[gnso-rpm-wg] Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group

[Terri Agnew]

Dear All,

 

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,
12 July 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki
page:  <https://community.icann.org/x/Z2jwAw>
https://community.icann.org/x/Z2jwAw

MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-12jul17-en.mp3

Adobe Connect recording:
<https://participate.icann.org/p7pwl0mzymq/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=1ac87b02e9bd1147
de0e9f48df70165362dd3aaef16709dc4c1621aa6a9addbb>
https://participate.icann.org/p7pwl0mzymq/

The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master
Calendar page:  <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar>
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/>
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/

 

Wiki page:  <https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw>
https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw

 

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Terri

 

 

Adobe Connect chat transcript for 12 July 2017:        

     Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms
(RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 16:00
UTC for 90 minute duration.

  Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_Z
2jwAw
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_
Z2jwAw&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC
IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=_Ms6W-fk8dN52UxwqPh90e7MlRUIHZFUisB5d4YJVW
E&s=DHDP8pShcMr1jxv0PwV6XdbcokEAtnid75aJFlLpujo&e>
&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=_Ms6W-fk8dN52UxwqPh90e7MlRUIHZFUisB5d4YJVWE&s=DH
DP8pShcMr1jxv0PwV6XdbcokEAtnid75aJFlLpujo&e= 

  George Kirikos:Hi folks. I'm trying out the iPad app today.

  Michael R. Graham:Morning. Mary/Amr-- apologies that I'm still under the
weather -- but I will try to address/assist on the Claims Questions.

  Amr Elsadr:Get well soon, Michael. We should be starting with Sunrise
Registrations, and then let's see where we can go from there.

  Kathy Kleiman:Sure!

  Paul Tattersfield:Hi everyone

  Michael R. Graham:@Amr -- Sounds good.

  Philip Corwin:Good day to all

  Kathy Kleiman:Terri, have you resent the call instructions around for the
WG?

  Kathy Kleiman:Great, tx

Rebecca L Tushnet:Question: what's the best way to update a statement of
interest?

  George Kirikos:Summertime attendance might be expected to be lower...

  Rebecca L Tushnet:I'm searching the wiki but doing it ineffectively so far

  Lori Schulman:hi

  Lori Schulman:just connecting to audio

  Mary Wong:@Rebecca, if you send an email request to the GNSO Secretariat
at gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> , they should be able to
assist you.

  Louise Marie Hurel:Hi everyone

  Terri Agnew:@Rebecca, I will send you directions to update your GNSO SOI

  Lori Schulman:Please send them to me too Terri.

  Rebecca L Tushnet:Thanks!

  George Kirikos:Rebecca: I think you need to log in to the wiki to be able
to edit your SOI.

  Lori Schulman:I tried to update mine and found it confusing on the wiki

  George Kirikos:iPad app doesn't support colour, so apologies for the
boring font. :-(

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I will have to drop on the top of the hour - my
train 

  Amr Elsadr:@George: That's no good at all. Hopefully, colors will be
available with updates. :-)

  Terri Agnew:@Lori, will send you directions as well

  Lori Schulman:thanks, my pdp's need to be updated

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I added "New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP" tomy
SOI

  Steve Levy:Sorry for joining late!

  Paul McGrady:Sorry for being late.  Adobe had a new plug in that it took a
few minutes to get through.  Also, sorry for leaving early.  I scheduled to
give a webinar to the Iowa State Bar Association on domain names prior to
adding this call to my calendar.

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Amr, I am still working on the letter about
non-exact matches assesment (via using historical data and machine readable
language sintax)

  Michael R. Graham:@JScott -- I'll do my best-- though I'm pretty sure no
one will want to listen to my hacking.

  Amr Elsadr:Thanks Maxim. Appreciate that.

  Georges Nahitchevansky:Sorry for being late

  Amr Elsadr:@Lori: Your audio is not coming through very clearly. Do you
have a mic you can connect?

  Susan Payne:someone is banging about - can you mute please

  Rebecca L Tushnet:I agree with Amr.

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):the Comments field added - it allows to understand
the reasons for suggested changes

  Terri Agnew:we are hearing a lot of background noise, please remember to
mute when not speaking

  George Kirikos:Sounds like someone cooking in the background with
pots/pans clanking.

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George , it sounds like Wok 

  Michael R. Graham:I would appreciate a breakfast burrito.  Thanks.

