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

Thu Aug 4 03:35:14 UTC 2016

Hi Kurt – thanks so much for being the first to plunge in, and for joining the Sub Team! I’ll leave it to the rest of the Sub Team to weigh in on some of your comments, but for now here are some staff perspectives (inline, in bold and blue font) that we hope will be helpful!

_________________

I recommend that we do not send these [TMCH] questions without some additional discussion.
MARY: Thank you for this; it is very much the kind of guidance that we are seeking from the Sub Team.

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.
MARY: Yes, we (staff) have the same question and would welcome guidance from the Sub Team on this.

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.
MARY: Yes, I think the idea is to get all the monthly reports, as sent to ICANN, starting from now till we conclude our review. Staff presumes that those from the past, e.g. since the Staff RPM Paper in Sept 2015, can be provided as well. One question that came up in the call last week with the Analysis Group is whether those (and other reports) will be made available to the Sub Team (and hence the WG, and published) as to ICANN. This is something we can perhaps confirm with Deloitte.

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.
MARY: Again, the staff had a similar question about the scope of this question and we would welcome guidance from the Sub Team on how to refine this question, or make it more specific.

Question 3) Again, I don't understand who "private groups" are and everyone else on this list might. Are we specifically targeting registries?
MARY: I believe this came from earlier discussions so I hope other Sub Team members can chime in here.

(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.
MARY: Thank you, that would in the staff view be an excellent way to proceed. We are happy to try to draft some sort of cover note or letter, if the Sub Team wishes.
__________________

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.)
MARY: Yes, we hope that by including the Charter questions in the Scoping Document they can serve as a guide/framework for the Sub Team and its work.

___________________

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.
MARY: They were based on earlier Sub Team conversations that were quite preliminary, so clarifying and tightening them may be a good idea.

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:david.tait at icann.org>>
Date: Tuesday, 2 August 2016 at 09:40
To: <gnso-rpm-tmch at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch at icann.org>>
Cc: Antonietta Mangiacotti <antonietta.mangiacotti at icann.org<mailto:antonietta.mangiacotti at icann.org>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:david.tait at icann.org>
www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

_______________________________________________
Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list
Gnso-rpm-tmch at icann.org<mailto: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/20160804/36dde45a/attachment-0001.html>