[gnso-rpm-wg] Recordings, attendance & AC Chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP WG call on Thursday, 28 September 2017 03:00 UTC
michelle.desmyter at icann.org
Thu Sep 28 05:34:43 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 Thursday, 28 September 2017at 03:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/o4BEB
Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p936cuxk55x/
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_calendar&d=DwMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=VqOOufta7uIGpIGDJ5U1cepLELhCsPPoZZC9osq3Hrk&s=eBrYQigfSiOfET2VcOvNtKoUgJHCm4qXeW7zA-dR-is&e=>
** 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/o4BEB
Adobe Connect chat transcript for 28 September 2017:
Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Thursday, 28 September 2017 03:00 UTC.
Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_o4BEB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=M5EItDx65_5oiD9j3S1B9WMz-nj0vxE5Ih2jh-uEjQQ&s=FrASpw23gYSa_L-rkQHceltFWtYGrZahQNeVSjCQQQY&e=
George Kirikos:Hi folks.
Kathy Kleiman:Petter - tx for being on so early in the morning your time!
Kathy Kleiman:Hi George and Sara...
Sara Bockey:Hi there.
George Kirikos:Welcome Kathy, Sarah, Petter et al.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All
Michael Flemming:Good morning
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I think we might see more people in 4 minutes
Philip Corwin:Hello, night owls and early birds
Petter Rindforth:always a good tart of the day ;-)
Steve Levy:Petter, you have my utmost respect!
Martin Silva:Hi all
Justine Chew:Great work, Phil, Mary and all involved re GNSO Council decision on our data request.
Michael Flemming:Question: So, officially, what is the lead time for the PDP and how far do we see stretching ourselves out?
Michael Flemming:as in time wise*
Michael Flemming:not necessarrily in regards to content
Martin Silva:I do think there is room to wide the scope of some question that would increase data value gathered
Amr Elsadr:Thanks. I think Phil did a great job covering it.
David McAuley:and what is new plan while data being athered - or will WG develop a new approach while data being gathered
David McAuley:gathered, that is
Michael Flemming:Alright, thank you.
George Kirikos:Some other data has already been requested though on other questions, e.g. the Top 500 TMCH terms, etc. (from March 2017!), i.e. from The Analysis Group.
Michael Flemming:I just wanted to know when that would occur.
David McAuley:Thanks Phil, makes sense
Lori Schulman:I missed the first few minutes of the call, what was the final budget figure?
Philip Corwin:The request was a minimum of $50k. What we will actually get is unknown.
George Kirikos:Is that for "external" spending? Or does it include ICANN "staff time"?
George Kirikos:(i.e. ICANN staff was compiling some stuff)
David McAuley:Agree with Lori on prioritization
Philip Corwin:We may well need to prioritize, depending on the funds made available.
Colin O'Brien:The low dollar amount is worrying. In my experience surveys can become very expensive.
Lori Schulman:@George, my understanding is that 50K is for external consulting only not staff time
Michael Flemming:Lori, I think you are still on audio
George Kirikos:Thanks, Lori.
David McAuley:is someone scuba diving?
George Kirikos:lol David
David McAuley:its not so much data gathering as analysis in light of data received
Martin Silva:1) I think we should include this question as part of the survey and outreach we are already doing to the stakeholders
Kathy Kleiman:Martin: did you want to come online to speak?
Martin Silva:I have several remarks, I will take the mic for some of them.
Martin Silva:this one is pretty small remark
George Kirikos:I assume we already have the data (TLD by TLD) on number of sunrise registrations (e.g. by The Analysis Group, and/or the monthly registry reports). Do we have that as a public data set? (e.g. in a spreadsheet)
George Kirikos:(can then match that up with data on whether there were additional RPMs for that TLD, type, etc.)
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):formally to extent that is not breaching RA and RPMs and other Consensus Policies
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and RSEP
David McAuley:This series of questions (#3) underscore importance of professional help
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@David, unfortunately most experts in this field are in this PDP
Martin Silva:Amr is perfectly capturing the remarks
Martin Silva:clap clap clap
David McAuley:good point @Maxim
Jon Nevett:Again, we are not reviewing the Additional marketplace RPMs -- the second bullet was rejected by the subgroup
Jon Nevett:Bullet 3 again is beyond scope
George Kirikos:Bullet 3 in the "notes" pod? Or in the top pod?
Jon Nevett:notes george
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Maxim: ICANN Compliance does not have power to be the source of the contractually binding opinion
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):RA is a contract and each party see things from their angle
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Registry and ICANN Compliance
Jon Nevett:Thanks Phil -- you said it better than I would have and you didn't wake my wife while saying it!
