[GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: New Q15 Proposal re: Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019

[claudio di gangi]

Cyntia,

One practical way of getting this information may be to create a
voluntary Opt-in option for brand owners, and then look at the level of
adoption over time, e.g. how many brand owners choose to opt-in or keep it
private.

Some may prefer to have the information public to act as a deterrent of
sorts. And for brand owners who want to have that option, I think it should
be available to them. I think the same should go for those who want to keep
it private.

I simply hesitate / have concerns with the notion of flipping a switch and
turning IP sensitive data - aggregated in one place and for one purpose,
which was submitted under terms of confidentiality, open into the public
domain.

Maybe the Opt-in option is something we can further explore/reach consensus
upon for placing in the Initial Report for public comment.

Best regards,
Claudio



On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 7:32 PM <cking at modernip.com> wrote:

> I’d be interested in finding out whether TM owners would hesitate use the
> TMCH if the info were made publicly searchable.
>
>
>
> The TMCH was created as a way to balance users ability to freely register
> domains against the burden & expense of TM owners to protect their IP
> rights.
>
>
>
> If TM owners believe the TMCH is more liability than protection – whether
> that’s true or not – then the mechanism becomes worthless.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Cyntia King*
>
> O:  +1 816.633.7647
>
> C:  +1 818.209.6088
>
> [image: Email Logo5]
>
>
>
> *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *claudio
> di gangi
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2019 5:55 PM
> *To:* Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: New Q15 Proposal re: Actions & Notes:
> RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019
>
>
>
> The abuse scenario is avoided by rules, and enforcement of rules, that
> prevent data mining of the TMCH. This was something that was identified as
> a potential problem long ago, as pointed out by John, by the team that
> developed the implementation guidelines.
>
>
>
> Yet, here in this WG, the data mining is being used as argument for
> transparency. I'm sorry, I just don't find that a legitimate argument. I've
> already stated there are other legitimate arguments for transparency, just
> not this one.
>
>
>
> So I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this point. As always, I
> value and appreciate your and Michael's engagement and debate.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Claudio
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 6:47 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>
> wrote:
>
> I think you're making our point. It's pretty easy to get a list of an
> entity's registered marks in the US and most other jurisdictions, not a
> matter of hours of work.  It would require *more *work to run them
> against the TMCH to figure out the lack of overlap than to just go ahead
> and try everything, thus discovering which get a Notice.
>
>
>
> Our argument is that transparency has a number of benefits, including to
> legitimate commercial entities, and that your abuse scenario is not avoided
> by lack of transparency.  So, while you can assume I'm against phishing, my
> opinion about your hypothetical does not change as a result.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rebecca Tushnet
>
> Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
> 703 593 6759
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2019 6:39 PM
> *To:* Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>
> *Cc:* Mike <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: New Q15 Proposal re: Actions & Notes:
> RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019
>
>
>
> Rebecca,
>
>
>
> Michael's example was someone was going to spend hours querying the 1000
> trademarks (which presumably they spent tons of time and
> energy researching to identify in the first instance), that a company
> owned, i.e. by seeking to register them as domain names in new gTLDs, in
> order to determine which 50 TMs are registered in the TMCH, and which 950
> are not in the TMCH.
>
>
>
> Do you see this is good faith activity or TMCH data mining? If you see
> this as good faith activity, what possible good faith purpose would someone
> have for doing this?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Claudio
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 6:24 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>
> wrote:
>
> I was objecting to the idea that a domain name registrant or would be
> registrant has any duties arising out of a relationship with the TMCH. You
> characterized them as accessing confidential information by attempting to
> register; I can’t see how that is true. And I think there are multiple
> acceptable reasons to see what’s available for registration. The bad actor
> isn’t bad because its attempt is checked against the TMCH, but because of
> its intended use in your hypothetical.
>
> Rebecca Tushnet
>
> Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
>
>
>
> Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.
>
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2019, at 6:10 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Rebecca,
>
> I didn't just say "receive a notice" - I was referring to misusing the
> system to mine the TMCH data. Are you suggesting this practice is OK from
> your point of view?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Claudio
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 5:44 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Receiving a Notice is not accessing confidential data. No one is under any
> confidentiality obligations with respect to Notices.
>
> Rebecca Tushnet
>
> Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
>
>
>
> Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.