  Lori Schulman: still waiting for dial out

  Lori Schulman:i have a new headset.  it must not be working

  Terri Agnew:the op is dialing out now

  Terri Agnew:Lori is on the telephone

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):COMMENT: we should be aware that some TLD's usual
pricing might be well higher than other's premium pricing, so it is relevant
to a particular TLD only

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):so we are not talking about USD pricing, more about
difference between generic price of  doamins in a particular TLD and premium
prices for the same TLD

  Michael R. Graham:@Maxim:  I think that is correct.  The definition should
therefore be more along the lines of Premium pricing is the practice of
charging an increased price for domains in Sunrise or General registration
that consist of trademarks or other desirable terms.

  Jon Nevett:should have been "unfairly" limits

  Brian Cimbolic:yep, I emailed that proposed change in as well

  Michael R. Graham:@Jon -- I would ask first if it has an effect and then,
if so, if that effect is "unfair" -- problem is that "unfair" is a  charged
term -- 

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):in GEOs Police is in Reserved list, and not in
premium (it is against the public interest)

  Jon Nevett:ok with that Michael -- the answer to the first part is clearly
yes

  Mary Wong:@Maxim, we tried to capture your comment on reserve vs premium
names in one of the comment boxes (see Q4)

  Jon Nevett:we had a change to 2 in the chat

  Brian Cimbolic:@Michael, not sure I agree unfairly is charged - that's the
heart of the matter - limiting it by virtue of the fact that the price is
higher doesn't necessarily make that practice unjustified

  Michael R. Graham:@Jon:  So 1) Is there an effect (shown by empirical
data), and 2) what is that effect ?

  Jon Nevett:this is an impact -- don't need data -- it is obvious

  Brian Cimbolic:does it "unfairly limit" participation is the real quest

  Brian Cimbolic:ion

  Mary Wong:@Brian, that is how we updated the previous question (as you'll
see in this redline of Q4)

  Jon Nevett:we asked for the same change to #2 -- please don't lose it

  Brian Cimbolic:@Mary - thank you, as Jon notes, I think it belongs equally
in #2

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):on the other hand most premium names lists constist
of generic terms, and it is not fault of the registry that TM owners decided
to register a mark with matches well used generic term

  Mary Wong:@Jon, we tried to capture that request in a comment box to Q2,
we (staff) just did not believe we had the mandate to go ahead with an
actual rephrasing of the text of the question. Hopefully this discussion
will assist the WG in doing so.

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):please do not forget Name Collisions - one of the
resons for lots of names to be in reserved names lists and not in sunrises

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and it was totally due to ICANN

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):one registry out of more than 1000 is less than 0.1%

  Michael R. Graham:@Paul:  I think that's truly the question -- whether
Premium pricing is Discriminatory against any particular types of domain
names (e.g. trademark premium lists,geo, etc.)

  Jon Nevett:two sets of prices would go to the "unfairly" issue

  Brian Cimbolic:exactly

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):are we trying to justify that all prices - needs to
be premium and to avoid the generic prices , so it is fair?

  Paul McGrady:Sorry

  Paul Tattersfield:There was also founder programs perhaps we should look
at the interaction between these and sunrise 

  Michael R. Graham:@Jon -- Agree. Question should be whether differential
pricing has an adverse effect on 1) RPM of Sunrise, 2) Applicants, 3)
others?

  Mary Wong:@Michael, @Jon - see Paul Tatterfield's suggestion for Q4 (in
the comment box marked MW7) - does this more or less cover what you are
saying?

  Paul McGrady:"Reserved Forever" v "Reserved to Be Released Later"

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):a premium name can be reserved , please do not mix
premium and reserved (it is not equal)

  Amr Elsadr:Yes. Captured. Thanks.

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):for example 2 letters, when a registry is waiting
for RSEP to release them ... 2 letters are premium, but can not be used
until allowed 

  Susan Payne:on Q3 this should be addressing both the designation as
premium (and thus the pricing) and, potentially reserving the name because
it is "premium" so that it is not available until after the sunrise.  This
latter issue should be picked up in the question 4 on reserved names

  Kathy Kleiman:many or some?

  Mary Wong:@Jon - would this rewordiing of the "Is there evidence ... "
bullet point question in Q2 work - "Are registry operators' pricing
practices unfairly limiting participation in Surnise by trademark owners?"

