[gnso-rpm-wg] Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group
jonathan matkowsky
jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net
Thu Dec 22 14:56:14 UTC 2016
I had the same experience last night when I tried to stay up for the call
and intended to make it, but fell asleep because it was in middle of the
night. So I would like to be added to that column too please. Thank you!
<http://riskiq.com/>
*jonathan matkowsky*,
vp – ip & brand security
usa:: 1.347.467.1193 | office:: +972-(0)8-926-2766
emergency mobile:: +972-(0)54-924-0831
company reg. no. 514805332
<http://havarot.justice.gov.il/CompaniesDetails.aspx?id=514805332>
11/1 nachal chever, modiin israel
<https://twitter.com/riskiq>
<https://www.facebook.com/pages/RiskIQ/555939994512820>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/riskiq_2>
<https://plus.google.com/+Riskiq/posts>
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal
> wrote:
> Dear Michelle and Marry,
>
>
>
> First I apologize for cc’ing the entire list to this email but I think it
> is only fair that this would not be a private request.
>
>
>
> The attendance list is a bit of a sore spot for me since I joined this WG.
> As I noted before I do want to attend the calls but *all* the calls are
> outside the time zone for the Far East. They are always at 1am or 6am for
> Singapore/Beijing time. For Australia I think it is even worse. It is
> therefore unreasonable for those of us in this part of the world to join.
> It is also a bit odd for us to continuously apologize for not making the
> calls. After all there is nothing to apologize for.
>
>
>
> Can I therefore please ask you to add another category to the attendance.
> I suggest we call it “out of time zone” or something to this effect.
>
>
>
> You can place my name there and perhaps others from this part of the
> planet who so request. I hope this will better reflect the fact that I (and
> perhaps others) would like to join the calls but we cannot.
>
>
>
> I appreciate your kind consideration of this request.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan Agmon (胡韩森)
>
> Advocate, Director
>
> Attorney and Counsellor at Law (admitted in New York)
>
> jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal
>
> www.ip-law.legal
>
> *T* SG +65 6532 2577 <+65%206532%202577>
>
> *T* US +1 212 999 6180
>
> *T* IL +972 9 950 7000
>
> *F *IL +972 9 950 5500
>
> Soroker Agmon Nordman Pte Ltd.
>
> 133 New Bridge Road, #13-02, 059413 SINGAPORE
>
> 8 Hahoshlim Street P.O. Box 12425 4672408 Herzliya, ISRAEL
>
> This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise
> protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have
> received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it
> from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to
> anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming
> e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security
> of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@
> icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Michelle DeSmyter
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 22, 2016 11:30 AM
> *To:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Cc:* gnso-secs at icann.org
> *Subject:* [gnso-rpm-wg] Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for Review of all
> Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group
>
>
>
> 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, 21 December 2016 at
> 22:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page:
> https://community.icann.org/x/BJ3DAw
>
>
>
> *MP3:*http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-21dec16-en.mp3
>
> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO
> Master Calendar page:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[
> gnso.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_calendar&d=DgMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=_STPpuvWbrg8yQQ2JMc3Sjjz6MxqKujdkmRIaJjBRsk&s=00U1t8R-APnrMH9L5X2fY5guBRLY8t8aDSeS04DpFw8&e=>
>
> ** 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/BJ3DAw
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Michelle DeSmyter
>
>
>
>
>
> *Adobe Connect chat transcript for 21 December 2016:*
>
> Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection
> Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 21
> December 2016 at 22:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
>
> Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda page: https://urldefense.
> proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_BJ3DAw&d=DgIFaQ&c=
> FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_
> WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=1p-
> wLHOV5DCxALcMKIaTstgQyEINmRDoebHBQWYQJis&s=tm_
> s085ENNViOg929RdiG7gkLNsaJkDEosaPXVTs8p4&e=
>
> Philip Corwin:Hi Michelle. I am uncharacteristically early ;-)
>
> Michelle DeSmyter:No worries - glad to have you! :)
>
> Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome Maxim!
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello Michelle, Philip
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):will type instead of using mic - it is 1AM
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):for me
>
> Michelle DeSmyter:Ouch - sounds good Maxim
>
> George Kirikos:Hi folks.
>
> Paul Tattersfield:Hi Everyeone
>
> Steve Levy:HI all. Happy holidays!
>
> Mary Wong:@Phil, we have the redlined version ready. Let us know if you
> want us to change to it.
>
> Mary Wong:We are at the bottom of page 5, for those who have just joined
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):reasonably priced to allow for protection of small
> local businesses?
>
> George Kirikos:Accessible = affordable?
>
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I think affordable is too
> limiting
>
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:There may be other
> hinderances at play
>
> Heather Forrest:Agree with Kristine that affordable is too narrow a term
>
> Jeff Neuman:ease of use?
>
> Griffin Barnett:Agree that "access" would potentially include cost, as
> well as some of the things Phil mentioned such as language, etc.
>
> George Kirikos:I think the TMCH is translated into more than 10
> languages, see top right of https://urldefense.
> proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademark-
> 2Dclearinghouse.com_&d=DgIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6
> sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_
> 5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=1p-wLHOV5DCxALcMKIaTstgQyEINmRDoebHBQWYQJis&s=
> qXnmVBiWu8fOKCHdoFLOa_tzbqLGG9qgUPIY3modHxY&e=
>
> Kurt Pritz:I think guidance for this question comes from the last
> prepositional clause: "in developing countries."
>
> Paul Tattersfield:Can we change ‘trademark owners’ to ‘rights holders’?
> Because it’s important to provide guidance for marks protected by statue
> and treaty as well as trademarks.
>
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:The dictionary says
> accessible means: capable of being used, influenced, seen, understood,
> appreciated. I think that word is fine.
>
> Heather Forrest:usable?
>
> susan payne:Agree with Paul's replacement to rights holders
>
> Griffin Barnett:Agree we should keep to "accessible"
>
> Kurt Pritz:Maybe revese the sentence: Can those in developing countries
> readily access trademark clearinghouse services (as compared to other
> regions)?
>
> Kathy Kleiman:Why would we change trademark owners to rights holders?
>
> Griffin Barnett:No objection to "rights holders"
>
> Paul Tattersfield:to include 6ter marks Kathy
>
> Mary Wong:On 4.1, note the Sub Team suggestion to share the WG findings
> on this with the New gTLD SubPro WG.
>
> Steve Levy:I like the term "confidential"
>
> Petter Rindforth:confidential seems better describe what we mean
>
> susan payne:I think we all understand closed = confidential
>
> Laurie Anderson:Closed seems to be misleading to the general public
>
> Kathy Kleiman:Tx Paul
>
> Jeff Neuman:Competition affects cost; bringing the costs down could
> increase use and effectiveness
>
> George Kirikos: 5.1 is about costs. One alternative to multiple
> providers is to have regular competitive tenders.
>
> Steve Levy:Although I think TMCH competition is rather impractical, I
> feel it shoudl be opened up as a matter of principle
>
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:If that's the case, then I
> suggest that costs will come out of our investigation as an issue. I'm
> sure we'll get data on that. And if cost is a problem, then I think
> competition is a valid solution.
>
> Jeff Neuman:I offer no opinion on the question of who should address :)
>
> Jeff Neuman:I will only offer the opinion that this group has the
> relevant expertise to understand the TMCH and the implications of having
> multiple providers. Looking at the membership of this PDP WG we have a lot
> of trademark owners and users of the TMCH. So to me it makes sense to be
> here.
>
> Steve Levy:Hasn't Deloitte actually lost money on its TMCH operation?
>
> Heather Forrest:Is CCT looking into this issue?
>
> susan payne:Hi, I would point out that the WG suggested 2 alternative
> options for language on this
>
> Mary Wong:Several WG members have expressed a preference for Option 2.
>
> Jon Nevett:@Steve -- we alone paid them about $1M -- can't believe that
> they have lost $
>
> susan payne:ICANN paid them too!
>
> George Kirikos:Hollywood accounting? :-)
>
> susan payne:old hand
>
> Griffin Barnett:I would support a further revised version of Cat 5 Q 1:
> “Taking into consideration cost, reliability, global reach, diversity of
> services, consistency, and other possible factors, would it be desirable
> and practical to have more than one provider for the TMCH services? Why or
> why not?”
>
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Proposal 2 focuses on the
> question:
>
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Proposal 2 focuses on the
> question: "what is the problem" rather than suggesting a list....
