August 2019 - GNSO-RPM-WG - lists.icann.org

ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018
by Ariel Liang Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP WG call held on 08 August 2018 (17:00-18:30 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/uwNpBQ Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) == ACTION ITEMS: * Brian Beckham to send to the WG a WIPO FAQ with regard to “Doe Complaint”. * Renee Fossen to provide more information on HSTS-preloaded domain suspension issues in the written responses. * Staff to recirculate the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document * WG members to provide substantive comment and raise anything they believe is missing on the WG mailing list by COB Tue, 14 Aug. Co-Chairs will then discuss among themselves to determine further actions/process. * WG members to finish reviewing the rest of the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document, including page 24-35, during next week’s call. Later period to discuss larger policy issues. NOTES: Review Agenda/Statements of Interest * George Kirikos has become a member of the At-Large Community: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/George+Kirikos+SOI General Comment on the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table Document * The topics in the table were developed by the WG members and deliberated on by the WG & URS Sub Teams. Each Sub Team then did very substantial work on data collection and reviewing what came back. While the actual Sub Team recommendations and suggestions captured in this document are what is intended the WG should discuss - to see if it wishes to develop policy or operational recommendations - discussion over what should be on the actual list of topics should not be reopened unless the WG agrees to do so. We encourage all WG members to review all the previous reports from each Sub Team, and all the documents they worked on. They are linked in this Super Consolidated document (page 2). * The Super Consolidated document is a summary of findings and suggestions by the Sub Teams. The Table does not mean to limit/restrict recommendations from the WG members. If there is any issue overlapping with UDRP, can possibly be carried over to the phase II of the PDP. * Is it possible to add additional topics to the Super Consolidated Table? One WG member said that access to the Courts, for example, is a topic he raised, which isn't in the table. Statute of Limitations, whether URS should apply to legacy gTLDs as a consensus policy, are just a few of the topics not in the table. He brought it up in November 2017 (see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-November/002585.html ) and it was reflected in a later document. That's a critical issue for registrants. if they don't have access to the courts to challenge a URS decision, then it's a huge denial of their rights. * While the chart is not meant to foreclose further discussion, it is a good faith attempt at capturing the work of the sub teams. The purpose of today's, and likely the next few, calls was to make sure this was an accurate and comprehensive reflection of our discussions so far. That said, WG members should bear in mind that we are seeking consensus, so items which are unlikely to achieve that may not be appropriate to reflect as a recommendation, but could be included in public comments on the Initial Report. Also, before adding items to this chart, we will want to work with staff to see whether such topics was previously discussed, and if so, the level of agreement/consensus. In other words, it is not necessary final, but is equally an opportunity to reintroduce topics which have been discussed, but for which consensus is/was not possible. * Could we create a list of "missing issues" -- a list of issues raised in this call (and calls to follow); we can evaluate the nature and weight of these ideas later. * Regarding the Action Items highlighted in column 3 of the table, Providers ST will do a first pass of the responses from the Providers to the follow-up questions, and then discuss the issues that they identified and proposed suggestions with the full WG. Limited filing period (page 3) * One WG member believes that there should be limitation for filing period to bring URS Complaints, so the domain registered many years ago would not be subject to unfair treatment. He said a registrant who owns a domain for 20 years, for example, shouldn't have to be concerned about a policy that can take their domain down with very short time period to respond. * Other WG members said this was discussed, and did not achieve agreement. That would only even be an option if the trademark pre-dated. This is unlikely to be a situation in practice where a URS was brought because it would probably not be a "slam dunk" case after 20 years unless there had been a change of circumstances. * On the issue of delay and laches - as reported by the Docs Sub Team, the data did not provide any basis for which a policy recommendation should be made. The Providers and Practitioners Sub Teams also did not uncover any specific issues that came to either practitioners' or providers' attention. Administrative Review (page 3-4) * One WG member asked whether ICANN should bring Providers into contractual relationship in order to enforce the URS Rules & Procedures. Another member said it probably need to be ICANN’s legal department to enforce the rules & procedure. * URS Providers have MoU with ICANN. Whether it is ICANN’s compliance department or legal department to enforce the rules & procedures, it should not be controversial that Providers must abide by them. * An MOU could be legally enforceable, depending on the circumstances. 500-word Complaint limit (page 4-5) * On 500-word Complaint Limit - Practitioners' survey results were split (out of 12, 5 agree it's sufficient, 4 disagree); results included feedback from some that the word limit was too low: "arbitrary and often insufficient" and "should be slightly increased". * One member said he understands and generally agrees with the decision not to suggest an expansion of the word limit, he wonders if there aren't situations (multi- domain challenges, etc.) where a Complainant or Respondent might be given the opportunity to request an expansion. This point can be captured for decisional phase. * Another member suggested that perhaps providers can provide stats on the average word length of complaints, to see how close to the 500 words they are at present. (i.e. a table of distributions, e.g. 10% under 200 words, 20% between 201 and 300, etc.) Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec (page 5-6) * One member believes that 2-3 days might not be a good rule (e.g. weekends, time to research, etc.). Maybe 5 business days. * WIPO’s approach to “doe complaints” has been very helpful and provides some comfort that the lack of true registrant/registrant organization data masked due to GDPR will not result in a deficient complaint for an omitted respondent. * ACTION ITEM: Brian Beckham to send to the WG a WIPO FAQ with regard to “Doe Complaint”. * Forum is asking for amendment of the complaint in UDRP - under the rules that's not allowed in URS. SMD Files (page 6-7) * SMD files are used for limited purpose of demonstrating the use. * Recollection is that SMD files would be passed to the Examiners and relay the critical information related to the TM registration. That's why some people are surprised by the limited info SMD files would provide. * The SMD files contain some basic human-readable information, with the rest of the information coded. For example, the trademark itself is human-readable but the applicable Nice classification is coded. A SMD file is used by registries/registrars for validation, and as Greg noted, to demonstrate use. From the TMCH provider: http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/help/faq/which-information-does-smd-… * If the intent of the STI was that the SMD file would be a file summary, that got lost somewhere along the way, way before the SMD file was designed by the TMCH providers. * Rules 3(b)(v) Specify the trademark(s) or service mark(s) on which the complaint is based and the goods or services with which the mark is used including evidence of use –which can be a declaration and a specimen of current use in commerce - submitted directly or by including a relevant SMD (Signed Mark Data) from the Trademark Clearinghouse * It might be useful to look at the spec that they relied on. But the real question is how should the examiner get the relevant data about the Complainant’s mark. The SMD file is probably not the answer, if it was ever intended to be. * the Examiner is not required to second-guess the SMD file. Its existence is sufficient that the mark has had use validated by the TMCH. Other Topics (page 7-8) * These are policy proposals can be brought up when WG members are proposing changes to the URS policy itself. Charter asks us to address the question whether the URS should become a consensus policy applicable to legacy domains. Charter is not specific regarding whether such discussion should occur in phase I or phase II. This feedback illustrates that the ST didn't get to propose policy changes, it is for the WG to discuss and propose changes. * when we reference the STI and IRT reports, we need to keep in mind they only had about 1-2 months to complete their work and produce a report; they were not standard PDP working groups and had limited charters and mandates, which were set by the Board * This is feedback from one Provider, who may want to grow their business. Practitioners survey are from Complaints' side. Need to have a balanced solution when considering the input. * There were plenty of practitioners that represent registrants in the Subgroup, although their experience was largely with the UDRP. Duration of response period (Page 11) * One member believes that if the URS continues in its current form, it would affect valuable domain names. The ones the registrants that do want to defend them, 14 days are not sufficient. 20 days may be more appropriate. It should be based on the age of the domain name. If a domain is 3 months, it will have a shorter period to respond. If you own a domain name for 5-10 years, response period would be longer so less urgency. * Several other WG members disagree. The URS is supposed to be an expedited proceeding so increasing the length of time of a streamlined proceeding defeats the purpose. At most, there could be an additional 3 or 4 days extension period for cause. The point is that there are enough circumstances that give rise to the URS 'quick response' that we should NOT make assumptions into policy. It is an assumption that an "aged" domain would not require a fast response. In Mexico, we have not been able to file a domain name case due to Courts ignorance about the subject and also, because it could take years to be solved. We're spinning out fo control - extending the time to respond to URS cases just because a domain registration is not new defeats the purpose of fast action to take down an infringing domain once it's discovered. The URS is meant to address clear and convincing cases of infringement. A person registers a domain name for less than $50 and brand owner find out about at some point and then files an injunction in court for tens of thousands of dollars. Where is the balance. Examiners Guide (page 13) * The WIPO guidance for examiners took 1500 hours to develop. * The WIPO guidance is relevant to the URS, the elements are shown are the same and the differences include the burden of proof, word limit, etc. A lot of WIPO guidance goes to the shade of grey issues. URS is for clear black/white cases, so if there is a URS guidance it would likely be abbreviated. Duration of Suspension Period & Review of Implementation (page 21-23) * One WG member suggests to find out how much cost for registries & registrars to comply with the URS rules and procedures. Need to get data/feedback from the registries/registrars. * Other WG members are not sure "cost of implementation of URS" for Registries/Registrars is relevant to effectiveness of URS. We don't need to do a cost/benefit analysis (the costs & benefits aren't ICANN's), the providers, registrars, registries need to be asked if they are overburdened by the costs of compliance. * There is an action item to contact the registries/registrars about these issues. Timing TBD due to Sunrise & Claims survey launch. Other topics (page 23-24) * One WG member thinks the HSTS issue is not difficult to fix. The Providers need to improve their technical applicability to resolve the issue. Renee Fossen from Forum disagrees. * ACTION ITEM: Renee Fossen to provide more information on HSTS-preloaded domain suspension issues in the written responses. NEXT STEPS * ACTION ITEM: Staff to recirculate the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document and ask all WG members to provide substantive comment and raise anything they believe is missing on the WG mailing list by COB Tue, 14 Aug. Co-Chairs will then discuss among themselves to determine further actions/process. * ACTION ITEM: WG to finish reviewing the rest of the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document, including page 24-35. Later period to discuss larger policy issues.

