The call for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 05 April 2017 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes, duration may change pending results of the doodle poll (sent in a separate email)
10:00 PDT, 13:00 EDT, 18:00 London 19:00 CET
For other times: http://tinyurl.com/kabckpd
Agenda:
- Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only) and updates to Statements of Interest
- Confirm membership, mandates and deadlines for each of the three Sub Teams formed for Sunrise, Claims and Private Protection
- Confirm duration and dates of Working Group calls up to ICANN59
- Co-Chairs’ overview of the Analysis Group’s revised report on the TMCH
- Working Group discussion with Greg Rafert of the Analysis Group, with a view toward review of any data and information relevant to resolution of our remaining TMCH Charter question
- Next steps/next meeting
Documents:
Analysis Group Revised Report on the TMCH (22 February 2017): https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/tmch/revised-services-review-22feb17-en.pdf (clean copy) and https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/tmch/revised-services-review-redline-22feb17-en.pdf (redlined against the Draft Report published for public comment in July 2016)
Sunrise, Claims & General Charter Questions - 30 March 2017.docx
Transcript
Guest speaker: Greg Rafert of the Analysis Group
Apologies: Petter Rindforth, Marie Pattullo, Jonathan Agmon , Rebecca Tushnet, Lillian Fosteris, Susan Payne, Vinzenz Heussler, Bradley Silver, Paul Keating
Audio only: Brian Beckham, Steve Levy, Paul McGrady
Follow up notes: Call Notes
- Additional Questions noted from the AC Chat for follow up with the Analysis Group (in addition to the questions asked by George Kirikos):
Phil Marano: The revised report indicates in several areas that conclusions could not be reached because various parties failed to respond to requests from Analysis Group for additional data. It would be great to receive additional context from Analysis Group on the specific requests it made, to whom, and any reasons given for failure to respond or provide the requested data.
Michael Graham: If the registration application was abandoned AG could not see the DOMAIN applied for, so there's no way of tracing duplicate pings, etc.?
Kristine Dorrain: Do we know if a user who got a Claims Notice and abandoned their attempt to register then subsequently decided later to go back and register the domain despite the Claims Notice?
Griffin Barnett: Is there data on abandonment of registrations where there is no Claims Notice (e.g. legacy TLDs)? Do we have any data on abandonment during the same periods for those starting the registration process but not receiving a Claims Notice?
