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

Terri Agnew terri.agnew at icann.org
Wed May 31 18:40:34 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,
31 May 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki
page:  <https://community.icann.org/x/EQbwAw>

MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-31may17-en.mp3

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>


Thank you.

Kind regards,




Adobe Connect chat transcript for 31 May 2017:        

   Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all
gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 90
minute duration.

  Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page:

  Michael Flemming:I must be early.

  Terri Agnew:Hi Michael, meeting will start in 14 minutes

  Kathy Kleiman:Welcome all!

  George Kirikos:Hi folks.

  Paul Tattersfield:Hi everyone

  Philip Corwin:Hello all

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All

  Steve Levy:Hi all!

  Lori Schulman:No worries.  ICANN will be in Barcelona next year.

  Susan Payne:or even Seattle Lori :)

  Susan Payne:oops - meant INTA will be Seattle 

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):why not Montreal?

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):*for ICANN

  Mary Wong:Kristine Dorrain is on

  Lori Schulman:ICANN seems to be following INTA.  We've recently had
meetings in Panama and Barcelona.  Precisely where ICANN 62 and 63 will
be...as of now. 

  Lori Schulman:My understanding is that subteams are short term.

  Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree Loir

  Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Lori

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Lori, any chance INTA chooses Montreal instead of
Seattle ?

  Lori Schulman:I support short term projects not a second work group.

  Lori Schulman:@ Maxim LOL

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I hope subteams finish their mission and report to
the whole WG and then they are dismissed 

  Lori Schulman:+1 Maxim

  Michael R Graham:Sorry to be late.  I am under the weather and have no
microphone connection..

  Mary Wong:Note that the proposed Q4 from the TM Claims Sub Team addresses
the question being discussed on the list by Phil, Greg and others regarding
wording of the Claims Notice.

  Michael R Graham:@Kristine:  Thanks for taking the lead in explanation!

  Lori Schulman:Very well done I think

  Lori Schulman:at least on first glance

  Claudio:need to move over to audio-only

  Michael R Graham:No, I think Kristine has covered it well.

  Paul Tattersfield:very good presentation (especially off the cuff) thank

  Michael R Graham:@Mary:  I believe that is correct -- the Questions should
not change.

  George Kirikos:Very bad font.

  Terri Agnew:also listed wiki agenda page:

  Terri Agnew:under documents

  Mary Wong:Is this better? Everyone can scroll, and if you don't want to
use Full Screen you can magnify to 125%

  khouloud Dawahi:yes ,thank you mary 

  Philip Corwin:Much more readable

  Paul Tattersfield:better font but the scroll but doesn't use all the
window here so has scroll bars and dark  grey panels down each side 

  Mary Wong:@Paul T., we aren't able to change the margins in the display
pod, unfortunately.

  Paul Tattersfield:thanks mary, that's a shame

 Jon Nevett:Too soon to see if there are any objections 

  Jon Nevett:First time at least I am seeing it -- please send to list

  Mary Wong:Current list of Sub Team members for Private Protections can be
found here:

  Mary Wong:We note also that Paul McGrady had previously volunteered to
chair this Sub Team, and that presumably is something the Sub TEam will
decide on its first call (which staff will schedule shortly once the WG
signs off on sending these questions to the Sub Team).

  Claudio:Mary, can you please add me to this subteam

  Jon Nevett:I disagree with that -- it should be at this level

  Lori Schulman:Agree with Susan - maybe Voluntary Practices?

  Lori Schulman:or Voluntary RPMs

  Brian Cimbolic:I like voluntary practices

  Mary Wong:A previous suggestion was "Additional Voluntary RPMs".

  Philip Corwin:Private refers to private sector provision of additional
protection options not mandated by ICANN -- not secret.

  Greg Shatan:Support the change in terminology.

  Greg Shatan:don't see 

  Lori Schulman:Voluntary to contract parties

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bor both , if registrants do not agree -most
probably they can not registre

  Lori Schulman:Voluntary is absolulely correct

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):*register

  Susan Payne:thank you that sounds good

  Greg Shatan:Don't see "Private Protections" as a buzz term. But maybe I'm
traveling in the wrong circle..

  Greg Shatan:"Discussion" is not the same thing as arguing a position....

  Lori Schulman:Kathy: I don't think that  you were engaging in discussion;
I think that you were challenging Susan rather than noting a suggestion.
Whether you support or reject the suggestion is for another discussion.

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Greg, I am not sure we will not see this named
"behind scenes private protections" today :)

  Lillian Fosteris:I agree with Greg. I haven't heard of "Private
Protections" before

  Greg Shatan:None of this is behind the scenes....

  Lori Schulman:I have seen Private Protections used as well as Voluntary

  Greg Shatan:I volunteer for this also.

  Mary Wong:Now 18, with Greg

  Lori Schulman:Voluntary for Registries

  Phil Marano:I am happy to volunteer as well. 

  Philip Corwin:There is clearly high intetest in this subject of
additional, non-required protections

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Lori,  and obligatory for Registrars and
Registrants registering in those TLDs

  Lori Schulman:Thanks Maxim, I appreciate your noting the distinction

  George Kirikos:Let's change the name of "Smarter Non-Exact Matches" to
something neutral, too.

  Lori Schulman:SMEMs

  Philip Corwin:Prerhaps Comprehensive Non-Exact Matches, as I beleive that
Greg has identified every possible variation of non-ecat matches that may be
associated with cybersquatting.

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I failed to find in the document - what to do with
single letter TMs (if any)

  Lori Schulman:Many have flip phones because they don't trust the data
collection on smart phones

  George Kirikos:Shhh, don't tell Greg about Alexa, or we'll have to add
#13, sound-a-like matches.....

  Lori Schulman:perhaps they are smarter?

  Claudio:how about we call it the "covfefe" subteam? :)

  George Kirikos:My thoughts on Greg's proposal:

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Claudio, do you suggets adding "mumble-type"

  Susan Payne:@Maxim, that's a really good point.  Would need some thought
to get the balance right, but I think there are ways to address it by
needing to have some minimum level of actual matching with the typo/fat
finger etc type categories so that you could nmot have another letter being
considered a "match" to a one letter TM

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):infamous THE entry ... I think it will have lots of

  Philip Corwin:In addition to the questions and comments I amended to
Greg's draft, I believe we need to consider whether there is any data
indicating the extent of the problem this proposal is intended to address.
That is, to what extent have these types of non-exact matches been
associated with cybersquatting at new gTLDs that resulted in UDRP or URS
filings? There is always some element of cost/benefit analysis in policy

  George Kirikos:@Phil: right, these seem to be common types of historical
cybersquatting, when type-in traffic was easier to monetize. New gTLDs get
much less type-in traffic than .com, and so PPC parking is much lower.

  Steve Levy:LOL! Did you mention covfefe on a dare?

  George Kirikos:So, this document is trying to address issues from 10+
years ago, not cybersquatting of today.

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I think 10. should be extended to include latin
symbos mimicing IDNs - it happend too

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):*symbols

  Rebecca L Tushnet:Wouldn't enom/venom be caught by at least some of these

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):almost similar matches?

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):also it needs to be added to work of sunrise subteam
(if we decide to add "sunrise too")

  Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:The first sentence references
sunrise or claims.   If it's going to be part of Sunrise, it's going to need
to be implemented in the TMCH db.

  Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:And, come to think of it,
either way...

  Michael R Graham:I do have comments on Greg's proposal -- but typing would
be difficult.  I do have a proposed amendment to my proposal.

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):If Sunrise is left there - it needs to be discussed
in Sunrise subteam 

  Susan Payne:I think it's important to bear in mind however that you could
apply some of these sensibly to sunrise ie mark plus keyword or mark plus
commonly used terms.  whereas others, like the fat finger and character
replacment are unlikley to be at all relevant or attractive for a sunrise
registration even were we to try to go down that rabbit hole

  Lori Schulman:Agree with Susan.

  Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree with Susan.

  Michael R Graham:I would view some of the categories as additions.  

  Lori Schulman:We could have sunrise team look at proposal for relevancy to
our questions

  Terri Agnew:finding the echo

  Greg Shatan:I muted my tablet, which was causing the echo.

  Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I think we need to look at the
practicalities, including: for each brand, there would be, what? 50? 100?
variations in the TMCH db?

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):question: what to do in situation where BOTH parties
are in TMCH ?

  Greg Shatan:Happy to work with Michael on a next draft.

  Michael R Graham:My general revision/clarification of my proposal -- and I
would want to craft it as part of that better -- would be: "but only where
the Trademark string is separate from and does not constitute only an
alphanumeric component of (e.g. -red, etc.) the other elements of the domain

  Greg Shatan:Maxim, same as we do now.

  George Kirikos:@Kristine: I showed some math in my email. It could be far
higher than that.