20 45

Actions: RPM PDP WG Meeting 28 August 2019
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 28, 2019

Aug. 28, 2019

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 28 August 2019 at 17:00 UTC. Staff have posted 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, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-08-28+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: 1. Revision of Existing Proposals: For consideration at the meeting on Wednesday, 04 September, RPM PDP WG members who had previously submitted proposals relating to the Open TMCH Questions (see attached) may offer revised proposals that take into consideration the work completed by the WG since the proposals were originally submitted. 2. New Proposals: For consideration at the meeting on Wednesday, 04 September, RPM PDP WG members may submit new proposals relating to Charter questions 7, 8, and 10.

1 0

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Wednesday, 28 August 2019 at 17:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon Aug. 28, 2019

Aug. 28, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Wednesday, 28 August 2019 at 17:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/_o3kBg> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw>. Thank you. With kind regards, Andrea

1 0

Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 28 Aug 17:00-18:30 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 27, 2019

Aug. 27, 2019

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the agenda and materials for the WG meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, 28 August at 17:00-18:30 UTC. Note that with respect to agenda item #2, the authors of the proposals as listed below, to the extent they are available, should be prepared to give a brief overview (10 minutes) of their proposal followed by discussion. 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Proposals relating to Open TMCH Charter Questions (see attached Summary document. It is the same as the May 2017 version but with formatting for readability and text from relevant TMCH and AGB references): * Question 7 – Proposals from Kathy Kleiman and Greg Shatan * Question 8 – Proposals from Paul McGrady, Kathy Kleiman, Jonathan Agmon, and Claudio di Gangi * If Time Permits: Question 10 – Proposal from Michael Graham 3. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Request from RPM PDP co-chairs & GNSO Council leadership response
by Mary Wong Aug. 22, 2019

