[gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION - NEW co-chairs' statement on additional RPMs, and UPDATED table of TMCH Charter questions

Justine Chew justine.chew at gmail.com
Tue Dec 6 05:44:17 UTC 2016


Dear all,

(1) No issues with this draft of the Co-Chairs Statement on Private RPMs as
it stands.  [Suggestion to staff that this be marked with date / version to
enable convenient tracking of amended copies (if any) similar to treatment
of other documents]

(2) In respect of the t
​
able of all the TMCH-related Charter questions (dated 5 Dec 2016), in
particular Category 2 Question 1, I would like to propose a supplementary
question as follows:

If answered in the positive, should such mechanism be incorporated into and
administered under the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures?

A prelude to this would be to have some understanding on the evolving
Guidelines subscribed to by the Review Panel, plus some data on the number
of disputes filed and how many which were determined by the Review Panel as
incorrectly rejected by the TMCH.

​Kind regard
s,

Justine Chew
-----

On 5 December 2016 at 16:25, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> In advance of the Working Group call this week, and pending circulation of
> the finalized agenda, please find attached the following documents for your
> review and further discussions:
>
> (1) A draft statement from our Working Group co-chairs regarding the
> provision of additional rights protection mechanisms by the TMCH and
> registry operators (i.e. in addition to the minimum mandatory RPMs
> prescribed by ICANN and which form the basis of our current Policy
> Development Process); and
>
> (2) A t
> ​​
> able of all the TMCH-related Charter questions, as refined and suggested
> by the Sub Team and including notes and questions from several Working
> Group members as of 4 December. This document essentially replicates the
> Proposed Edited Questions that were circulated in the form of the more
> comprehensive table that was discussed by the Sub Team, but hopefully aids
> your deliberations as it sets out all the proposed questions in one spot.
>
> Thanks and cheers
> Mary
>
>
> On 12/5/16, 07:52, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of George
> Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of icann at leap.com>
> wrote:
>
>     I think the 2nd formulation of Question #15 is better, as it's more
>     open-ended, yet also asks for specifics on how concerns can be
>     addressed.
>
>     As an aside, the "Original Question" of #15 suggested "of course with
>     a central database" --- there's no technical reason why a central
>     database would be required. There could instead be multiple
>     independent databases, which registrars and/or registries could query
>     in parallel via a standardized API. There'd only need to be a central
>     *list* of which TMCH providers needed to be queried. From a coding
>     perspective, the registrar/registry could simply query the entire list
>     of providers, and collate the results.
>
>     Most registrars already have this technology/capability, as they often
>     query multiple registries (and secondary marketplaces) in parallel
>     when customers attempt a new domain name registration (e.g. customer
>     searches for EXAMPLE.COM, but they'll query not only the
>     Verisign-operated .com registry, but also .net/org/biz/info/us and
>     hundreds of other TLDs, marketplaces like Sedo/Afternic, and they'll
>     even generate and query variations of "EXAMPLE.TLD" for availability,
>     presenting the customer with a list of hundreds of alternatives).
>
>     Sincerely,
>
>     George Kirikos
>     416-588-0269
>     https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.
> leap.com_&d=DgICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6
> sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=6_
> VMDtwqWjvKswt7FWoxbWm99DZdJYcWV1rO_kKPtwk&s=qYMcZKuBn701mhM04nQ0JEKGBbIdXl
> M2qzbr7ngUHqY&e=
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 12:25 PM, David Tait <david.tait at icann.org>
> wrote:
>     > Dear All
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > In advance of the meeting of the Rights Protection Mechanisms
> Working Group
>     > on Wednesday at 1800 UTC, I am pleased to enclose the updated review
> of the
>     > TMCH Charter questions which has been prepared by the Sub-Team
> tasked to
>     > conduct an initial review of these questions.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Staff have been expressly asked to draw your attention to Question
> 15. Two
>     > possible formulations of this question have been prepared and the
> Sub-Team
>     > is seeking the view of the Working Group as to which of these should
> be
>     > adopted.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Kind regards,
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > David Tait
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > David A. Tait
>     >
>     > Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland, non-practicing)
>     >
>     > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Mobile: + 44-7864-793776
>     >
>     > Email:  david.tait at icann.org
>     >
>     > www.icann.org
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>     > gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>     > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>     _______________________________________________
>     gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>     gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20161206/cbcab83c/attachment.html>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list