2017-07-28 Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team

Action Items: 

1. Staff to delete question 2 from the reverse-redline document
2. Staff to redraft question 3 based on proposed text by Jeff Neuman, and edited by Paul McGrady, making specific reference to the additional marketplace RPMs, and link to existing information as proposed by Kristine Dorrain
3. Staff to recirculate email with information on functional/technical aspects of the TMCH, including the use of SMD files, and confirm interest from Working Group members in having a tutorial conducted for these topics within the next few weeks

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.

• No feedback on revised text for question 1 - current wording for question 1 to be considered finalized
• No feedback provided by the co-chairs of the WG to the Sub Team on the question of scope or substantive review Additional Marketplace RPMs - Sub Team to proceed with review of questions, and take information gathered back to the full WG for a substantive review
• Staff will bring up question of scope and substantive review of Additional Marketplace RPMs with the co-chairs during the weekly staff/co-chairs prep call
• Question 2:
  • Proposal to delete this question
  • Reason for proposed deletion of question 2 includes that language drafted is conclusory, not very balanced and repeats the same questions addressed in question 1 - unnecessary duplication of information being sought between question 1 and question 2, particularly following rewording of question 1
  • 8 out of 11 Sub Team members on call prefer deleting the question, while 1 prefers keeping question with revisions
  • Tentative agreement to delete question 2
• Question 3:
  • Proposal to delete this question
  • Not clear what this question is asking - is it referring to ICANN-mandated RPMs or Additional Marketplace RPMs?
  • Presumption that this question is referring to Additional Marketplace RPMs without the use of the TMCH
  • Relevance of this question is how the TMCH could be used in Additional Marketplace RPMs, and whether the use of the TMCH is necessary, or could the Additional Marketplace RPMs be provided without the use of the TMCH
  • Preference to not limit what the WG is permitted to enquire in to – regardless of the substance of the question itself, but preference expressed to be over-inclusive rather than under-inclusive
  • What RPMs can be provided in the marketplace without use of the TMCH, or duplication of the TMCH verification process
  • Proposed revision of question 3: Could registry operators provide the same or similar Additional Marketplace Protections without access to the TMCH database?  If so, would there be any increase in costs to brand owners?
  • What is the purpose of this question? Is it addressing the TMCH validator role or the TMDB?
  • Is question 3 addressing the Additional Marketplace RPMs currently being offered?
  • Is there a need to be more specific regarding use of the phrase “TMCH” – should this be more specific regarding access to the TMCH database, or using some service under arrangement with Deloitte
  • Proposed addition to question: is use of the TMCH database allowed under CURRENT rules? If so, in what way?
  • Question as revised implies or assumes something that is not accurate – incorrect assumption that registry operators have access to the TMCH for the purpose of Additional Marketplace RPMs
  • Question may be revised to ask whether registry operators require access to the TMCH in order to provide Additional Marketplace RPMs
  • Proposed revision results in loss of the question of whether there is current interaction between registry operators and the TMCH, and whether there is any added cost or burden, to whom, and how does that work?
  • There is minimal interaction between registry operators and the TMCH to confirm that SMD files are not expired or revoked, as well as a list of names/strings pulled by the registry operator that may match claims to instruct registrars to pull the claims notice from the TMCH
  • Proposed additional question: Are registry operators using the TMCH database and its features for Additional Marketplace Mechanisms? If so, how? Does the current adopted policy allow this use? Could registry operators provide the same or similar Additional Marketplace Protections without access to the TMCH database?  If so, would there be any increase in costs to brand owners?
  • From AC Chat: whether or not something violates a policy - I'm not sure that's something for this group to determine - that seems to be more of a Compliance question
  • A poll was sent to registry operators with questions that may be relevant to this topic - were asked whether registry operators were accessing/using the capabilities of the TMCH to provide services other than Sunrise and TM Claims
  • From AC Chat: Following up on Jeff's and Jon's exchange, the ROs' responses essentially were that they do not have additional arrangements with Deloitte, nor do they have heightened or extra access to the TMDB to offer the additional services.
  • Questions asked of registry operators:
    • "Are you accessing data and records in the TMCH for purposes other than obtaining information necessary for the provision of sunrise and claims services in accordance with ICANN’s user manuals and technical requirements?"
    • "Are you using any capabilities of the TMCH other than for Sunrise Periods and TM Claims Notices?"
  • Are registry operators relying on the validation process of the TMCH to determine eligibility to participate in Additional Marketplace RPMs being offered privately?
  • Can registry operators use other 3^rd party validation services to offer private services?
  • Answer to this question is clearly "yes", so what value is being added in asking the question, and how does it help the WG move forward?
  • Proposed rewording of question: Could registry operators provide the same or similar additional marketplace services without relying on the validation services performed by the TMCH? (presumption that answer is "yes") - without a second/follow-up question, answering this question does not further inform the PDP - additional concept not addressed is the question of cost
  • Whether registry operators are using the TMCH is a fundamental question that needs to be asked and answered, even if some of us know the answer - others do not
  • As a review team, this WG should be asking whether the current rules allow use of the TMCH with additional marketplace RPMs – if not, should the rules be changed, or should they be enforced?
  • Suggestion to have a capacity building webinar on how use of the features of the TMCH (such as SMD files) coincides with additional marketplace RPMs
  • If a question is asked on whether the TMCH is necessary for offering additional marketplace RPMs, another question should be asked to identify potential alternatives
  • From the AC Chat: To Susan's point, staff had sent around the relevant documentation describing how SMD files and the TMCH works. We are happy to arrange an actual tutorial (as discussed by the Sunrise Sub Team) as well if that is still deemed useful.
  • Registry operators use the TMCH as a source of data, even in the absence of a contractual agreement to do so - if this information is not available via the TMCH, registry operators will seek it elsewhere - need to have a common understanding of the word "use" in this context (i.e. in the absence of an agreement between the registry operators and the TMCH)
  • In previous Sub Teams, there was a column for notes, where notes on data already gathered, or questions that have already been answered are posted and linked - provides a resource to research already done instead of duplicating work already done
  • Does relying on the TMCH validation process violate any existing policies? (presumption that this is not the case)
  • Role of Sub Team is not to substantively evaluate the Additional Marketplace RPMs - Sub Team's role is only to agree on the questions to be asked/answered, and to collect information to inform the review by the full WG
  • ACTION ITEM: Staff to redraft question 3 based on proposed text by Jeff Neuman, and edited by Paul McGrady, making specific reference to the additional marketplace RPMs, and link to existing information as proposed by Kristine Dorrain
  • ACTION ITEM: Staff to recirculate email with information on functional/technical aspects of the TMCH, including the use of SMD files
  • Following circulation of the information by staff, if deemed desirable, a tutorial webinar may be conducted - likely run by GDD staff
• Next Meeting/Next Steps:
  • Next Sub Team call on Friday, 4 August at 16:00 UTC
  • Continue review of reverse-redline document – next question for review is question 4