[Gnso-rpm-tmch] TMCH Sub Team meeting on Friday 14 October

Fri Oct 14 14:30:11 UTC 2016

Regarding the registrar questions I think there was some work underway to run these past some registrars on the main WG and see if they are reasonable – is that correct.  Perhaps we can pick that up on the call?

Registry Questions

I support sending these.  However I do think that there is a duplication in a couple of the questions relating to blocking mechanisms, and that to minimise registry fatigue it would be preferable to address this rather than asking the same thing twice.  I also thought that this was what we had agreed on the calls:

Bullet 3:

·         Did the various blocking mechanism services drive users to the TMCH – that is, are you aware of any brand owners that entered their TMs in to the TMCH just to be able to participate?
Bullet 5:

·         How many trademark owners are using the TMCH solely to be able to participate in the Blocking Mechanism Service, but NOT to make any Sunrise Registrations? -- or -- What are number of DPML-type registrations that are in each of the registries that offer them, vs the number of sunrise registrations?

The first part of bullet 5 is the same as bullet 3 although less well phrased since bullet 3 asks the registry for information they do have whereas bullet 5 asks them for information they do not.  I thought this was being deleted from bullet 5 and that we were just keeping the alternate question (after the or)

TMCH Provider Questions

I also support sending these, although again I note there are duplicates that, preferably, should be removed:

Bullet 7:

  *   How are marks cancelled within national/regional registries handled at the TMCH level?

Bullet 19:

·         What is the TMCH process (if any) relating to marks that are cancelled or expire: reactive (e.g. TM owner/agent obligations) and proactive, if any.

If there is a view that these are not duplicates I would suggest grouping them together so that the TMCH provider appreciates this.

Bullet 12:

  *   How many contracts are there for private uses of the TMCH? How many of them involve the Blocking Mechanism Services?
-        Are there contracts for other uses, and if so, how many?

-        If there are no such contracts, is the TMCH aware of other uses?

And bullet 22:

·         How many DPML services are you supporting?

Suggest we just delete 22.

If others think it is not preferable to remove unnecessary duplications I am not going to fight over this

Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd

E: susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>
D: +44 20 7421 8255
T: +44 20 7421 8299
M: +44 7971 661175

From: gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: 14 October 2016 14:56
To: gnso-rpm-tmch at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] TMCH Sub Team meeting on Friday 14 October

Hi All, With apologies, I may not be able to attend today's call. I support sending out our questions to Registries and probably to Registrars to (as edited).  Question: what's the timeframe for the Analysis Group's questions and analysis? Does it fit within our timeframe? Would we even have access to their data?  Would response to Analysis Group be confidential until compiled and anonymized? Basically, are we better off with our own path?

Best, Kathy

On 10/13/2016 7:11 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
Dear all,

Just resending David’s note from 5 October, outlining what staff suggests may be a useful framework for this Sub Team’s report back to the full Working Group (please see the bullet points below). Following the Sub Team’s discussion and, hopefully, sign off on the call tomorrow, staff will prepare a draft report for finalization by the Sub Team prior to forwarding it to the full Working Group.

Regarding the various agreed questions to Registrars, Registries and the TMCH Providers, please note the following updates:

·         We have just learned from our GDD colleagues that the Analysis Group plans to ask for further data from both Registries and Registrars. From what we are told, their request to the Registries (of New gTLDs) will concern only wholesale pricing, so that should not overlap with anything that our Sub Team is planning to ask from these Registries.

·         For Registrars, however, the Analysis Group plans to ask for data that can shed more light on cart abandonment rate. As this was a substantial point of discussion for our Sub Team and also the full Working Group, we may wish to either hold off on sending the questions that Kathy and Kurt are working to finalize, or coordinate with the Analysis Group to avoid repeating the same question while getting the data that we need.

We can discuss this further on the call tomorrow, but David and I thought it best to let you know ahead of time.

Thanks and cheers
Mary

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
Telephone: +1-603-5744889

From: <gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of David Tait <david.tait at icann.org><mailto:david.tait at icann.org>
Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 06:26
To: "gnso-rpm-tmch at icann.org"<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch at icann.org> <gnso-rpm-tmch at icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] TMCH Sub team meeting Friday, 7 October 2016

Dear Sub-team members

Just a brief reminder that at our last meeting a final draft of questions related to the TMCH was prepared. Should you have any final comments on these we would be grateful to receive them asap.

In relation to the meeting for this week, scheduled for Friday, 7 October 2016 at 15:00 UTC, staff would suggest that this would provide an opportune time to discuss the report to be sent to the Working Group. Tentatively we would suggest that the report could cover the following items:

·         Overview of activities to date;

·         Publicly available data obtained by the ST (i.e. the tabular summary prepared by staff);

·         Outcome of meetings with analysis group; and

·         Proposed further data gathering from key-stakeholders.

We would be grateful to receive any comments you had on this outline.

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/20161014/4fd0ba00/attachment-0001.html>