[gnso-rpm-wg] Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group
Julie Bisland
julie.bisland at icann.org
Wed Jun 21 21:54:11 UTC 2017
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, 21 June 2017 at 17:00 UTC.
MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-21jun17-en.mp3
Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p190nczhmbf/<https://participate.icann.org/p190nczhmbf/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=7e6f3537161197f132d77611325ea18f7c03c31ff55cd504015ec1a6f17fbd51>
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/qlDwAw
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Julie
Adobe Connect chat transcript for 21 June 2017
Julie Bisland:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minute duration.
Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_qlDwAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=QiF-05YzARosRvTYd84AB_UYInlydmFcjNmBM5XgySw&m=-cgU3391ogt35gpNd3bmbW-Q0GENEjDuvlTto5bL_Bw&s=kGnoRlOMj6RDn0VnDIxrStVgJn6p94xijjCxYoXwU3I&e=
George Kirikos:Hi folks.
George Kirikos:When we come to talk about data later, I wanted to point out section 2.15 of each Registry Agreement for new gTLDs talks about cooperation with "economic studies", see: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_default_files_tlds_xyz_xyz-2Dagmt-2Dhtml-2D05dec13-2Den.htm&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=QiF-05YzARosRvTYd84AB_UYInlydmFcjNmBM5XgySw&m=-cgU3391ogt35gpNd3bmbW-Q0GENEjDuvlTto5bL_Bw&s=beXZPsLOe0gqUnTbMMkvIfvl4idzHqkDwhwuAYgoRN4&e= Is it possible that this PDP qualifies as an "economic study", so that the data *must* be provided?
Paul Tattersfield:Hi George, everyone
George Kirikos:Hi Paul T. How are you?
Paul Tattersfield:Busy, and it is hot here in England 90s F
Kathy Kleiman:Hi All, We're holding another minute..
Paul Tattersfield:but its all good :)
George Kirikos:That's good to here.
George Kirikos:*hear
Paul McGrady:@Kathy K & @Staff - I will need to drop at 45 minutes after due to another event I have to attend. See you all in joBurg!
Mary Wong:Thanks for letting us know, Paul.
Lori Schulman:It's in the 90's here too and no one in g
Lori Schulman:no one in Germany has air conditioning.
Lori Schulman:grrr
Lori Schulman:Hi Brian
Susan Payne:we don't have aircon here in UK in our homes. office is the best place to be :(
Lori Schulman:Today, I am missing America even more.
Paul McGrady:I'm super comfy in my humidity controlled, 70 degree bubble...
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All
Mary Wong:Both Word and PDF versions of the two Sub Team reports have also been posted on the Working Group wiki page for today's call: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_qlDwAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=QiF-05YzARosRvTYd84AB_UYInlydmFcjNmBM5XgySw&m=-cgU3391ogt35gpNd3bmbW-Q0GENEjDuvlTto5bL_Bw&s=kGnoRlOMj6RDn0VnDIxrStVgJn6p94xijjCxYoXwU3I&e=
Louise Marie Hurel:Hi all. Sorry for being late, had some connection issues.
Mary Wong:The three definitions are on Page 2
Mary Wong:The Sub Team's suggestion for data collection is at the end of the document, following the table.
Kathy Kleiman:Starting on page 3
David McAuley:yes
Kiran Malancharuvil:Yes, helpful
Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks Lori
Colin O'Brien:Yes
George Kirikos:We have 90 minutes, so lots of time.
Kathy Kleiman:Question 6
Kathy Kleiman:page 7
Jon Nevett:Question 3 doesn't make sense to me -- there might be a typo in there
Jon Nevett:is it challenging a "premium name" or a "reserved name"
Jon Nevett:thanks Lori
Kathy Kleiman:Which question 3, Jon, the original or the revised?
Mary Wong:@Jon, the original Q3 spoke of premium names and that's the wording in the revised question.
David McAuley:I'm thrown off by numbering in columns 1 and 3
Jon Nevett:right, but the question is about releasing a reserve name
Mary Wong:@David, the numbering for Column 1 is the original from the Charter, the numbering for Column 3 reflects the fact that many questions were batched, so there was a need to renumber to make sure there is a final chornological list.
Mary Wong:Note that the Sub Team has included definitions for LRP, ALP and QLP in footnotes.
Mary Wong:@Jon, we will revert to the Sub Team with your question.
Amr Elsadr:Color-coding of consolidated/bunched questions was replaced with the references to the original Charter questions in the third column.
Susan Payne:so should we have a note to that effect - ie that it's captured in 1
Mary Wong:@Lori, isn't Q19 already covered by the new Preamble questions?
George Kirikos:There was going to be a survey of the PDP members, I think.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Mary/Amr, please remove my note from new Q12 as we decided not to create a new term.'
