October 2020 - GNSO-RPM-WG - lists.icann.org

RPMs PDP WG Consensus Call: 30 Oct - 08 Nov
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 9, 2020

Nov. 9, 2020

Dear WG members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, and as discussed during the WG meeting on Thursday, 29 October, this email is to notify you of the opening of the online Consensus Call on the Recommendations of the Phase 1 Final Report of the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs. For reference, please see the attached PDF of the Recommendations and contextual language. WG members who wish to familiarize themselves with the steps involved and the various levels of consensus applicable to GNSO PDP recommendations can refer to the recording of the 29 October meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-10-29+Review+of+all+R…> where the Consensus Call process was described. This Consensus Call opens today, Friday, 30 October 2020 for a 10-day period, closing on Sunday, 08 November 2020. Per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-g…>, WG members are requested to indicate via reply to this list whether they support, or do not support, the recommendations. If a WG member does not respond this will be taken as support. During this period there will be no WG meetings. Following the close of the Consensus Call, the WG Co-Chairs will meet on Tuesday, 10 November to review the responses from the WG members and determine the Consensus Designations for the Recommendations. The WG Co-Chairs will post the results of their determination to the WG email distribution list. Assuming there is no disagreement by the WG with the Consensus Designations that may require further review of the initial Designations by the Co-Chairs, staff will incorporate them into the Final Report. Per the Work Plan, the WG must submit the Final Report to the GNSO Council no later than Wednesday, 25 November 2020. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie

9 8

Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting on 29 October 2020
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 29, 2020

Oct. 29, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group meeting on 29 October 2020 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/2020-10-29+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie == Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Staff to send the consensus designation email to the WG on the email distribution list with a PDF of the Final Report Recommendations and contextual language to open the Consensus Call not later than Friday, 30 October for a period of 10 days. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review draft Final Report: Background Section – Edits by Kathy Kleiman and staff (pp. 11-12 and 19): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jw_B6xGwc-Du9dMbCGjsQnsq40NbZWgT5aC86nP… -- The WG accepts the edits; no further edits are suggested. Phase 1 Final PDP Recommendations (pp.28-29): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3CfBODC_T_7kY_rCVo_pTkiWUH0cFG… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3Cf…> Staff revised the contextual language of the TMCH Final Recommendation #1 -- Staff notes that for the completeness of the record – given no objection to Griffin’s suggested edits and the agreement by the WG during today’s meeting, Griffin’s edits have been incorporated in the final contextual language of the TMCH Final Recommendation #1. Next Steps: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HaCI2EkvIS9ejSGrS1YslCY9ZTOHvbxBc3pIdiU… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1HaCI2EkvIS9e…> Staff made minor edits to the content based on input received during the call yesterday. The updated content is as follows: “This Final Report will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration and potential approval. If approved by the GNSO Council, the Final Report will then be forwarded to the ICANN Board of Directors for its consideration and potential action in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws.” -- The WG accepts the edits; no further edits are suggested. Executive Summary (p.3): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R99_8v0BYmIRVhW27Xwz_BA1v-5ksHyifWUtiTf… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1R99_8v0BYmIR…> Revise the content under “conclusions and next steps” similar to that under “next steps”: “This Final Report will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration and, if approved, forwarded to the ICANN Board of Directors for consideration and potential action in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws.” -- The WG accepts the edits; no further edits are suggested. 3. Description of Consensus Call Process; see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-w…>, pages 8-10 -- Staff will send a request for consensus designation to the WG on the email distribution list by Friday, 30 October and ask for a response in 10 days by Sunday, 08 November. -- The Co-Chairs will meet to determine the consensus designations for the Recommendations and Implementation Guidance on 10 November. If necessary, the Co-Chairs may schedule a meeting on 12 November to discuss the consensus designations. -- The Co-Chairs may take into account whether a WG member is representing a group, constituency, or stakeholder group, or acting as an individual, when determining consensus designation. -- The Co-Chairs note that there has been broad support for the Recommendations and Implementation Guidance as the text was drafted and in the final review, so it is not expected that there should be significant opposition to or divergence on the Recommendations and Implementation Guidance. ACTION ITEM: Staff to send the consensus designation email to the WG on the email distribution list with a PDF of the Final Report Recommendations and contextual language to open the Consensus Call not later than Friday, 30 October for a period of 10 days.

