Hello, I find that the list of requirements is growing gradually and it begs to ask what the goal is, anyway I have added a few comments on the Gdocs. That said, it may be good to hear staff experience on what activities they do currently in maintaining the TM. While I appreciate processes, from the document shared, it feels like there is a lot of cosmetic requirements that is being introduced which IMO may not add any significance advantage towards ensuring that the owner provides access to the TM. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 24 Nov 2015 23:50, "Brenda Brewer" <brenda.brewer@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the DT-IPR Meeting on 24 November 2015 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/QLpYAw
A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.
Kind regards,
Brenda
[image: ---] *Action Items*
· *Action (ICANN staff): Provide the DT-IPR with a cost estimate for setting up and running a trust with the three communities as beneficiaries.*
· *Action (ICANN staff): Provide answers regarding what trademarks are currently owned by ICANN and whether ICANN has licensed out any trademarks? If yes, what QC has ICANN conducted on the licensed trademarks? Are these still outstanding questions that the DT-IPR has?*
· *Action (ICANN staff): Doodle for Tuesday or Wednesday DT-IPR call * *Notes*
Link to google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZGSlKj-JSXe4T0wWv-hN6srDVOwhRJvQZzRpkGAA...
We will be working live from the Google doc today. Please join the collaborative document in "suggestion mode".
For now, no need to raise hands in the AC room to speak: just speak up as needed.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