  Michael R Graham:Would be glad to work with Jeff.  

  George Kirikos:Especially if combinations are permitted, i.e. multiple
rules being triggered.

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):This paper is too Latin script oriented (10 and 11
sould look  almost like mirror versions of each other )

  Michael R Graham:NOTE: categories 8, 11 and 12 would be covered by my
String-contained proposal as revised.

  Jeremy Malcolm:Since this proposal is limited to claims, why doesn't it go
to the claims subgroup and questions?

  Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:ah, thanks, I'm a day behind
on reading the list.

  Greg Shatan:George, your math is based on a false assumption, that the
potential matches would result in any similar number of actual matches.

  Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@ Jeremy, the first sentence
says Sunrise OR Claims.

  Rebecca L Tushnet:Not to mention other keyboards since we're now talking
about multiple languages

  Rebecca L Tushnet:(alphabets)

  Jeremy Malcolm:But Greg said we should only consider it in context of

  Jeremy Malcolm:Unless I misunderstood

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):if we leave Sunrise - we are at risk of creation of
new rights which do not exist in the Real World

  George Kirikos:@Greg: no it's not. Go and generate all the combos just fot
the top 10 terms in the Analysis Group's report.

  Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Also, in order to generate a
claims notice, the registrar has to ping the TMCH to get the data, so the
preliminary question is how all these variations are added to the TMCH and

  Greg Shatan:Jeremy, you are correct.

  George Kirikos:Then you'll see how much the expansion is correct.

  Jon Nevett:Question -- Greg, when you say that your proposal only would
apply to Claims, are you suggesting that it would apply to both sides of
Claims (notice to registrant and acknowledgement AND notice to mark holder)
or just notice to mark holder?

  Georges Nahitchevansky:Yes there is a significant problem.  It is not just
a UDRP and URS issue, but involves countless demand letters, takedowns,
monitoring and follow up.  I would suggest that better than 90 % of brand
owners have experienced these types of issues

  George Kirikos:*how much the expansion is going to be, rather.

 Greg Shatan:@George, you're talking theory, I'm talking what is likely to
happen, based on potential registrations.

  Michael R Graham:Several of the categories seem to require moderation that
would violate the intent to avoid subjective review: 2, 4, 5, 9, and 10.
Categories 1, 6, and 7 would be excellent additions to String-contained
trigger for TM Claims Notice

  George Kirikos:@Greg: Every single 3 and 4 letter .com is registered.

  Greg Shatan:Georges, that's an incredibly important point, and one I've
been waiting to make....

  George Kirikos:Every 3, 4 and 5 letter mark would generate enormous number
of false positives, by your rules.

  Michael R Graham:I do think review of categories in terms of whether their
capture can be implemented automatically would be essential.

  Lori Schulman:My apologies.  I need to leave the call for another meeting.
See you online next week.

  Mary Wong:@Phil, policy staff is not aware of any data on the extent of
the problem that this proposal seeks to address. However, we'd draw the WG's
attention to the Analysis Group's work on this point in their report.

  Philip Corwin:@Jon--good question above. Notice to mark holder alone would
not raise the issue of discouraging intenfded domain registrations that
would not be infringing.

  Scott Austin:variant matches, fuzzy matches

  Rebecca L Tushnet:But the question is: can these problems be mapped to the
categories proposed to be covered?  If not, then the target and the weapon
are mismatched.

  Justine Chew:I seem to have drawn a particularly poor connection tonight.
Will drop off now and catch up via the notes / recordings.

  Mary Wong:@Greg, are you referring to the Hogan Lovells study that WTR
just reported on?

  Mary Wong:We will try to get a copy of the study (unless anyone already
has it and can share) for circulation.

  Claudio:link to a study on typosquatting:

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):inclusion of single and 2 letter TMs will generate
almost 100% rate of claim notices to registrants and it might lead to
decline in use of domains in total

  Greg Shatan:Mary, yes it is that study.

  Georges Nahitchevansky:Greg is correct that UDRP and URS are just the tip
of the iceberg.  There have been several studies on typo domains, other
categories of domain registrations and the type of problems that have been
encountered on a regular basis

  Kathy Kleiman:@Greg: would these variations be added to the TMCH Database?

  Michael R Graham:@George K -- Do you have any idea how many of the 2, 3, 4
letter strings have been registered in New gTLD to date?

  Susan Payne:are you willing to have loser pays then George?

  Greg Shatan:I'm open to ideas to make the matches "smarter" still.