>
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2019, at 5:38 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Michael,
>
>
>
> When you say "By spending a few hours querying for each of the 1000
> trademarks and seeing when a claims notification pops up." - do you
> mean "by misusing the system in order to gain access to confidential
> data that I am not otherwise entitled to have access to"?
>
>
>
>
>
> Your response actually exposes how someone can try to game the system
> because 1) they are getting away with breaking the rules; or 2) sufficient
> rules are not already in place or enforced to prevent illicit data mining.
>
>
> So, unfortunately, your response doesn't move the needle in one iota on
> the substantive of the issue/concern that I articulated in my last note.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Claudio
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 5:22 PM Mike <mkaranicolas at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And, as we have also been over, the bad actor in Claudio’s scenario could
> already do that by spending a few hours querying for each of the 1000
> trademarks and seeing when a claims notification pops up.
>
>
>
> So, seeing as this is already possible, there’s no need to dwell in the
> realm of the hypothetical. Claudio - do you have any examples of this
> actually happening?
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2019, at 4:55 PM, Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>
> wrote:
>
> As we've been over, the theoretical possibility you hypothesize
> here--especially as compared to the availability of open registration
> systems through most of the world--is not particularly plausible. We
> haven't even seen evidence that scammers do this with existing open
> registration systems, which provide exactly the guide they ought to be
> using by your reasoning.
>
>
>
> I am interested by the idea that openness about what receives a
> Notice--that is, what strings have actually triggered notices, which
> reflects what people are looking for and not what's in the TMCH as a
> whole--is a path towards greater transparency.  I look forward to Staff's
> answer about that as to the AG report.
>
>
>
>
>
> Rebecca Tushnet
>
> Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
> 703 593 6759
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2019 4:37 PM
> *To:* Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>
> *Cc:* Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be>; John McElwaine <
> john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: New Q15 Proposal re: Actions & Notes:
> RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019
>
>
>
> Rebecca, all,
>
>
>
> As I previously described on the list (to which I haven't seen a direct
> response by anyone) the concern with an "open" TMCH is the aggregation of
> IP data for a specific purpose, i.e. protection from DNS abuse.
>
>
>
> No query through WIPO or national TMO databases can reveal this
> information.
>
>
>
> Hypo: a trademark owner owns 1000 trademarks; so they decide to select 50
> TMs based on an informed judgment (based on previous UDRPs, C&D letters,
> etc.) that they believe are most likely to be abused in the DNS/new
> gTLDs and record them in the TMCH for protection through Sunrise and Claims.
>
>
>
> An open TMCH would expose that information to cyber-criminals, giving them
> important insights that they can't find anywhere else in the world.
>
>
>
> They could then proceed to focus on abusively registering any of the other
> 950 trademarks the company has registered, but which are not recorded in
> the TMCH, since they will know with certainty the TM owner won't receive a
> Claims notice and they will be able to register the domain as soon as
> General Availability opens up.
>
>
>
> Upon which time they can set up a 48-72 hour phishing scheme to steal as
> much consumer sensitive information as possible, and/or perpetrate criminal
> fraud to steal money or data from the company by sending out
> "official-looking" emails (that incorporate the brand name) to corporate
> executives, resellers, etc.
>
>
>
> Or on the flip-side, they may infer "these are the most important 50 TMs
> to that company" - so I will register them as domains in <.com> or in
> ccTLDs and extort money from the TM owner.
>
>
>
> One middle ground solution may be permit a TMCH "Opt-in" for TM owners
> that are fine or desire to have their TMCH records made public so they have
> that option available as a voluntary choice.
>
>
>
> For example, some TM owners may believe having this information public may
> have a deterrent effect on cybersquatters, depending on the specifics of
> their own TM and domain portfolios.
>
>
>
> Hope this helps clarify the concern some have with an open aggregated data
> system that has the details of valuable IP recorded in one location and for
> one specific purpose.
>
>
>
> Also, as I mentioned on today's and on previous calls - other solutions
> can be explored at the Registry-level, where the hypothetical registrant
> who is "gaming" Sunrise, has a contractual relationship with a specific
> registry operator, who has the ability to delete the registration because
> it violates their terms of use.
>
>
>
> In fact, I have indicated willingness on several occasions to form a small
> group to further explore this option/solution, but no one has accepted my
> offer...
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Claudio
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:19 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Marie, I suggest you reread the materials John sent: one key
> rationale--that access to the TMCH would disclose jurisdictions in which a
> TM is not registered--is flatly wrong, as you agree.  The arguments were
> based on a misapprehension of what the TMCH was.
>
>
>
>
>
> Rebecca Tushnet
>
> Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
> 703 593 6759
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2019 1:47 PM
> *To:* Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>; John McElwaine <
> john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: New Q15 Proposal re: Actions & Notes:
> RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019
>
>
>
> Rebecca, the TMCH has nothing to do with where TMs are/are not registered.
>
> I’m afraid I don’t understand where you are going with the below.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
> *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Tushnet,
> Rebecca
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2019 7:31 PM
> *To:* John McElwaine <john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com>;
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: New Q15 Proposal re: Actions & Notes:
> RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019
>
>
>
> These excerpts make clear that the objections to transparency were based
> on fundamental factual misunderstandings of what the TMCH would be.  I hope
> that no one in this group would agree that one can figure out jurisdictions
> in which a TM is not registered by looking at a TMCH entry, which requires
> only one valid registration from one jurisdiction.  (As has been pointed
> out, there are already public tools to look at registrations across
> jurisdictions; the TMCH couldn't be one of them.)  Similarly, the way to
> figure out if a domain name is registered is to look at that domain name,
> not at the TMCH, which will likewise not tell you anything. (And of course
> Sunrise requires proof of use, so that should already be public.)
>
>
>
>
>
> Rebecca Tushnet
>
> Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
> 703 593 6759
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of John
> McElwaine <john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2019 1:00 PM
> *To:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: New Q15 Proposal re: Actions & Notes:
> RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019
>
>
>
> I recall that the issue of the confidentiality of the TMCH database
> specifically came up in the Implementation Assistance Group (IAG) which was
> the group putting together the details and rules of the TMCH.
>
>
>
> Having “Data Access” limited to a “need to know basis” was how the subject
> was originally introduced to the IAG.  I believe (but am not sure) that
> this “Data Access” may have resulted out of Section 8.1 of the STI Report
> which stated:
>
>
>
> If feasible, the TM Claims Notice should provide links, or provide
> alternative methods of providing access, to the registrant for accessing
> the TC Database information referenced in the TM Claims Notice for a fuller
> understanding of the TM rights being claimed by the trademark owner. These
> links shall be provided in real time without cost to the Registrant. The
> implementation details should be left to ICANN Staff to determine how to
> easily provide access to registrants to this information.
>
>
>
> From the September 26, 2012 Report of the IAG which was used to prepare
> “the draft implementation model of the Trademark Clearinghouse published by
> ICANN for discussion purposes”:
>
>
>
> Misuse of Data
>
> To minimize abuse, distribution of TMCH data should be limited to
> situations where necessary to implement TMCH functionality. It should also
> be justified by technical, performance, uptime, availability, and economic
> factors. At a minimum, there should be sufficient contractual restrictions
> to provide enforcement capabilities to guard against abuse of the access
> and information provided through the TMCH. Specifically, rights holders
> have expressed concerns related to the aggregation of mark data through the
> TMCH, which may expose their brand protection strategies or be used to
> gather competitive intelligence by competitors. If *the TMCH database is
> freely searchable and accessible, it could be possible to identify a rights
> holder’s gaps in its intellectual property protection strategies*. For
> example, it might be possible to identify jurisdictions in which the rights
> holder has not registered its trademarks or in which it has not chosen to
> defensively register domain names. In this regard, this information could
> be misused by criminals, such as to conduct phishing attacks or other types
> of social engineering attacks.
>
>
>
> In addition, concerns were raised with regard to limiting information
> submitted in the TMCH that may be valuable to a competitor, especially with
> regards to a brand-related registry. If it is possible to do extensive
> searching of the database to compile a list of marks that a mark holder has
> registered, some IAG members believed that this can reveal the mark
> holder’s brand protection strategy because it shows which marks it believes
> are more valuable than others. If someone can access all of the countries
> where a specific brand is registered, this may also create competitive
> advantage because a competitor might go to the unprotected jurisdiction and
> register the mark before the mark holder. The TMCH should not allow
> extensive searching to be done in a manner where a trademark holder’s
> entire portfolio could be easily accessed. Accordingly, the TMCH should be
> structured to address how to minimize data mining by a registry of a
> competitor’s trademark registration patterns.
>
>
>
> The above report and analysis was related to work undertaken by the IAG
> looking at the “Data Access” (which labeled issue T1).  From the April 13,
> 2012 Draft Implementation Model:
>
>
>
> Specifically, some rights holders indicated concern that the aggregation
> of rights data through the Clearinghouse may expose corporate strategies or
> be used to gather competitive intelligence, particularly if the database is
> freely searchable and accessible. For example, it might be possible to
> identify jurisdictions in which a rights holder has not registered its
> trademarks or in which it has not chosen to register domain names. In this
> regard, this information could drive uses such as phishing or other types
> of social engineering activities.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Kathy
> Kleiman
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2019 11:22 AM
> *To:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: New Q15 Proposal re: Actions & Notes:
> RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019
>
>
>
> *◄External Email►* - From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>
>
>
> The Trademark Clearinghouse database -- as negotiated by the GNSO Council
> appointed group and approved unanimously by the GNSO Council and ICANN
> Board -- was *not* secret or confidential. It's openness was discussed,
> debated and agreed to as a monitoring and oversight mechanism, and
> additionally because so much of what was already within the TMCH would be
> public materials -- registered trademarks themselves.
>
>
>
> Kathy (with my hat as member of the STI)
>
>
>
> On 10/23/2019 10:52 AM, Marie Pattullo wrote:
>
> Thanks, Julie. I’m about to go into a call so apologies for the hit & run
> response, but initial thoughts inline:
>
>
>
> Para one:
>
> The Working Group understands that, on the one hand, trademark owners may
> register trademarks and enter them into the Trademark Clearinghouse as part
> of a business-confidential strategy, including for new products yet to
> enter the market. Access to the database would allow misuse, including by
> bad actors and/or competitors. On the other hand, some Working Group
> members have noted that it was not clear, during the lead up to the
> launch of the 2012 New gTLD Program, that the Trademark Clearinghouse
> database was intended to be a non-publicly-accessible, confidential
> database. I wasn’t involved then, but I thought Claudio said that it was
> always intended to be confidential? I’ve never seen reference to it being
> considered as being an open resources.  In addition, some Working Group
> members expressed concern that potential registrants may benefit from
> knowing what marks are already in the Trademark Clearinghouse database
> prior to attempting a registration, especially in view of the likelihood
> (based on discussions the Working Group has held with the current Trademark
> Clearinghouse validator) that some marks may consist of generic words which
> potential registrants may legitimately wish to use as a domain name. If
> it’s a legitimate use, then brand holders won’t stop them.
>
> The Working Group agrees in principle that an audit of the Trademark
> Clearinghouse database can be beneficial. I still have reservations about
> this – I don’t think the potential harm, based on fact, is an equal balance
> for the potential gain, based on supposition. Accordingly, the Working
> Group recommends that, in order to inform the next review of the Trademark
> Clearinghouse, a small group of community volunteers be formed that will
> have limited, specifically-defined, confidential access to the Trademark
> Clearinghouse database, for the sole purpose of working with ICANN Org and
> any appointed third party examiner on such review. The scope of such
> confidential access is to be limited to oversight purposes only and must
> not violate any terms of confidentiality that apply to trademark owners
> whose marks are already in the Trademark Clearinghouse database at that
> time. Should this be take forward, any trademark owners that have chosen
> to enter their trademarks in the Trademark Clearinghouse must first be
> given time to consider if they wish to remove them, and to do so, before
> they are made known to any such community members, with appropriate
> safeguards considered for the effect that this may have on such trademark
> owners.
>
>
>
> *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Tushnet, Rebecca
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2019 3:15 PM
> *To:* Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org> <julie.hedlund at icann.org>;
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] New Q15 Proposal re: Actions & Notes: RPM
> PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019
>
>
>
> I asked this in the meeting but didn't directly address it to Staff:
> Analysis Group reported on the top ten queried terms in the TMCH. Is it
> Staff's understanding that this disclosure by AG breached a confidentiality
> duty?
>
>
>
> The description "non-publicly-accessible, confidential database" is not
> accurate, given that members of the public with no duties of
> confidentiality can find out on a term-by-term basis by attempting to
> register.  I would suggest something like "database that is inaccessible to
> the public except through individual registration attempts."
>
>
>
> More generally, I think the proposal needs to state ICANN's understanding
> of the current rule.  Without a clear statement of the current rule, I
> don't think this audit proposal is understandable--and to the extent it
> suggests that disclosing anything, including a top ten list, is a violation
> of confidentiality, that seems like a worsening of the problem.
>
>
>
>
>
> Rebecca Tushnet
>
> Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
> 703 593 6759
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie
> Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2019 9:01 AM
> *To:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [GNSO-RPM-WG] New Q15 Proposal re: Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG
> Meeting 16 October 2019
>
>
>
> Dear WG members,
>
>
>
> Per the action item below to draft a new Q15 proposal relating to the
> discussion during the meeting on 16 October, staff submits for your
> consideration the following suggested text.  We very much look forward to
> working with you on further revisions as needed, as well as to the
> discussion on today’s call.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Mary, Ariel, and Julie
>
>
>
> *Staff-suggested draft (based on Working Group discussions and suggestions
> made on the Working Group call of 16 October)*:
>
> The Working Group understands that, on the one hand, trademark owners may
> register trademarks and enter them into the Trademark Clearinghouse as part
> of a business-confidential strategy, including for new products yet to
> enter the market. On the other hand, some Working Group members have noted
> that it was not clear, during the lead up to the launch of the 2012 New
> gTLD Program, that the Trademark Clearinghouse database was intended to be
> a non-publicly-accessible, confidential database. In addition, some Working
> Group members expressed concern that potential registrants may benefit from
> knowing what marks are already in the Trademark Clearinghouse database
> prior to attempting a registration, especially in view of the likelihood
> (based on discussions the Working Group has held with the current Trademark
> Clearinghouse validator) that some marks may consist of generic words which
> potential registrants may legitimately wish to use as a domain name.
>
>
>
> The Working Group agrees in principle that an audit of the Trademark
> Clearinghouse database can be beneficial. Accordingly, the Working Group
> recommends that, in order to inform the next review of the Trademark
> Clearinghouse, a small group of community volunteers be formed that will
> have limited, specifically-defined, confidential access to the Trademark
> Clearinghouse database, for the sole purpose of working with ICANN Org and
> any appointed third party examiner on such review. The scope of such
> confidential access is to be limited to oversight purposes only and must
> not violate any terms of confidentiality that apply to trademark owners
> whose marks are already in the Trademark Clearinghouse database at that
> time.
>
>
>
> *From: *GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie
> Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Date: *Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 3:27 PM
> *To: *"gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October
> 2019
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP
> Working Group call held on 16 October 2019 at 17:00 UTC.  Staff will post
> these to the wiki space.  *Please note that these are high-level notes
> and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or
> transcript**.* The recording, Zoom chat, transcript and attendance
> records are posted on the wiki at:
> https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-10-16+Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+WG
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_RARPMRIAGPWG_2019-2D10-2D16-2BReview-2Bof-2Ball-2BRights-2BProtection-2BMechanisms-2B-2528RPMs-2529-2Bin-2Ball-2BgTLDs-2BPDP-2BWG&d=DwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=GU7oC_LaBo7KvH3LCTYNBb2Z62O2_gB7PePpFA2YNvE&s=Lebe-G6v-muk6fUa-l7fXJ95Vfc50wtSu3jY53kDW2k&e=>.
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
>
>
> ==
>
>
>
> *NOTES & ACTION ITEMS*
>
>
>
> *Actions:*
>
>
>
> *Open and Deferred TMCH Questions:*
>
>
>
> *Q7 Design Marks*: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Kleiman/Muscovitch and
> Shatan proposals in the Initial Report for Public Comment.
>
> *Q8 GIs: ACTION*: WG agrees to publish Tushnet proposal in the Initial
> Report for Public Comment.
>
> *Q12*: ACTION: Staff will work with Maxim to revise the proposal to
> include context and background, and make it more formal.  Make it clear
> that this is an implementation recommendation, not policy.  Publish to the
> WG email list for review.
>
> *Q15*: ACTIONS: 1) WG agrees to publish Karanicolas proposal in the
> Initial Report for Public Comment. 2) ACTION: Staff to draft a new proposal
> based on suggestions and circulate it to interested WG members and the
> Co-Chairs.
>
> *Q2*: Proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent: ACTIONS: 1) Martin to
> revise the proposal with assistance of other WG members and circulate it on
> the WG email list for review. 2) Staff will check to see if either party to
> the contract can seek modifications.
>
>
>
> *Discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the
> WG, and methodology for doing so:  *ACTION: WG members are requested to
> continue discussion on the email list. See the draft survey at:  survey
> [forms.gle]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_kak3MEWFTNeq69wN9&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=36glY4CKyg4JCvpnCKFaXpx9PW_r5RObgdpcO0mtVM8&s=pEK5aTpdV-IIoTgVC0PHNGEZ969HY26RoiVzAAphdcw&e=>
> .
>
>
>
> *Notes:*
>
>
>
> 1.  Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.
>
>
>
> 2. Status of Questions Q7, Q8, Q12, and Q15:
>
>
>
> Q7 Design Marks: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Kleiman/Muscovitch and
> Shatan proposals in the Initial Report for Public Comment.
>
>
>
> Q8 GIs: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Tushnet proposal in the Initial
> Report for Public Comment.
>
>
>
> Q12: Proposal from Maxim Alzoba – TMCH Operational Considerations
>
> -- Need to improve redundancy and availability of the TMCH.
>
> -- Question: Are you referring to the TM database, run by IBM?  Deloitte
> is the validator and IBM is the maintainer of the database.  Answer:
> Relates to the provision of the database.  Or could be a issue with the
> design, it’s hard to say.  Need to review how it works.  Might not be
> limited to software functions.  Could be dataflow design.
>
> -- Need to get background on the cases reported to GDD colleagues.  The
> validation function is kept separate from the database function.  If the WG
> wishes to investigate this further this is probably an issue with
> implementation as to SLA (there are applicable SLAs).  Need also to go back
> and look at the deliberations concerning the original design of the TMCH
> and database.
>
> -- Information about the SOW with IBM (and for that matter the SLAs with
> Deloitte) on this Working Group wiki page, under TMCH Contracting:
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D61606864&d=DwMDaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=6PdODCxx0pFS_O8Ct151GXBvBolgy6QESpwRhpAInzE&s=AaHHM_PFma3YOKVp3Fa79Iw_DMDLVZUNFVKWJgOPee8&e=>
>
> ACTION: Staff will work with Maxim to revise the proposal to include
> context and background, and make it more formal.  Make it clear that this
> is an implementation recommendation, not policy.  Publish to the WG email
> list for review.
>
>
>
> Q15: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Karanicolas proposal in the Initial
> Report for Public Comment.
>
> -- Hoped that we could get consensus.
>
> -- Could allow a limited group to access the data, perhaps a future review
> team?  Can’t just open up now when those who participate have been assured
> of confidentiality.
>
> -- Question - is there a way for the WG to reach agreement on how to
> ensure there is some kind of specific, limited access to the data in the
> TMDB for oversight purposes only (including future reviews)?
>
> ACTION: Staff to draft a new proposal based on suggestions and circulate
> it to interested WG members and the Co-Chairs.
>
>
>
> 3. Remaining Deferred Charter Questions (see the attached Status of WG
> Discussions on Agreed TMCH Charter Questions):
>
>
>
> *a. Close Discussion:* TMCH Category 6: Balance: Charter Question 16:
> Close discussion.
>
>
>
> *b. Discussion:* TMCH Category 1: Education: Charter Questions 1, 2, and
> 3 – Proposal submitted by Martin P Valent for Q2 (1 Oct 2019
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_109482780_Martin-2520Pablo-2520Silva-2520Valent-2520-2D-2520Q2.pdf-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D1569963225000-26api-3Dv2&d=DwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=GU7oC_LaBo7KvH3LCTYNBb2Z62O2_gB7PePpFA2YNvE&s=PKnCPcJaP-hGDv7k41qSJp4G-vUa7kFbgWNfm3FAImo&e=>
> )
>
>
>
> Q1: Close discussion.
>
>
>
> Q2: Proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent:
>
> -- TMCH should educate rights holders; it is already doing outreach and
> should do more.
>
> -- Needs to be revised to be in the form of a recommendation.
>
> -- Amendment: this effort would work in conjunction with whatever
> marketing ICANN is doing to support knowledge around new gTLD program in
> general and the TMCH.
>
> -- Not clear as drafting what is the remit of Deloitte and what falls
> elsewhere.  Some of this should be done at an ICANN level.
>
> -- Not sure involving ICANN at this level is required.
>
> -- ICANN is not involved in marketing gTLDs.
>
> -- Needs to be some definition/scope.  Don’t see TMCH providing education
> on RPMs.  We also need to clarify what is meant by “education.” Is this
> essentially “awareness” or is something more contemplated?
>
> -- In the end we need much more in terms of education.  If it’s not in the
> current contract then it’s worth considering in future discussion.
>
> -- Need to be careful how to express this.
