[GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 28 November 2018

Wed Nov 28 17:03:15 UTC 2018

Dear All,

Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 28 November 2018 (13:00-14:30 UTC).  Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes.  Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-11-28+Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+WG. 

See also the attached referenced documents: 1) responses from Analysis Group to WG members clarifying comments and questions; 2) current PDP WG timeline.

Best Regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

==

NOTES & ACTION ITEMS

Actions:
Analysis Group will produce a redlined version of their responses to the WG members clarifying comments and questions based on the discussion on today’s call.
Co-Chairs/GNSO Council Liaison/Staff will meet to discuss a) establishing sub teams for Sunrise & Claims to review the Analysis Group survey results; b) additional scope of work for sub teams (including treatment of sub team recommendations at full Working Group level vis-à-vis individual proposals); c) revised Phase One timeline; and report back to the WG.

Notes:

1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates: No updates.

2. Review and Discussion on Analysis Group responses to all clarifying questions/comments:

>From Rebecca Tushnet: 

Q6&8 (registrant), pages 13-16: 

-- Question: Of the 6 respondents that received a claims notice (Q6) but did not complete the domain name registration (6a) -- how could 2 have received a Cease and Desist letter? Answer: Analysis Group will look into this question.

-- Question: Were there any anti-fraud questions?  Answer: There weren't any because we were trying to keep it as short as possible.  Didn't see evidence of people answering randomly.  Can look to see if there were other suspicious responses.

-- Comment: Seems like we aren't comparing the same thing -- doesn't seem that question 8 is specific, so we aren't talking about the same scenario as 6a.  It seems that 6a  and 8 are not asking about the same scenario.  Q8: "After you registered your domain name(s), did you ever receive any of the following types of warning or notices of possible trademark conflict regarding your choice of a domain name? Please note that you can select multiple options."

-- Question: Of the 9 who received a URS or UDRP notice, do we know the result?  Answer: We didn't ask questions on the outcome of DRPs.

-- Question: What about the disparity of only 6% got a notice the other saying 5 out of 6 received it?  Answer: Wouldn't put a lot of weight on the 94% number.

-- Question: Did ask the trademark owners about URS and UDRP outcomes -- is there a way to cross-correlate? Answer:  No.

Q21a (TM  owner survey), page 34: 

-- Comment: For a single brand you could receive multiple NORNs, some of which they had done something with and some not.  What we are seeing is that we have surveyed 2 populations that behave very differently.  Everybody in the ICANN panel; any time there is a written response they said it was their TM; that question was asked of the registrants.

Q7 (registrant) and others, page 15: 

-- Comment: Registrant survey: When we look at the claims notice if there is any suggestion of changing the language it could help reduce problems/issues.

>From George Kirikos to all surveys:

-- Question: Problem with all surveys re: margin of error.  Answer: Due to the opt-in nature of the surveys and issues that arise in defining the proper population for some of the respondent groups, we do not feel it would be proper to provide confidence intervals or margins of error for these results.

>From Kristine Dorrain:

-- Comment: Actual/Potential Domain Name Registrants Pages 9 and 19: Could be useful to correlate. 

-- Question: Did we capture the names of the registry operators?  Answer: We have the names of the registry operators who gave their names, but we promised to keep that information confidential.

-- Question: In the new gTLD registry agreement it states that registry operators shall cooperate with economic studies created by ICANN -- did that come up?  Answer: We did not indicate in the preamble anything related to that provision.  There was an economic study done several years ago that was done by ICANN, but that was to address GAC advice.

-- Question: Can we have the numbers of gTLDs in the registry survey?  Answer: We can give a range of number of gTLDs for the registry survey.

3. Next Steps/Timeline:

-- Might need to schedule two calls per week to make the schedule.

-- Sub Teams could be more efficient.

-- But the danger of breaking into sub teams and running them in parallel is we might have things falling through the cracks or not capturing dependencies; may need to deal with TMCH separately.

-- Could be two sub teams -- sunrise and claims -- and then come back to TMCH.

-- Another option could be to have sub teams review the survey results on registrants, contracted parties, TM/brands.

-- Concern that there shouldn't be many individual proposals outside of sub teams, unless the sub team has obviously missed something.

-- Using Sub Teams doesn't preclude individuals from making proposals.

-- From the staff perspective, it's not so much Sub Team "supremacy" (which is not contemplated by the Working Group Guidelines) but the question that was raised is, how Sub Team recommendations will be iterated vis-a-vis proposals from individuals etc.

-- Perhaps, a Sub team recommendation that has consensus within the sub team should be presumed to have Working Group consensus.  That could be reversed if there is consensus within the WG.  Individual proposals thereafter are welcome but would require WG consensus (which as we've seen would be unlikely but not impossible).  All individual proposals should have been vetted by now and should be taken up by the Sub teams in their discussions and those individuals should be invited to discuss with the sub teams.

-- To recap my suggestion for the record:  Staff could email the Notes from every sub-team meeting to the WG so everyone can stay informed of the issues & progress.

-- Staff noted that the current timeline is unrealistic, recommends that the first task is to analyze the survey results, and that the scope of work and impact on the timeline should be clear for any use of sub teams. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20181128/33c8bba0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft RPM Timeline_ June 2018 - August 2019-2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 150378 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20181128/33c8bba0/DraftRPMTimeline_June2018-August2019-2-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Questions & Comments - Final Report RPM Survey - AG comments.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 310080 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20181128/33c8bba0/QuestionsComments-FinalReportRPMSurvey-AGcomments-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20181128/33c8bba0/smime-0001.p7s>