[gnso-rpm-wg] Proposed agenda and materials for Working Group call on Wednesday 1 February 2017
mary.wong at icann.org
Tue Jan 31 21:44:04 UTC 2017
The proposed agenda for our next Working Group meeting, scheduled for 1 February 2017 at 1700 UTC, is as follows:
1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only) and updates to Statements of Interest
2. Summary of TMCH Category 1 discussion, including from the Working Group meeting last week (see further below)
3. Introductory discussion of TMCH Category 2 (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58729944/Clean%20-%20TMCH%20Charter%20Questions%20-%206%20Jan%202017.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1484721370000&api=v2)
4. Commence review of Deloitte’s response to the TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team’s questions, with a view toward additional follow up if needed (document circulated via email on 30 January, also available on the Working Group wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/_pHRAw)
5. Next steps/next meeting
For Agenda Item #2, the following points and questions were highlighted in the discussion last week, for further discussion by the Working Group in relation to TMCH Charter Question 2 from Category 1 (Education): “Should the TMCH be responsible for educating rights-holders, domain name registrants and potential registrants about the services it provides? If so, how? If the TMCH is not to be responsible, who should be?”
· Is it ICANN's responsibility rather than the TMCH's? Who else should be educated besides rights-holders?
· TMCH has incentive and opportunity and has already reached out to its direct customers; but would mandating education raise fees? Not necessarily since they already have the materials
· Should it be a community effort? How is this to be mandated (if at all)?
· There is a limit on the extent of education a TMCH can provide on Sunrise, given the different types of Sunrise and the choices that a registry have on how to operate them.
· Registries also have the option to extend the Claims Period, so they can do the education; maybe with ICANN as a "backup" if the registries and registrars do not. Note, however, that it is registrars who have the customer relationships.
· How would it work (if the TMCH is to be responsible for education) if there are multiple TMCH providers in the future?
· Look at how TMCH has done education in the past; ask if these communications were effective
SUMMARY OF OPTIONS DISCUSSED:
(1) ICANN to be neutral educator (at the very least, prepare materials?)
(2) TMCH (and to extend beyond rights-holders)
(3) Community efforts
(4) A “hybrid model” of TMCH + ICANN (e.g. TMCH can post official materials on their site, created by ICANN. Note, however, that TMCH has no way of telling customers of any registry or registrar what their experience will be)
Thanks and cheers
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg