[gnso-rpm-wg] Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group
terri.agnew at icann.org
Wed Aug 16 19:34:03 UTC 2017
Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3,
Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all
Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Wednesday,
16 August 2017 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki
Adobe Connect recording:
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master
Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar>
** 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/wCWAAw>
Adobe Connect chat transcript for 16 August 2017:
Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms
(RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Wednesday, 16 August 2017 at 17:00
UTC for 90 minute duration.
Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page:
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello Terri
Terri Agnew:thanks for testing your audio Maxim
George Kirikos:Hi folks.
George Kirikos:Perhaps blasting out a reminder email might be wise in a
Martin Silva:Hi all
George Kirikos:Hi Martin.
George Kirikos:BTW, I'm not sure if it was just me, but the Adobe got
"stuck" trying to load it (had to try 3 times to get in).
George Kirikos:It was around 90% loading, but then just seemed to freeze.
Terri Agnew:reminder email just sent
George Kirikos:You're welcome. :-)
George Kirikos:By the way, there was something that mentioned looking at
publicly traded companies, to perhaps glean financial estimates of sunrises
(as discussed last time). It wasn't clear, but one would want to check
current and past public listings (e.g. Rightside just got bought out, so
they're no longer a public company, but their past financials are still
Mary Wong:Thanks, George - that's helpful. We will certainly make a note
Philip Corwin:Dialing in
George Kirikos:Thanks, Mary. I think I think the text I read seemed to
only capture current public companies, so that might not capture the
Rightside example (and any other similar ones).
J. Scott:waitingon operator
George Kirikos:Can remove 1 "I think" from the above sentence. lol
Philip Corwin:My dial in got dropped. Now I am hearing Muzak
J. Scott:same thing happned to me, Phil
Terri Agnew:I have reported the telephone join issues to the operator
George Kirikos:I added some additional sources of data reflecting
discussion on the mailing list over the past week:
should also be added to this proposal.
Steve Levy:Sorry for joining late, folks
Lori Schulman:Hi, I am in Adobe and online.
Mary Wong:Thanks, Lori, yes I recall now that you had sent apologies for
next week. Sorry I overlooked that.
Terri Agnew:@Lori, apology will be noted for next weeks call
Lori Schulman:Michael knows the material too but I am the spokesperson for
J. Scott:I am not willing to concede that the additional data gathering is
suggesting be added to this document without a thorough vetttng by the WG
Michael R Graham:Have to go off call for a few moments.
Paul Tattersfield:we should!
George Kirikos:I think the point was that the 99% reduction *might* be
explainable by looking at the annualized spend --- so, that would need to be
collected, or estimated, by breaking it down in terms of volume and price
per TLD launch (and then adding it up per year).
George Kirikos:(point not by me, but by someone else)
George Kirikos:We know that the sunrise volume exists, because how else do
we know that the average sunrise was 130 names?
George Kirikos:(130 domains, rather)
George Kirikos:@J. Scott: Aren't we vetting it right now?
Greg Shatan:There is no 99% reduction. That's a manufactured concept
invented by comparing apples and oranges.
Lori Schulman:Agree with Greg
Georges Nahitchevansky:I agree with J. Scott. This additional data does
not really add much and is just more of this pedantic numbers approach
without looking at the quality of registrations, the benefits etc.
George Kirikos:99% reduction in sunrise per TLD -- that's a truth.
George Kirikos:(compared to past sunrises)
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):why do we suggest that TMCH sunrise is going to be a
success without large number of TMCH entries?
George Kirikos:Aren't there 40,000+ TMCH entries?
Paul Tattersfield:As the number of TLD grows you wouldn't you expect a
lower and lower percentage?
Lori Schulman:Volume and success do not necessarily correlate.
George Kirikos:130 is a lot smaller than 40,000.
Lori Schulman:The EFF paper is not evidence. We can consider it but no
one has agree that it is determinative.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):do we know the reason for TMCH registrations? I am
not sure, most probably it was protection
Lori Schulman:Agree with Susan. The questions were vetted over a number
of weeks by the subteam and the wider WG as were the data requirements.
