[GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019

[claudio di gangi]

Im not blaming staff Julie, so no worries.

Since the WG was not able to reach resolution, we formed a small group -
with Rebecca and I being the only active participants - to flesh out the
issues, which generated Rebecca’s proposal and my proposal.

Once that process concluded, we did not allocate time discussing those
areas of divergence in order to reach compromise or consensus - please
review the transcripts for confirmation of this fact.

We also didn’t conclude the WG’s views or treatment of 3.2.4 on the last
meeting, which the transcript will also clearly reflect. That is why I sent
the email today of the transcript of the ICANN Meeting when 3.2.4 was
discussed, which contained the affirmation of ICANN’s General Counsel on
this specific issue.

We also did not conclude discussions on the list on specific working on
3.2.3., but there is high level agreement on the treatment of certain names
during TM Claims and Sunrise.

In either case, Action item #8 needs be updated to include the publication
of my proposal in the initial report. There are important areas of
divergence that require public comment and there was sufficient support
expressed for doing so. It’s as simple as that, so I hope there is no
controversy involved here.

Thanks!

Best regards,
Claudio




On Wednesday, October 16, 2019, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
wrote:

> With apologies Claudio, but staff had not seen that you indicated that you
> would be joining late today, thus the agenda was followed in its original
> order.  Also, Q8 was discussed on the call on 10 October and based on that
> discussion it was deemed that no further discussion was necessary on
> today’s call.
>
>
>
> Staff will review the transcripts and recording for the meeting on 10
> October to ensure that the results of the discussions are accurately
> reflected.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Julie
>
>
>
> *From: *claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 4:26 PM
> *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Cc: *"gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 16
> October 2019
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Mismanagement aside, please take the appropriate steps as outlined above.
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Claudio
>
> On Wednesday, October 16, 2019, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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
>
> 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://community.icann.org/download/attachments/109482780/Martin%20Pablo%20Silva%20Valent%20-%20Q2.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1569963225000&api=v2>
> )
>
>
>
> 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 .  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.
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20191016/f9e8826b/attachment-0001.html>