  Michael R. Graham:@Mary -- Yes, but I would say "usefulness of Sunrise
Registration as an RPMapplications or registrations"

  Michael R. Graham:Sorry -- end after "RPM" --"usefulness of Sunrise
Registration as an RPM"

  Mary Wong:@Michael, thank you and noted. 

  Paul McGrady:Apologies all.  I need to drop shortly.  

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Do we understand who decides the level of fair vs
unfair pricing? How? In which economical situation (prices differ from
market to market)?

  Jon Nevett:@mary ok with me

  Mary Wong:Q9 (which Lori is reading now) - the rewording in this column
was suggested in Joburg. The additional comment was to add a consideration
for geoTLDs.

  Michael R. Graham:Maxim:  I believe "fair vs unfair" can only be
understood contextually -- If all Sunrise Registrations/Early Registrations
are priced the same, it is fair, if there is difference there may be
unfairness -- unless explainable by economic factors.

  Terri Agnew:@Maxim, your line is cutting in and out

  Terri Agnew:please let me know if a dial out on the telephone would be
helpful

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):ok

  J. Scott:Maxim, an you put your comments in the chat. Your phone is cuttin
out.

  Amr Elsadr:@Maxim: I tried to capture what you were saying in the notes
pod. Please review, and let me know if I got it right. Thanks.

  Mary Wong:Label Generation Ruleset 

  Amr Elsadr:LGR: Label Generation Rules

  Mary Wong:The LGR is a process to develop rules for each of the designated
scripts relating to IDN variants.

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):We should not forget that there is a thing called
Picket Fence - basically it is a set of provisions in RA (Registry
Agreements) & RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreements) - that Consensus
Policies shoud not  "prescribe or limit the price of Registry Services;"

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):so even if out output comes to the state where there
is an idea of price regulation it will have no power, even if it comes into
Policy state

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):the same for Registrars : shall not "prescribe or
limit the price ofRegistrar Services;"

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Amr, please add it to the notes

  Kathy Kleiman:We heard a lot about specialized gTLDs in the third hour of
our F2F

  Kathy Kleiman:I would not recommend changing that

  Susan Payne:we heard from a couple of Geos

  Michael R. Graham:@Maxim -- I do not believe the consideration whether
discriminatory premium pricing, etc. has an effect on theeffectiveness of
RPMs crosses the Picket Fence since in the end the issue is not pricing as
such, but discriminatory or predatory practices.

  Susan Payne:By specialised do you mean Geo?  this is my point, we don't
have that defined

  Susan Payne:and we don't need it - the language is fine without the
highlighted bit

  Kathy Kleiman:Lori/Amr: where would we put the concerns that Maxim has now
raised on audio and in chat

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Michael, RA is between Registry and ICANN, and if
we create non enforceble policy - it will not be followed , due to the
contractual language 

  Mary Wong:Does "specialized" = just geoTLDs, or broader? Should we avoid
the use of the word "specialized" but find a way to specify that a geoTLD is
a type of TLD (and there may be others) that may warrant a different rule
(per Susan's comment)?

  Amr Elsadr:@Kathy: Captured Maxim's note in the notes pod. Thanks.

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Mary - it is Community, GEOs 

  Jeff Neuman:I would say keep everything

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):mostly 

  George Kirikos:I think it's better to just use the final ones.

  Jon Nevett:makes sense Lori -- let's move forward with the new questions

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):for example community of pan owners, and to keed a
domain you need to own a pan at all times ...

  Jeff Neuman:Either way, is it time to answer the questions :)

  Kathy Kleiman:@Amr, where might we capture them in the comments now in the
document?

  Michael R. Graham:Use the final/updated questions for the discussion --
the Charter questions are clarified by these.

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all, need to drop to be on time for my train .
see you next time

  David McAuley:agree to using refined questions - believe the form of how
we got here should be saved

  George Kirikos:This doc is that record.

  Kathy Kleiman:@Mary: I agree with Maxim - specialized gTLDs includes
Community, Geos and perhaps others.

  Amr Elsadr:@Kathy: My understanding is that this is a consideration that
needs to be taken into account, when answering the question, but will not
result in refinement of the question itself. Is that right?