Susan Payne:ok, understood thanks Phil
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and not necessary for Sunrise registrations
Greg Shatan:It's a junk statistic. Comparing the massive rollout of new
gTLDs, many of niche interest, on a granular basis with single launches of
general interest is inappropriate and of no evidentiary or probative value.
Greg Shatan:Any additions to this list would need to go through the same
Paul Tattersfield:Sepeculators and TM holders saw more value in the single
J. Scott:Again, Georges suggestions have not been discussed or vetted.
Until they have, they do not belong in this data gathering exercise
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):additional costs were imposed on Registries too ,
not being able to start registrations to the public for 2 months adds costs
(rent, ISPs, escrow, salaries e.t.c)
George Kirikos:@JScott: I don't see the survey questions have been
finalized at all --- they're still being designed.
Mike Rodenbaugh:+1 agree with Susan
David McAuley:I tend to agree w/Susan regarding timely contributions
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 Susan
George Kirikos:We added public SEC data just last week. There's not been a
"last call" --- it's always been a living document, to reflect both the
calls AND the mailing list.
Elisa Cooper:+1 J Scott
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):first such a person would be required to understand
our specifics ... and it takes time
George Kirikos:We've never voted up/down on a final data.
Cyntia King:In addition to mission drift, we should be wary of engaging in
endless data gathering. In business, reseach must be balanced by the need
to act in a timely fashion. This WG is not engaged in pure research.
Georges Nahitchevansky:George K's approach is not approriate. If you are
going to go down the path of cost benefit analysis in this narroiw way then
what about the costs to brand owners in having to protect their rights and
the costs. We have going through this over and over again an dthe
information George K and others are claiming to see at this late stage is
myopic and too subjective. I oppose this last minute effort.
George Kirikos:(and certainly such a vote didn't included the mailing
David McAuley:Good point @Maxim
George Kirikos:Notice all the people opposed have been long opposed to
other data requests that would disprove benefits of sunrise.
Kathy Kleiman:Doesn't #4 include outreach to the Registries with ALP, QLP
Lori Schulman:Cyntia is reiterating the point that I made on the list
Kathy Kleiman::-) No longer on audio.
George Kirikos:@Georges: That data is being collected, via INTA, etc.
George Kirikos:One has to look at cost on all stakeholders. If you only
talk to TM owners, that doesn't capture all stakeholders.
George Kirikos:There's talk of "late stage" --- where was the "deadline"
Lori Schulman:Costs are direct costs. Those are the only costs that can
be validly measured. Opportunity costs are pure supposition.
Mary Wong:@Phil, yes, we will send it out by the end of this week.
Marie Pattullo:+ 1 Lori.
George Kirikos:@Lori: yet, TM owners claim they're stopping all kinds of
speculative costs of cybersquatting.
Georges Nahitchevansky:Again, things like lost opportunity are speculative
and subjective and not appropriate
George Kirikos:How are those not supposition?
George Kirikos:"i.e. registering Apple.horse saved us millions of dollars
of potential damages, as per Georges' and others imagination)
Lori Schulman:We did not measure speculative costs. Only direct costs.
Lori Schulman:Speculative costs are not easily measured.
Greg Shatan:George, where are you quoting from? Or are you putting words
in other people's mouths?
George Kirikos:@Georges: not speculative, because one could see how much
additinal services "normal" domains generate (e.g. SSL, SEO, webdesign,
etc.) and compare that to defensively registered domains that are simply a
redirect to the .com.
George Kirikos:@Greg: not putting words in anyone's mouth.
Kathy Kleiman:That's the type of outreach I think the subteam envisioned.
Greg Shatan:Then where did the quote come from.
Greg Shatan:Should we also measure the opportunity cost of domains kept in
inventory by domain investors?
George Kirikos:@Greg: I didn't "quote" any email. I'm summarizing his
essential arguments over the past few months, always claiming these sunrise
registrations prevent massive damages.
Susan Payne:if someone wants a website they will buy a name and buy
whatever additional services they required. The fact that an identical
match to brand.TLD was not available does not prevent anyopne from buying an
alternative name with all the surounding services. If the registrant only
wanted brand.TLD and no alternative will suffice (for example because they
think it will have an aftermarket value) and no other name then surely they
aren't terriibly interested in hosting etc etc
Georges Nahitchevansky:And by your narrow world view, the inability of
some theoretical person to register a domain name is somehow causing massive
amounts of losses that you cannot quantify except through speculation. And
by normal domain do you mean the millions of parked domain names that are
not used for anything
Georges Nahitchevansky:And when I say parked, I mean warehoused domains
that are not being used in any way.
Marie Pattullo:+ 1,000 to Susan.
Lori Schulman:Agree, there are exponential choices for potential
Cyntia King:Were a new business to deeply desire a specific domain name
that was withheld, is there anthing preventing them from approaching the
George Kirikos:@Cyntia: it works the other way, too. If a TM holder
"deeply desired" a certain name, they can get it from someone else, or "win"
in landrush with a level playing field.
George Kirikos:One can use Google News to search for many TM blogs, too.
George Kirikos:Or, the Bing equivalent.
Cyntia King:The downside to TM holder is the potential for misuse of
their valuable brand. Not so otherwise.
J. Scott:@George. The difference is that the LAW gives the trademark owner
a right that the other party probably doesn't have. Don't equate profiteers
with trademark owners.
Marie Pattullo:And the consumer damage when a brand they trust appears in
George Kirikos:@JScott: it's a curative right, by law, not a right to go
to the front of the line. If it was a right to go to the front of the line,
why wasn't there a sunrise at the TOP level by ICANN?
George Kirikos:That totally destroys the theory that there's a RIGHT to
Marie Pattullo:+1 J. Scott. And remembering that the TM owner has paid for
the regsitration of that TM - it didn't come for free with a bag of chips.
George Kirikos:No TM owner got a first right to a new TLD itself, ahead of
all competing applications, just because of that TM.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George, most probably auctions were the way to
Cyntia King:My point is that several ccTLDs provide online contact forms.
Could that be somehow adapted to allow potential buyers & TM owners to work
this out outside of an ICANN-directed mecanism?
George Kirikos:@Maxim: yes, exactly. That's how a landrush would work at
the 2nd level, if there was contention.
George Kirikos:Just like there was at the top level.
Kathy Kleiman:But All, the law does not give TM owners an advanced right
of cancellation or blockage. Many future TM owners and noncommercial users
with use the same word to label their goods and services. The question
legally is infringement. and other evalautions based on use and confusion,
Kathy Kleiman:with use --> will use
George Kirikos:+10 Kathy
Lori Schulman:the top level has its own mechanims for resolving conflicts.
costs and scale are vastly different. the RPMs were tailored to specfic
circumstances. I don't think that top level and second level are fair
comparisons here for sunrise
George Kirikos:(warriors from Bear Island are worth 10) :-)
Mary Wong:@Phil, @Susan, we will try to suggest a few keywords as well.
David McAuley:I think Phil is right about 'willingness' rather than
J. Scott:No Kathy. Sunrise was developed to lower costs for trademark
owners that continuously battle fraud, phising, malware and cybersquatting.
The status quo should remain so long as we can tweak it to solve the few
issues we have identified (gaming).
Lori Schulman:Agree that we should focus on rationale for RPM's
Greg Shatan:Agree with J Scott and Lori.
Kathy Kleiman:@J. Scott, I think the question was legal rights...
Kathy Kleiman:... not ICANN created protections
Lori Schulman:I feel like we have lost sight of the fact that the issues
were argued and a compromise was reached by IRT and STI. Now we look at the
results not reargue the agreement. It's too soon for that if we agree that
needs to be done
J. Scott:@Kathy. No, it was lowering costs and creating efficieancy for
dealing wtih fraud and abuse of trademark rights.
J. Scott:The mandatory requirement was from the GAC.
Scott Austin:+1 sUSAN
Georges Nahitchevansky:Exactly. Sunrise was created to help prevent the
massive abuses that were seen to occur when the first round of gTLDs were
launched. The costs to brand owners were staggering and well documented as
opposed to the speculative cost benfefit costs that some are now pushing
Kathy Kleiman:Perhaps, but I was responding to those who raised the issue
in the chat above about what "the law" requires...
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@J. Scott: there is nothing about costs of
Sunrises in RA or policies, thus the question is more hypothetical
George Kirikos:Exactly, Kathy.
J. Scott:the law requires that trademark owners police their marks to
retain their rights. Sunrise is a mechanism;
Cyntia King:Yes, we need an expert survey designer.
Rebecca L Tushnet:I think a professional designer would be useful
David McAuley:I took your answer that way @Kathy - about law rather than
Rebecca L Tushnet:(Bad internet connection, sorry)
J. Scott:Expert survey designer
Paul Tattersfield:@Georges and dispropoionate percentage of those
stagering costs were born by the most famous Marks
Lori Schulman:We need expert designers and a broad range of beta testers
Lori Schulman:not just insiders
Greg Shatan:Agree that an expert survey designer would be helpful.
George Kirikos:Especially if it is a large $$$ contract, $50,000+, should
be an invitation to bid.
Lori Schulman:i think that ICANN requires bids
Mary Wong:All, note that ICANN has rules and processes about when/how to
tender and about doing requisitions.
George Kirikos:@Lori: all too often, they simply give it to someone.
Cyntia King:We should examine other prohibited registrations.
George Kirikos:(without a competitive bid)
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it was sent to the group
Cyntia King:I am aware of a .LY being cancelled because it promoted
undesireable moral behaviour.
David McAuley:why not just put the question in the RO survey - about
experience with profane limitations etc
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):GEOtld
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):not ccTLD
Cyntia King:Yes, nTLD. But counttries in which these nTLDs exist may
exert some control over offerings.
Sara Bockey:I need to drop for another call. I will catch up with the
recording. THanks all
Lori Schulman:Not every member of IPC is an INTA member.
Steve Levy:Sorry, but I've got to jump to the phone line.
Lori Schulman:There are a few TM associations but none as large as INTA.
We have a lot of shared membership. ASIPI, Marques, CTMA, etc.
some regional ones.
Lori Schulman:AIPLA is not international.
Greg Shatan:That said, I very much support working with INTA on further
surveys. They have great reach.
Lori Schulman:INTA as large as it is, has defined resources. Depending on
the scope of the survey, it would have to be planned and negotiated.
David McAuley:and one education curve
Kathy Kleiman:Agree, same survey group would be a good idea
David McAuley:Agree that #4 seens unwieldy it is so large
George Kirikos:Include those in academia and other groups who've not
historically done much input into ICANN. (i.e. more Rebeccas) :-)
David McAuley:is there a survey subteam?
Susan Payne:thanks Mary
Mary Wong:@David, not at the moment but it is something staff would like
to suggest that the WG consider forming.
David McAuley:might add budget to the list
George Kirikos:Might be good to call it a day?
George Kirikos:People might be scared off by a 1 hour survey.
David McAuley:One thing to add to survey task list might be 'ranking' - I
suspect a professional survey provider might say that once you exceed XX
number of questions you lose interest in replying - we should be able to
rank questions by importance by topic if needed
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):we might ask to use + for those who will finish a
1hour survey :)
Michael R Graham:@Mary -- Entirely right that we need to coordinate our
George Kirikos:URS cases that referenced TMCH in their decisions.
Lori Schulman:Our survey was too detailed. It tooks hours to prep and
complete. We should learn from that. Questions should be straight forward
and absolutely ranked.
Lori Schulman:Happy to share our learnings
George Kirikos:(i.e. Complainant would say something like "Respondent had
actual notice of the mark, as the domain owner would have seen the TMCH
Mary Wong:@Phil, yes
George Kirikos:Kristine has her hand up.
