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

REMINDER re: Proposed Consensus Designations: RPMs PDP WG Final Report Recommendations
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 18, 2020

Nov. 18, 2020

Dear WG members, As of the deadline of Thursday, 12 November no WG members have indicated any objections to the attached Proposed Consensus Designations. Thus, these Proposed Consensus Designations are considered to be accepted by the WG. Reminder: Per the RPMs PDP WG Work Plan, WG members, as a small group, may submit their views for any recommendation that did not receive full consensus support from the Working Group (i.e., only TMCH Final Recommendation #1) by 20 November, although it will be helpful to submit them, if any, as soon as possible. Provided such views are a proposal that meets the criteria for a Minority View (See Working Group Guidelines at Section 3.6), they will be documented in the Final Report in “Annex D - Working Group Members' Views on TMCH Final Recommendation #1”. 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: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 at 10:12 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Consensus Designations: RPMs PDP WG Final Report Recommendations Dear WG members, On behalf of the RPMs PDP WG Co-Chairs, please see the attached proposed Consensus Designations for WG review. In summary, the Co-Chairs have designated all recommendations except TMCH Final Recommendation #1 as “Full Consensus”. Because of several members’ collective Minority Statement, submitted by Zak Muscovitch, regarding TMCH Final Recommendation #1, the Co-Chairs have designated that recommendation as “Consensus”. Please see below for the various consensus level designations from section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines. Per the RPMs PDP WG Work Plan, WG members have until Thursday, 12 November, to indicate via the list whether they accept the Co-Chairs’ evaluation of the Consensus Designations. Per the Working Group Guidelines, if a WG member or members object to the designations, the Co-Chairs “should reevaluate and publish an updated evaluation”. A non-response from WG members will be taken as non-objection. Note that per the Work Plan, WG members, as a small group, may submit their views for any recommendation that did not receive full consensus support from the Working Group (i.e., only TMCH Final Recommendation #1) by 20 November, although it will be helpful to submit them, if any, as soon as possible. Provided such views are a proposal that meets the criteria for a Minority View (See Working Group Guidelines at Section 3.6), they will be documented in the Final Report in “Annex D - Working Group Members' Views on TMCH Final Recommendation #1”. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie Consensus Designations, per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-w…>, section 3.6 Standard Methodology for Making Decisions: The Chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: * Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus. * Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree. * Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it. * Divergence (also referred to as No Consensus) - a position where there isn't strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless. * Minority View - refers to a proposal where a small number of people support the recommendation. This can happen in response to a Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus; or, it can happen in cases where there is neither support nor opposition to a suggestion made by a small number of individuals.

1 0

Proposed Consensus Designations: RPMs PDP WG Final Report Recommendations
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 11, 2020

Nov. 11, 2020

Dear WG members, On behalf of the RPMs PDP WG Co-Chairs, please see the attached proposed Consensus Designations for WG review. In summary, the Co-Chairs have designated all recommendations except TMCH Final Recommendation #1 as “Full Consensus”. Because of several members’ collective Minority Statement, submitted by Zak Muscovitch, regarding TMCH Final Recommendation #1, the Co-Chairs have designated that recommendation as “Consensus”. Please see below for the various consensus level designations from section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines. Per the RPMs PDP WG Work Plan, WG members have until Thursday, 12 November, to indicate via the list whether they accept the Co-Chairs’ evaluation of the Consensus Designations. Per the Working Group Guidelines, if a WG member or members object to the designations, the Co-Chairs “should reevaluate and publish an updated evaluation”. A non-response from WG members will be taken as non-objection. Note that per the Work Plan, WG members, as a small group, may submit their views for any recommendation that did not receive full consensus support from the Working Group (i.e., only TMCH Final Recommendation #1) by 20 November, although it will be helpful to submit them, if any, as soon as possible. Provided such views are a proposal that meets the criteria for a Minority View (See Working Group Guidelines at Section 3.6), they will be documented in the Final Report in “Annex D - Working Group Members' Views on TMCH Final Recommendation #1”. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie Consensus Designations, per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-24oct19-en.pdf>, section 3.6 Standard Methodology for Making Decisions: The Chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: * Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus. * Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree. * Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it. * Divergence (also referred to as No Consensus) - a position where there isn't strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless. * Minority View - refers to a proposal where a small number of people support the recommendation. This can happen in response to a Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus; or, it can happen in cases where there is neither support nor opposition to a suggestion made by a small number of individuals.

2 1

REMINDER: RPMs PDP WG Consensus Call: 30 Oct - 08 Nov
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 10, 2020

Nov. 10, 2020

Dear WG members, As a reminder, and per the message below, this Consensus Call opened Friday, 30 October 2020 for a 10-day period, closing on Sunday, 08 November 2020. Per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/…>, 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 non objection. 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: Friday, October 30, 2020 at 9:52 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] RPMs PDP WG Consensus Call: 30 Oct - 08 Nov 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 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/…>, 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

5 4

ICANN69 Policy Outcomes Report
by Andrea Glandon Nov. 9, 2020

Nov. 9, 2020

Dear all, The ICANN69 Policy Outcomes Report (formerly known as the Post-ICANN69 Policy Report) is now available. Please click here to access it: http://go.icann.org/outcomes69 Thank you. Andrea Glandon GNSO SO/AC Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype ID: acglandon76 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com]<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 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…>

1 0

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

Consensus Call
by Susan Payne Nov. 8, 2020

Nov. 8, 2020

Dear Co-Chairs, WG members, Mary, Ariel and Julie I’d like to thank our Policy Staff team who have so ably and tirelessly supported this working group, the co-chairs and all the working group members for their hard work throughout the long effort to develop this set of final phase 1 recommendations. I think that most of us, irrespective of our perspectives, had outcomes that we wanted to see from this PDP which have not been realised, but the WG members have worked together to reach a set of final recommendations on which there could be broad support, and this is the essence of the multistakeholder process. Whilst the final report recommendations, therefore, do not reflect my preferred outcomes, I support the process and, as such, I can SUPPORT the final report. Many thanks Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Valideus Consulting, Com Laude Group. Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

1 0

Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: RPMs PDP WG Consensus Call: 30 Oct - 08 Nov
by Steve Levy Nov. 6, 2020

Nov. 6, 2020

Dear WG members, Mary, Ariel, and Julie: As we are now close to the end of this very long process, I am pleased to indicate my SUPPORT for all Phase 1 Final PDP Recommendations. Also, my sincere thanks go out to the ICANN staff who did a Herculean job of keeping all of the moving parts of this effort carefully sorted, to our triumvirate of Chairpersons who exhibited noble leadership and navigated our group through some contentious and challenging episodes, and to all of the WG members who participated in 4.5 years worth of weekly calls, team meetings, and information gathering efforts despite the sometimes heated nature of our debates. As for me, I have learned a great deal from this experience and am grateful for that. I hope the few remaining steps of this process go smoothly and I wish everyone warm and pleasant winter holidays. Regards, Steve [signature_308756836] Steven M. Levy, Esq. Accent Law Group, Inc. 301 Fulton St. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19147 United States Phone: +1-215-327-9094 Email: slevy(a)AccentLawGroup.com<mailto:slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.accent…> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linked…> ________________________________________ Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege. From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 at 10:18 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: RPMs PDP WG Consensus Call: 30 Oct - 08 Nov Dear WG members, As a reminder, and per the message below, this Consensus Call opened Friday, 30 October 2020 for a 10-day period, closing on Sunday, 08 November 2020. Per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/…>, 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 non objection. 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: Friday, October 30, 2020 at 9:52 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] RPMs PDP WG Consensus Call: 30 Oct - 08 Nov 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 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/…>, 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

1 0

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