  George Kirikos:@Susan: Sure, Susan. I would take matters to court, in any
event, where it's loser pays (in Canada).

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):which number covers famous 1 and l and I issue?

  Ivett Paulovics:Sorry, I have leave the call.

  George Kirikos:@Michael: most are premium priced by the registry
operators. One can check, obviously.

  George Kirikos:Disproporationate, exactly.

  George Kirikos:That's the entire TMCH, in a nutshell.

  George Kirikos:It's trying to fight the problems of 10 years ago.

  George Kirikos:*Disproportionate, even

  Georges Nahitchevansky:Smart matches make sense.  This is not just a
trademark issue but a consumer issue.  There is so much fraud with these
types of domains that Greg is addressing that this is becoming a major
consumer issue and a questioning of the integrity of the system.  

  Mary Wong:To Jeremy's last suggestion - note that Q4 of the TM Claims Sub
Team questions is: "If the Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP determines
that non-exact matches of trademarks should be allowed inclusion in the
TMCH, should the TM Claims Notice be changed, and if so, how?"

  George Kirikos:Resolutions shouldn't be through polls.

  George Kirikos:Otherwise, there's a high risk of capture by the IP

  George Kirikos:We should see where the data takes us. 

  Mary Wong:@George, correct - WG Guidelines don't favor polls for
consensus. However, as an informal tool for gauging support and to guide
planning, they have been used by several WGs with success.

  Michael R Graham:@Georges: Agree.  @George: We should seek balance for all
constituents -- TM Owners, Consumers, Registries and Registrars, etc.  

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):who will decide which TMCH current entries need to
be removed if a conflict arise?

  Georges Nahitchevansky:Again George K, this is not simply an IP
constituency issue, but a much larger issue and problem that many
constituencies have been dealing with

  George Kirikos:i.e. support for any proposal needs to be *justified* by
the data and logical reasoning, and not just popularity.

  Claudio:Agree with John's last point. there is a big difference between
"innocent infringers" and bad-faith activity

  Colin O'Brien:+1 Claudio and John

  Michael R Graham:@Greg:  Would you agree to limit the "smart" categories
to TM Claims Notices and not Sunrise?

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Michael  +1

  Greg Shatan:Michael, yes, my proposal is limited to Claims.

  Susan Payne:agree that there is scope for "smart" claims notices depending
on what the trigger is.  we don't need to assume that all of these should
have identical treatment and so reject out of hand

  Greg Shatan:No, these would not need to be registered.

  Greg Shatan:These would be generated.

  Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Phil, how do you propose the
claims notice gets generated, without the TMCH?  

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):then it needs to be added to the text (that it
should be not used as a basis for inclusion of such records into TMCH)

  Paul Tattersfield:@Claudio, the problem is the bad actors need a much
higher level of deterrent to change behaviour, where as the genuinely
innocent can be very easily deterred by far minor warnings

  Mary Wong:Aren't Claims Notices sent by registrars? 

  Greg Shatan:Kristine, it would be TMCH record then fed through a food

  George Kirikos:Very true, Paul.

  Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:And bad actor is distinguished
from good faith registrant only by intent...something it's impossible to

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 @Paul

  Susan Payne:I think there a few RySG members here - although many not
terribly vocal.  would be good to hear from them

  Brian Cimbolic:I like that approach much better than notice going both to
the registrant and the TM holder

  George Kirikos:True WHOIS is a much greater deterrent to cybersquatting,
than the TMCH.

  Greg Shatan:Paul, some really bad actors will be deterred by nothing.  But
it's amateur hour in the new gTLDs.

  George Kirikos:As long as one can commit fraud anonymously with impunity,
a million notices won't make a difference to professional criminals.

  Greg Shatan:I would not support a TM holder only notice system.

  Kathy Kleiman:I'm closing the line so that we can move on...

  George Kirikos:1200 over how many years?

  David McAuley (RySG):I must have missed Jon's comment in chat as
summarized by Phil but it sounds sensible to me, as does Brian's comment
just now

  George Kirikos:Whereas the TMCH is a $5 million per year business, i.e.
$20+ million over 4 years.

  Greg Shatan:This is a multi billion dollar problem overall.

  George Kirikos:So, spending $20 million, and saving a couple of million in
UDRPs? Horrible math.

  Michael R Graham:@Brian -- Agree on avoiding over-broad Notices, etc.

  George Kirikos:Eliminating TMCH is an entirely fair suggestion. Do the
math, calmly and rationally.

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George, it is not 16.6 k USD per one

  Greg Shatan:Again, George, your "math" is based on false assumptions.

  Greg Shatan:My pleasure.... :-)

  Susan Payne:thanks Brian, that is really useful information.  $1.8m is of
course just WIPO and not the other providers I think, but even that is a
huge sum being shelled out by brand owners to try to ensure that consumers
are not deceived

  Georges Nahitchevansky:George K -  Do the math.  Count the UDRPs and URS
through WIPO, NAF and other provider and multiply by filing feels, then add
counsel fees to bring these proceedings and investigate the parties etc..
The numbers are staggering.

  Philip Corwin:That WIPO 3.0 Overview will be very relevant to our UDRP
review work next year.

  Greg Shatan:Each filing fee is only the tip of an iceberg...

  George Kirikos:@Georges: no they're not. Add them up.

  George Kirikos:Low millions.

  Claudio:perhaps some of the $100 million surplus can be used to cover TMCH

  Jeremy Malcolm:haha

  John McElwaine:@Claudio great idea!

  Michael R Graham:I believe Greg and I should confer to see if we can
derive a "smart match" revision of the Question 10 proposal to present to
the Group for debate and consideration.

  Susan Kawaguchi:Agree with Georges the filing fee is only 10-20 % of the
cost of filing a UDRP

  Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Have to run for another call

  Michael R Graham:@Claudio -- Agree with good use of surplus.

  Mary Wong:@George K, I don't think data is being expected for design marks
and GIs, is it?

  Michael R Graham:@George -- Raising the "capture" argument is not

  Claudio:@George helps registries and registrants too (as most costs get
passed down to them)

  Georges Nahitchevansky:Wrong George K.  UDRP and URS is just a piece of
teh problemn.  Count the number of demand letters, investigations, lawsuits
etc.  There have been any number of studies that have concluded that we are
talking billions of dollars.  This is not some minor issue as you are trying
to paint it.  There have also been FBI and other law enforcement studies on
the level of fraud using bogus domains etc.

  Colin O'Brien:Members of the IP constituency represent the interest of the
millions if not billions of their clients customers.  

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Claudio, costs are transferred to the party caused
the issue usually

  George Kirikos:@Michael: It's a serious concern, nonetheless.

  Michael R Graham:There are levels of consensus -- I believe defined by the
Policy & Implementation working group.

  George Kirikos:+1 Jeremy.

  Louise Marie Hurel:+1 Jeremy

  George Kirikos:An unpopular position, but supported by data and reasoning,
is more important than "popular" positions based on self-serving interests
of the dominant group.

  Scott Austin:+1 Georges

  Paul Tattersfield:registration regisitry services group is probably going
to make the situation worse for IP rights enforcement :(

  Michael R Graham:@George: Agree -- but data and reasoning must be accurate
and fairly applied -- regardless of popularity or self-interest.

  Susan Kawaguchi:polls have worked well for getting a "sense of the room"
in the RDS WG

  Claudio:can the co-chairs reach out to the contracted parties house to
encourage their participation (on the basis they are underpresented in this

  George Kirikos:How would we know there's no bloc voting, when the IPC
constituency mailing list is private?

  George Kirikos:There is limited transparency in the various constituencies
for mailing lists, etc.

  Petter Rindforth:Hear, hear!

  David McAuley (RySG):well said Greg

  Paul Tattersfield:Good to hear Greg

  Claudio:thanks, Kathy

  Terri Agnew:Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs
PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 07 June 2017 at 03:00 UTC for
90 minute duration.

  Georges Nahitchevansky:Well said Greg

  Mary Wong:Thursday 

  khouloud Dawahi:Thanks Terri

  George Kirikos:So, that'd be Tuesday night, for those in North America?

  Mary Wong:THursday for APAC/EMEA, Wednesday evening for Americas

  Michael R Graham:Thanks, Kathy!

  Paul Tattersfield:thanks all, bye

  Steve Levy:Bye all!

  Terri Agnew:I will adjust to Thursday

  Greg Shatan:Bye all!

  khouloud Dawahi:bye 

  Georges Nahitchevansky:Bye everyone

  George Kirikos:Bye folks.

  Louise Marie Hurel:Bye all


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170531/7dbad618/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: attendance RPM Member 31 May 2017.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 339556 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170531/7dbad618/attendanceRPMMember31May2017-0001.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/20170531/7dbad618/smime-0001.p7s>

More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list