<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I agree with Greg and think the two paragraphs he quoted are troublesome. Sure, taking a look at existing private RPMs as guidance as to what may work/what is
feasible makes sense. Somehow claiming that the working group has “jurisdiction” over private RPMs or opining that any private RPM needed to go through an RSEP is another matter. The private RPMs are created by Registry policy and I don’t think it is proper
for this group to suggest that it is or should be the arbiter of what individual Registry policy is acceptable versus which should have been effectuated through an RSEP.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">Brian Cimbolic</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><a href="http://www.pir.org/"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">www.pir.org</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> | </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/PIRegistry" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Facebook</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:blue"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">| </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><a href="http://twitter.com/PIRegistry" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Twitter</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> | </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><a href="http://instagram.com/PIRegistry"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Instagram</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> | </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/PIRegistry" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">YouTube</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:blue"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:blue"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:#BFBFBF">Confidentiality Note:</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:#BFBFBF"> Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest
Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg Shatan<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 07, 2016 1:22 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org><br>
<b>Cc:</b> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION - NEW co-chairs' statement on additional RPMs, and UPDATED table of TMCH Charter questions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I found the Co-Chairs' statement somewhat troublesome. </span><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">First, I felt that it advocated for particular outcomes, which
both strains the bounds of chair neutrality and takes a top-down approach inconsistent with bottom-up development of WG positions (which is given a brief mention at the very end of the letter, but only after the advocacy has played out). It might have been
preferable to present the questions without the answers and allowed the WG to develop its position, rather than laying out a position that essentially becomes a default position.</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">That said, I have some sympathy for the idea the group should take notice of the private RPMs in trying to review, analyze and potentially modify the ICANN-created RPMs -- even
if I don't think that position should have been spoon-fed to the WG.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I have significantly more trouble with two paragraphs in the letter, which go beyond taking notice of the private RPMs, to asserting WG jurisdiction over the private RPMs.
I don't buy the argument that these are within the scope of this group; re-reading the Charter just confirmed my view. This is an aggressive attempt at "bootstrapping" from the remit of this group to reach into areas well out of scope.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The first of these paragraphs is:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify">
<span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">The WG inquiry may also consider whether, and to what extent, additional protective services should be consistent with either policy decisions reflected in the shaping of the ICANN-required RPMs (noting that it may
have always been contemplated that such RPMs could constitute a “floor” and not an overall limitation on additional market-provided protections) or with the recognized scope of trademark law. For example, should a rights holder be able to block the registration
of unlimited variations of its registered mark, and should one trademark owner be able to block the registration of a mark that another has equivalent rights to for separate classes of goods and services?</span><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify">
<span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify">
<span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">To the contrary, the WG has no authority to opine on or to create policy for private RPMs -- unless the Charter is significantly amended (which I can't see supporting). The second troublesome paragraph is:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify">
<span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify">
<span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">The Co-Chairs also wish to better understand the process, if any, by which registry operators gain approval for the offering of such additional RPMs. Section 2.1 of the standard new gTLD registry agreement permits
a registry operator to offer Registry Service that is an Approved Service, but requires it to request approval under the Registry Services Evaluation Policy (RSEP) if it wishes to offer any service that is not an Approved Service or is a material modification
of an Approved Services. It is important for the WG to understand whether registry-offered RPMs, especially those based upon TMCH mark registrations, have been subject to any such approval review and, if so, what criteria were utilized in their evaluation.</span><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I think this goes even a step further than the first paragraph in a couple of ways. First, the issue of how and whether private RPMs should be approved seems even further beyond
the scope of this WG. Second, it advocates for a particular view and interpretation of both the registry agreement and the nature of private RPMs. I'm also a bit skeptical that this is propose just for the WG to "understand" what happened. RSEP requests
are public, as far as I know, so it would be readily evident whether any private RPMs were the subject of an RSEP request. Of course, even that question assumes too much. If we find ourselves delving into questions involving registry agreements, the parameters
of Registry Services and Approved Services, the nature of private RPMs, and the triggers that require the RSEP process, then I think we've lost our way.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Since this is only a draft statement, I would encourage the Co-Chairs to revise the statement to exclude these two paragraphs. Frankly, I would prefer it if the second draft
was nothing more than a set of questions, but this first draft is something that can't be unseen....<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Greg<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Mary Wong <<a href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org" target="_blank">mary.wong@icann.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear all,<br>
<br>
In advance of the Working Group call this week, and pending circulation of the finalized agenda, please find attached the following documents for your review and further discussions:<br>
<br>
(1) A draft statement from our Working Group co-chairs regarding the provision of additional rights protection mechanisms by the TMCH and registry operators (i.e. in addition to the minimum mandatory RPMs prescribed by ICANN and which form the basis of our
current Policy Development Process); and<br>
<br>
(2) A table of all the TMCH-related Charter questions, as refined and suggested by the Sub Team and including notes and questions from several Working Group members as of 4 December. This document essentially replicates the Proposed Edited Questions that were
circulated in the form of the more comprehensive table that was discussed by the Sub Team, but hopefully aids your deliberations as it sets out all the proposed questions in one spot.<br>
<br>
Thanks and cheers<br>
Mary<br>
<br>
<br>
On 12/5/16, 07:52, "<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a> on behalf of George Kirikos" <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a> on behalf of
<a href="mailto:icann@leap.com">icann@leap.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
I think the 2nd formulation of Question #15 is better, as it's more<br>
open-ended, yet also asks for specifics on how concerns can be<br>
addressed.<br>
<br>
As an aside, the "Original Question" of #15 suggested "of course with<br>
a central database" --- there's no technical reason why a central<br>
database would be required. There could instead be multiple<br>
independent databases, which registrars and/or registries could query<br>
in parallel via a standardized API. There'd only need to be a central<br>
*list* of which TMCH providers needed to be queried. From a coding<br>
perspective, the registrar/registry could simply query the entire list<br>
of providers, and collate the results.<br>
<br>
Most registrars already have this technology/capability, as they often<br>
query multiple registries (and secondary marketplaces) in parallel<br>
when customers attempt a new domain name registration (e.g. customer<br>
searches for <a href="http://EXAMPLE.COM" target="_blank">EXAMPLE.COM</a>, but they'll query not only the<br>
Verisign-operated .com registry, but also .net/org/biz/info/us and<br>
hundreds of other TLDs, marketplaces like Sedo/Afternic, and they'll<br>
even generate and query variations of "EXAMPLE.TLD" for availability,<br>
presenting the customer with a list of hundreds of alternatives).<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
George Kirikos<br>
<a href="tel:416-588-0269">416-588-0269</a><br>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DgICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=6_VMDtwqWjvKswt7FWoxbWm99DZdJYcWV1rO_kKPtwk&s=qYMcZKuBn701mhM04nQ0JEKGBbIdXlM2qzbr7ngUHqY&e=" target="_blank">
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DgICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=6_VMDtwqWjvKswt7FWoxbWm99DZdJYcWV1rO_kKPtwk&s=qYMcZKuBn701mhM04nQ0JEKGBbIdXlM2qzbr7ngUHqY&e=</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 12:25 PM, David Tait <<a href="mailto:david.tait@icann.org">david.tait@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> Dear All<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> In advance of the meeting of the Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group<br>
> on Wednesday at 1800 UTC, I am pleased to enclose the updated review of the<br>
> TMCH Charter questions which has been prepared by the Sub-Team tasked to<br>
> conduct an initial review of these questions.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Staff have been expressly asked to draw your attention to Question 15. Two<br>
> possible formulations of this question have been prepared and the Sub-Team<br>
> is seeking the view of the Working Group as to which of these should be<br>
> adopted.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Kind regards,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> David Tait<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> David A. Tait<br>
><br>
> Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland, non-practicing)<br>
><br>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Mobile: <a href="tel:%2B%2044-7864-793776">+ 44-7864-793776</a><br>
><br>
> Email: <a href="mailto:david.tait@icann.org">david.tait@icann.org</a><br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.icann.org" target="_blank">www.icann.org</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>