WG information”

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:

• Letter from co-chairs is expected to be sent to the Sub Team and broader WG following a final review by the Co-Chairs - expectation is for the Sub Team to proceed as it has been with information gathering, and report back to the full WG

Question 6: 

• Email from Kristine Dorrain:

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.

• Email from Kurt Pritz:

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.

• Some Sub Team members believe that an understanding of the process(es) to approve Additional Marketplace RPMs is valuable from an informational/data gathering perspective - question might be directed towards ICANN, as opposed to Registry Operators
• Gathering information on Additional Marketplace RPMs (such as DPML) might be valuable to the extent that they could conceivably have an impact on the security and stability of the DNS - question could be restated to address this
• Original purpose of asking these questions on Additional Marketplace RPMs was to identify data (statistics and numbers) that would assist in how they impact use of ICANN-mandated RPMs - question 6 addresses structure of Registry Operator operations that go beyond this purpose
• If Additional Marketplace RPMs are compromising the security and stability of the DNS, then this is an issue for ICANN, which is beyond the scope of this PDP - complaints should be submitted directly to ICANN to deal with the issues
• Part of understanding how Additional Marketplace RPMs worked during the previous round of new gTLDs might involve understanding how any process(es) leading to their approval by ICANN was conducted - question might need rephrasing to address the issue from a historic perspective to ask “what happened”, but not for the purpose of development of recommendations by the WG – gathering this data may or may not prove useful to understand how they relate to ICANN-mandated RPMs
• The question arose from an observation that some blocking services have sought RSEP review and approval, while others have not – are there qualitative differences between them that warranted ICANN review and approval?
• Value of this question may be forward looking in terms of understanding the entire marketplace from an RPMs perspective, including both ICANN-mandated and Additional Marketplace RPMs - WG has no mandate to affect how Additional Marketplace RPMs are being offered, but would be helpful to understand why some may require RSEP approval, while others do not
• From AC Chat: It's not in our remit to look forward and comment on what marketplace RPMs might be.  That's not fact-gathering.
• WG should be considered with scope-creep, which may result in delays to the progress of the WG - investigating Additional Marketplace RPMs and DPML will likely side-track the WG, causing delays
• Registry Operators create restrictions on who can register certain names – concerns on this might be more appropriately within the scope of the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG
• From AC Chat: I also think it's ok to be genuinely curious and interested in how things like DPML get started, but it's just not in scope here.
• Question 6 might be a good follow-up regarding the high-level approval process to question 3 concerning Registry Operators' rules for each type of Additional Marketplace RPMs
• In evaluation of ICANN-mandated RPMs, and how well they are working, it is important to understand how the entire system works (including Additional Marketplace RPMs) in order to make a diagnosis of what is actually happening
• Information on RSEP: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rsep-2014-02-19-en
• Basic question being asked appears to be whether an RSEP request is required in order to provide services associated with Protected Marks List - ICANN does not evaluate additional registry services being offered unless an RSEP request is submitted, and there is no predetermined list of services for which Registry Operators are required to submit RSEP requests - question may need to be reworded to yield more useful data
• Suggested rewording by Greg Shatan: Which Additional Marketplace RPMs were submitted for RSEP approval, and which Additional Marketplace RPMs were submitted to ICANN for some other form of approval?
• ACTION ITEM: Staff to circulate reformulated Question 6 by Greg Shatan to the Sub Team mailing list for Sub Team consideration

Question 7:

• Email from Kristine Dorrain:

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.

• Email from Kurt:

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? 

• Suggestion to add question 7 as a third bullet beneath question 3
• Might be possible to broaden the examples in the second bullet under question 3 to include what is being asked in question 7 - merge question 7 with bullet 2 under question 3
• Need to understand how Additional Marketplace RPMs require use of SMD files or other services provided by the TMCH without disclosing any Registry Operator trade secrets
• ACTION ITEM: Staff to provide a revised Question 3 incorporating question 7 into it, which is to be reviewed by the Sub Team during next week’s Sub Team call

Question 8:

• Email from Kristine:

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.

• Email from Kurt:

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 

• Question appears to be strictly a policy driven question (not a data gathering question), and may not be relevant to the WG, but the WG needs to make this determination
• Suggestion to mark this question as one that is outside the scope of the Sub Team, as a placeholder for the broader WG to consider
• This question is possibly not within the remit of the full WG, much less the Sub Team – WG members are free to be raised on the WG by WG members, but should not be marked for consideration by the full WG via the Sub Team document
• As this is the official document, this is not the place to keep the question. While it can be recorded such that any WG member who wishes to raise it may, it should not stay in this document.
• Question was not one of the original Charter questions, but was introduced by the three Co-Chairs – should the question be deleted, the three Co-Chairs are able to reintroduce it to the full WG for consideration themselves, should they choose to do so
• From AC Chat: How about we put this question at the end of the document under "Deleted as outside the remit of the group, but archived for WG information"?
• ACTION ITEM: Sub Team to consider path forward on retaining, removing or placing question 8 at the end of the Sub Team document under “Deleted as outside the remit of the group, but archived for WG information”