[gnso-rpm-wg] Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group
terri.agnew at icann.org
Wed Jan 11 23:03:52 UTC 2017
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, 11 January 2017 at 18:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/G53DAw
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 11 January 2017:
Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 11 January 2017 at 18:00 UTC
Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_G53DAw&d=DgICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=7T0ZqJdaOXlmpaJrL7Pl61mAb3uQe2t0x71rbnHlWVk&s=3m6EGS-iFCc7VfV9E8PmJZPrvJf1ULvKbHEdRwZaGwg&e=
Mary Wong:Hello George and Terri!
George Kirikos:Hi Mary.
Ivett Paulovics:Hi everyone
Marie Pattullo:Happy New Year all!
George Kirikos:Welcome Ivett and Marie.
David McAuley (RySG):Hello all
Yuri Chumak:greetings from Toronto
Philip Corwin:Helo all. Awaiting the operator
Terri Agnew:@Phil alertign op
Steve Levy:Hi all!
Philip Corwin:On the audio now
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All
Philip Corwin:Sharing is caring ;-)
Mary Wong:This is the clean, updated version - we circulated the redline as well via email.
Mary Wong:I'll upload it to the wiki
Terri Agnew:everyone can scroll themselves
Mary Wong:Follow up on the Registry Survey questions: the link is now on the WG wiki, under the Data Gathering Sub Team tab here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_VAmsAw&d=DgICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=7T0ZqJdaOXlmpaJrL7Pl61mAb3uQe2t0x71rbnHlWVk&s=UpSIIgmuHUD5SKZoU8-DY6DBlaPxtRTOkX6ZiV9C2n8&e=
George Kirikos:Looks fine to me.
David McAuley (RySG):+1 @ George
Beth Allegretti:+1 George
Jonathan Matkowsky:+1 @ George
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 Geroge
Vinzenz Heussler:+ 1 George
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:sorry, George
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I prefer longer calls to more calls.
Mary Wong:Yup, not necessarily 90 minutes every week, but as needed
Steve Levy:I'm fine with longer calls but only when absolutely needed
Susan Payne:support 90 mins
Vinzenz Heussler:I'm fine with 90 min calls
George Kirikos:+1 Kristine. I wouldn't want multiple calls per week.
George Kirikos:Plus, there's also the mailing list, which can obviously handle a lot of volume, as we've seen from time to time. :-)
Susan Payne:But I think we can make better use of the email list to progress discussion
Steve Levy:Still need to be efficient and not fall into the habit of doing longer calls
Laurie Anderson:I too, prefer longer calls to more calls.
Mary Wong:@Susan, agree (and Steve too); staff will do what we can to see if/how more email discussions can be faciliated.
George Kirikos:If we started 15 mins earlier than normal, and ended 15 mins later than usual, that might work best, sometimes.
George Kirikos:We might want to save the 'intensive' session(s) for when we get to the UDRP, if we're not allowed to do it more than once per PDP.
George Kirikos:2 earpieces, Phil. :-)
Greg Shatan:I thought the F2F WG meetings would be on Sunday, while the full day GNSO meeting was on Saturday.
Susan Payne:Is George correct that we can only do this once per PDP? Why is that? Seems unreasonable if we have concluded it would be beneficial to progress our work?
Mary Wong:@Greg, the difficulty is that there are joint meetings with the Board and the GAC that need to be scheduled; Day 2 is better for that.
Mary Wong:@Susan, @George, no that's not the case, there is no "one F2F meeting" limit per PDP.
George Kirikos:I don't know if we can use it more than once....was just hypothesizing that some WGs might not get more than one shot.
Philip Corwin:@george--Multitasking is an urban myth. The human brain can only really focus on one task at a time. Those who try to text and drive have discovered that to their detriment
Mary Wong:@George, well, it's true that may be the case, but AFAIK the Council really wants to make sure our three big PDPs get enough work time during ICANN meetings.
Mary Wong:@Phil, that's odd - we will look into it
Terri Agnew:@Phil, checking on this
George Kirikos:I sent Phil a test.
George Kirikos:You just need to click on the bottom tab, below this button, to access them.
George Kirikos:(below this text, rather)
Terri Agnew:@Phil, also, trying to change browsers sometime helps. As always, you can check your plug in's to make sure they don't need updated. I will resend this link to you
Mary Wong:QUESTION/NOTE - for the extension of the Claims period beyond the mandatory minimum 90 days, that is just for Notices of Registered Name (NORN) from a registry to rights-holders, yes? Since it is registrars who provide the Claims Notice service to potential registrants.
Jon Nevett:Phil, happy to answer questions about DPML on a subsequent call
George Kirikos:If registry operators don't allow zone file access to others who might offer similar notification services (since they'd compete with the registry's offering), then one can see that there might be issues present....
George Kirikos:Greg has his hand up.
Jeff Neuman:WE also need to understand the IP rights asserted by the owners of each of these services.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):all new gTLDs obliged to grant access to their zone files (when the requestor adds proper info to CZDS)
Jeff Neuman:@Greg - Not sure I fully understand
George Kirikos:There have been complaints from time to time, Maxim, that all registry operators aren't granting the access in a timely manner.
Steve Levy:Wouldn't private RPMs only fall under the remit of the RAA?
Mary Wong:@Greg, as I understand it, this WG will not be reviewing the merits of such individual additional RPMs
George Kirikos:(e.g. DomainIncite has noted that from time to time)
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George , the timeframe is going to be limited in the next version of RA
Kathy Kleiman:@Jeff - could you expand your question a bit?
Steve Levy:Thanks for the correction!
Mary Wong:The consideration will more likely be on the fact that they exist, although not consistently - so how does that affect our WG's review of the overall effectiveness of the RPMs.
Greg Shatan:@Mary, I would hope that's the case, but the middle of page 2 has language that seems to indicate otherwise. Happy to be wrong on this one!
Edward Morris:Without reviewing private uses of the TMCH we really can't fully review the TMCH itself. It certainly is under sope for our review.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George , and some registries just auto approve all CZDS requests ... it is up to a particular registry - how to process the CZDS requests
Greg Shatan:I'm all for "understanding" them. Just not for "reviewing" them the way we are mandated to "review" PDDRP, URS, TMCH, etc.
Jon Nevett:any sunrise registration does that Phil
Edward Morris:Correct, Geg, we are chartered to review the TMCH. his is a proper part of the review.
Greg Shatan:@Mary, I'm referring to the sentence beginning "In addition to..."
Edward Morris:Fully support Phil.
Susan Payne:agree Phil
Mary Wong:Note that it's beyond the scope of our Charter to review these additional services; however, it is within scope for us to review the overall effectiveness of the ICANN-mandated RPMs, and it seems incomplete without acknowledging and understanding the existence and use of these additional services (now that we know, versus when the TMCH was developed, that they do exist).
Jeff Neuman:Ok, so we CAN review their implementations, but just not make recommendations to the existing providers of these services....it could impact future providers, just not the current ones?
Marie Pattullo:Given that they exist, and given their cost, and given that some brand holders have chosen to use them, I think we can safely assume that some brand holders do like RPMs beyond the mandatory. So let's look at them.
Greg Shatan:If we could using the word "review" to mean different things, that would be quite helpful.
Greg Shatan:STOP using.... sorry.
George Kirikos:If these are services that go through the RSEP process, it makes sense to review whether that RSEP review is thorough, balancing interests of all stakeholders, and not just rubber-stamping a wishlist by registry operators (many of which are grasping at straws to generate revenues, after pivoting from unsuccessful original business models).
Edward Morris:@Marie. Which is not to say Registrants like them. WE are not here to pursue the unbalanced views of brand owners.
George Kirikos:(which is hinted at on page 3 of the above document, last paragraph)
Denise Michel:@Phil - I agree
Mary Wong:@Greg, I would say "review" in our Charter context means "evaluate, with a view toward developing Consensus Policy recommendations".
Greg Shatan:Brand owners are a significant part of the Registrant population. And I haven't heard any unbalanced views here.
Jon Nevett:is this group going to look at the RSEP process now?
Jon Nevett:that seems out of scope
Mary Wong:Not within scope to evaluate RSEP
Jeff Neuman:If a registry proposed doing this service in their initial application I am not sure that they needed to go through the RSEP to launch it.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):any new service offered by new gTLD registry most probably have to go through the RSEP process
Denise Michel:@Phil - FYI RSEP evaluations only address security, stability, competition issues
Jeff Neuman:@Denise - that is what it is supposed to be limited to. I will note for the record that through public comment many other services have had much more scrutiny.
Mary Wong:@Kathy, I don't want to rephrase the transcript :) I will strike the note.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Denise, unfortunately the initial intent of RSEP ... is not in use anymore
George Kirikos:Are we back to noon (Eastern) next week? Or 5 pm (Eastern)?
Mary Wong:1700 UTC (noon Eastern)
George Kirikos:Thanks Mary.
Terri Agnew:The next Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 18 January 2017 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
Jon Nevett:I'll be in the air as well
George Kirikos:Wifi on the plane? :-)
Terri Agnew:FYI, Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 25 January 2017 at 04:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):until RSP PDP WG members are going to have a separate room at NamesCon ... it might be a good idea to shift the dare
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):date
Mark Carvell UK GAC rep:I want to let you know that i have joined this important PDP WG as GAC member - very pleased to join and very mpressed with the focus on this call. Look forward to working with you all.
David McAuley (RySG):bye all
George Kirikos:We can shift to Asian prime time next week! :-)
Marie Pattullo:Hi Mark!
Mary Wong:Welcome, Mark!
Susan Payne:thanks for joining us Mark
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George , midnight calls are ...something
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Bye all
Mary Wong:Thanks Phil, Kathy, all
George Kirikos:I know, Maxim...the 4 am ones are brutal.
George Kirikos:Bye folks.
Jonathan Matkowsky:Bye folks!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: attendance RPM 11 January 2017.pdf
Size: 215015 bytes
Desc: attendance RPM 11 January 2017.pdf
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg