[Gnso-rpm-tmch] Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for RPM TMCH Sub Team Meeting on Friday, 02 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC

[Michelle DeSmyter]

Dear All,



Please find the attendance, MP3 recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) TMCH Sub Team call held on Friday, 02 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC.
MP3:https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-tmch-02sep16-en.mp3
 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-tmch-05aug16-en.mp3>

The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the Sub Team wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/uhWsAw
Attendees RPM TMCH Sub Team:
Edward Morris
Jeff Neuman
Kathy Kleiman
Kristine Dorrain
Kurt Pritz
Philip Corwin
Robin Gross
Sarah Clayton
Scott R. Austin
Susan Payne
Vaibhav Aggarwal


On audio only:
 None

Apologies:
None

ICANN staff:

Mary Wong
Antonietta Mangiacotti

David Tait

Michelle DeSmyter





** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **



Mailing list archives:  http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-tmch/



Main RPM Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/rhiOAw

Sub Team Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/uhWsAw



Thank you.

Kind regards,

Michelle DeSmyter



-------------------------------

Adobe Connect chat transcript for 02 September 2016:

 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) - TMCH sub team call on Friday, 02 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC.
  Mary Wong:Hi all - the PDF version doesn't seem to include the comments, including from Kurt - so it may be helpful if you also have the Word version at hand/
  Susan Payne:sorry, I have lost audio...
  David Tait:Susan we can arrange a dial out if that would help?
  Philip Corwin:Hello all
  Kristine Dorrain:Hi
  Philip Corwin:Is anyone speaking, because all I have on my phone line is silence?
  Kristine Dorrain:No, Susan was about to and she lost audio
  Philip Corwin:OK thx
  Susan Payne:i think I'm back :)
  Mary Wong:That's why the data is only up to May 2015, which is when the RPM Paper was done.
  David Tait: Link: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/cct-metrics-rpm-2016-06-27-en#2.8
  Mary Wong:@Susan, that's something staff was wondering too - and we are thinking that it would be helpful for the Sub Team to go back to the Charter questions, after reviewing the questions we have now, to see what else we might need.
  Susan Payne:@Mary - yes that's what we thought
  Kristine Dorrain:Let me clarify:  we are not trying to answer the charter questions.  We are using them as an OUTLINE for our question creation process.
  Mary Wong:@Kristine, yes that was the staff understanding as well.
  Kristine Dorrain:So we don't miss anything.  Otherwise I feel like our question-asking is feeling undirected.
  Jeff Neuman:@kathy - I agree with Kristine.  The best way to determine which data we should be seeking is to go back to the charter to see what questions we (the full group) will need to answer
  Kristine Dorrain:It's basically a gap-filling exercise
  Mary Wong:Agree it is not for this Sub Team to answer the Charter questions; we had thought it had been agreed that the Sub Team could use the Charter questions as a starting point to develop data-related questions that would aid the WG in answering the Charter questions.
  Mary Wong:FYI - the Charter questions are basically a list of all the community questions that were raised in prior public comments and community consultations, including to the Issue Report and the RPM Staff Paper. However, as Kathy notes, they are not strictly listed as coming from a particular SG or C.
  Kristine Dorrain:So, Susan and I will share our outline next week.
  Philip Corwin:Concur that role of subteam is to gather data that will assist full WG in addressing community questions. Of course it can refer to those questions in determining what data to seek.
  Edward Morris 2:Thx. Kathy. This is a huge issue.
  Kurt Pritz:I think we can let Deloitte and IBM sort out the TMCH provider questions
  Jeff Neuman:That sounds a little subjective to me
  Jeff Neuman:and not a data exercize
  Jeff Neuman:How do we know that legitimate users are not proceeding
  Mary Wong:Of all, yes
  Jeff Neuman:The full WG has not established that legitimate registrations did not proceed and therefore we cannot ask questions with that assumption baked in