Susan Payne:wouldn't UDRP cases be relevant too?
George Kirikos:@Susan: Yes, those too.
Cyntia King:Any possibiity to offer a small benefit for taking survey? I
recently got a $10 Starbucks card for completing one
Jonathan Frost (.CLUB):I believe UDRPs are still used more often, and
provide more substantial arbitration opinions, so UDRPs would be just as or
more useful than URS
Lori Schulman:But there is also survey fatigue.
Lori Schulman:We need to be mindful of that.
Lori Schulman:too many surveys is not good. can't have too many and they
can't be too long.
George Kirikos:For some reason, in some places on page 2 it just says
"URS", whereas in other places it says UDRP/URS.
Lori Schulman:Agree with Kristine
George Kirikos:I think those needed to be fixed.
George Kirikos:(as per Susan's catch)
Mary Wong:@George, this table reflects what the Sub Team proposed.
George Kirikos:@Mary: then, Susan's point seems valid, shouldn't it have
George Kirikos:(i.e. I thought it was just a typing oversight, not an
actual decision not to look at UDRP)
David McAuley:these are good points Kristine is making - this sounds like
a possibly masive undertaking
George Kirikos:I don't think subteams make decisions, just proposals.
David McAuley:am I only one to lose audio?
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I didn't mean to imply we made
a decision. We made a decisoin not to recommend...
George Kirikos:Why is the UDRP data more difficult? Filter by new gTLDs
(exclude all .com/net/org, etc.)
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Greater number
Mary Wong:@David, @Kristine - yes, staff review of all the suggestions so
far (for both Sunrise and Claims) leads us to believe it is already a
massive underatking. That is why we were thinking that a URS review now
instead of also collecting all UDRP cases may be more appropriate for Phase
George Kirikos:UDRPsearch.com and other tools.
David McAuley:Thanks Mary - i have l;ost audio so may drop off for now
Susan Payne:hand no longer required - :)
Mary Wong:Kristine is making the point I was trying to make (and far more
David McAuley:Thanks Mary
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:FYI, the Subteam did consider
asking a university researcher to volunteer students....
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:consider *recommending*
George Kirikos:We're not talking about a lot of cases for new gTLDs, see:
George Kirikos:Most UDRPs are still for .com
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:There are many domains in some
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:And the Whois record and
sunrise dates for each would need ot be looked up.
George Kirikos:Yes, exactly, Kristine. More domains per case = fewer
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:but the question is on a
per-domain bases, not a per TLD basis\
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I am not saying we shouldn't
do it, I just want us to realize the magnitude of the project.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):there could up to 13 in URS case
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Theoretically, URS is not
limited either. :)
Paul Tattersfield:George + 1
George Kirikos:Exactly, Phil.
George Kirikos:Different legal tests in URS vs UDRP.
Paul Tattersfield:Different legal tests in URS vs UDRP. exactly
Michael R Graham:If we review UDRP decisions, we must do so for all the
Panel providers -- not just WIPO.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:It really depends on if we're
doing more comprehensive research too. The ST was looking for
reprepsentative data, so the URS seemed like a fair start for full WG
Terri Agnew:Next meeting: Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms
(RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 23 August
2017 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minute duration.
George Kirikos:@Michael: yes, that might double it.
George Kirikos:Still, not huge.
George Kirikos:Most UDRPs are for com/net/org, still.
George Kirikos:Some of those new gTLD UDRP cases were for hundreds of
domains at a time (e.g. the 1 cent .xyz names).
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all
George Kirikos:Bye folks.
Martin Silva Valent:thanks all, see ya
Michael R Graham:Bye -- Kristine -- be glad to huddle on Q!s
Paul Tattersfield:thanks, bye
Susan Payne:thanks all
Greg Shatan:Bye all!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: attendance RPM 16 August 2017.pdf
Size: 337587 bytes
Desc: not available
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 5018 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg