[gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today

Sat Apr 8 22:25:15 UTC 2017

Prelim work. All consensus on any recommendations must come from full WG.

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:12 PM, Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>> wrote:

Thanks Phil.

Just for clarity, will anything these subteams come up with be binding on the larger WG, or is it just to do some preliminary work and then come back to the larger WG with a more refined list of selections?  Also, is there a location where these calls are noted on a calendar somewhere?  Thanks!

Best,
Paul

From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2017 11:27 AM
To: Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>>; 'Mary Wong' <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today

We have constituted two sub-teams so far, on trademark claims and sunrise registrations. They both have one hour calls scheduled on Friday 4/14.

There will soon be a third sub-team on private protections (extended claims notice from TMCH’ and DPML services offered by carious registry operators). Co-Chairs and staff are currently refining questions for its consideration.

The sub-teams will definitely consolidate questions and identify data sources and needs. They will then likely go on to frame policy choices, handing things back to the full WG at some point –- co-chairs are currently working out the exact scope of sub-team duties.

There is no perfect formula for balancing the efficiencies on preliminary workup offered by sub-teams and the need to leave final resolution to the full membership of the WG. The co-chairs are even more up to their ears in calls and preparation than other WG members and fully understand the burden of the time commitment made by WG members, but also are charged with assuring that we address all Charter questions and maintain fidelity to the time line.

Best weekend regards

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2017 11:39 AM
To: 'Mary Wong'; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today

Thanks Mary.

Kathy, Phil & j Scott - How many of these Subteams are there right now?  I’m losing track and the thought of actively participating in them as they seem to proliferate all the time is daunting.  I really question whether or not they are speeding anything up, or just forcing more of the work of the larger group into smaller groups that leave out those of us that are already up to our ears in ICANN calls.

Best,
Paul

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 4:29 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today

Dear all,

The following Action Items were noted by staff during the Working Group call held earlier today. Below them you will find some additional questions that several Working Group members typed into the Adobe Connect chat room for your further discussion as to whether or not to forward them to the Analysis Group or otherwise consider. You will also find attached to this email the slides that Greg Rafert and Stacey Chan used for the discussion that took place today.

ACTION ITEMS:

1.       Working Group members to consider volunteering for either the Sunrise Charter Questions or Private Protections Sub Team (please let staff know if you are interested in joining either/both)

2.       Staff to review Work Plan, and to begin planning Sunrise and Claims Sub Team calls starting next week

3.       Co-Chairs to continue working with staff to develop draft questions and proposed scope of work for the Private Protections Sub Team

4.       Co-Chairs and staff to coordinate with the Analysis Group for a second call with them (question for all: when do you think this will be most useful? Do you have comments or questions based on the attached slides that you think the Analysis Group and/or the Working Group should address?)

5.       Co-Chairs and staff to review results of Doodle poll and propose call duration times up to ICANN59 and an appropriate weekday for the fourth (APAC timezone-friendly) rotating Working Group call at 0300 UTC

REMINDER - Working Group members to review TMCH Charter Categories 1 & 2 (see attached TMCH Next Steps table) and send a note to this mailing list if they have any additional suggestions or follow up on those two categories.

Here are the ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS from the Adobe Connect chat room from today; please send any comments you may have or suggestions for follow up to this mailing list:

•         Phil Marano: The revised report indicates in several areas that conclusions could not be reached because various parties failed to respond to requests from Analysis Group for additional data.  It would be great to receive additional context from Analysis Group on the specific requests it made, to whom, and any reasons given for failure to respond or provide the requested data.

•         Michael Graham: If the registration application was abandoned AG could not see the DOMAIN applied for, so there's no way of tracing duplicate pings, etc.?

•         Kristine Dorrain: Do we know if a user who got a Claims Notice and abandoned their attempt to register then subsequently decided later to go back and register the domain despite the Claims Notice?

•         Griffin Barnett: Is there data on abandonment of registrations where there is no Claims Notice (e.g. legacy TLDs)? Do we have any data on abandonment during the same periods for those starting the registration process but not receiving a Claims Notice?

Finally, I also attach the Notes that were taken by staff in the Adobe Connect notes pod during the Working Group call held earlier today – please note that these have been prepared solely to assist the Working Group with recalling and progressing its work, and are not intended to replace or supersede the call recording or meeting transcript, which are the official records of the meeting.

Thanks and cheers
Mary

________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.avg.com%2Femail-signature&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3c822e6e097c46ffee5d08d47ecc4786%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636272863239244042&sdata=0%2BXiGR0oYg3Oi%2FuAns8UnFdqmYJD64EtyGLe74Broec%3D&reserved=0>
Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4769/14262 - Release Date: 04/07/17
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3c822e6e097c46ffee5d08d47ecc4786%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636272863239244042&sdata=8D2ygu3%2F%2F52nhC2kS3Tis7gzQ63YMv41%2F0PSqXjYADM%3D&reserved=0
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170408/bce9ad61/attachment-0001.html>