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:It's not longer relevant
Mary Wong:Thanks, Kristine - noted.
Amr Elsadr:Note that these questions are not in their final form - they are still subject to review by the full WG, and suggestions for modifications are still welcome.
David McAuley:Thanks Lori
Mary Wong:@Kathy, can you repeat what you asked for, about creating a third list?
Paul McGrady:@Lori, great job presenting this substantial work the subteam did!
Lori Schulman:Thanks Paul.
George Kirikos:https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/xyz/xyz-agmt-html-05dec13-en.htm (section 2.15, Cooperation with Economic Studies) Is this PDP an "economic study"? Arguably yes, since it's weighing economic benefits/costs....
Kathy Kleiman:Mary: subsantivie changes, tweaks and suggestions to add to data gathering
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):there could be NDAs which prevent researchers from releasing of all data
Jon Nevett:pdps aren't economic studies under 2.15
Mary Wong:@George, I can respond
George Kirikos:"2.15 Cooperation with Economic Studies. If ICANN initiates or commissions an economic study on the impact or functioning of new generic top-level domains on the Internet, the DNS or related matters, Registry Operator shall reasonably cooperate with such study, including by delivering to ICANN or its designee conducting such study all data related to the operation of the TLD reasonably necessary for the purposes of such study requested by ICANN or its designee, provided, that Registry Operator may withhold (a) any internal analyses or evaluations prepared by Registry Operator with respect to such data and (b) any data to the extent that the delivery of such data would be in violation of applicable law. Any data delivered to ICANN or its designee pursuant to this Section 2.15 that is appropriately marked as confidential (as required by Section 7.15) shall be treated as Confidential Information of Registry Operator in accordance with Section 7.15, provided that, if ICANN aggregates and makes anonymo"
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):If ICANN initiates or commissions - where PDP is initiated by GNSO
George Kirikos:ICANN can "iniitiate it", without it being commissioned. I think it's possible that this qualifies.
Mary Wong:I can answer
Susan Payne:not an economic study
George Kirikos:Since we're weighing the pros/cons in economic terms, ultimately.
George Kirikos:This is about the "functioning of nGTLDs" and "related matters", if we read that language closely.
Jon Nevett:citing 2.15 would be the way to get less support and information from registries
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 Jon, most probably due to NDAs which will be required by registries
Paul McGrady:I can't imagine this is what the contracted parties had in mind when they agreed to "economic studies".
Mary Wong:@Kathy, on a third list - perhaps it will be less confusing (and make for fewer documents to review) if we just had the Sub Team data suggestions in the list, and supplement with any WG member suggestions (labeled as such).
George Kirikos:@PaulM: "I can't imagine this is what....." can be applied to lots of ICANN contracts. :-)
George Kirikos:What matters is what's written, not what was in their minds.
Lori Schulman:Did we decide how questions will be answered?
Paul Tattersfield:That was a great presentation Lori, thank you
Kathy Kleiman:Applause to Mary and Amr!!
Paul McGrady:Sorry to have to drop.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):hopefully we are dismissed as a subteam?
Lori Schulman:Thank you Paul T.
Kathy Kleiman:Safe travels, Paul.
Lori Schulman:By Paul M.
Lori Schulman:bye
Amr Elsadr:Use of "Domain Name Applicant" in the questions is explained in a footnote.
Kathy Kleiman:Question 2
Mary Wong:Just saw some numbering errors in this new Q4 - apologies, we will fix them
Kathy Kleiman: Could you add page numbers to this document?
Mary Wong:@Kathy, they are there - bottom right hand corner
Kathy Kleiman:in revised version?
Mary Wong:Per Brian Beckham's emails from earlier today - we have added a footnote (new addition to the document circulated last night), footnote #6, to specifically refer and link to the Graham/Shatan/Winterfeldt proposal.
Mary Wong:Per Kristine's explanation just now about ways to acquire data/research - the basic requirement to set the process in motion, for approval by the GNSO Council, is for the WG to agree on what data/research/surveys it believes is necessary and fill out the Data/Metrics Request Form, which also requires a rationale and suggestions for sources and estimates for budget.
David McAuley:Thanks Kristine, another great presentation
Paul Tattersfield:How many UDRPs involve a TMCH notice? Wouldn't it be a very small subset?
George Kirikos:Event Study Methodology: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-June/002130.html (using registry data we already have, see if various metrics change after the end of the TM Claims period)
Georges Nahitchevansky:Only issue I see with that approach is that the change could also have occurred on account of other factors such as improved marketing by the regitry operator, greater consumer awareness etc.. So while the data could be helpful, it would not necessariy be instructive
George Kirikos:@Georges: That's why one does those event studies across *all* TLDs, to average out those effects.
