[Gnso-rpm-protection] FOR REVIEW: Updated questions (re: Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 2017)

Fri Aug 4 14:05:19 UTC 2017

Hi Brian, Tx for your response. Many subteams have started with 
questions that were deemed to be one-sided. Underlying this question, at 
least according to several people last week, was a genuine issue of 
transparency.

Of course, please feel free to rewrite. That is indeed the purpose of 
the subteam!

Best, Kathy

On 8/4/2017 9:37 AM, Brian F. Cimbolic wrote:
>
> Hi Kathy – I favor deletion of question 2.  Honestly, it struck me 
> more as an effort in persuasive writing than a genuine pursuit of 
> further information.  It read:
>
> “How can TMCH services *_be much more transparent_* in terms of what 
> is offered pursuant to ICANN contracts and policies and what services 
> Deloitte and IBM provide to registries via private contract?  
> Correspondingly, how can the Working Group and the public better 
> understand what services Deloitte and IBM are offering to registries 
> via private contract, e.g., private protections using the Trademark 
> Clearinghouse database and special webinars about these private 
> services? What changes *_might provide a clearer line_**_?”_*
>
> (Emphasis supplied).  The conclusion is clearly baked into the 
> question here – that these mechanisms are not transparent and changes 
> are needed to prPlovide a clearer line.  I don’t think that has been 
> established as a consensus position – certainly not of the subgroup, 
> at least. The bias written into the question, to me, makes it 
> inappropriate to include.
>
> Thanks,
>
> *Brian Cimbolic*
>
> Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry
>
> Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871|
>
> www.pir.org<http://www.pir.org/> | 
> Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/PIRegistry>| 
> Twitter<http://twitter.com/PIRegistry> | 
> Instagram<http://instagram.com/PIRegistry> | 
> YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/PIRegistry>
>
> *Confidentiality Note:*Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest 
> Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
>
> *From:*gnso-rpm-protection-bounces at icann.org 
> [mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kathy 
> Kleiman
> *Sent:* Friday, August 04, 2017 9:23 AM
> *To:* gnso-rpm-protection at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-rpm-protection] FOR REVIEW: Updated questions 
> (re: Action Items from the Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 
> 28 July 2017)
>
> Deletion of Question 2?
>
> As raised in the Subteam group last week, I still do not understand 
> why question 2 has been deleted. Question 1 seems to be asking what 
> services are being offered (a quantitative question). Question 2 
> (former Question 2) seems to be asking whether the public is in a 
> position to understand the difference between services offered 
> pursuant to ICANN Contract and pursuant to private offerings (a 
> qualitative and transparency question).
>
> While I think the placement of the question is probably incorrect - it 
> can certainly be moved later - the underlying issues of transparency, 
> understandability and separation of additional marketplace services -- 
> and the communication means by which they are shared with the public 
> -- seems very valid. I note that others, from other SGs, agreed in the 
> call last week.
>
> May I suggest that former #2 be moved to the end of the current 
> questions to see whether, by the time we reach the end, the issue of 
> what the Public knows about Additional Marketplace RPMs has been 
> addressed. If not, this question, in some form, should remain in.
>
> Best regards, Kathy
>
> On 7/31/2017 5:10 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
>
>     Dear all,
>
>     Please find attached:
>
>      1. An updated document of the Sub Team’s questions, where the
>         previous Question 2 has been deleted and the previous Question
>         3 (renumbered as Question 2 accordingly) has been re-worded by
>         staff based on our understanding of the Sub Team’s discussions
>         from the 28 July call.
>
>      2. The email sent by staff to the full Working Group containing
>         the relevant documents that describe the functional scope and
>         technical requirements of the TMCH, and outlining the
>         mechanism of SMD files. As noted in the Sub Team Action Items
>         below, staff will also try to both confirm the level of
>         interest amongst Working Group members, and availability of
>         our operational colleagues, for a tutorial on the TMCH
>         workings and scope.
>
>     Please let us know if you have any comments or suggestions on the
>     documents.
>
>     Thanks and cheers
>
>     Mary
>
>     *From: *<gnso-rpm-protection-bounces at icann.org>
>     <mailto:gnso-rpm-protection-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Amr
>     Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org> <mailto:amr.elsadr at icann.org>
>     *Date: *Friday, July 28, 2017 at 18:15
>     *To: *"gnso-rpm-protection at icann.org"
>     <mailto:gnso-rpm-protection at icann.org>
>     <gnso-rpm-protection at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-rpm-protection at icann.org>
>     *Subject: *[Gnso-rpm-protection] Action Items from the Additional
>     Marketplace RPMs Sub Team Call - 28 July 2017
>
>     Dear Sub Team Members,
>
>     Please find the action items from today’s Sub Team call below. The
>     action items, notes, meeting documents and recordings have been
>     posted to the meeting’s wiki page here:
>     https://community.icann.org/x/agIhB[community.icann.org]
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_agIhB&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=jrfytIimH-5nBVeOUvmUJ2pdqJmyM0Md6Q-usZ7OCxw&s=cDXA5FEyeUJ6iQewy6Uhro5lILEvZOR5M8L1wREfCo4&e=>.
>     The transcripts of today’s call will be posted on the same page,
>     when available.
>
>     Thanks.
>
>     Amr
>
>     *_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
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     Gnso-rpm-protection mailing list
>
>     Gnso-rpm-protection at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rpm-protection at icann.org>
>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-protection
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-protection/attachments/20170804/cf78886f/attachment-0001.html>