[gnso-rpm-wg] Recordings, Attendance, AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 06 September 2017 17:00 UTC
terri.agnew at icann.org
Wed Sep 6 19:53:15 UTC 2017
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,
06 September 2017at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda
wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/NSQhB>
Adobe Connect recording:
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/>
Main wiki page for the working group:
Adobe Connect chat transcript for 06 September 2017:
Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms
(RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Wednesday, 06 September 2017 at
17:00 UTCfor 90 minute duration.
Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page:
George Kirikos:Hi folks.
George Kirikos:Now it asked me for my name/spelling again. Odd.
George Kirikos:Might want to blast out an email reminder.
George Kirikos:You can probably automate that, so it sends out a reminder
1 day before (which seems to already happen) and 5 minutes before. :-)
Steve Levy:Hello all
Philip Corwin:hello all
Mary Wong:That's correct, J Scott - we will be the first
Philip Corwin:We are the guinea pigs, lucky us ;-)
George Kirikos:Mine wasn't a 'retort', since it came before anyone else's
Jeremy Malcolm:"questions" versus "rhetoric"?
George Kirikos:Sequence was at:
Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):Hello All
Philip Corwin:I posted a responsive email to Brian at 12:50 pm ET
Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):@Terri, I will have to drop the call for SSC call in
Mary Wong:@Phil, staff hasn't managed yet to capture your response but we
can do so now for AC display if you like.
Philip Corwin:That would be helpful, Mary
Marina Lewis:Hi everyone
Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):I managed to get to the place with wifi
Mary Wong:@Phil, got it - I'll put it up in AC after Brian has finished
George Kirikos:Are all the data requests capturing prior questions? e.g. I
recall that we were going to analyze the monthly registry reports to look at
various metrics. Was it not requested because we already have that data?
George Kirikos:(i.e. have the data, but then plan to analyze it later?)
George Kirikos:Data exists, but needs to be put into a form that can be
Mary Wong:@George, yes and yes (the latter in the sense that the monthly
reports are already being incorporated by staff into the spreadsheets we are
George Kirikos:Thanks Mary.
Paul Tattersfield:Phil +1
George Kirikos:There's some background noise for someone.
George Kirikos:That's assuming the data we have from INTA has some
validity, which is in dispute.
Philip Corwin:To sum up, we are not free to just ignore the Council
adopted DMPM WG recommendations and subseqent procedures, and doing so would
leave our future policy recommendations subject to criticism for not being
based in data that could have been readily developed.
Kathy Kleiman:It was a very dramatic call.
Justine Chew:Really? Hmm, I'll have to listen to the recording then.
George Kirikos:If data won't change positions, then perhaps those people
whose positions are not affected by evidence/facts should consider leaving
George Kirikos:Since that's not evidence-based policymaking.
Mary Wong:We will send around the link and transcript when we get them/
Louise Marie Hurel:Hi all, I apologize for joining late
George Kirikos:Or type question into chat.
Philip Corwin:recording of that call is available at
David McAuley:Thanks Phil
George Kirikos:Do we know how much $$$$ was allocated to the WHOIS
studies? That's a baseline of how much we should get.
George Kirikos:(given this PDP, and that one, are probably among the most
important to ICANN)
Susan Payne:sorry, I cannot get mike to work
David McAuley:Those are major steps Mary jusy mentioned, no?
Mary Wong:@David, yes, we (staff) think so
Kurt Pritz 2: apologize in advance for this question as I should know the
answer. Are we doing this survey because we received a notice that our
conclusions should be based in data - or - did we make the decision to do
the survey and are now adjusting the methodology due to the new reports on
Susan Payne:my coment was that I was on the data gathering groups but
that this documnent isn't quite what I was expecting. As an example, the TM
claims group identified a survey of registrars including data on abandonment
rates, but the survey of registrars referred to here is seeking only
Philip Corwin:@Kurt-we are pursuing the data needs identified by our
subteams, and doing so within the new context prescribed by Council
George Kirikos:It'll probably be a lot more than $50K.
Mary Wong:@Susan, I hope the second document will be clearer - we added
the registrar questions to that document
Justine Chew:@Susan, good point. I wanted to ask who was doing a
completeness check on all received inputs (from subgroups, WG mail lists, WG
calls) -- I presume staff is doing that?
George Kirikos:+1 Justine.
Kurt Pritz 2:@ Phil - thanks (whew)
Mary Wong:@Justine, yes, staff
George Kirikos:There were too many '1's in the next attachment, for it to
be considered 'prioritized'. :-)
George Kirikos:Need to rank the data.
Kathy Kleiman:From the Key: "Priority Level 2: Medium Priority (highly
desirable for Working Group progress at this stage)
George Kirikos:Maybe do it in a Doodle poll?
Paul McGrady:Yes. That is better.
Lori Schulman:Agree. Guidance from co-chairs would be very useful
Susan Payne:agree Kristine
Lori Schulman:agree with Kristine as well.
Philip Corwin:As you will see, the co-chairs had different views on some
khouloud Dawahi:yes indeed philip
Philip Corwin:One big reason to use professional survey designers is to
frame the best possible questions to garner the most useful data
Susan Payne:I agree with Lori
George Kirikos:Lori: I think part of is that it says "Obtain anecdotal
evidence" without actually saying what specific questions are being asked.
David McAuley:We would have to have flexibility I would think if we plan
to use professional service - they will change it up as far as language goes
George Kirikos:+1 J. Scott.
George Kirikos:So, there's still a way to go before we get to the actual
questions that give us those magnitude/quantitative results that are
Kathy Kleiman:+1 J. Scott
Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):do we know of any such survey designer who is aware
of the ICANNese lingo?
Justine Chew:I truly hope whoever we approach / engage as the professional
survey designers have a true appreciation for ICANN's data needs.
David McAuley:Great question Maxim, if anyone does I bet Mary does
Lori Schulman:and an appreciation of the survery taker as well
Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):I think it is the minimal level we need
Justine Chew:At the other end, what can be done to compel responses to the
David McAuley:"Massive" sounds right to me, @Mary
Lori Schulman:Agree, need incentives for responses
George Kirikos:There are no 'dumb' questions.
Susan Payne:Mary has covered what I was going to say. I don't think it is
currently clear from the doc so making it clearer would definitely help
Terri Agnew:reminder to mute when not speaking
khouloud Dawahi:there are no dumb questions
Paul Tattersfield:As long as the WG has chance to review the professional
input before the survey is sent out maybe even an iterative process will be
George Kirikos:Since this is the first time ICANN is going through this
process, we don't know the right way to ask for this data, from experience.
Mary Wong:@Paul, that is the staff expectation - that the questions will
be reviewed by the group before the surveys are sent out
Paul McGrady:Agree J Scott.
Lori Schulman:It would be very difficult for INTA to promote this survey
to its entire membership within the next year given our efforts for the
CCT-RT review as we need to prevent survey fatigue.
Paul Tattersfield:thanks Mary
George Kirikos:@Lori: it shouldn't just be INTA that is surveyed, but all
George Kirikos:(e.g. random sample from USPTO and/or other national
databases, to be representative)
Lori Schulman:Agree George.
Jonathan Frost (.CLUB):Have to drop off. Apologies.
Lori Schulman:but it is unlikely governments will allow this. need to use
Griffin Barnett:apologies for joining late, had a client call come up that
George Kirikos:Governments don't need to "allow" anything --- the USPTO
database is in the public domain.
Paul Tattersfield:@George a subset of large TM holders may be more
statistically significant :)
Lori Schulman:not just trademark associations but maybe Chambers of
George Kirikos:@PaulT: but less representative.
Paul McGrady:I agree with Kurt.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree with Kurt
George Kirikos:So, eliminate column 1 entirely? Fine by me.
Lori Schulman:I agree with Kurt
George Kirikos:(and column 2)
Susan Payne:I personally don't give them all the same priority. I have
argued against many of them but Kurt is correct that we did this exercise
and they made the cut
Paul Tattersfield:@George may be - however the two groups usage may be
George Kirikos:@PaulT: Indeed they would be....that's why we shouldn't
focus on one unrepresentative group when deciding policy for all.
Philip Corwin:I will be in the unique position on 9/20 of both presenting
the request to Council as a co-chair and considering it as a Councilor
Lori Schulman:Phil, would you have to recuse if you are a co-chair? Is
this considered a conflict of interest?
George Kirikos:I don't think it's considered a conflict of interest --
they have no interest in the outcome of the PDP, just by chairing.
Philip Corwin:I don't believe so, Lori
Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):I will have to drop this call for GNSO SSC call in 7
Philip Corwin:No personal or financial benefit or detriment
Lori Schulman:I have the SSC call too.
George Kirikos:+1 J. Scott
Philip Corwin:And Paul is in a rather similar position. Not a full WG
co-chair, but a subteam chair
Kathy Kleiman:+1 Paul and J. Scott, with a clear discussion of our need
for anecdotal and research data
Lori Schulman:re: Conflict, just making sure that bases are covered. I
wasn't sure and I doubt it is.
Cyntia King:I must drop off in 6 mins for call w/ counsel
George Kirikos:If they reject that, then we could have another call to
prune the list.
David McAuley:There is also disclosure about these various roles
Philip Corwin:Besides, I vote on Council, when a vote is required,
consistent with the BC position, not my individual view
George Kirikos:(and should have had more notice, given the documents only
arrived 12 hours ago, so not everyone had time to thoroughly review)
Mary Wong:OK thanks J Scott
Paul Tattersfield:Walk in the shoes of your customer
Cyntia King:Agree David
Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):bye all
Philip Corwin:Diffeering somewhat from Kathy, I believe it may be useful
to note UDRPs filed aganst new gTLDs, as a UDRP may indicate more serious
infringement where domain transfer was desired. But we can decide that
question down the road.
George Kirikos:+1 Phil.
Paul Tattersfield:Phil +1
Lori Schulman:Need to drop off. Ciao.
Paul McGrady:Agree with Susan. Interesting question, but directed to the
Mary Wong:Should the question be asked of registrars then?
George Kirikos:That language of registration might be important, e.g. if
there were a disproportionate number of Chinese respondents (to make up an
example), because they didn't understand a TMCH notice in English.
George Kirikos:Only UDRPs for new gTLDs, though.
George Kirikos:Not all UDRPs.
Mary Wong:@George, we still have to get all the UDRPs filed after 2012,
and "back out" the legacy gTLD complaints.
George Kirikos:@Mary: very easy to filter out .com/net/org, etc. :-)
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:And figure out what to do with
all the UDRPs that include both.
George Kirikos:@Mary: Using UDRPsearch.com, etc., it's easy to pick out
the non-com/net/org ones.
Mary Wong:@George, the point is that we have to normalize the data, and it
may be straightforward to some extent, but not a simple click/sort.
Amr Elsadr:Note that the purpose of this question is to help evaluate the
efficacy of the Claims Notice by identifying which registrations under new
gTLDs during the Claims Period resulted in disputes (UDRPs or URSes).
George Kirikos:+1 Susan
Paul McGrady:Agree with Susan.
Justine Chew:Agree with Susan, we should not disregard UDRPs filed against
John McElwaine:Agree with Susan.
Kathy Kleiman:All, we were asked for prioritization. If all is going in -
keep it all.
George Kirikos:I thought there was already a consensus (2 or 3 calls ago)
George Kirikos:UDRP *isn't* a huge task!
George Kirikos:URS = get all cases from NAF; UDRP: do a search, and
eliminate those that are com/net/org/biz/info/us/etc.
Philip Corwin:We still have to agree on what we are sending to Council,
even without prioritization.
George Kirikos:Can do the search via WIPO/NAF, or an aggregator like
Georges Nahitchevansky:Agree with Susan
George Kirikos:But, won't the researchers be able to go back and
confidentially get the TMCH data, just like The Analysis Group did?
George Kirikos:(i.e. the data is still available from the TMCH, as to when
a recordal was created)
George Kirikos:I thought that was already in the document? (was it
Susan Payne:domainer bloggers are not investigative reporters. but I
didn't take this out
George Kirikos:I think it is there, under section 6.
George Kirikos:Yes, under "SUBTEAM SUGGESTION"., all the sources Mary
asked about in a separate email.
George Kirikos:(section 7, actually, not 6)
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I think my issue is, we're not
necessarily "looking for gaming." We're looking for overall Sunrise data.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:The wording is very loaded.
Kiran Malancharuvil:agree with Kristine
Mary Wong:@Kristine, that's what we are doing now - researching Sunrise
Pricing, Premium Pricing, Reserved Names.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Correct.
Paul McGrady:+1 John McE.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:We're already doing
it...nothing we need permission for.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Or budget.
George Kirikos:@Kristine: doesn't it require permission to use staff
resources for it?
George Kirikos:Or, can we order Mary et al around, without it? :-)
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@ George, I thought Mary said
they'd already started research
George Kirikos:@mary: right. Just want to make sure that we don't get
starved for resources to research it fully.
George Kirikos:Oops, I meant @Kristine.
Terri Agnew:finding the line
Mary Wong:@Kristine, @George - staff is starting the blog research (for
the sources noted for the WG list) but for the specific terms suggested by
the Sub Teams - Sunrise Pricing, Premium Pricing, Reserved Names.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:feedback....
Mary Wong:I'm a bit concerned at how, as well as the number, of hits that
may come back the more general the words we use to search are.
Paul McGrady:Agree with J Scott's solution.
John McElwaine:Agree as that will make it incumbent that we study the
facts behind the reporting
George Kirikos:@John: agreed, can't take the reports at face value.
They're a starting point.
John McElwaine:@George were on the same page - but creating more work for
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Isn't the first step here,
just asking for RFPs?
George Kirikos:e.g. there was a long thread that uncovered "shill bidding"
at one of the domain auction houses, based on a few simple observations.
That led to further research by others, etc. But, if we don't have those
starting points, we're not in the position to do that additional work. I
agree, it is more work! :-)
George Kirikos:@Mary: I think the issue I had is the use of the word
"sunrise" in that point.
Mary Wong:Understood, George - we will rephrase
Mary Wong:Apologies for the careless wording here!
Mary Wong:@J Scott, yes
George Kirikos:I think that solves it.
Kathy Kleiman:old X
Marina Lewis:Old x - thanks
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Excellent chairing J Scott
Mary Wong:We are only at the start ...
George Kirikos:Will an updated draft be sent out later, for review, before
it goes to council?
Kathy Kleiman:Congratulations J. Scott!
George Kirikos:Because, we only got this document 12 hours ago.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree with George...
Elisa Cooper:Great job J Scott
Paul McGrady:Great call! Well done everyone.
Terri Agnew:next call: The call for the Review of all Rights Protection
Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday,
13 September 2017 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minute duration.
Mary Wong:@George, maybe for information rather than further edits - since
the Council deadline is Sunday.
Paul Tattersfield:Thanks, bye all
Philip Corwin:Thanks all. Good job JS
J. Scott:thanks all
George Kirikos:Bye folks.
Salvador Camacho:Great call! Bye!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: attendance RPM Member 06 September 2017.pdf
Size: 337165 bytes
Desc: not available
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 5018 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg