[gnso-rpm-wg] Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group 05 October 2016

[Terri Agnew]

Dear All,



Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call held on Wednesday, 05 October 2016 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/rhC4Aw
MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-05oct16-en.mp3

The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar

** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **



Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/



Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/rhiOAw



Thank you.

Kind regards,

Terri Agnew



**Due to a technical issue the AC chat is only the partial chat, missing the beginning portion. We are working with our vendor to retrieve the full chat and will send an update once received.



**Partial Chat (see note above) Adobe Connect chat transcript for 05 October 2016:



Phil Marano (Mayer Brown): Can hear Greg just fine.



Laurie Anderson: Is anyone getting a bad echo?



Griffin Barnett: Now I hear terrible echo



Jeff Neuman (Valideus): We had this issue earlier with another group



Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services: I'm on the phone...no echo.



Marie Pattullo: No echo and no Greg *sad*.



Jeff Neuman (Valideus): the phone line cannot hear those using just the adobe room to participat



Beth Allegretti: No echo and I couldn't hear Greg



Mary Wong: The phone bridge is clearer - seems like a few people are having AC audio issues today



Jeff Neuman (Valideus): The phone line is clear....but we cant hear some that participate through the adobe room only



Marie Pattullo: But we should not be attempting to remove rights that TM owners have in law.



Reg Levy - M+M: I heard Greg and now I'm getting Kathy through Greg's phone.



Paul Tattersfield: Really bad echo here from Kathy



Georges Nahitchevansky: I am hearing multiple people speaking and feedback



Reg Levy - M+M: thanks, Greg :)



George Kirikos: *6 to mute/unmute



Mary Wong: All, please dial in on the phone bridge if you're having AC audio issues



Greg Shatan: Audio problem dealt with.



George Kirikos: +1 Kathy. The TMCH database should be entirely public.



J. Scott Evans: Hey, don't talk bad about our product. ;-)



George Kirikos: If the TMCH database should exist at all. In my view, it would be better to simply have an API (like TMView does) that interfaces with all the national TM databases. And then kill the sunrise special access. So, it would just be a "notice" database, without any gaming effects.



Edward Morris: Agree with George and Kathy. With ICANN's new status anything we can do to allow light into all of our processes should be favoured in order to generate public confidence in our methods and processes.



Jeff Neuman (Valideus): There were some very good arguments by the IPC prior to the 20912 round as to why the TMCH should not be public.



Jeff Neuman (Valideus): I believe we should ask the IPC if the same rationale applies today



George Kirikos: We shouldn't just "ask the IPC" -- we should determine it based on all input, not giving special input to the IPC.



Edward Morris: I'd like to hear the arguments Jeff. Of course, we have to realise that the envoronment has changed. Still, I'd like to hear the rationale.



Mary Wong: Note that our WG and the New gTLD WG each have liaisons to the other who are members of both WGs.



Jeff Neuman (Valideus): @George - just giving you context, not making any judgments



Jeff Neuman (Valideus): WE should also document why some believe it should be made public



George Kirikos: The questions from 40,000 feet is simple "What are the costs and benefits of the TMCH? If the costs exceed the benefits, should the TMCH be discontinued, or be modified to correct the imbalance?



Paul Tattersfield: I would guess 2 is amied at all new gTLDs ending up with existing rigths holders rather than new entrants (generic trems)



George Kirikos: I obviously disagree with J. Scott on the prior point. It's like saying that new gTLDs should only be evaluated by talking to registry operators, rather than listening to registrants.



Greg Shatan: We should discuss if we can prevent reverse engineering or other activities designed to thwart the non-public nature of the TMCH database.



Bret Fausett, Uniregistry: As I mentioned on the liast last week, TMCH registrations leave footprints when they are used for sunrise preferences. See, e.g., http://www.thedomains.com/2016/07/06/new-gtld-tube-goes-live-thursday-less-than-50-sunrise-domain-registrations-by-tm-holders/



George Kirikos: (since new gTLDs were created for registry operators, by J. Scott's logic). TMCH impacts registrants, so their input should be equal to that of the IPC.



Greg Shatan: +1 J Scott.  Well said.



Greg Shatan: Trademark owners ARE registrants.