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):too early for me
David McAuley:I agree w/@Maxim about ICANN Compliance authority – I assume a professional survey person, if he/she asks ICANN, would ask ‘what in your opinion AFFECTS’ not ‘what in your opinion authorizes’
Justine Chew:I agree with Phil. Also, the "acceptability" of additional Marketplace RPMs are commercial innovations not within the remit of this group.
Colin O'Brien:+1 Greg
David McAuley:Also +1 @Greg
Justine Chew:+1 Greg
Lori Schulman:Agree with Greg
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 Greg
Lori Schulman:Support not changing questions without agreement of subteam and subteam leader
Martin Silva:Lori, I would agree that they should be asked, but the agreement of the WG includes and overrun the will of the subteam. And I say it as a subteam member :-P
George Kirikos:sub = subordinate
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):if we change list of questions too much, we are at risk of GNSO Council to retract the approval
Cyntia King:Re-litigatig every question/point of the sub-groups will make this a very long process.
Martin Silva:why? we are making what they asked, to improve them to be as efficient as possible in getting as much relevant data, and relevant means close to reality, non biased, sufficient, etc.
Cyntia King:Utilizing sub-groups is a way of dividing work & assigning expertise.
Lori Schulman:Agree with Cyntia.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Martin, the approval was granted for the set of questions
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it was not a wildcard
Martin Silva:we are not erasing the question, we are making them more accurate
Martin Silva:is good, is in the sense that the GNSO approved them
George Kirikos:As noted last week, one would want to check the historical rules, too (e.g. using Archive.org), because the currently-posted rules might be different.
George Kirikos:Although, registrars probably have them too, if they were used as distribution partners for those additional RPMs.
Amr Elsadr:Question: Providers = Registry Operators?
Amr Elsadr:Question above for Martin. :)
Amr Elsadr:Thanks, Martin.
George Kirikos:+1 Martin. For question 5, we'd also have the actual registration stats (i.e. in the ICANN monthly reports), to see if that impacted registration volume).
Cyntia King:Finding registrants for these highly-specific questions may be dependent on registries providing data that is subject to confidentiality claims, right?
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George,it is hypothetical ... even Registrars sometimes do not know what the reason for registration was (or in situation where the Registrant chosed not to be one)
Martin Silva:Cyntia, yes, I agree is not an easy task, I just put forward the idea, if is not feasible, we can drop it, but if it is, maybe we improve it
Justine Chew:Exactly, Greg is correct. So would be it registrants who have received a TM Claims notice?
Cyntia King:I just thought of my own portfolio @Martin.
Lori Schulman:I thought that TM owners received copies of the claims' notices. I recall receiving them.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it is hard to reach those comanies which reached the conclusion not to register (they are not in WHOIS)
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):We did in Moscow and .xn--80adxhks to extend claims period ... so far two years
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and going
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):the data is on TLD start info portal
Cyntia King:@Greg - to your point, how could we get a representative sample of registrants?
Greg Shatan:@Cyntia, I doubt there's a way to get a representative sample, without a great deal of planning and effort. More like we'll end up with anecdotes.
Justine Chew:So is the effort worth putting in to get the (possible) result?
Amr Elsadr:Note that the questions regarding advantages/disadvantages and costs associated with ongoing Claims services should already be covered by the TM Claims questions.
George Kirikos:ICANN has surveyed registrants in the past, e.g. see: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_announcement-2D2-2D2016-2D09-2D15-2Den&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=M5EItDx65_5oiD9j3S1B9WMz-nj0vxE5Ih2jh-uEjQQ&s=FxTTerV1wD8-wZ3QDS2OU9MXjLHQqlxUU9KjpkjjnVA&e=
George Kirikos:"Global Registrant Survey Final Phase Results Available"
George Kirikos:No need to reinvent the wheel.
Jon Nevett:where is that question?
Philip Corwin:Thx George for identifying that. I'd hope that staff would look into the extent to which that registrant survey produced responses.
Cyntia King:@George, but why do we need anecdotal data? Aren't we looking for representative samples for data integrity?
Jon Nevett:I don't think we should name specific companies
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):answer to question 5 is in ICANN Accounting (they charged for each claims registration additional .25 USD)
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):for the lsat bit
George Kirikos:@Cyntia: my link *was* to a representative sample, i.e to counter the "anecdotal".
David McAuley:Jon - that Q is on page 2, section III, Question 4
David McAuley:I didn't remember it and guess maybe that was rephrased
George Kirikos:i.e. it was suggested that creating a representative sample of registrants was hard by Greg above. It's already been done before.
