[gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP

[Mary Wong]

Apologies, and thanks for the catch, George – the numbers should read 12 for Yes (aware of TM-PDDRP) and 4 for No (not aware). FYI of the 4 that indicated No, 2 were registrars, 1 IPC and 1 ccNSO. The survey was also intended for distribution via the SO/AC/GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.

On George’s other question about ensuring wider participation, especially from non-WG and “regular” community participants, there is a (newish) process in place for WGs to seek out data, including from third party sources. The request goes to the GNSO Council via a form to be filled out – in the form, the requestor is asked to put in its data requirements, suggest some sources, and provide an educated estimate on the resources and budget that may be required to get the data in question. 

To my knowledge, this process (which was adopted by the GNSO Council in 2015) has not yet been used, but may be something to consider for future data gathering exercises where we envisage an important need to go beyond “internal” sources (e.g. GDD, Compliance, existing Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies/SO/ACs) and ICANN contractors and providers (e.g. TMCH, Analysis Group, the various dispute resolution service providers). Do note, however, that where there is likely to be budget implications, this could be a factor in deciding whether to grant the request and its final scope.

Cheers
Mary

On 10/19/16, 12:11, "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:

    Hello,
    
    On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
    > If it will help, the survey included the following question: “Are you aware
    > of the Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure that was
    > developed as a rights protection mechanism for the 2012 New gTLD Program?”
    > 14 respondents answered Yes, and 5 answered No.
    
    There were only 16 survey responses, so that's been tabulated
    incorrectly (14 + 5 = 19, which doesn't equal 16) or some folks voted
    twice, or ... ?
    
    Sincerely,
    
    George Kirikos
    416-588-0269
    https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DQIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=bl75y4A6cKVXTx0tRchOz1RMf5GHJcZ7pKESH_kneic&s=c_7em_008YGMGJiMDvb_RcN2DQpfUPEO-aHKuXFyhgU&e= 
    _______________________________________________
    gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
    gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
    https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg