[gnso-rpm-wg] Re： Final Report of the Competition, Consumer Protection& Consumer Trust Review Team published; includes RPM-related recommendations

[socata]

Dear Mary,


Thanks! Very helpful!


Zhou Heng






原始邮件
发件人:Mary Wongmary.wong at icann.org
收件人:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.orggnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
发送时间:2018年9月21日(周五) 08:01
主题:[gnso-rpm-wg] Final Report of the Competition, Consumer Protection Consumer Trust Review Team published; includes RPM-related recommendations


Dear all,

Following up on some early Working Group discussions about and with the Competition, Consumer Protection  Consumer Trust (CCT) Review Team regarding their work touching on RPMs, you may be interested to read the Review Team’s Final Report which was published on 8 September 2018: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/zuck-to-chalaby-08sep18-en.pdf.

There is a brief summary of the RPM recommendations in the Executive Summary (on pages 10-12). The Review Team’s specific consensus recommendations that mention this PDP and the ongoing work – although you should note that there is a number of recommendations directed toward the GNSO more generally and ICANN Organization that may be relevant - are:
#27 - “Since the Review Team’s initial draft recommendation, the PDP Review of All RPMs in All gTLDs Working Group started reviewing the URS in detail and, at the time of writing, their review is ongoing. Given this ongoing review, the Review Team recommends that the Working Group continue its review of the URS and also looks into the interoperability of the URS with the UDRP. The review team encountered a lack of data for complete analysis. The PDP Review of All RPMs appears to also be encountering this issue and this may well prevent it from drawing firm conclusions. If modifications are not easily identified, then the CCT Review Team recommends continued monitoring until more data is collected and made available for review at a later date”; and #28 – “A cost-benefit analysis and review of the TMCH and its scope should be carried out to provide quantifiable information on the costs and benefits associated with the present state of the TMCH services, and thus to allow for an effective policy review. Since the review team’s initial draft recommendation, the PDP Review of All RPMs in All gTLDs Working Group has started reviewing the TMCH in detail and ICANN has appointed Analysis Group to develop and conduct the survey(s) to assess the use and effectiveness of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims RPMs. Provided that the PDP Working Group has sufficient data from this survey or other surveys and is able to draw firm conclusions, the review team does not consider that an additional review is necessary. However, the CCT Review Team reiterates its recommendation for a cost-benefit analysis to be carried out if such analysis can enable objective conclusions to be drawn. Such cost-benefit analysis should include, but not necessarily be limited to, looking at cost-benefits of the TMCH for brand owners, registries, and registrars now and going forward, as well as examine the interplay of the TMCH with premium pricing.”

The description of the various RPMs and the specific recommendations and rationale can be found on pages 124-140 of the Final Report.

Best regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel  Berry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180921/a99bea25/attachment-0001.html>