  Jeff Neuman:ok...what is the process to answer the questions :)

  Mary Wong:@Kathy, I'd asked upthread if Q12 can be rephrased to capture
the concept of a specialized TLD without needing to use the word or create a
definition, e.g. use community and geo TLDs as examples of gTLDs that may
warrant a special/different rule.

  Philip Corwin:Agree that it is time to archive the original Charter
questions and proceed with addressing the consolidated and clarfied
versions.

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):.mil and .gov looks to be special gTLDs too

  Kathy Kleiman:@Mary, I think the term "specialized gTLDs" in small letters
opens the discussion. The word is important

  Brian Cimbolic:verified/validated is often how they're described among
registries

  Brian Cimbolic:there's a verified TLD consortium - each containing
eligibility requirements to register

  Kathy Kleiman:@Amr, I think we have now heard the issue of picket fence
from many - in Jburg and now from Maxim. That would seem worthy of a comment
in the appropriate questions to embody it... do you agree?

  Amr Elsadr:@Kathy: Will take an action item to put it in the document.
Thanks.

  Jeff Neuman:The "Picket Fence" issue is not something we as a group can
(or should) try to define

  Mary Wong:@Kathy, as it is a more general concern we can perhaps add a
sentence in the opening introductory text as a reminder/scope comment.

  Jeff Neuman:The Picket Fence issue only addresses whether ICANN can force
registries to accept the recommendations, but does not control whether we
can make any recommendations.  If we go down that path, we will never get to
addressing the issues

  George Kirikos:Sorry, got disconnected by phone.....will call back.

  Kathy Kleiman:@Mary, that's pages away from the question. 

  Jeff Neuman:Wholesale Pricing or Retail pricing?

  Kathy Kleiman:It's been discussed in the subteam that anecdotal data may
include some of the stories published by reporters - with their
investigations and evidence

  Mary Wong:For the Claims document, the yellow highlights are the suggested
actual edits to the questions from Joburg, the turquoise comments are
additional suggestions that provide context or that offer additional input.

  Susan Payne:Yes agree - it is meant to be both parts of the claims service

  Mary Wong:@Jon, it was captured for Q2 but we can add it to Q1 as well.

  Jon Nevett:Thanks Amr

  Jon Nevett:and Thanks Mary!

  Jon Nevett:it doesn't

  Greg Shatan:There's no definition or common meaning to "widely used".

  Griffin Barnett:"widely used" seems pretty vague to me

  Griffin Barnett:agree Greg - seems like it would be really problematic to
try and define what that might mean

  Mary Wong:@George, @Michael - perhaps instead of wrangling over whether to
say "dictionary" or "widely used" etc., the WG can just agree on a set of
words/terms to be tested?

  Kathy Kleiman:how about 

  Kathy Kleiman:"dictionary terms and other widely used terms"

  Jeff Neuman:what is the specific information we are trying to solicit
here?

  J. Scott:HOw about stating something lke terms/acronyms that also have
non-tradeamrk significance

  Jeff Neuman:That is more important than the label

  Susan Payne:what are we trying to do here?

  Kathy Kleiman:"dictionary terms and other widely used terms"

  Jeff Neuman:We should not be discussing trademark law here or the
different levels of distinctiveness

  Griffin Barnett:+1 jeff

  Susan Payne:too right Jeff

  Susan Payne:Lowered hand as Greg is saying it

  Jeff Neuman:Before asking about "unintended consequences", what are the
"intended consequences"?

  Lori Schulman:Agree that we need to focus on intentions first.

  George Kirikos:We're t ruin

  George Kirikos:We're trying to infer that, by having that more granular
data.

  Mary Wong:@Kathy, we know - we are just wondering how to gather the
granular data and from where. Who decides what is dictionary and what is
distinctive for the purpose of collecting the data (assuming we know where
to get it)?

  Greg Shatan:"Dictionary terms" is a class of words. -- agree we should not
try to identify the class beforehand.

  Mary Wong:@George, we (ICANN) do not - that is my point :(

  Kathy Kleiman:@Mary, if we ask the question as phrased, registries will
respond. They've already started, e.g., Bret Fausett at an early outreach
session...

  Susan Payne:can you speak up george.  

  Greg Shatan:We should just collect the data without trying to characterize
it on the way in.

