Action item 8 need to be modified to include publishing my proposal in the Initial Report based on the support expressed by various members throughout these discussions.<div><br></div><div>I sent a note to the list indicating that I was joining late. Frankly, I’m surprised and disappointed that after all the work that was done on this issue, this agenda item was discussed first on the agenda, without the involvement of person who put in the work that was the basis of the agenda item.<div><br></div><div>Mismanagement aside, please take the appropriate steps as outlined above. Thank you.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div>Claudio<br><br>On Wednesday, October 16, 2019, Julie Hedlund <<a href="mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org">julie.hedlund@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Dear All,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:start;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:start;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">Please see below the action items captured by staff from the<span> </span></span>RPM PDP Working Group<span style="color:black"> call held on</span> 16 October 2019 at 17:00 UTC<span style="color:black">.
Staff </span>will post<span style="color:black"> these to the wiki space. <b><i>Please note that these
</i></b></span><b><i>are<span style="color:black"> high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording</span>, chat room, or transcript</i></b><i><span style="color:black">.</span></i><span style="color:black"> The recording, Zoom chat,</span>
transcript<span style="color:black"> and attendance records are posted on the wiki<span> </span>at</span>:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-10-16+Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+WG" target="_blank">
https://community.icann.org/<wbr>display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-10-<wbr>16+Review+of+all+Rights+<wbr>Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%<wbr>29+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+WG</a>.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Best Regards,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:start;word-spacing:0px">
Julie<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:start;word-spacing:0px">
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">==</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>NOTES & ACTION ITEMS</b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">Actions:<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Open and Deferred TMCH Questions:<u></u><u></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="color:black"><u></u><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span><u></u></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="color:black">Q7 Design Marks</span></u><span style="color:black">: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Kleiman/Muscovitch and Shatan proposals in the Initial Report for Public Comment.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="color:black">Q8 GIs: ACTION</span></u><span style="color:black">: WG agrees to publish Tushnet proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="color:black">Q12</span></u><span style="color:black">: 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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="color:black">Q15</span></u><span style="color:black">: 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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="color:black">Q2</span></u><span style="color:black">: 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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">Discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so: </span></b><span style="color:black">ACTION: WG members are requested to continue discussion on the
email list. See the draft survey at: <span> </span><a href="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=" target="_blank">survey
[forms.gle]</a>.<b><u></u><u></u></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Notes:<u></u><u></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">2. Status of Questions Q7, Q8, Q12, and Q15:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Q7 Design Marks: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Kleiman/Muscovitch and Shatan proposals in the Initial Report for Public Comment.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Q8 GIs: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Tushnet proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Q12: Proposal from Maxim Alzoba – TMCH Operational Considerations<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- Need to improve redundancy and availability of the TMCH.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- 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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- 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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- Information about the SOW with IBM (and for that matter the SLAs with Deloitte) on this Working Group wiki page, under TMCH Contracting: <a href="https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/<wbr>pages/viewpage.action?pageId=<wbr>61606864</a></span><span style="font-family:"MS Gothic";color:black">
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Q15: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Karanicolas proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- Hoped that we could get consensus.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- 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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- 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)?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">ACTION: Staff to draft a new proposal based on suggestions and circulate it to interested WG members and the Co-Chairs.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">3. Remaining Deferred Charter Questions (see the attached Status of WG Discussions on Agreed TMCH Charter Questions):</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color:black">a. Close Discussion:</span></i></b><span><span style="color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black">TMCH Category 6: Balance: Charter Question 16: Close discussion.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color:black">b. Discussion:</span></i></b><span><span style="color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black">TMCH Category 1: Education: Charter Questions 1, 2, and 3 – Proposal submitted
by Martin P Valent for Q2 (<a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/109482780/Martin%20Pablo%20Silva%20Valent%20-%20Q2.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1569963225000&api=v2" target="_blank">1 Oct 2019</a>) </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Q1: Close discussion.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Q2: Proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- TMCH should educate rights holders; it is already doing outreach and should do more.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- Needs to be revised to be in the form of a recommendation.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- 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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- Not clear as drafting what is the remit of Deloitte and what falls elsewhere. Some of this should be done at an ICANN level.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- Not sure involving ICANN at this level is required.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- ICANN is not involved in marketing gTLDs.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- 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?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- 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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- Need to be careful how to express this.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- 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:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/<wbr>pages/viewpage.action?pageId=<wbr>61606864</a> . We are in the 1-year renewal term.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- Should look at what Deloitte already provides on their website.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- There's a lot of talk about what should be done - but no-one identifying anything actually glaringly missing.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- Maybe it’s more of an outreach question, if the education already exists.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- 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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">ACTION: Martin to revise the proposal with assistance of other WG members and circulate it on the WG email list for review.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">ACTION: Staff will check to see if either party to the contract can seek modifications.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">4. Discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so. See the draft survey at: <span> </span><a href="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=" target="_blank">survey
[forms.gle]</a>:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- Survey does not designate which proposals go into the Initial Report – that will be decided via WG discussion.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- WG members should consider whether or not names and affiliations should be included, although the survey is not a poll.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- WG members will decide what to do with the data.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- Co-Chairs suggest allowing WG members to take the survey as a way to inform, but not direct, WG discussions.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">ACTION: WG members are requested to continue discussion on the email list.
</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div>