The call for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minute duration.

10:00 PDT, 13:00 EDT, 18:00 London, 19:00 CET

For other times:  http://tinyurl.com/yakfn6ba

Agenda:

  1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect or phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest
  2. Receive and discuss final reports from the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams
  3. Confirm opening and closing dates for Open TMCH Questions poll
  4. Discuss co-chairs’ proposed agenda for, and intended outcomes of, 3-hour WG session at ICANN59
  5. Next steps

 

Documents for Agenda Item #2:

Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Report (Word format)

Sunrise Registration Sub Team Report (PDF format)

Trademark Claims Sub Team Table (Word format; updated 21 June to include new footnote on the Graham/Shatan/Winterfeldt proposal)

Trademark Claims Sub Team Table (PDF format; updated 21 June to include new footnote on the Graham/Shatan/Winterfeldt proposal)

 

For Agenda Item #3, we hope to be able to publish the poll by the time of the Working Group call, if not before.

 

For Agenda Item #4, please see the following suggested agenda (with the chronological order TBD):

 

  1. Further discussion of reports and suggestions from the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams (up to one hour each)
  2. Panel discussion with registry and registrar representatives (up to one hour):
    • For this session, the co-chairs will be sending an invitation letter to the Chairs of the Registries and Registrars Stakeholder Groups this week, inviting them to send representatives to engage in discussion with our Working Group. Working Group members who are also RySG or RrSG members will be cc’d on the correspondence, as it seems likely they will be involved in their SG discussions.
    • The scope of the proposed panel discussion is likely to focus on the data collection suggestions that the two Sub Teams (for Sunrise and Trademark Claims) will be proposing (and which the Working Group will have the opportunity to review and discuss this week).


Mp3

Adobe Connect recording

Transcript

AC Chat

Attendance

Apologies: Lillian Fosteris, Steve Levy, Marie Pattullo, Jonathan Agmon

Action Items: 

Action Items for WG members:

1. Working Group members to review reports from both Sub Teams, and suggest amendments to refined questions, provide additional comments and recommend additional data requirements that may be of assistance in answering the Charter questions

2. Working Group members to suggest more appropriate wording for Q22 in the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team report

3. Working Group members should review data requirements and notes on data from the revised Analysis Group report

Action Items for Staff:

1. Staff to add suggestions made during the call on data collection as track changes to the Sub Team reports

2. Staff to remove first bullet from reworded Q1 in the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team report

3. Staff to revise refined questions 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team report for typos, clarify numbering for Q4 and ensure that the questions are communicated clearly

4. Staff to consult Sub Team as to Jon Nevett's question about whether Premium Names in Q3 of the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team report actually refers to Reserved Names

5. Staff to revise grammar of Q17/reworded Q11 in the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team report

6. Staff to remove Kristine Dorrain’s note from Q12 in the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team report

 

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.

1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect or phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest

  • No updates to SOIs

2. Receive and discuss reports from the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams

ACTION ITEM: WG members to review reports from both Sub Teams, and suggest amendments to refined questions, provide additional comments and recommend additional data requirements that may be of assistance in answering the Charter questions

ACTION ITEM: Staff to add suggestions made during the call on data collection as track changes to the Sub Team reports

-- Update on Sunrise Registration Sub Team Report:

  • Report begins with an introductory description of the methodology used by the Sub Team
  • Multiple stakeholder views were represented on the Sub Team, which was very helpful in balancing the concerns of trademark holders and others while refining questions – resulted in balanced questions
  • Original Charter questions were collected as community input - was necessary to refine them
  • Questions were "bunched" when deemed appropriate by the Sub Team to answer them together
  • Working Definitions for “reserved names”, “premium names” and “premium pricing” were developed for use by the Sub Team and WG - propose to use these working definitions moving forward (on page 2 of the report)
  • Many of the questions are asking the extent to which Sunrise is working well, or not, whether the system is being abused - this led to data requirements largely appearing to be anecdotal
  • Sub Team not empowered to change the Charter - table contains original Charter questions in one column, and refined/reworded questions in the "Proposed Notes or Alternative Wording" column
  • Column in the middle ("Sub Team Recommendations") contains anecdotes from Sub Team members recommending what to do with the original Charter questions
  • Preamble identifies the overarching issues involving Sunrise in 5 questions
  • References present that indicates which original Charter questions were used to develop the alternative versions
  • First bullet in question 1 is repeated from preamble - could be removed
  • ACTION ITEM: Staff to remove first bullet from reworded Q1
  • ACTION ITEM: Staff to revise refined questions 3, 4, 5 and 6 for typos, clarify numbering for Q4 and ensure that the questions are communicated clearly
  • ACTION ITEM: Staff to consult Sub Team as to Jon Nevett's question about whether Premium Names in Q3 actually refers to Reserved Names
  • Q11/Refined Q8: WG members encouraged to read notes by Maxim Alzoba carefully, as he had experience/insight to LRP/ALP/QLP
  • ACTION ITEM: Staff to revise grammar of Q17/reworded Q11
  • ACTION ITEM: Staff to remove Kristine Dorrain’s note from Q12
  • Original Q22/Reworded Q12: Should the question be phrased in a way that is not binary? Should the question be rephrased to allow for consideration of additional nuances and exploring further possibilities?
  • ACTION ITEM: WG members to suggest more appropriate wording for Q22
  • Domain name blogs and forums could be added as sources of anecdotal data
  • RA section 2.15 addresses registries being required to cooperate with economic studies - does this create a requirement for registries to share data with the PDP WG?
  • From AC Chat: PDPs aren't economic studies under 2.15
  • Staff input: Can check with colleagues in GDD and Compliance, but GNSO PDPs do not fall within section 2.15 of the RA, and so does not qualify as economic studies as referenced in the Registry Agreement
  • ACTION ITEM: Staff to make changes to the report using track changes for easy review by the WG members
  • Question on data - INTA survey results will be available at/after 26 June 2017
  • INTA survey was not specifically addressing RPMs, but may contain anecdotal evidence that may be useful while reviewing Sunrise