George Kirikos: @Greg: Sometimes they are --- sometimes they are not, i.e. they seek to BLOCK registrations, via the notices.



Greg Shatan: That doesn



Greg Shatan: 't mean they're not registrants.



Marie Pattullo: @George - no, because new gTLDs were supposed to benefit all (clean) players; the TMCH is simply a repository for TMs allowing the TM owners to choose where and whether to register their TMs.



Marie Pattullo: So - what Jeff said :-)



Jeff Neuman (Valideus): Actually it is a Review of the "Effectiveness" of the RPMs, right?



J. Scott Evans: @Jeff. Correct.



Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): ICANN profits a bit from TMCH , so they are in conflict of interests



Greg Shatan: ICANN was always a private organization.



George Kirikos: "Security by obscurity" doesn't work. TMCH can be easily reverse-engineered (and probably was). Just try registerting hundreds of thousands of domains, and see if you get a TMCH match.



Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services: @Edward: a trademark protection mechanism that threatens trademark interests is, by definition, not effective.



Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): when not allowing competition



Greg Shatan: There are good policy reasons for keeping the database confidential.



George Kirikos: Or, run the entire USPTO database via automated registration attempts, and check against the TMCH matches that show up.



Paul Tattersfield: @Greg +1



George Kirikos: @Greg: is this the same position when the IPC talks against WHOIS privacy? :-)



Greg Shatan: Apples and oranges.



Jeff Neuman (Valideus): I was on the STI as well



Lori Schulman: Thats the point.  The mechanisms are new.



J. Scott Evans: A closed database is not a problem



Lori Schulman: Many new gTLDs are not launched yet



Lori Schulman: we want good, objective data



George Kirikos: The folks who don't want to review the TMCH openly --- do they want to apply it to .com, though, as a "consensus" policy? Or do they want to keep it strictly limited to new gTLDs?



J. Scott Evans: @Kathy. If we are going there, then I want to reserve the right to re-open all the issue wrt the PDDRP



George Kirikos: If they simply want to keep the TMCH, etc. applicable only to new gTLDs, I think most folks won't care.



George Kirikos: (well, "most folks" is general -- I bet the new gTLD registries will ask why they're singled out....)



Lori Schulman: @George, thanks for the clarifying issues re: .com vs. new gTLDs



Paul Tattersfield: yes



David Tait: we can



Griffin Barnett: can hear steve



George Kirikos: *6 to mute/unmute



Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services: Let's say we discuss an open TMCH.   - what is the harm caused by a closed TMCH?  I'm hearing complaints that a notice is generated.  Most average domain name registrants aren't going to look up the legitimacy of their domain name registration before they register, so the notice is a "push" of TMCH information.  I'm missing the reason why the clamor for an open TMCH?  What problem is that going to address?



Vinzenz Heussler: Hearing you



Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @George , .com for comoros islands and via country and territory policy :)



Paul Tattersfield: fine in chat



khouloud Dawahi: yes



David Tait: yes



Bret Fausett, Uniregistry: I can hear him



Gary Saposnik: I can hear



Laurie Anderson: I am hearing Steve



Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I hear Steve



Lori Schulman: there are delays with the telephone mute/unmute



Marie Pattullo: Nope.



George Kirikos: I can't hear him.



Georges Nahitchevansky: I can hear him



Terri Agnew: @Steve, please check your mute



khouloud Dawahi: i can hear you



Steve Levy: Sorry. Will dial in



J. Scott Evans: yes



khouloud Dawahi: yes



Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): yes



George Kirikos: I can hear him on Adobe.



George Kirikos: Strange.



Georges Nahitchevansky: There is now feedback



Terri Agnew: checking on why



J. Scott Evans: I can hear you thorough the speaker on computer



Beth Allegretti: +1 Kristine open vs. closed TMCH



Beth Allegretti: I can't hear at all



Bradley Silver: cant hear anything



Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services: Steve is only on the AC room audio....for some reason.



