[Gnso-rpm-tmch] Follow from meeting with Analysis Team

Thu Aug 4 01:34:47 UTC 2016

Hi Everyone:

I will go first on this. (I was hoping others might write before me since I joined this group in the last couple weeks and haven't been present for all the discussion that led up to the questions.)  

I recommend that we do not send these questions without some additional discussion. (As I will state several times in this email, my opinions might come from a set of misunderstandings as a result from not attending the first two meetings.)  My concern is that we will get very few chances t consult with the TMCH in this process and the questions should be as complete and detailed as possible so that we get the information we want. 

_________________

To me the questions: (1)  seem vague and (2) I don't understand why we are asking these particular questions.

(1) With respect to vague:

Overall: Are the questions to Deloitte, to IBM or to both? I assume the questions would be reworded: taking words such as "they" out and replacing it with the addressee. I think we should draft the questions as they would go out before agreeing to send them. 

Question 1) Does the first question ask for the Deloitte monthly reports to ICANN? All of them? I don't know what "as updated" means. (This is an area where the others on this list understand the context and I do not. However, if I don't understand it, Deloitte is likely to not understand it also.

Question 2) The way this is worded comes across somewhat like a fishing expedition. Do we mean usage by trademark holders? Their usage of Sunrise? or Claims? Does it mean usage by registrars who might be mining the data? Is it the registrar use of data? The report from the previous meeting that David attached to his email contains several pointed questions that might yeld more meaning full results. 

Question 3) Again, I don't understand who "private groups" are and everyone else on this list might. Are we specifically targeting registries?

(2) With respect to "why":

Putting myself in the TMCK's shoes, I think when we ask the TMCH (Deloitte or IBM) questions, I think we should tell them why we are asking. That could be in the form of the chartering questions to which we seek answers. That way, if they don't have the precise data available, they might be able to develop a different data set that answers our question. Sharing our issues with the TMCH would serve to make them more of a partner in developing improvements rather than put them in the position where they are blindly answering questions and no sharing the wisdom they have gained.

__________________

To me, we should look at the charter questions, which I understand to be here:

https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2016-07-15+Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+-TMCH+sub+team?preview=/60491680/60491683/15.7%20Scoping%20Document%20for%20TMCH%20Sub%20Team.pdf

and from that develop the data set that would help to answer them and ask the TMCH parties for that data. We might work with the TMCH collaboratively to help us define and obtain the data we seek. (This work might have happened already.)

___________________

I know this is pretty extensive work and I am not sure how best to go about it. And as I said, this work might have taken place in earlier meetings with the group. 

First, I'd be pleased to hear with some more detail how we arrived at these questions. i don't think the effort would be wasted because we will want to tell the TMCH parties the same thing. 

If we wanted to pursue my line of thinking, we could have a meeting with the clearing house and go thru the charter questions accompanied by our ideas of what data is needed and they can tell us if that data can be obtained. We would probably need two prep meetings to get ready for the meeting with Deloitte and IBM. 

Best regards to everyone,

Kurt
________________
Kurt Pritz
kurt at kjpritz.com
+1.310.400.4184
Skype: kjpritz

On Aug 3, 2016, at 3:37 PM, David Tait <david.tait at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear TMCH sub-team participants
>  
> As we have not received any comments on the previously circulated questions staff would propose to send these on to the TMCH providers tomorrow. Please do let us know in the event that you have any proposals or amendments to make.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> David
>  
> From: David Tait <david.tait at icann.org>
> Date: Tuesday, 2 August 2016 at 09:40
> To: <gnso-rpm-tmch at icann.org>
> Cc: Antonietta Mangiacotti <antonietta.mangiacotti at icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> Subject: Follow from meeting with Analysis Team
>  
> Dear TMCH sub-team participants
>  
> Staff are seeking your authorization and guidance on a number of follow-up actions arising from our call on 29 July 2016 with the Analysis team.
>  
> We would propose to send the following questions to the TMCH provider (these are based on notes from the last two calls):
>  
> 1.      Can they provide the Deloitte monthly reports as updated?
>  
> 2.      What other types of information (presumably aggregated) can they provide about usage of the TMCH? (Please note: Should the sub-team believe this question should be refined/made more specific I would refer you to the Appendix of TMCH Scoping document– I attach an updated version – which may assist you in suggesting specific language)
>  
> 3.      Are they able to tell us how many private users are using the TMCH, particularly registries, and for what additional purposes?
>  
> Should it be of assistance the transcript and recording of the call with the Analysis Group are available at: https://community.icann.org/x/eQ2bAw.
>  
> Staff are also seeking your instructions as to what next steps the sub-team wishes to take following the call with Greg and Stacey last week (for ease of reference please find the notes from the WG meeting attached). We would be grateful if you could please identify which items you would like us to follow-up on and with whom.
>  
> Finally, we would ask whether you believe you will be in a position to provide a preliminary report to the full WG, say in two weeks’ time (on 10 August) and a subsequent one two weeks after that. Staff would further note that based on the consensus regarding these reporting deadlines within the sub-team, the overall timeline may need to be adjusted for the Work Plan.
>  
> We look forward to receiving your direction.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> David
>  
> David A. Tait
> Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland)
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>  
> Mobile: + 44-7864-793776
> Email:  david.tait at icann.org 
> www.icann.org
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list
> Gnso-rpm-tmch at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-tmch/attachments/20160803/0d80179b/attachment-0001.html>