1 0

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Thursday, 29 October 2020 at 17:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Oct. 29, 2020

Oct. 29, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Thursday, 29 October 2020 at 17:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/UwjQC> 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 For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Reminder: Updated Final Report Sections - Input by 29 Oct by 16:00 UTC
by Ariel Liang Oct. 29, 2020

Oct. 29, 2020

Thank you Griffin! For the completeness of the record – given no objection to Griffin’s suggested edits and the agreement by the WG during today’s meeting, Griffin’s edits have been incorporated in the final contextual language of the TMCH Final Recommendation #1. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel From: Griffin Barnett <Griffin(a)Winterfeldt.law> Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 12:51 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Reminder: Updated Final Report Sections - Input by 29 Oct by 16:00 UTC Hi all, I would suggest the further refinements below. “(1) mandatory RPMs should only be for trademarks, not marks or other source identifiers designations that do not function as trademarks, including Geographical Indications; (2) while such other designations can be entered into an additional/ancillary database maintained by the TMCH Validation Provider, they are not eligible for Sunrise and Claims; and (3) the ability for the TMCH Validation Provider and Registry Operators to offer additional/voluntary ancillary services to such other designations should be preserved (e.g., via an ancillary database). Otherwise, the updated text below looked fine to me. Best, Griffin ________________________________ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.winterfeldt.law/__;!!PtGJab4!tOaedGi…>[cid:image001.png@01D6ADFA.2F00D020]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.winterfeldt.law/__;!!PtGJab4!tOaedGi…>[winterfeldt.law]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.winterfeldt.law/__;!!PtGJab4!tOaedGi…> Griffin M. Barnett Associate Winterfeldt IP Group 1601 K Street NW, Ste 1050 Washington, DC 20006<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> griffin(a)winterfeldt.law<mailto:griffin@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 759 5836 From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 11:23 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Reminder: Updated Final Report Sections - Input by 29 Oct by 16:00 UTC Dear WG Members, This is a reminder that following yesterday’s call, staff have completed the action items by updating several google docs. If you have any further comment/input, please provide on list by 16:00 UTC on Thursday, 29 October. Please see details below. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel == Phase 1 Final PDP Recommendations (pp.28-29): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3CfBODC_T_7kY_rCVo_pTkiWUH0cFG… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3Cf…> Staff revised the contextual language of the TMCH Final Recommendation #1 based on input received during the call yesterday. The specific edits are as follows: * Last paragraph on p.28: Revised the three points after “During its deliberation, the Working Group coalesced around the following ideas” as follows: “(1) mandatory RPMs should only be for trademarks, not marks or other source identifiers that do not function as trademarks, including Geographical Indications; (2) while such other designations can be entered into an additional/ancillary database maintained by the TMCH Validation Provider, they are not eligible for Sunrise and Claims; and (3) the ability for the TMCH Validation Provider and Registry Operators to offer additional/voluntary ancillary services to such other designations should be preserved (e.g., via an ancillary database). * First paragraph on p.29: Revise the first sentence as follows: “The Working Group ultimately agreed that the policy principles contained in the recommendation text reflect those ideas, and frame the suggested amendments to the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) text in the Implementation Guidance.” Next Steps: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HaCI2EkvIS9ejSGrS1YslCY9ZTOHvbxBc3pIdiU… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1HaCI2EkvIS9e…> Staff made minor edits to the content based on input received during the call yesterday. The updated content is as follows: “This Final Report will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration and potential approval. If approved by the GNSO Council, the Final Report will then be forwarded to the ICANN Board of Directors for its consideration and potential action in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws.” Executive Summary (p.3): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R99_8v0BYmIRVhW27Xwz_BA1v-5ksHyifWUtiTf… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1R99_8v0BYmIR…> Revise the content under “conclusions and next steps” similar to that under “next steps”: “This Final Report will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration and, if approved, forwarded to the ICANN Board of Directors for consideration and potential action in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws.” Background (pp.11-12, 19): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jw_B6xGwc-Du9dMbCGjsQnsq40NbZWgT5aC86nP… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Jw_B6xGwc-Du…> Kathy Kleiman worked with staff and agreed on the further edits related to the WG’s deliberation on EPDP recommendations. The specific edits are as follows: * Last bullet on p.11: Removed “…and provided no objection to incorporating the staff-proposed approach in finalizing relevant recommendations relating to the URS and their contextual language” * Second paragraph on p.19: Removed “…and provided no objection to incorporating the staff-proposed approach in finalizing relevant recommendations relating to the URS” * Second paragraph on p.19: Added the following sentences “When finalizing its Phase 1 recommendations, the Working Group confirmed that its final recommendations are consistent with the EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations as well as the analysis in the Wave 1 Report. Specifically, the Working Group provided further notes regarding the consistency in the contextual language of the URS Final Recommendations #1, #2, #4, #5, #11.”