Aug. 22, 2019

Dear Paul and everyone, When the Working Group first began discussions on the TMCH in 2017, staff prepared the following wiki page that lists (among other documents) the final version of the TMCH from the Applicant Guidebook (AGB), the STI Review Team’s recommendations and the various iterations of the AGB between the STI timeframe and the final AGB (including the public comment periods and Explanatory Memoranda that were issued): https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864. As you’ll recall, staff also circulated a Chronological Timeline of the TMCH at the time, which was recently updated following consultations with the Working Group co-chairs, and re-circulated about two weeks ago: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-08-07+Review+of+all+R… We hope these links and documents are helpful. Cheers Julie, Ariel & Mary From: Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup(a)gmail.com> Date: Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 10:41 To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin(a)verisign.com> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: Re: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Request from RPM PDP co-chairs & GNSO Council leadership response Phillip, I appreciate the documents may be divergent at times and I fully understand as a result that there may or may not be consequences. What I am trying to ascertain is - What is(are) the actual specific provision(s) that will be determined differently under each baseline scenario that are causing this matter to be raised now? Thanks, Paul On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 3:07 PM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> wrote: Paul, the consequence of the disagreement is explained in this passage from the Co-Chair’s letter: “ Standard for recommending changes – The answer to this question is dependent on the answer to the first. Ms. Kleiman believes that if the WG reaches consensus agreement that any provision of the AGB differs materially from a related provision of the STI Report this should be regarded as an indication that implementation differs from policy and should automatically result in a recommendation that the rule revert to the STI recommendation for subsequent rounds. Mr. Beckham and Mr. Corwin agree with ICANN Staff that the STI Report does not constitute policy; while they agree that the STI Report and other background materials can be usefully referenced by the WG (and indeed spent the entirety of a recent call refreshing the WG on the STI Report), they believe that any recommendation to alter any provision of the RPMs and TMCH as codified in the AGB and having been implemented by Contracted Parties and service providers for several years now must be supported by consensus agreement within the WG on what the change should be, and we should not revert automatically to STI Report language based upon a finding that the RPMs and TMCH as in the AGB differ materially from an STI recommendation.” Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup(a)gmail.com<mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:02 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> Cc: mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Request from RPM PDP co-chairs & GNSO Council leadership response Dear Philip, I appreciate the documents may be divergent at times, what I am interested to know is what is/are the specific issue(s) that would be determined differently using each of the respective baselines? Yours sincerely, Paul. On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 2:54 PM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> wrote: Paul: The divergence between the co-chairs was whether the 2009 STI report or the final Applicant Guidebook (AGB -- 2013, I believe) constituted the default baseline for our TMCH review. On that matter, Council leadership responded, “ The AGB is the latest version of the implementation efforts developed with substantial community input, as now reflected in the New gTLD Registry Agreement. It should therefore be considered the baseline as it is the document upon which the Phase One RPMs are based.” I hope that fully responds to your inquiry. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Paul Tattersfield Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 9:35 AM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Request from RPM PDP co-chairs & GNSO Council leadership response Dear Mary, Is it possible to quickly summarize the specific issues where divergence is causing concern? Yours sincerelly, Paul. On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 2:11 PM Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, At the request of the co-chairs, in the interests of transparency, staff is forwarding the message below and the two related attachments for your information. This has also been placed under AOB on the GNSO Council’s 22 August meeting agenda, which is currently taking place (1200-1400 UTC): https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agen…. Best regards, Julie, Ariel & Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 20:25 To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Request from RPM PDP co-chairs & GNSO Council leadership response SENT ON BEHALF OF KEITH DRAZEK, PAM LITTLE & RAFIK DAMMAK Dear Councilors, Please see the attached request that we as the GNSO Council leadership team received on Monday 19 August from the RPM PDP Working Group co-chairs and our response, which we have just sent following a meeting with Paul McGrady (the Council liaison to this PDP) and ICANN policy staff. In the interests of time and to allow the Working Group to resume its Phase One work without delay, we decided to send the attached response as soon as we could. We and Paul believe that our response provides the requested clarity as regards the baseline from which the RPM PDP was chartered to perform a review of the RPMs that were developed for the 2012 New gTLD Program round in its Phase One work. In this regard, we note that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP is also proceeding from the same baseline. To ensure transparency in the Council leadership’s consultations with PDP chairs and liaisons, we are forwarding the request and our response to you for your information. We invite any Councilor who wishes to seek further information as to our discussion and response on this matter to send a note to the Council mailing list. We will be happy to address your questions, including under AOB on our upcoming call if time permits. Thank you. Best regards, Keith, Pam and Rafik _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG(a)icann.org<mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG@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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>). 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.