Jeff Neuman (Valideus): I would be happy to have my company manage the TMCH Databases for much cheaper :)



Denise  Michel: Could we get a full transcript please



Steve Levy: For those who couldn't hear me, +1 J. Scott. TMs are public but prioritization by registering in TMCH should be considered a trade secretSo far, haven't seen any uses of TMCH data (leaked or otherwise) which would be considered constructive and have only seen abuse in pricing of domainsHelsinki Q4: Valid in principle.  But cost of operation? Would others jump into the market if operation is a money loser?



Mary Wong: @Greg, that is the plan - but a date and topic hasn't been discussed or agreed



Greg Shatan: We will need to deal with the issues of abuse of the TMCH database. While this would be exacerbated by opening the database, these should be dealt with regardless.



Mary Wong: @Denise, the call transcript and AC chat history will be posted to the WG wiki for this meeting date.



Greg Shatan: Thanks, Mary!



Marie Pattullo: @Kristine - I was wondering the same: what benefit would an open DB bring? And if any, balanced against the TM owners' interests, would it be proportionate?



J. Scott Evans: @Phil. We need a small drafting team to put forth some draft objective questions.



Marina Lewis: +1 J.Scott and Steve L.



David Tait: @Densie, further to Mary's comment this should be within the next 24-48 hours



Jeff Neuman (Valideus): OUt of curiousity, why do we need a shorter list?



Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): +1,Google doc in comments mode



Jeff Neuman (Valideus): Yes, we should make sure the questions are clear, but why cant we start with these



J. Scott Evans: @Phil. Anything more than 5 becomes unweildy IMHO



Paul Tattersfield: @ Jeff they are not mutually exclusive questions/issues



Marina Lewis: Phil - I lost my phone connection.  I'll respond in chat,



Greg Shatan: or broadened...



Marina Lewis: How about we send out this list as is to the group for quick and short feedback?  (e.g., a 24 or 48 hour turnaround)?



Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services: I'm going to suggest that the TMCH subteam has sort of started this.



Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): better not 48 hours of the weekend



Marina Lewis: +1 Kristine - I'm on that subteam and I think we can include this in our work.



Griffin Barnett: Probably no need to impose such artificially short turnaround for review, given 2 week break until next WG meeting



Greg Shatan: Good point Griffin



J. Scott Evans: +1 Phil.



J. Scott Evans: I am happy to coordinate a team



Greg Shatan: We may want to break this list up into sub parts.



Greg Shatan: Right now it covers the waterfront.



Kathy Kleiman: I would be happy to help J. Scott coordinate this new subgroup, if people want to volunteer for it.



Paul Tattersfield: I'm haapy to help on a sub team



George Kirikos: "Premium names" have higher renewal costs too, Phil.



George Kirikos: So, that might have been the concern.



Jeff Neuman (Valideus): Correct PHil, lets not offer opinions on Premium names at this poiint



Greg Shatan: Premium names raise significant issues with regard to Sunrise.



George Kirikos: (so, striking a name from the "premium names" list would reduce defensive registration costs)



J. Scott Evans: I am going to have to sign off to join a work call. Again, I am happy to work to put a small drafting team together.



Jeff Neuman (Valideus): @Greg - yes, which is why I am not sure Phil should editorialize on this.



Greg Shatan: Stopping price gouging through abuse of premium names would also lower defensive registration costs, and be consistent with RPM goals.



Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): bye all



Lori Schulman: Sorry, thought I was on mute.



Lori Schulman: I am on when I should be "off"   "Off" when I should be on.   mmmm.....



George Kirikos: Bye folks.



Lori Schulman: ciao



Steve Levy: Bye all!



Paul Tattersfield: bye all



Mary Wong: Please remember - no call next week.



Mary Wong: We resume on 19 Oct.



Marie Pattullo: Have a great evening, all.



Steve Levy: Thanks,Phil



Darcy Southwell: Thanks, all, bye!



Brian Winterfeldt (Mayer Brown): Thank you Phil!



Brian Winterfeldt (Mayer Brown): By everyone.



Marina Lewis: bye all



Greg Shatan: Bye all!



Georges Nahitchevansky: Bye everyone



Salvador Camacho Hernandez: Bye!


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20161005/e53399e9/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: attendance RPM Member 05 October 2016.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 188392 bytes
Desc: attendance RPM Member 05 October 2016.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20161005/e53399e9/attendanceRPMMember05October2016-0001.pdf>