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

Wed Oct 16 21:41:54 UTC 2019

I share your concerns Claudio, I was under the impression that the request
for support on the call earlier today was for a final proposal after
agreement had been sought from the whole of the small group rather than
just an individual proposal, very disappointing.

I trust there will be a way of including Claudio’s proposals in the initial
report.

I’m fine with discussing 6ter marks after/during the comments, though I
think given the importance of the marks involved at a very minimum those
responsible for the final proposal should as a matter of courtesy:

(1) if there are any changes to today’s approved proposal, publish the
final proposal wording to the working group list.

(2) explain under which section any proposal places a mark such as ‘UNHCR’?

Thanks, Paul

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:56 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
> GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20191016/69b53f38/attachment-0001.html>