  Mary Wong:Maybe at most we can say is that legitimate registrants form part of that 94% but we do not know what the actual rate is.
  Scott R. Austin:@Susan I read the same assumption into the question and agree it should be based on evidence. And isnt that the goal of the notice if those put off were potential infringers?
  Kristine Dorrain:One problem with the use of "legitimate" is that the Claims Notice is generated because there is a mark in the TMCH. "Legitimacy" at that point goes to potential non-infringing uses (because there is no actual use yet).  I think it would be hard to determine intent at the time of registration by simply looking at the domain name.
  Kathy:What I am striving for probably a "kinder, gentler" TM Claims Notice.
  Kathy:Is there a better way to phrase what we are trying to say...
  Kathy:yes
  David Tait:yes
  Robin Gross:I agree with Phil.  We should really try to get some hard data on legitimate registrations that were thwarted.
  Mary Wong:How do we know what was a legitimate potential registration?
  Robin Gross:Specific facts could give us a clue.
  Edward Morris 2:Then we can not make an assumption that any of those who turned away were potential cybersquatters. Assumptions go both ways.
  Mary Wong:But what are the specific facts? We know how many Claims Notice in total were issued, and how many registrations then followed, but that's it.
  David Tait:can do
  Mary Wong:Note that we have listed as an Action Item following up with Brett.
  Kathy:yes
  Kristine Dorrain:yes, we can hear you
  Robin Gross:That's the data we want.
  Mary Wong:@Robin, understood - but staff just can't figure out how we can get it. Who says what is and what is not a legitimate potential registrant?
  Robin Gross:I wasn't proposing staff decide what is legitimate.  The group should look at the data and make some analysis.
  Jeff Neuman:If we ask the question, then lets ask why did cybersquatter proceed with registrations despite receiving the notice
  Mary Wong:@Robin, right - but what data?
  Philip Corwin:Instead of "legitimate", how about "non-infringing intent"?
  Edward Morris 2:+1 Phil
  Mary Wong:@Phil, doesn't that raise the same question? How can anyone tell which potential registration that didn't go through has non infringing intent?
  Jeff Neuman:Then lets ask the opposite sire of the coin
  Jeff Neuman:If some people got scared away, some did not.  Lets find out why some infringers were not scared away
  Kristine Dorrain:I think "intent" is stiil subjective.
  Robin Gross:Perhaps some of the would-be registrants in Brett's data could provide some clarification about their intentions.
  Susan Payne:All, apologies for having to go.  I will catch up on the recording
  Kathy:Bye Susan!
  David Tait:Thanks Susan
  Scott R. Austin:Intent in this case will always be circumstantial and that an attempt to register a registered mark as a domain is a coin toss on aware or unaware of the mark, an innocent who just picked the string by chance or a serial cybersquatter playing the lottery of enforcement
  David Tait:Yes
  Kathy:I don't understand Jeff's question and suggest we revise.
  Mary Wong:Got it, Jeff - sorry about that.
  Kathy:Now I understand. Tx and good rephrasing
  Philip Corwin:These questions are asking for opinions. I'm not against that, but we should ask for any data they have that backs up their opinions.
  Kathy:Good point.
  Kristine Dorrain:yes, Phil.  I agree.  We need to be explicit about that.
  Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome Vaibhav!
  Vaibhav Aggarwal:hey guys I know I missed but still wanted to get on. just parked
  Kristine Dorrain:No obejctions
  Vaibhav Aggarwal:hey Michelle
  Philip Corwin:My subjective opinion is that sophisticated cybersquatters don't care about the claims notice because they have probably furnished false WHOIS data and have no intention of responding to a UDRP or URS, while amateur or inadvertent cybersquatters are deterred by it.
  Kristine Dorrain:Personal opinion: you're probably right.  The hard part is crafting the questions to gain the right data to prove/disprove that....
  Philip Corwin:Thx--and that was my personal opinion, co-chair hat off
  Kathy:Good point, Susan!!
  Kristine Dorrain:Thanks everyone!
  Robin Gross:Thanks, bye.
  Vaibhav Aggarwal:thnx and a great weekend too
  Vaibhav Aggarwal:yippee

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-tmch/attachments/20160902/c00f6aa0/attachment-0001.html>