>
> -- From staff: ICANN Org does not have control over the TMCH provider’s
> website and information.  The contract was an initial 5-year term that
> expired on the first anniversary of the entering into force of the new gTLD
> program, and followed by consecutive 1-year renewal terms unless there’s a
> 180 day notice of termination. See:
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D61606864&d=DwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=GU7oC_LaBo7KvH3LCTYNBb2Z62O2_gB7PePpFA2YNvE&s=9vB4Yvqqu-gSbuPEj2gY7ATdZdok63vjBBtw77AvqOA&e=>
> .  We are in the 1-year renewal term.
>
> -- Should look at what Deloitte already provides on their website.
>
> -- There's a lot of talk about what should be done - but no-one
> identifying anything actually glaringly missing.
>
> -- Maybe it’s more of an outreach question, if the education already
> exists.
>
> -- We should be identifying what’s not being done.  Otherwise, we’re just
> endorsing education conceptually, or providing a generic roadmap for what
> could be done that will include many things that are already being done.
>
> ACTION: Martin to revise the proposal with assistance of other WG members
> and circulate it on the WG email list for review.
>
> ACTION: Staff will check to see if either party to the contract can seek
> modifications.
>
>
>
> 4. Discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by
> the WG, and methodology for doing so.  See the draft survey at:  survey
> [forms.gle]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_kak3MEWFTNeq69wN9&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=36glY4CKyg4JCvpnCKFaXpx9PW_r5RObgdpcO0mtVM8&s=pEK5aTpdV-IIoTgVC0PHNGEZ969HY26RoiVzAAphdcw&e=>
> :
>
>
>
> -- Survey does not designate which proposals go into the Initial Report –
> that will be decided via WG discussion.
>
> -- WG members should consider whether or not names and affiliations should
> be included, although the survey is not a poll.
>
> -- WG members will decide what to do with the data.
>
> -- Co-Chairs suggest allowing WG members to take the survey as a way to
> inform, but not direct, WG discussions.
>
> ACTION: WG members are requested to continue discussion on the email list.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
>
>
>
> GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
>
>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMDaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=6PdODCxx0pFS_O8Ct151GXBvBolgy6QESpwRhpAInzE&s=8FH-5Lm9_iyYjpspSNzAt2dOVuvjvZ2kyCIQh2x7n9Y&e=>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMDaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=6PdODCxx0pFS_O8Ct151GXBvBolgy6QESpwRhpAInzE&s=j15WQS8Bnm8KeBCSUJPlw5Hdbmvws-gnr_af0NTo1s4&e=>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMDaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=6PdODCxx0pFS_O8Ct151GXBvBolgy6QESpwRhpAInzE&s=nykW72AfYIBMd5943mKpT4hvlgo8SdVQo0ChyyJJz_w&e=>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
>
> Confidentiality Notice
>
> This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which
> it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is
> proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from
> disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to
> read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If
> you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
> immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and
> delete all copies of this message.
>
> _______________________________________________
> GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
> GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=E43DlHk7ACc50mfXFboDNJFp2ZcSYSrqFab4sOZq47w&s=ft6Rg3e-zDDCKOd3Qrblv6JaPyWSWZZjaiN0IOMZa_M&e=>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=E43DlHk7ACc50mfXFboDNJFp2ZcSYSrqFab4sOZq47w&s=hIdE1KAH950JdZk2eyn3nlsqCB-lg2H19lr50jwxmtE&e=>)
> and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=E43DlHk7ACc50mfXFboDNJFp2ZcSYSrqFab4sOZq47w&s=egrXYkvtv9SHOtzxAipr69RIynL7gyqy-rpqJQVOJ-w&e=>).
> You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
> _______________________________________________
> GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
> GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=guAKFjHRL80-AH2B3wx3s46wKZ2vETdwT4cNxzNuW4k&s=e8l6mpzqDRz9OiJ23leEFRVcaDwllU1AVZdi4TCT4EE&e=>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=guAKFjHRL80-AH2B3wx3s46wKZ2vETdwT4cNxzNuW4k&s=A0TJwZVPo-iKBGudLPEO9HZqpq-FUuOsSX8cyxetPRI&e=>)
> and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=guAKFjHRL80-AH2B3wx3s46wKZ2vETdwT4cNxzNuW4k&s=uCxn5m-FmSqpidMTd9MaIo392qkjQXnq39LxgTpKRwU&e=>).
> You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20191023/185ef023/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5366 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20191023/185ef023/image001-0001.jpg>