-- Trademark Claims Sub Team Update:

  • Original questions remain in the table (used as a reference point), but reworded to be more neutral/less biased
  • Questions also reworded to be less suggestive of a specific answer, and to not presume that there is a problem that needs fixing
  • Updated Q1 is a consolidation/batching of 3 original Charter questions
  • Sub Team wanted to be specific about who was being referred to in the questions, and did not want to ascribe intent - references to registrants/potential registrants/users changes to “domain name applicants” who may or may not intend on completing a registration (check footnote in Sub Team report)
  • Question 2 addresses unique ways in which gTLDs may be operated – meant to serve as an easy transition from Q1 addressing more specific questions raised in the Charter
  • Question 4 addresses proposals by Michael Graham, Greg Shatan and Brian Winterfeldt on expansion of use of the Trademark Claims Notice for non-exact matches
  • Question 4 drafted in a way to identify whether a problem exists before suggesting any potential solutions
  • Question 4 also addresses potential unintended consequences of solutions, as well as practicality of suggestions for implementation (both human involvement and technology/software solutions)
  • Questions on data requirements/collection specific to registrars, and largely addressing abandonment rates, are included in the data column
  • Consolidation of data collection should be considered, and should take the issue of confidentiality during data collection seriously
  • Might be helpful to conduct a review of UDRP/URS decisions, which should involve a survey – could be done via academic participants conducting research, having a law firm sponsor a law clerk for research or potentially have ICANN commission a study
  • If research on UDRP/URS is conducted, it should cover them generally, as well as specific aspects of dispute data relevant to Trademark Claims
  • ICANN monthly registry reports contains data that may be useful – study behavior/ratios of disputes resulting from registrations during the Claims Notice Period vs after it is over
  • From AC Chat: Event Study Methodology: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-June/002130.html (using registry data we already have, see if various metrics change after the end of the TM Claims period)
  • Data available in the Analysis Group revised report
  • ACTION ITEM: WG members should review data requirements and notes on data from the revised Analysis Group report
  • Data on UDRP/URS should not be challenging - providers have search functionality on their websites
  • In consideration of a consolidation of data collection of UDRP/URS cases, data gathering efforts should not conflate the purposes of the two phases of this PDP
  • From AC Chat: Perhaps a good starting point might be the AG report and analysis. Then the WG can decide what else is missing or needs to be done or followed up on.
  • Data should include collection of relevant data on domain names that were registered and did not result in disputes (UDRP/URS)

3. Confirm opening and closing dates for Open TMCH Questions poll

  • Poll questions updated following a discussion with the co-chairs - pending approval of the co-chairs
  • Suggestion to keep poll open throughout ICANN 59
  • Poll questions will not be subject to review by the WG members, but comment boxes are included with each question for additional comments and feedback, including that WG members may state that they do not understand the questions, or that the questions asked are the wrong ones
  • A reference guide with definitions and examples of different types of marks for use with the poll - will be circulated with the link to the survey
  • Suggestions to close poll on Friday, 7 July or Monday, 10 July - will confirm with the leadership team

4. Discuss co-chairs’ proposed agenda for, and intended outcomes of, 3-hour WG session at ICANN59

      1. Further discussion of reports and suggestions from the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams (up to one hour each)

    • 1 hour will be allocated to each Sub Team for discussion of the revised questions and data requirements
    • Discussion will be facilitated by the co-chairs of the full WG, not the Sub Team chairs

       2. Panel discussion with registry and registrar representatives (up to one hour):

    • For this session, the co-chairs will be sending an invitation letter to the Chairs of the Registries and Registrars Stakeholder Groups this week, inviting them to send representatives to engage in discussion with our Working Group. Working Group members who are also RySG or RrSG members will be cc’d on the correspondence, as it seems likely they will be involved in their SG discussions.
    • The scope of the proposed panel discussion is likely to focus on the data collection suggestions that the two Sub Teams (for Sunrise and Trademark Claims) will be proposing (and which the Working Group will have the opportunity to review and discuss this week).
  • Discussion with the registries and registrars is meant to be interactive
  • Concern that there is little time to invite contracted parties prior to ICANN 59 - if they do attend the WG face-to-face meeting, they will not have had an opportunity to review the questions
  • WG members have not agreed on final list of questions to be sent to the registries and registrars
  • If anecdotal evidence is being sought, it might be worthwhile to invite others besides registries and registrars for anecdotes
  • From AC Chat: It will mostly be to discuss the proposed data questions, and how Registries and Registrars may be able to share data in a way that preserves confidentiality and business advantage.
  • Suggestion to take advantage of community members who do not regularly participate in WG calls being present in Johannesburg
  • From AC Chat: This meeting is attended by policy people, and those questions are operational (wrong meeting for them)
  • Suggestion to have contracted parties be present during and participate in a WG discussion on the data questions, as opposed to requiring registries and registrars to answer specific questions


 

  • No labels