1 0

Reminder: Updated Final Report Sections - Input by 29 Oct by 16:00 UTC
by Ariel Liang Oct. 28, 2020

Oct. 28, 2020

Dear WG Members, This is a reminder that following yesterday’s call, staff have completed the action items by updating several google docs. If you have any further comment/input, please provide on list by 16:00 UTC on Thursday, 29 October. Please see details below. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel == Phase 1 Final PDP Recommendations (pp.28-29): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3CfBODC_T_7kY_rCVo_pTkiWUH0cFG… Staff revised the contextual language of the TMCH Final Recommendation #1 based on input received during the call yesterday. The specific edits are as follows: * Last paragraph on p.28: Revised the three points after “During its deliberation, the Working Group coalesced around the following ideas” as follows: “(1) mandatory RPMs should only be for trademarks, not marks or other source identifiers that do not function as trademarks, including Geographical Indications; (2) while such other designations can be entered into an additional/ancillary database maintained by the TMCH Validation Provider, they are not eligible for Sunrise and Claims; and (3) the ability for the TMCH Validation Provider and Registry Operators to offer additional/voluntary ancillary services to such other designations should be preserved (e.g., via an ancillary database). * First paragraph on p.29: Revise the first sentence as follows: “The Working Group ultimately agreed that the policy principles contained in the recommendation text reflect those ideas, and frame the suggested amendments to the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) text in the Implementation Guidance.” Next Steps: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HaCI2EkvIS9ejSGrS1YslCY9ZTOHvbxBc3pIdiU… Staff made minor edits to the content based on input received during the call yesterday. The updated content is as follows: “This Final Report will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration and potential approval. If approved by the GNSO Council, the Final Report will then be forwarded to the ICANN Board of Directors for its consideration and potential action in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws.” Executive Summary (p.3): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R99_8v0BYmIRVhW27Xwz_BA1v-5ksHyifWUtiTf… Revise the content under “conclusions and next steps” similar to that under “next steps”: “This Final Report will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration and, if approved, forwarded to the ICANN Board of Directors for consideration and potential action in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws.” Background (pp.11-12, 19): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jw_B6xGwc-Du9dMbCGjsQnsq40NbZWgT5aC86nP… Kathy Kleiman worked with staff and agreed on the further edits related to the WG’s deliberation on EPDP recommendations. The specific edits are as follows: * Last bullet on p.11: Removed “…and provided no objection to incorporating the staff-proposed approach in finalizing relevant recommendations relating to the URS and their contextual language” * Second paragraph on p.19: Removed “…and provided no objection to incorporating the staff-proposed approach in finalizing relevant recommendations relating to the URS” * Second paragraph on p.19: Added the following sentences “When finalizing its Phase 1 recommendations, the Working Group confirmed that its final recommendations are consistent with the EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations as well as the analysis in the Wave 1 Report. Specifically, the Working Group provided further notes regarding the consistency in the contextual language of the URS Final Recommendations #1, #2, #4, #5, #11.”

2 1

Proposed Agenda for RPM PDP WG Meeting 29 October 2020 17:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 28, 2020

Oct. 28, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Thursday, 29 October at 17:00 UTC. Please note that the RPMs PDP WG has only 1 more regularly scheduled meeting on 29 October before the Consensus Call begins on the WG’s email distribution list. WG members are requested to review only the new highlighted text in the section of the draft Final Report in the agenda below. WG members should flag only factual errors, if any, in the revised Background section (text from Kathy Kleiman and staff) at pp. 11-12 and 19 of the Google Doc here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jw_B6xGwc-Du9dMbCGjsQnsq40NbZWgT5aC86nP… - heading=h.qy8hqkubxy8i<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jw_B6xGwc-Du9dMbCGjsQnsq40NbZWgT5aC86nP…> by 16:00 UTC, Thursday, 27 October. Note that once a section has been reviewed/discussed in a meeting, it is considered closed. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review draft Final Report – please review only the new highlighted revised Background section (text from Kathy Kleiman and staff) at pp. 11-12 and 19 of the Google Doc here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jw_B6xGwc-Du9dMbCGjsQnsq40NbZWgT5aC86nP… - heading=h.qy8hqkubxy8i<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jw_B6xGwc-Du9dMbCGjsQnsq40NbZWgT5aC86nP…> 3. Description of Consensus Call Process; see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-w…>, pages 8-10 4. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting on 27 October 2020
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 27, 2020

