[gnso-rpm-wg] Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group 10 August 2016
Terri Agnew
terri.agnew at icann.org
Wed Aug 10 20:18:26 UTC 2016
Dear All,
Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call held on Wednesday, 10 August 2016 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/uwSsAw
MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-10aug16-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXzI03ZqpsshSzdNKA1Z4WxEp9wS0juney3-2FNUzRFsgaoBb5eKJZHg-3D-3D_nEX-2FaOijqgcJlSz5SkmueJu3tRbmaDiuX89gT35tStEeSHP9whdoceObpMxYsFLQddiMZpQjIv8dk6BsBGSJXH7VWN4SGLCJgbGKCk6E-2FTErjF4OKNQt65Dk9NF54IJ9kQpmDNySj7bbNz9G4dXi5BgbCZotTx8KNfyeB0z00f8KsMfETeTNKd7vy2kKI7tttQUIwid4NAhxXgT3nZYwmk8V3QDoQegIEPduL3rPIC13JGH8DQiZI8bd1Ie0OV7AkR25vAEEwSZcMYR11JQiM0JE5u2FvYxWKtEPq965d3kmLwoYdydHvZq3mPHuhLyW0DsYyCZ10EG1URD8QHd3r5yalUYfkapVGdLJT2-2F5je0TMiG91CyMigLZqqjA0BvoJpEOZZ-2FDE6KeQ2C2SIVDSmawSmx7X4mJwC5-2B2JglL0-2FeMsWjnXT-2FF7VW1Hbfaon39BinVEvG5VeZ6PLLvVlj14NKw-2FS9mi6ESgCzDEvn1TBZdiRYI8BBRfPNsdak7lMQ>
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov>
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/
Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/rhiOAw
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri Agnew
-------------------------------
Adobe Connect chat transcript for 10 August 2016:
Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call scheduled on Wednesday, 10 August 2016 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes
Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/uwSsAw
George Kirikos:Hi folks.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hi All
Paul Tattersfield:Hi All
Sonigitu Ekpe:Hello All!
Salvador Camacho Hernandez:Hello everybody!
Mary Wong:@Kathy we will upload the redline
Mary Wong:If it will make it easier to see the changes
Marie Pattullo:Can answers be anonymous/aggregated? I'm not sure we'd get as much input if not.
Mary Wong:@Marie, we can report aggregated total numbers but survey responses will be individual forms. Respondents can choose not to give their name, though.
Marie Pattullo:Thanks Mary - that's what I was getting at; companies who may not wish to be named/cited.
Dominic DeLuca(FORUM):Will/should UDRP decisions have any influence on the outcomes of PDDRPs? - Potential question for ICANN Compliance
Marie Pattullo:Agree with Susan's question to Compliance. And can they say why the potential complainant chose not to proceed?
Denise Michel:@ susan - i'd suggest not only asking if Compliance is empowered but also ask if they HAVE taken action based on data/information
George Kirikos:Do we know if those registars were closely related to certain registries? (e.g. wholly-owned subsidiaries, common shareholders, etc?)
susan payne:@George, we diont have any information about who the registrars are
George Kirikos:Thanks, Susan.
susan payne:the Analysis report does not identify organisations
Sonigitu Ekpe:Yes
susan payne:sounds good thanks
Mary Wong:@Kathy, what you see in AC is the clean version of the updated document - seemed easier to review than the redline
Mary Wong:OK let us know if you want us to switch to the redline - it gets a bit messy with the new boxes, though.
George Kirikos:There was a straw poll sent to the mailing list, but only 17 folks filled it out: http://doodle.com/poll/nc8ydu8cbbywtabm
George Kirikos:That was from last Friday's email, see: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2016-August/000407.html
George Kirikos:I'm not sure what was meant with "mediation online" -- I think often it's by telephone, to be in "real-time", rather than "online". If it's online, it could drag on forever.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:George, online mediation is often conducted over Skype, etc.
Mary Wong:@George, all - we note that further deliberation on the actual details of what that mediation would look like will be needed. The agreed idea is that it would have to be lightweight and lean.
Kurt Pritz:If mediation is voluntary (and I think it should be) I don't think we should be prescriptive as to form. It can be whatever form the two parties wish it to be.
Alistair Payne:I agree with Kurt - if mediation is voluntary then the parties should be able tio run it as they wish.
Justine Chew:Submissions are submitted online too, no?
Lori Schulman:Agree with Alistair and Kurt.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:Agree with Kurt, the key with mediation is that it meets the current needs of the current parties.
Mary Wong:Sure thing, Kathy - that was our understanding but it may make sense to make it explicit, I guess.
Luc Seufer:So Amazon is for online services? How surprising ;-)
George Kirikos:I'd agree, that it should be "real-time", but not necessarily "online". If both parties are in the same location, a face-to-face mediation, with a mediator chosen in the same city, can be advantageous.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:Luc, to be clear, I disclaimed that as an Amazon statment. I was speaking historically from my experience as former director of NAF
Luc Seufer:I was just teasing. I am also convinced online is the way for such mediation.
Lori Schulman:I responded this morning.
George Kirikos:i.e. goal of mediation is to encourage settlement, or narrowing the issues; can use technology in some ways to complement the "human" aspect, but not replace it.
Lori Schulman:George, given our virtual world, mediation is a very good option for many. It should be consented on both sides. It is not intended to replace human aspects but to facilitate good outcomes. Mediation has been an extremely useful tool to settle distributes in my experience.
Alistair Payne:Lori/George - agree with both but i think that the point is that in person mediation as an option is essential, not just on-line
Paul Tattersfield:Alistair +1
Luc Seufer:if the party willing to have the in person mediation is accepting to support the extra costs, why not
Lori Schulman:Alistair, yes, I agree with human or virtual option...option is key.
George Kirikos:I agree, Alistair, keep options open that would help those involved with the dispute (i.e. the parties). Mandating a certain method in order to make it more convenient for a particular mediation provider shouldn't be a priority.
George Kirikos:(i.e. parties might want to choose a mediation provider that is unrelated to the PDDRP dispute resolution providers)
Justine Chew:+1 Jeff
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:YES Jeff.
Alistair Payne:or simply to agree a mediator in their jurisdiction who is convenient and effective
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 Jeff
Statton Hammock:Great point Jeff N.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:We are shooting in the dark trying to "solve" problems that haven't yet arisen.
Darcy Southwell:+1 Jeff
Justine Chew:Yes, Jeff sets out the logic for this point correctly.
Lori Schulman:INTA has done that on several occasions.
Lori Schulman:Many are reluctant to submit evidence for fear of reprisal.
Lori Schulman:We are on record with a bad practices letter that was submitted to ICANN compliance last year.
Lori Schulman:I can send letter to the list.
John McElwaine:Its not only reprisal, but there are concerns of attorney/client privilege and waiver in providing such examples.
Robin Gross:I agree with Jeff.
George Kirikos:I agree with Jeff that 'evidence' should be the major impetus for change. However, one can also use reason and logic to justify changes, especially when there are scenarios that were not contemplated when the policy was put into place.
George Kirikos:e.g. the limitation period for bringing disputes doesn't appear to have even been contemplated. Getting rid of that absurd scenario (where someone could initiate a PDDRP, when they could not file in court) would make sense, even if there's no "data" behind it since no disputes have ever even been filed.
Darcy Southwell:Agree with Jeff - "evidence" needs to be presented that indciates a change is needed - otherwise we're trying to "fix" or "improve" upon something we don't know is a problem
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):was the behaviour allowed by the legal framework?
Lori Schulman:Just sent INTA letter to Terri for posting.
Mary Wong:Thanks, Lori.
Paul Tattersfield:@George as well as time limitations there should be something to stop vexatious filings
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):As far as I know - the pricing is not regulated
George Kirikos:In particular, it might be 10+ more years that these policies might be reviewed again within ICANN, so it makes sense to fix some absurdities.
Lori Schulman:Also, INTA is planning an anonymized study on effect of new gTLD program and RPM's. We are hoping for more data based on anonymous responses to avoid the issues with reprisal, attorney client privilege, etc.
George Kirikos:Right, Paul.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:What vexation filings????
Lori Schulman:Already sent.
Mary Wong:All, just FYI - 18 respondents to the Doodle poll. All support not discussing burden of proof any further at this stage in the PDP.
George Kirikos:Were we supposed to talk about the TMCH? (10 minutes ago)
George Kirikos:I guess we're on it now.
Jeff Neuman:I will put in my standing comment in the entire document which is that I believe the status quo with respect to the PDDRP (both substantive and procedural) should be maintained unless there is a good reason to change it. By good reason I mean that it should be the burden of those requesting a change to show good cause as to why it should be changed. Good reason should be supported by evidence.
Caroline Chicoine:Sorry, but need to sign off
Laurie Anderson:+1 Jeff
Jeff Neuman:Mary - Can my note be added to the minutes or notes as a standing comment
Mary Wong:@Jeff, sure.
David Maher (PIR):+1 Jeff
George Kirikos:We're getting a few more Doodle poll results (up to 20 participants now). http://doodle.com/poll/nc8ydu8cbbywtabm Folks might want to take a few minutes after this call to fill it out, if they've not already done so.
Jeff Neuman:I think the subgroup should work on getting any and all information that people are willing to make available. Public or not.
Terri Agnew:Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Groupis scheduled for Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 16:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
George Kirikos:Bye folks.
Laurie Anderson:Bye all
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:Thanks everyone, bye!
Luc Seufer:bye all
Jeff Neuman:bye
Georges Nahitchevansky:Thanks everyone
Salvador Camacho Hernandez:Bye!
Robin Gross:bye
Elizabeth Featherman:bye!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20160810/1a22d8d0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: attendance RPM 10 August 2016.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 188624 bytes
Desc: attendance RPM 10 August 2016.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20160810/1a22d8d0/attendanceRPM10August2016-0001.pdf>
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg
mailing list