<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)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 6 9 7 2 5 8 2 4;}
@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:"\@MS Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 6 9 7 2 5 8 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.xmsonormal, li.xmsonormal, div.xmsonormal
{mso-style-name:x_msonormal;
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.xmsolistparagraph, li.xmsolistparagraph, div.xmsolistparagraph
{mso-style-name:x_msolistparagraph;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.xmsonormal0, li.xmsonormal0, div.xmsonormal0
{mso-style-name:x_msonormal0;
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.xxmsolistparagraph, li.xxmsolistparagraph, div.xxmsolistparagraph
{mso-style-name:x_xmsolistparagraph;
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.xmsochpdefault, li.xmsochpdefault, div.xmsochpdefault
{mso-style-name:x_msochpdefault;
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.xmsohyperlink
{mso-style-name:x_msohyperlink;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.xmsohyperlinkfollowed
{mso-style-name:x_msohyperlinkfollowed;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.xemailstyle20
{mso-style-name:x_emailstyle20;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.xemailstyle22
{mso-style-name:x_emailstyle22;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.xemailstyle23
{mso-style-name:x_emailstyle23;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.xemailstyle24
{mso-style-name:x_emailstyle24;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.xemailstyle25
{mso-style-name:x_emailstyle25;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.xemailstyle26
{mso-style-name:x_emailstyle26;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.xemailstyle27
{mso-style-name:x_emailstyle27;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.xemailstyle28
{mso-style-name:x_emailstyle28;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.xemailstyle29
{mso-style-name:x_emailstyle29;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.xemailstyle30
{mso-style-name:x_emailstyle30;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.xemailstyle31
{mso-style-name:x_emailstyle31;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.xemailstyle32
{mso-style-name:x_emailstyle32;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.xemailstyle33
{mso-style-name:x_emailstyle33;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.xemailstyle34
{mso-style-name:x_emailstyle34;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.xemailstyle35
{mso-style-name:x_emailstyle35;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.xemailstyle36
{mso-style-name:x_emailstyle36;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.xemailstyle37
{mso-style-name:x_emailstyle37;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.xemailstyle38
{mso-style-name:x_emailstyle38;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.xemailstyle39
{mso-style-name:x_emailstyle39;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.xemailstyle40
{mso-style-name:x_emailstyle40;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.xemailstyle41
{mso-style-name:x_emailstyle41;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.xemailstyle42
{mso-style-name:x_emailstyle42;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.xemailstyle43
{mso-style-name:x_emailstyle43;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.xapple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:x_apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle50
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
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-GB" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Thanks, Julie. I’m about to go into a call so apologies for the hit & run response, but initial thoughts inline:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Para one:
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">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.
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Access to the database would allow misuse, including by bad actors and/or competitors.
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">On the other hand, some Working Group members have noted
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">that it was not clear</span>, 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.
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">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.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"> 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. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">If it’s a legitimate use, then brand holders won’t stop them.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The Working Group agrees in principle that an audit of the Trademark Clearinghouse database can be beneficial.
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">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.
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">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.
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Tushnet, Rebecca<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 23, 2019 3:15 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] New Q15 Proposal re: Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">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? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">The description "n</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#201F1E;background:white">on-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."</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="Signature">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Rebecca Tushnet<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School<br>
703 593 6759 <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="98%" align="center">
</div>
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> GNSO-RPM-WG <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>>
on behalf of Julie Hedlund <<a href="mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org">julie.hedlund@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 23, 2019 9:01 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a> <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [GNSO-RPM-WG] New Q15 Proposal re: Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019</span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US">Dear WG members,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US">Mary, Ariel, and Julie<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><u><span lang="EN-US">Staff-suggested draft (based on Working Group discussions and suggestions made on the Working Group call of 16 October)</span></u><span lang="EN-US">:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="xmsonormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">GNSO-RPM-WG <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <<a href="mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org">julie.hedlund@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 3:27 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>"<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Dear All,</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="font-variant-caps:normal;orphans:auto;text-align:start;widows:auto;word-spacing:0px">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="font-variant-caps:normal;orphans:auto;text-align:start;widows:auto;word-spacing:0px">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Please see below the action items captured by staff from the<span class="xapple-converted-space"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US">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 class="xapple-converted-space"> </span>at</span>:
<a href="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=">
https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-10-16+Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+WG</a>.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Best Regards,</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="font-variant-caps:normal;orphans:auto;text-align:start;widows:auto;word-spacing:0px">
<span lang="EN-US">Julie<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal" style="font-variant-caps:normal;orphans:auto;text-align:start;widows:auto;word-spacing:0px">
<span lang="EN-US">Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">==</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">NOTES & ACTION ITEMS</span></b><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Actions:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">Open and Deferred TMCH Questions:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Q7 Design Marks</span></u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Kleiman/Muscovitch and Shatan proposals in the Initial Report for Public Comment.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Q8 GIs: ACTION</span></u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">: WG agrees to publish Tushnet proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Q12</span></u><span lang="EN-US" 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.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Q15</span></u><span lang="EN-US" 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.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Q2</span></u><span lang="EN-US" 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.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so: </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">ACTION: WG members are requested to
continue discussion on the email list. See the draft survey at: <span class="xapple-converted-space"> </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=">survey
[forms.gle]</a>.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">Notes:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">2. Status of Questions Q7, Q8, Q12, and Q15:</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Q7 Design Marks: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Kleiman/Muscovitch and Shatan proposals in the Initial Report for Public Comment.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Q8 GIs: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Tushnet proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Q12: Proposal from Maxim Alzoba – TMCH Operational Considerations</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">-- Need to improve redundancy and availability of the TMCH.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" 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.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" 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.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" 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: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864</span><span style="font-family:"MS Gothic";color:black">
</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" 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.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Q15: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Karanicolas proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">-- Hoped that we could get consensus.
</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" 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.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" 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)?</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">ACTION: Staff to draft a new proposal based on suggestions and circulate it to interested WG members and the Co-Chairs.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">3. Remaining Deferred Charter Questions (see the attached Status of WG Discussions on Agreed TMCH Charter Questions):</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> </span></i></b><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">a. Close Discussion:</span></i></b><span class="xapple-converted-space"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">TMCH Category 6: Balance:
Charter Question 16: Close discussion.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">b. Discussion:</span></i></b><span class="xapple-converted-space"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">TMCH Category 1: Education: Charter
Questions 1, 2, and 3 – Proposal submitted by Martin P Valent for Q2 (<a href="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=">1
Oct 2019</a>) </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> </span></i></b><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Q1: Close discussion.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Q2: Proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent:</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">-- TMCH should educate rights holders; it is already doing outreach and should do more.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">-- Needs to be revised to be in the form of a recommendation.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" 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.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" 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.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">-- Not sure involving ICANN at this level is required.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">-- ICANN is not involved in marketing gTLDs.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" 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?</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" 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.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">-- Need to be careful how to express this.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" 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://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=">
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864</a> . We are in the 1-year renewal term.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">-- Should look at what Deloitte already provides on their website.
</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">-- There's a lot of talk about what should be done - but no-one identifying anything actually glaringly missing.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">-- Maybe it’s more of an outreach question, if the education already exists.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" 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.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" 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.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">ACTION: Staff will check to see if either party to the contract can seek modifications.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" 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 class="xapple-converted-space"> </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=">survey
[forms.gle]</a>:</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">-- Survey does not designate which proposals go into the Initial Report – that will be decided via WG discussion.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">-- WG members should consider whether or not names and affiliations should be included, although the survey is not a poll.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">-- WG members will decide what to do with the data.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">-- Co-Chairs suggest allowing WG members to take the survey as a way to inform, but not direct, WG discussions.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">ACTION: WG members are requested to continue discussion on the email list.
</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>