Oct. 27, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group meeting on 27 October 2020 at 13:00 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/2020-10-27+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie == Action Items: TMCH Recommendation Final Recommendation #1: ACTION ITEM: WG members to review the revised text captured by staff based on the WG’s discussion at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3CfBODC_T_7kY_rCVo_pTkiWUH0cFG…, page 28, and note factual errors/omissions, if any, on the list by Thursday, 29 October, 16:00 UTC. Cover Page and Next Steps: ACTION ITEM: Staff will check the consistency of the wording in the Cover Page and Next Steps text. WG members to review the revised Next Steps text captured by staff based on the WG’s discussion at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HaCI2EkvIS9ejSGrS1YslCY9ZTOHvbxBc3pIdiU…, and note factual errors/omissions, if any, on the list by Thursday, 29 October, 16:00 UTC. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: -- Greg Shatan: Member of the At-Large Advisory Committee. -- Stepping down from the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC). 2. TMCH Recommendation Final Recommendation #1: TMCH Validation Provider: -- This is the terminology used in the Initial and Final Report. It is the correct term as staff has confirmed with GDS. -- Staff recommends going with Validation Provider. Contextual Language: -- WG members, including Paul Tattersfield, Rebecca Tushnet, and Griffin Barnett, suggested further edits, which staff has captured in the revised text at the link below. ACTION ITEM: WG members to review the revised text captured by staff based on the WG’s discussion at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3CfBODC_T_7kY_rCVo_pTkiWUH0cFG…, page 28, and note factual errors/omissions, if any, on the list by Thursday, 29 October, 16:00 UTC. 3. Review draft Final Report – please review only the new highlighted text in the Google docs at the links below and in the following order: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1R99_8v0BYmIR…> Approach Taken by the Working Group [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1HJFo7JwmYH-M…> Annex G - Community Input [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1NkHqpcBY0RFy…> Annex E - Working Group Documents [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1eNSJ9UWv0iBJ…> -- The WG found no factual errors or corrections in these sections. COVER PAGE [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1CULo0JvPSHqt…> and Next Steps [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1HaCI2EkvIS9e…> -- WG members noted that the cover page says the report has been submitted and the next steps says it will be submitted - may want to coordinate those two. ACTION ITEM: Staff will check the consistency of the wording in the Cover Page and Next Steps text. WG members to review the revised Next Steps text captured by staff based on the WG’s discussion at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HaCI2EkvIS9ejSGrS1YslCY9ZTOHvbxBc3pIdiU…, and note factual errors/omissions, if any, on the list by Thursday, 29 October, 16:00 UTC. 4. AOB: URS Final Recommendations #3 and #4: -- Staff and WG members agree that the recommendations are consistent, and there were no new changes or language introduced by staff after the WG’s agreement.

1 0

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Tuesday, 27 October 2020 at 13:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon Oct. 27, 2020

Oct. 27, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Tuesday, 27 October 2020 at 13:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/UQjQC> 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 <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Andrea

1 0

Edits and updates
by Kathy Kleiman Oct. 26, 2020

Oct. 26, 2020

Hi All, Attached please find my proposed edits to the Background section of our report. We had a little more interaction with the EPDP report than noted -- and went past the summary wave table to the actual EPDP recommendations to determine that there was no conflict between them and our WG recommendations. I've proposed revisions to the background text to show this process with the steps involved. As a WG, we certainly did our due diligence on this important task! Best and have a good weekend,Kathy

8 9

REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPM PDP WG Meeting 27 October 2020 13:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 26, 2020

Oct. 26, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, This is a reminder to please find the proposed agenda in the email below for the WG meeting on Tuesday, 27 October at 13:00 UTC. Please note that the RPMs PDP WG has only 2 more regularly scheduled meetings on 27 and 29 October before the Consensus Call begins on the WG’s email distribution list. WG members are requested to review only the new highlighted text in the sections of the draft Final Report in the order as they appear on the agenda below. WG members should flag only factual errors, if any, in these new sections by TODAY 16:00 UTC, Monday, 26 October. Note that once a section has been reviewed/discussed in a meeting, it is considered closed. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, October 19, 2020 at 11:14 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM PDP WG Meeting 27 October 2020 13:00 UTC Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Tuesday, 27 October at 13:00 UTC. Please note that the RPMs PDP WG has only 2 more regularly scheduled meetings on 27 and 29 October before the Consensus Call begins on the WG’s email distribution list. WG members are requested to review only the new highlighted text in the sections of the draft Final Report in the order as they appear on the agenda below. WG members should flag only factual errors, if any, in these new sections by 16:00 UTC, Monday, 26 October. Note that once a section has been reviewed/discussed in a meeting, it is considered closed. Proposed Agenda (also posted on the wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-10-27+Review+of+all+R…>): 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review draft Final Report – please review only the new highlighted text in the Google docs at the links below and in the following order: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1R99_8v0BYmIR…> Approach Taken by the Working Group [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1HJFo7JwmYH-M…> Annex G - Community Input [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1NkHqpcBY0RFy…> Annex E - Working Group Documents [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1eNSJ9UWv0iBJ…> COVER PAGE [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1CULo0JvPSHqt…> Next Steps [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1HaCI2EkvIS9e…> 1. Time Permitting (scheduled for 29 October): Description of Consensus Call Process; see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-w…>, pages 8-10 2. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0