George Kirikos:i.e. one isolates just the "event" under study, the claims period ending.
George Kirikos:UDRPSearch.com has search across providers.
Georges Nahitchevansky:I don't think you can just average out and say this is on account of a or b. You probably also have to study registration patterns based on increased awarenedss of TLDs, timing of marketing efforts etc. The bottom line is that the date you suggest may be helpful but it needs to be filtered through the relevant spectrum of factors so that you have grteater certainty as to what the data actually shows
Amr Elsadr:To the extent that UDRP/URS data is relevant to the TMCH and associated RPMs, some data is available in the revised AG report.
George Kirikos:Long ago, I asked that UDRP providers be required to make decisions available in XML form. Had that been done, it would have made research a lot easier, since it would be easy to automate.
Paul Tattersfield:Brian +1 plus the dataset is too small and may skew the results from a much larger later dataset
Georges Nahitchevansky:Yes but doing this by event such as claim period ending is not going to necessarily get you what you are looking for given that multiple factors are possibly operating along the same time
Georges Nahitchevansky:line
Mary Wong:@Kristine, perhaps a good starting point might be the AG report and analysis. Then the WG can decide what else is missing or needs to be done or followed up on.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Mary, as always, yes...start with what we have.
George Kirikos:For item #3, the survey/poll, are we going to see the survey questions (and agree to them), before they get sent?
George Kirikos:(i.e. folks might not agree with all of them, seek additions/changes/deletions, etc.)
George Kirikos:(i.e. before the poll opens)
George Kirikos:Thanks Mary.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):It is better to avoid meeting time
Lori Schulman:Yes, Mary and Amr have gone above and beyond.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):travels + busy ICANN meeting time
George Kirikos:We have all the eager beavers here --- the voices of the rest is what matters. :-)
David McAuley:how bout Juky 7, friday
Susan Payne:difficult to say without knowing how long it is. but probably yes
George Kirikos:(i.e. the ones not here will likely be slower to respond to polls, etc.)
Lori Schulman:Maybe Monday the 10th?
Lori Schulman:I am not home until the 4th
Lori Schulman:and then we will all have catch up
Cyntia King:I'm always available w/ minimal notice.
Mary Wong:The suggestions are in the right hand pod
Mary Wong:Under Agenda
Mary Wong:To clarify - the proposed panel discussion will, like Kathy has just said, be informal. The Ry and Rr reps will NOT be expected to have the answers.
Mary Wong:It will mostly be to discuss the proposed data questions, and how Rys and Rrs may be able to share data in a way that preserves confidentiality and business advantage.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 Susan
Louise Marie Hurel:+1 George
Lori Schulman:Agree with Susan.
Lori Schulman:would rather have advanced notice to Ry and RR and structured call
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):this meeting is attended by policy people, and those questions are operational (wrong meeting for them)
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 Lori
Jon Nevett:too late to organize
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I will be there, but we do need more people
George Kirikos:@Jon: you might be right, sadly. :-( Wasted opportunity, to hear from folks we don't normally hear from who are attending physically.
Jon Nevett:i will be there
Jeff Neuman:A bunch of us will be there, but I am not sure exactly what questions will be asked of a panel
George Kirikos:Last F2F, we had the Deloitte people, at least., which was different from a 'normal' call.
Jeff Neuman:At some point, I think it would be good to do a role playing exercise.....
Mary Wong:@Kristine, that was what staff was about to suggest as well.
Jeff Neuman:I am serious, but we are almost done with this meeting
Jeff Neuman:I will write something up...
George Kirikos:@Jeff: does this involve costumes? :-)
Jeff Neuman:@George - Hey, what ever you are into
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I might need to get a last minute ticket to J'burg if there are costumes
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):no comments
George Kirikos:lol
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):We might even see registrants there
Jeff Neuman:Perhaps Abu Dhabi
Jeff Neuman:But It is interesting when you put people in opposite roles
Jeff Neuman:And try to view the issues from the other side
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:It's fascinating, especially from people who've been on multiple sides.
Jeff Neuman:I know several IP attorneys that became registries and stsarted to see things from a different view
Jeff Neuman::)
Lori Schulman:Agree with Susan again. This needs to be thought out.
Jeff Neuman:And vice cersa
Lori Schulman:not last minute
David McAuley:Thanks all, safe travels
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):safe travels
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all
Louise Marie Hurel:Thanks all
Lori Schulman:bye
Louise Marie Hurel:safe travels
George Kirikos:Bye folks.
Amr Elsadr:Thanks all, and safe travels.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170621/c7a90418/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Attendance RPM 21 June.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 335956 bytes
Desc: Attendance RPM 21 June.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170621/c7a90418/AttendanceRPM21June-0001.pdf>
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg
mailing list