[GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: New Q15 Proposal re: Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019

[claudio di gangi]

Michael,

Are you asking me to find an abusive domain name registration and make a
determination on whether that abusive registration resulted from mining the
TMCH data?

In order to make that complex assessment, we need at a minimum a list of
which records were mined from the TMCH and compare that list to
domain registration abuse patterns.

If you want ICANN to conduct a study on this issue, we can consider a WG
recommendation to perform such a study. I would support that research;
would you also support it?

Best,
Claudio


On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 6:19 PM Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>
wrote:

> That's a relatively long-winded way of saying that, no - you cannot
> come up with an instance of the available TMCH data being used to
> facilitate abusive registrations.
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 6:07 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Rebecca,
> >
> > Please don't get thrown off because I used the word "hypo" in my note -
> that wasn't meant to imply this is some dream scenario.
> >
> > In terms of the DNS, we know the domain registration process is
> exploited and abused heavily on a daily basis in a variety of ways. In
> terms of IP abuse, this includes using TM information obtained through all
> available means to find new or existing "targets" from any jurisdiction of
> choice. There is nothing hypothetical about this reality.
> >
> > So opening up the propriety TMCH, where sensitive IP data is aggregated
> in one place for a specific purpose - without a TM owners consent - will
> simply create another threat vector, without, in my perspective,
> substantial corresponding public interest benefit.
> >
> > As I noted, I would be willing to suggest/propose an Opt-in option for
> TM owners who want to have their TMCH information publicly available.
> >
> > There are other means and approaches to mitigate "Sunrise gaming" (which
> I find speculative in terms of it happening in any meaningful way -  but if
> I'm wrong, please show me the numbers and evidence that reflects the
> contrary).
> >
> > So I recommend we explore them together in further detail to help
> address your concerns, without going down a road where it will be nearly
> impossible to reach consensus as a WG.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Claudio
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 4:55 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <
> rtushnet at law.harvard.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> As we've been over, the theoretical possibility you hypothesize
> here--especially as compared to the availability of open registration
> systems through most of the world--is not particularly plausible. We
> haven't even seen evidence that scammers do this with existing open
> registration systems, which provide exactly the guide they ought to be
> using by your reasoning.
> >>
> >> I am interested by the idea that openness about what receives a
> Notice--that is, what strings have actually triggered notices, which
> reflects what people are looking for and not what's in the TMCH as a
> whole--is a path towards greater transparency.  I look forward to Staff's
> answer about that as to the AG report.
> >>
> >>
> >> Rebecca Tushnet
> >> Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
> >> 703 593 6759
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 4:37 PM
> >> To: Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>
> >> Cc: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be>; John McElwaine <
> john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: New Q15 Proposal re: Actions & Notes:
> RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019
> >>
> >> Rebecca, all,
> >>
> >> As I previously described on the list (to which I haven't seen a direct
> response by anyone) the concern with an "open" TMCH is the aggregation of
> IP data for a specific purpose, i.e. protection from DNS abuse.
> >>
> >> No query through WIPO or national TMO databases can reveal this
> information.
> >>
> >> Hypo: a trademark owner owns 1000 trademarks; so they decide to select
> 50 TMs based on an informed judgment (based on previous UDRPs, C&D letters,
> etc.) that they believe are most likely to be abused in the DNS/new gTLDs
> and record them in the TMCH for protection through Sunrise and Claims.
> >>
> >> An open TMCH would expose that information to cyber-criminals, giving
> them important insights that they can't find anywhere else in the world.
> >>
> >> They could then proceed to focus on abusively registering any of the
> other 950 trademarks the company has registered, but which are not recorded
> in the TMCH, since they will know with certainty the TM owner won't receive
> a Claims notice and they will be able to register the domain as soon as
> General Availability opens up.
> >>
> >> Upon which time they can set up a 48-72 hour phishing scheme to steal
> as much consumer sensitive information as possible, and/or perpetrate
> criminal fraud to steal money or data from the company by sending out
> "official-looking" emails (that incorporate the brand name) to corporate
> executives, resellers, etc.
> >>
> >> Or on the flip-side, they may infer "these are the most important 50
> TMs to that company" - so I will register them as domains in <.com> or in
> ccTLDs and extort money from the TM owner.
> >>
> >> One middle ground solution may be permit a TMCH "Opt-in" for TM owners
> that are fine or desire to have their TMCH records made public so they have
> that option available as a voluntary choice.
> >>
> >> For example, some TM owners may believe having this information public
> may have a deterrent effect on cybersquatters, depending on the specifics
> of their own TM and domain portfolios.
> >>
> >> Hope this helps clarify the concern some have with an open aggregated
> data system that has the details of valuable IP recorded in one location
> and for one specific purpose.
> >>
> >> Also, as I mentioned on today's and on previous calls - other solutions
> can be explored at the Registry-level, where the hypothetical registrant
> who is "gaming" Sunrise, has a contractual relationship with a specific
> registry operator, who has the ability to delete the registration because
> it violates their terms of use.
> >>
> >> In fact, I have indicated willingness on several occasions to form a
> small group to further explore this option/solution, but no one has
> accepted my offer...
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Claudio
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:19 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <
> rtushnet at law.harvard.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> Marie, I suggest you reread the materials John sent: one key
> rationale--that access to the TMCH would disclose jurisdictions in which a
> TM is not registered--is flatly wrong, as you agree.  The arguments were
> based on a misapprehension of what the TMCH was.
> >>
> >>
> >> Rebecca Tushnet
> >> Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
> >> 703 593 6759
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 1:47 PM
> >> To: Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>; John McElwaine <
> john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> >> Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: New Q15 Proposal re: Actions & Notes:
> RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019
> >>
> >>
> >> Rebecca, the TMCH has nothing to do with where TMs are/are not
> registered.
> >>
> >> I’m afraid I don’t understand where you are going with the below.
> >>
> >> Marie
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of
> Tushnet, Rebecca
> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 7:31 PM
> >> To: John McElwaine <john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com>;
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> >> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: New Q15 Proposal re: Actions & Notes:
> RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> These excerpts make clear that the objections to transparency were
> based on fundamental factual misunderstandings of what the TMCH would be.
> I hope that no one in this group would agree that one can figure out
> jurisdictions in which a TM is not registered by looking at a TMCH entry,
> which requires only one valid registration from one jurisdiction.  (As has
> been pointed out, there are already public tools to look at registrations
> across jurisdictions; the TMCH couldn't be one of them.)  Similarly, the
> way to figure out if a domain name is registered is to look at that domain
> name, not at the TMCH, which will likewise not tell you anything. (And of
> course Sunrise requires proof of use, so that should already be public.)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Rebecca Tushnet
> >>
> >> Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
> >> 703 593 6759
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of John
> McElwaine <john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 1:00 PM
> >> To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: New Q15 Proposal re: Actions & Notes:
> RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I recall that the issue of the confidentiality of the TMCH database
> specifically came up in the Implementation Assistance Group (IAG) which was
> the group putting together the details and rules of the TMCH.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Having “Data Access” limited to a “need to know basis” was how the
> subject was originally introduced to the IAG.  I believe (but am not sure)
> that this “Data Access” may have resulted out of Section 8.1 of the STI
> Report which stated:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If feasible, the TM Claims Notice should provide links, or provide
> alternative methods of providing access, to the registrant for accessing
> the TC Database information referenced in the TM Claims Notice for a fuller
> understanding of the TM rights being claimed by the trademark owner. These
> links shall be provided in real time without cost to the Registrant. The
> implementation details should be left to ICANN Staff to determine how to
> easily provide access to registrants to this information.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From the September 26, 2012 Report of the IAG which was used to prepare
> “the draft implementation model of the Trademark Clearinghouse published by
> ICANN for discussion purposes”:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Misuse of Data
> >>
> >> To minimize abuse, distribution of TMCH data should be limited to
> situations where necessary to implement TMCH functionality. It should also
> be justified by technical, performance, uptime, availability, and economic
> factors. At a minimum, there should be sufficient contractual restrictions
> to provide enforcement capabilities to guard against abuse of the access
> and information provided through the TMCH. Specifically, rights holders
> have expressed concerns related to the aggregation of mark data through the
> TMCH, which may expose their brand protection strategies or be used to
> gather competitive intelligence by competitors. If the TMCH database is
> freely searchable and accessible, it could be possible to identify a rights
> holder’s gaps in its intellectual property protection strategies. For
> example, it might be possible to identify jurisdictions in which the rights
> holder has not registered its trademarks or in which it has not chosen to
> defensively register domain names. In this regard, this information could
> be misused by criminals, such as to conduct phishing attacks or other types
> of social engineering attacks.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In addition, concerns were raised with regard to limiting information
> submitted in the TMCH that may be valuable to a competitor, especially with
> regards to a brand-related registry. If it is possible to do extensive
> searching of the database to compile a list of marks that a mark holder has
> registered, some IAG members believed that this can reveal the mark
> holder’s brand protection strategy because it shows which marks it believes
> are more valuable than others. If someone can access all of the countries
> where a specific brand is registered, this may also create competitive
> advantage because a competitor might go to the unprotected jurisdiction and
> register the mark before the mark holder. The TMCH should not allow
> extensive searching to be done in a manner where a trademark holder’s
> entire portfolio could be easily accessed. Accordingly, the TMCH should be
> structured to address how to minimize data mining by a registry of a
> competitor’s trademark registration patterns.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The above report and analysis was related to work undertaken by the IAG
> looking at the “Data Access” (which labeled issue T1).  From the April 13,
> 2012 Draft Implementation Model:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Specifically, some rights holders indicated concern that the
> aggregation of rights data through the Clearinghouse may expose corporate
> strategies or be used to gather competitive intelligence, particularly if
> the database is freely searchable and accessible. For example, it might be
> possible to identify jurisdictions in which a rights holder has not
> registered its trademarks or in which it has not chosen to register domain
> names. In this regard, this information could drive uses such as phishing
> or other types of social engineering activities.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Kathy
> Kleiman
> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 11:22 AM
> >> To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> >> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: New Q15 Proposal re: Actions & Notes:
> RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ◄External Email► - From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The Trademark Clearinghouse database -- as negotiated by the GNSO
> Council appointed group and approved unanimously by the GNSO Council and
> ICANN Board -- was *not* secret or confidential. It's openness was
> discussed, debated and agreed to as a monitoring and oversight mechanism,
> and additionally because so much of what was already within the TMCH would
> be public materials -- registered trademarks themselves.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Kathy (with my hat as member of the STI)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/23/2019 10:52 AM, Marie Pattullo wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks, Julie. I’m about to go into a call so apologies for the hit &
> run response, but initial thoughts inline:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Para one:
> >>
> >> 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. Access to the database would allow misuse, including by
> bad actors and/or competitors. 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. 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.  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. If it’s a legitimate use, then
> brand holders won’t stop them.
> >>
> >> The Working Group agrees in principle that an audit of the Trademark
> Clearinghouse database can be beneficial. 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. 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. 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of
> Tushnet, Rebecca
> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 3:15 PM
> >> To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> >> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] New Q15 Proposal re: Actions & Notes: RPM
> PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The description "non-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."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Rebecca Tushnet
> >>
> >> Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
> >> 703 593 6759
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie
> Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 9:01 AM
> >> To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> >> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] New Q15 Proposal re: Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG
> Meeting 16 October 2019
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear WG members,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Kind regards,
> >>
> >> Mary, Ariel, and Julie
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Staff-suggested draft (based on Working Group discussions and
> suggestions made on the Working Group call of 16 October):
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie
> Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> >> Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 3:27 PM
> >> To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <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
> .
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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].
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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]:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -- 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Confidentiality Notice
> >>
> >> This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is
> proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from
> disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to
> read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If
> you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
> immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and
> delete all copies of this message.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20191023/971b7675/attachment-0001.html>