Cyntia King:So you want us to engage Nielsen to survey registrants? Is this part of our budgeted deta collection?
Greg Shatan:Our budget wouldn't cover it....
Amr Elsadr:Note: Asking trademark owners this question was a WG suggestion, not staff. :)
Greg Shatan:I think it
George Kirikos:@Cyntia: No, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm just countering the suggestion by Greg that creating a representative sample of registrants was difficult, and that one would necessarily end up relying on anecdotes.
Greg Shatan:is the phrasing at issue.
Michael Flemming:In any gTLDs that offer a blocking mechanism?
Cyntia King:@George. Agreed it's not difficult to survey registrants - just expensive & time-consuming.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I think it is related to ROs using such blocking mechanics
Greg Shatan:@George, just because it's been done, doesn't mean it's easy. I'm looking at our budget and approach.
David McAuley:Agree w Phil and Jon
George Kirikos:@Greg: same could be said about getting a representative sample of TM holders.
Cyntia King:Agree w/ @Phil
Cyntia King:Also checked @George's link. Very interesting reading.
Michael Flemming 2:You wouldn't. Most Registrars would show the domain as unavailable.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):URS does not work for old TLDs
Michael Flemming 2:Unless the query for the domain is recorded
Justine Chew:I have to drop off now. Cheers, for the good discussions.
Michael Flemming 2:Thanks, Justine.
Philip Corwin:@Maxim--neither does claims notices or blocking services/only for new tlds
Jon Nevett:xxx had a blocking mechanism, so shouldn't be limited to New TLDs
Martin Silva:As kathy said 2 mins ago, Analysys Group might have info on that.
Martin Silva:* regarding Q5
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):.com is not following RPMs and URS
George Kirikos:For registration volume, we can see the actual reg volume in the monthly reports.
George Kirikos:i.e. it's public data already (just needs to be compiled)
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I was saying only that URS is limited
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):to new gTLDs mostly (and few ccTLDs)
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):how do we reach non-registrants (those who decided not to register)?
George Kirikos:Given so many registrants of new gTLDs were from China, attention should be paid to ensure any survey of registrants cover China in particular.
Martin Silva:I promise not to make more remarks
Mary Wong:@Maxim, that is a question we will need to addres. Not least because, the broader we cast the net of potenial respondents, the more expansive and epensive the survey.
George Kirikos:By the way, for staff, https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__club.domain.cn_forum.php&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=M5EItDx65_5oiD9j3S1B9WMz-nj0vxE5Ih2jh-uEjQQ&s=kUODmk07VkFyZLASbyQ-ZSh7zaxl6WdGFW75yworDl8&e= might be an additional data source for Chinese registrants experiences, on some of the other data collection (i.e. for previous questions). i.e. it's the Chinese equivalent to NamePros.com.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Q2 could be answered only by the relevant party
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):if we ask non relevant parties we just extend unwise spendings
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I suggest we run a poll to understand how many PDP members support these additional side questions
Mary Wong:By way of context, please note that the budget for data collection isn't that big; so the broader we cast the net, the more pressure we bring to bear on the budget that we have to do the surveys we have identifed as necessary
Michael R Graham:I think the history of the development and approval of these questions answers Maxim's question.
David McAuley:agree w/Mary and it underscores Lori's earlier point about prioritization
Cyntia King:@Mary - you should have a bell that rings every time we try to expand the budget. Or maybe a buzzer.
Petter Rindforth:Good point!!
Martin Silva:I just point out what I look is missing, if it is missing for a good reason I am more than happy to agree!
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Michael, I was saying that additional changes to our questions can be done with such limited numbers of participants we see now
Greg Shatan:@Cyntia, I don't think we could take that much buzzing.... :-)
Greg Shatan:It would help to know what the actual experience is when trying to register a "blocked" domain. Is it any different than trying to register an already registered domain?
Michael R Graham:@Cyntia +1
David McAuley:Interesting call, thanks all, goodbye
Philip Corwin:Good point Greg. That's a question for registrars
George Kirikos:Goodnight, folks.
Martin Silva:good night/day to all!
Philip Corwin:Bon Soir
Michael R Graham:Thanks from the quiet corner
Greg Shatan:I hope it's daytime for someone....
Mary Wong:Next meeting is next Weds at 1700 UTC
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all
Martin Silva:thank you for standing my noisy remarks!
Martin Silva:by all
Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Attendance RPM 28 Sept 2017 Sheet1.pdf
Size: 22015 bytes
Desc: Attendance RPM 28 Sept 2017 Sheet1.pdf
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg