[GNSO-RPM-WG] Revised Q12 Proposal re: Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019

Wed Oct 23 16:49:28 UTC 2019

Hello All, 

I am in support of this very fine revised text.

Many Thanks to staff for doing the hard job on refining it.

==
Q12: Suggested Revised Proposal Text:
It is critical that the Trademark Clearinghouse database remains available for access by registries and registrars in order to provide the mandatory Sunrise and Trademark Claims services and, in some cases, additional services such as extended claims periods. The Working Group recommends that the Trademark Clearinghouse database provider(s) be contractually bound to maintain, at minimum, industry-standard levels of redundancy and uptime. To further ensure the effective delivery of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims services, the Working Group also provides the following implementation guidance to the Implementation Review Team that will be formed to advise ICANN org on implementation of those policy recommendations that are ultimately approved by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board:
Consider the advisability of requiring that more than one provider be appointed; and
Review the work of the Implementation Advisory Group that was formed for the 2012 New gTLD Program to assist ICANN org with developing the specifications for and design of the Trademark Clearinghouse.

===

Sincerely Yours,

Maxim Alzoba
Special projects manager,
International Relations Department,
FAITID

m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp)
skype oldfrogger

Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)

> On 23 Oct 2019, at 15:59, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear Maxim,
>  
> Per the action item below from the meeting on 16 October to revise the Q12 proposal, staff submits for your consideration the following suggested revised 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.
>  
> Kind regards,
> Mary, Ariel, and Julie
>  
> Q12: Suggested Revised Proposal Text:
> It is critical that the Trademark Clearinghouse database remains available for access by registries and registrars in order to provide the mandatory Sunrise and Trademark Claims services and, in some cases, additional services such as extended claims periods. The Working Group recommends that the Trademark Clearinghouse database provider(s) be contractually bound to maintain, at minimum, industry-standard levels of redundancy and uptime. To further ensure the effective delivery of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims services, the Working Group also provides the following implementation guidance to the Implementation Review Team that will be formed to advise ICANN org on implementation of those policy recommendations that are ultimately approved by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board:
> Consider the advisability of requiring that more than one provider be appointed; and
> Review the work of the Implementation Advisory Group that was formed for the 2012 New gTLD Program to assist ICANN org with developing the specifications for and design of the Trademark Clearinghouse.
>  
> Q12: Original Proposal Text:
> Given the importance of the TMCH to the roll-out of new gTLDs (Sunrise period), and Claims period in those, which have passed Sunrise period by then the availability of the main TMCH database and services is a necessity.  Accordingly, the TMCH providers must provide a better design of the TMCH system -- with improved redundancy and availability. The Implementation Review Team may want to consider requiring the creation of two virtual TMCH operators (with appropriate synchronization and redundancy). In case where existence of only one TMCH provider is proven or regarded to be the only feasible option (either due to financial or technological reasons), the need of the better technological design will arise (not limited to two 'virtual TMCHs' inside of the TMCH platform and requirements to avoid maintenance done the way rendering the system partially unaccessible or partially functional). Here I referred not just to the situation of the total shutdown of the TMCH, but also to situations where some of services are not properly functioning (example - Registries not being able to upload LORDN file, which was experienced in the last years, and which is an grand issue for Sunrise and an issue for Claims period for a new TLD).  Some TLDs have ongoing or ever extended Claims periods, not limited to 90 days of General Availability period.
>  
> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>
> Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 3:27 PM
> To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>
> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019
>  
> 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 <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 <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 <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/20191023/eb9337cf/attachment-0001.html>