1 0

FW: FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Request from RPM PDP co-chairs & GNSO Council leadership response
by Mary Wong Aug. 22, 2019

Aug. 22, 2019

Dear Working Group members, At the request of the co-chairs, in the interests of transparency, staff is forwarding the message below and the two related attachments for your information. This has also been placed under AOB on the GNSO Council’s 22 August meeting agenda, which is currently taking place (1200-1400 UTC): https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agen…. Best regards, Julie, Ariel & Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 20:25 To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Request from RPM PDP co-chairs & GNSO Council leadership response SENT ON BEHALF OF KEITH DRAZEK, PAM LITTLE & RAFIK DAMMAK Dear Councilors, Please see the attached request that we as the GNSO Council leadership team received on Monday 19 August from the RPM PDP Working Group co-chairs and our response, which we have just sent following a meeting with Paul McGrady (the Council liaison to this PDP) and ICANN policy staff. In the interests of time and to allow the Working Group to resume its Phase One work without delay, we decided to send the attached response as soon as we could. We and Paul believe that our response provides the requested clarity as regards the baseline from which the RPM PDP was chartered to perform a review of the RPMs that were developed for the 2012 New gTLD Program round in its Phase One work. In this regard, we note that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP is also proceeding from the same baseline. To ensure transparency in the Council leadership’s consultations with PDP chairs and liaisons, we are forwarding the request and our response to you for your information. We invite any Councilor who wishes to seek further information as to our discussion and response on this matter to send a note to the Council mailing list. We will be happy to address your questions, including under AOB on our upcoming call if time permits. Thank you. Best regards, Keith, Pam and Rafik

3 6

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 14 August 2019
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 14, 2019

Aug. 14, 2019

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 14 August 2019 at 17:00 UTC. Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-08-14+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: ACTION ITEM: WG members to post to the list any suggestions/thoughts they may have for whether and how to review the 36 individual URS proposals to determine inclusion in the Initial Report. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Brief Discussion: Revised Chronological listing of source documents for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) – revision with edits from Kathy Kleiman and Brian Beckham athttps://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1jRYPkK-S3TKA9HQIhN-wsn9M8cVg… [drive.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__drive.google.com_a_ica…> -- Were the STI recommendations policy? They weren’t Consensus Policy as they were not a result of a PDP. -- The RPMs are not Consensus Policy, but depending on the recommendations of this PDP WG they could become policy. -- How policies become binding: 1) PDP 2) agreement to be included in RA/contracts. -- SubPro in looking at geographic names noted that the AGB differs in some respects from the policy, but the focus has been on whether there should be changes to the AGB, or if no agreement then the AGB would be the status quo. 3. To Inform Further WG Discussions: Review of the Final STI Report on TMCH and URS at https://gnso.icann.org/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_issues_…> Link to STI report: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_8000/sti-wt-recommenda… 4.1 National or Multinational Registered Marks TMCH: -- STI Report “The TC Database should be required to include nationally or multi-nationally registered “text mark” trademarks, from all jurisdictions, (including countries where there is no substantive review). (The Trademarks to be included in the TC are text marks because “design marks” provide protection for letters and words only within the context of their design or logo and the STI was under a mandate not to expand existing trademark rights.” -- There is a proposal relating to this that we will address later. -- Instead of using technical terms that might have different meanings, using more descriptive terms: pure text", "text plus graphical/visual element", and "stylized text" -- e.g. “text-only” (words, letters, numerals); “stylized text”; “text plus design/graphical/visual element”. -- WG could look at composite marks that are protected by law and build recommendations on them. URS: -- Seemed to be general agreement on the last call to go through the individual proposals and those that don’t have general agreement/wide support might not be included in the Initial Report, except perhaps in an annex. -- ACTION: Put views on the list whether to go through some sort of an additional review process.

1 0

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Wednesday, 14 August 2019 at 17:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Aug. 14, 2019

Aug. 14, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Wednesday, 14 August 2019 at 17:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/WoTkBg> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw>. Thank you. With kind regards, Terri --- Terri Agnew Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: terri.agnew(a)icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org> Skype ID: terri.agnew.icann Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> See All SO and AC events on the ICANN Global calendar [features.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__features.icann.org_cal…>

1 0

Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 14 Aug 17:00-18:30 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 13, 2019

Aug. 13, 2019

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the agenda and materials for this week’s call tomorrow, Wednesday, 14 August at 17:00-18:30 UTC. 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Brief Discussion: Revised Chronological listing of source documents for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) – revision with edits from Kathy Kleiman and Brian Beckham at https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1jRYPkK-S3TKA9HQIhN-wsn9M8cVg3S… 3. To Inform Further WG Discussions: Review of the Final STI Report on TMCH and URS at https://gnso.icann.org/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf 4. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 07 August 2019
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 7, 2019

Aug. 7, 2019

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 07 August 2019 at 17:00 UTC. Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-08-07+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: ACTION ITEM: Staff will adjust the timeline to take into account a review of the individual URS proposals. ACTION ITEM: Staff to circulate the poll results on open TMCH issues. Notes: 1. No updates provided. 2. Brief Discussion: Process for Determining Individual URS Proposals to Include in the Initial Report -- Decision will be determined by the WG via the email list and meetings. -- Where we left the individual proposals: there were 36 and we didn’t test support for them. Some are not likely to have high support in the WG. Should not have the community comment on proposals that don’t have wide or reasonable support. -- Good idea to float the idea and take up specifics later. -- 36 proposals are too many to ask the community to comment on. -- Why did we put them all in? We made no decision on whether some had support or not to go into the Initial Report. -- Good idea that the decision on this will not be on any one call but will involve list as well and get broad input. -- At least one proposal is moot, so good to review them. -- Question: Do we plan to create a link to Individual Proposals that were not reported on in FR so commenters can go and view them if they are so inclined and consider their observations in light of them? Answer: the WG has quite a bit of flexibility. It will largely depend on what the group thinks is most effective. Don’t forget that all public comments need to be reviewed. The staff experience has been that, the more focused and targeted the “ask” you make of the community, the more likely you are to get helpful, specific comments. -- Could run a survey to gauge support. -- One WG member expressed concern about revisiting the review of the proposals. 3. Background on the TMCH and Previous WG Discussions Chronological listing doc: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20190806/0a19b805/Ch… -- Mostly the same version as was circulated 2 years ago with minor updates. Open TMCH questions doc: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20190806/0a19b805/Op… -- Open questions that had proposals. Could start with these and then move to the deferred questions. -- Three of the agreed TMCH charter questions that the WG did quite a bit of discussion on. First column is the question (questions 7, 8, and 10); second column is the proposals nearly verbatim; third column is where things were left in mid-2017. -- Question 7 – proposal submitted by Kathy, then where the WG left off. Co-Chairs and staff are considering whether to provide the WG with questions to facilitate discussion. -- Question 8 – proposal submitted by Paul McGrady, and where the WG left off with a briefing by Deloitte. -- Question 10 – proposal submitted by Michael Graham – the conclusions of the TM Claims Sub Team could be relevant (not to expand the matching rules). Consider whether in view of that conclusion whether the discussion on this question could be closed. ACTION ITEM: Staff to circulate the poll results on open TMCH issues.

1 0