>
> susan payne:I prefer 2
>
> Steve Levy:I also voted for Proposal 2
>
> susan payne:aha, for reasons Kristine is giving
>
> Heather Forrest:I prefer the open-endedness of 2
>
> Kurt Pritz:I prefer 1 as it delineates issues
>
> Petter Rindforth:I support Griffins suggested version
>
> Griffin Barnett:Proposal 2 wording seems to presuppose that there are
> concerns with a single provider of TMCH services, that's my only concern
> about that formulation
>
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Griffin, people from the
> community came up with this question, so it's safe to assume SOMEONE thinks
> there's a problem. :)
>
> Vinzenz Heussler:Griffin Barnett combined 1 and 2 rather clever
>
> Heather Forrest:Mary has her hand up
>
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'm not following that -
> visual learner. Can someone capture Phil's most recent suggestion in
> writing?
>
> Kathy Kleiman:I like Phil's compromise wording
>
> Kurt Pritz:@ Mary - we are perilously close to agreement - cmonsensus
>
> Vinzenz Heussler:it's in the agenda/notes on the right side, isn't it
>
> Kurt Pritz:@ Mary "consensus"
>
> Griffin Barnett:Fine with the latest compromise wording
>
> David McAuley (RySG):Sometimes hard for notes on right to keep up with
> speedy speakers
>
> Paul Tattersfield:Does the current single operator nature of the TMCH
> optimize operational considerations as cost, reliability, global reach, and
> service diversity and consistency, or should significant changes be
> considered?
>
> Griffin Barnett:@Kurt -- I thought "cmonsensus" was intentionally clever
>
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Proposal 4 was Phil's right?
>
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I support that.
>
> Mary Wong:Proposal 3 was from Griffin, Proposal 4 is Phil's suggestion
>
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:thanks Mary, Santa better be
> kind to you...
>
> Laurie Anderson:Supporting Proposal 4
>
> Lillian Fosteris:I like Proposal 4
>
> Griffin Barnett:Agree you can remove "Why or why not" from my proposal
> -- it is implied by the initial question
>
> Mary Wong:I count 14 in favor of Proposal 4
>
> Heather Forrest:Are we not taking this out to other members of the WG? I
> misunderstood perhaps - thought the straw poll was going out to the list?
>
> Mary Wong:@Heather, we will send out a note highlighting that this is
> the proposed final set of TMCH Charter questions
>
> Vinzenz Heussler:costs proportionate to benefits?
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):have we seen a single review of TMCH activities
> from financial perspective?
>
> David McAuley (RySG):it sounds like proportionate among those three
>
> David McAuley (RySG):icann, rights holders, and community
>
> George Kirikos:Should list more stakeholders, e.g. registries,
> registrars, registrants, etc.
>
> Chris Thomas:proportional?
>
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 George
>
> Lillian Fosteris:+1 Georege
>
> Lillian Fosteris:George*
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 George
>
> susan payne:Agree George but I think that;'s intended by community
>
> David McAuley (RySG):I agree then with the idea of listing registries,
> registrars, registrant
>
> Heather Forrest:Should we split the question into multiple parts to
> encourage a reply on each stakeholder?
>
> Paul Tattersfield:Support
>
> George Kirikos:If they're part of "community", then they might get
> diluted by 1/3rd.
>
> David McAuley (RySG):registrants are part of conmunity as well
>
> Mary Wong:We got it, Phil
>
> George Kirikos:e.g. TM owners weighted equally as registrars, equally as
> registries, equally as registrants, is not the same as "TM Owners equal
> with registries PLUS registrars PLUS registrants".
>
> David McAuley (RySG):then I suggest we specify registries, rars,
> registrants
>
> David McAuley (RySG):maybe "fairly balanced" instead of proportionate -
> not sure what proportionate means
>
> David McAuley (RySG):i have no audio this evening - glitch going on
> here, sorry
>
> Paul Tattersfield:@David I think it was proportionate between costs and
> benefits
>
> David McAuley (RySG):by audio I meant mic
>
> David McAuley (RySG):ok thanks Paul
>
> susan payne:+1Kristine
>
> George Kirikos:@DavidM: might want to use the telephone connection
> (it's more reliable).
>
> David McAuley (RySG):like it Phil but use among instead of between
>
> Heather Forrest:rather than name them and perhaps miss someone, can we
> say 'all of the relevant stakeholders'?
>
> George Kirikos:That new alternative language looks fine to me.