  Jeff Neuman:I think we need to take a step back and be honest with
ourselves.  We are not going to get data from supposed applicants (other
than perhaps injustry insiders) on whether they dropped applications or now.
We will not get that data from registrars, registries or the TMCH (as that
is confidential customer data - assuming it was even collected).  As far as
newspaper stories, that is biased as well as they are seeking the
controversial

  Greg Shatan:I'm also having trouble hearing George.  Seems very quiet.

  Kathy Kleiman::-) Amr, I think the note is that -- Reporters and the
articles would be a one source of data for 1b. 

  George Kirikos:Sorry, am on a cordless today....waiting for courier
deliveries.

  Lori Schulman:John Crittenden comes to mind.  He is an excellent litigator
that I am sure has handled these cases.  He is in SFO area.  Another idea
would be contact Anne Lalonde.

  Jeff Neuman:The only way we can get data is in the future if we get
registrars to survey consumers as to why they didnt go through (or did go
through) with a registration

  Lori Schulman:Sorry. Please disregard chat.

  Greg Shatan:Whether they are a source of "valid" data is another
question.... See Jeff Neuman's notes.

  George Kirikos:We already asked for too 500. But if we had the ratio for
each one?

  David McAuley:I think Jeff is making a fair point about getting data that
has not been formally gather heretofore

  Mary Wong:@Jeff, that is the staff concern as well - whether we can get
adequate data at all, realistically.

  George Kirikos:top 500

  Greg Shatan:I don't believe we can infer anything about WHY applications
are dropped by collecting or analyzing data solely on WHICH strings were
dropped. 

  Lori Schulman:Agree with Jeff's points and Greg.

  Amr Elsadr:To Jeff's point, the WG could recommend that certain data be
collected in the future to assist with future reviews.

  John McElwaine:+1 @Jeff

  Susan Payne:too right and we are spending far too much time talking about
this

  Lori Schulman:Agree but much of what we need is based on individual
experiences.  How do we get around that?

  Susan Payne:speak up george please

  Greg Shatan:Agree with Jeff, the amount of "man bites dog" stories, blog
posts, etc. on domain name matters is truly amazing.

  Jeff Neuman:@George - I disagree; That does not tell you anything

  Mary Wong:@George, ICANN cannot "force" registrars to do anything that is
not part of the RAA (contractual commitment).

  Susan Payne:we've asked it alread

  Susan Payne:already

  Greg Shatan:Why do you assume that these are "people"?

  Jeff Neuman:@Kathy - I expected it based on the very high percentage of
people not going through with registrations in .biz in 2001

  George Kirikos:One can draw inferences, Jeff.

  Amr Elsadr:@George: To be clear, the AG was not able to confirm that the
Claims service data downloaded did indeed represent attempted registrations,
so their data, in its entirety, would still not be absolutely useful in this
context.

  Jeff Neuman:Look at the Summit Strategies Report in 2004 or 2005

  John McElwaine:Have we received the Analysis Group's answers to our
questions yet?

  Kathy Kleiman:It was not in the scope o fthe Analysis Group work 

  Jeff Neuman:Registrars did not collect the information as to why people
proceeded or not

  Jeff Neuman:Registries dont have access to that information 

  Jeff Neuman:I just think we need to be realistic here

  Mary Wong:@John, we are following up

  John McElwaine:@Mary  Thanks!

  Greg Shatan:One can draw baseless and prejudicial inferences.... Drawing
valid inferences is harder.  Calling the first "inferences" is probably too
kind....

  Jeff Neuman:My belief is that we have a huge rate of people abandoning is
because (i) registrars were mining the system, (ii) registrants were mining
the system to see what was valuable, and to a lesser extent as a result of
the claim (either legitimiate or not)

  Jeff Neuman:But I cant prove any of those theories

  Kathy Kleiman:@Jeff: we have gathered evidence already from registries;
there is probably more

  Jeff Neuman:There just is no way to do so on a backwards basis

  Susan Payne:thanks Mary

  Steve Levy:Bye all!

  Lori Schulman:Thank you JScott for good moderating

  George Kirikos:It's funny folks criticize the inferences that haven't even
been made yet.

Denise Michel:Thanks. Byes

  George Kirikos:Bye folks.

  khouloud Dawahi:bye 

  Jeff Neuman:@George - people came in to this proces with inherent
inferences

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170712/a034b8da/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: attendance RPM 12 July 2017.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 337429 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170712/a034b8da/attendanceRPM12July2017-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5018 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170712/a034b8da/smime-0001.p7s>