>
> David McAuley (RySG):sorry Goerge - one with a higher power (at home
> now) has phone right now and i forgot cell in office
>
> David McAuley (RySG):George, that is
>
> Paul Tattersfield:Very much agree Susan
>
> David McAuley (RySG):Thanks Susan, that makes sense – I was not part of
> subteam and do not have that history on this and so appreciate the point
> you make
>
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes. I would say registries
> get the least benefit from having to use the TMCH, but is the cost to us
> proportionate to what the rights holders are getting?
>
> David McAuley (RySG):sounds good
>
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I like reasonably
> proportionate.
>
> Mary Wong:Are we talking about costs and benefits, or advantages and
> disadvantages?
>
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I think they're understood
> to be the same.
>
> Paul Tattersfield:the original question was benefits and costs
>
> Kathy Kleiman:+1
>
> Mary Wong:OK, thanks
>
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I hear a chorus of angels.
>
> David McAuley (RySG):i can hear it too - quite nice
>
> Mary Wong:Will do, Phil.
>
> susan payne:hurrah!!!
>
> Kathy Kleiman:Congratulations All!
>
> George Kirikos:1/2 the docs = questions
>
> David McAuley (RySG):sing seasonal songs?
>
> Kathy Kleiman:Happy Holidays to All!
>
> Petter Rindforth:We are the best!!
>
> George Kirikos:So it's really only 2 pages or so.
>
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I vote that we bail.
>
> George Kirikos:Happy holidays, folks. See you in 2017.
>
> David McAuley (RySG):agreed Phil, makes sense
>
> Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks!
>
> Griffin Barnett:Happy to reserve this until next time
>
> susan payne:happy. it's 10.50 here the week before xmas
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):could we use doodle poll?
>
> Mary Wong:04:00 UTC = 20:00/ PT, 23:00/ET, 04:00 London, 05:00 CET,
> 15:00 Sydney, 12:00 Beijing
>
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:the registries
>
> Heather Forrest:Thanks very much for keeping the time within decent
> hours for APAC
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):with RySG .. now it is not a conflict
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):nice ... it is going to be 7.am instead of 1am :)
>
> George Kirikos:04:00 UTC on Thursday? (so that we are still on Wednesday
> night in Toronto/New York)
>
> susan payne:well I understand and support the reason for doing so - but
> I won't be on a call at 4am. Id love to see some calls that work foir
> aspac, ME and europe but are less good for US
>
> George Kirikos:Or is it 04:00 UTC on Wednesday? (meaning that we are
> instead on Tuesday in North America???)
>
> Heather Forrest:To Susan's point, it does seem that Europe and APAC are
> normally the time compromisers. That said, most participants are in North
> America, but maybe this is a chicken-egg problem
>
> Mary Wong:@Heather, yes - so one way we are trying to accommodate all
> of this is to do this as one rotation out of four
>
> Heather Forrest:@ Mary, that sounds practical
>
> Paul Tattersfield:Question to Staff: Would it be possible to make the
> document window wider and move the Agenda/Notes window down making it the
> same height as the chat window? As this would make it easier to read
> wider/table formatted documents without having to horizontal scroll so often
>
> George Kirikos:We should decide the date, too (Wednesday vs. Thursday
> UTC, i.e Tuesday vs. Wednesday in North America), on the list.
>
> Mary Wong:@Paul, I will ask - but I believe it is fixed
>
> Paul Tattersfield:thanks Mary
>
> George Kirikos:Bye everyone. Great work in 2016....looking forward to
> 2017.
>
> Michelle DeSmyter:January 4th
>
> Steve Levy:Have a great holiday and New Years everyone!
>
> David McAuley (RySG):Thanks all, best wishes
>
> Michelle DeSmyter:17:00 UTC
>
> Mary Wong:Happy holidays everyone! Thank you for your time!
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Happy Holidays!
>
> Heather Forrest:All the best for 2017 everyone
>
> Vinzenz Heussler:happy holidays everyone!
>
> Paul Tattersfield:Bye Everyone - Happy Holidays and best for a
> successful 2017
>
> Monica Mitchell:thank you everyone.
>
> Laurie Anderson:All the best in 2017
>
> susan payne:bye
>
>
>
>
>
> ************************************************************************************
>
> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
> viruses.
> ************************************************************
> ************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161222/40308e71/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SANLogSmallNew_485a3de7-c8c5-4ec6-b34d-6de68607f295.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7844 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20161222/40308e71/SANLogSmallNew_485a3de7-c8c5-4ec6-b34d-6de68607f295-0001.png>
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg
mailing list