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

Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposal re Q8.
by Tushnet, Rebecca Oct. 7, 2019

Oct. 7, 2019

While your previous language was ok by me, the new language of “function” doesn’t limit anything. As US practice recognizes, and as we have discussed, GIs routinely “function” as trademarks/source indicators. This language would just confuse matters more. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. > On Oct 7, 2019, at 1:29 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi(a)gmail.com> wrote: >

1 0

Approaches to Further Review of Individual URS Proposals
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 7, 2019

Oct. 7, 2019

Dear RPMs PDP WG members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, we are asking WG members to consider whether and how to revisit the individual URS proposals for further review. As you may recall, the WG briefly reviewed individual URS proposals in the weeks prior to the ICANN meeting at ICANN63 in Barcelona, Spain in October 2018. Then, during discussions over the course of two sessions at ICANN63, with some specific objections that insufficient attention had been given to the WG’s task of vetting the individual proposals, the WG broadly conceded that all 31 individual URS proposals<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ky5uajo8WDfY9x6lbtaEQhb0xXzKVlMSZKFQkHX…> would be included in the Initial Report. See specifically the discussions about how individual proposals and Sub Team proposals will be treated in the Initial Report by checking the following transcripts: 21 Oct 2018 (pp.21-42)<https://static.ptbl.co/static/attachments/191827/1540260386.pdf?1540260386>, 22 Oct 2018 (pp.2-25)<https://static.ptbl.co/static/attachments/191831/1540260885.pdf?1540260885>. Several weeks ago the WG Co-Chairs raised the question of whether the WG should revisit the individual URS proposals in some fashion in order to determine if the WG members still wish to include all 31 individual proposals or some subset of them in the Initial Report. Now that the discussion of the open and deferred TMCH charter questions is nearing a conclusion, perhaps as soon as this week, taking a cue from WG members the Co-Chairs understand that the WG may wish to again consider this question of whether and how to further review the individual URS proposals with a view to forming recommendations or more refined proposals in the Initial Report (as e.g., was done with the TM Claims and Sunrise proposals) and is widely understood to be the primary function of a WG. One possibility is for the WG to take a survey<https://forms.gle/kak3MEWFTNeq69wN9>, the purpose of which would be to "take the temperature of the room" and provide a snapshot of what URS individual proposals the WG membership believes may be able to garner substantial agreement to be a WG recommendation, or at least be more usefully refined to publish for public comment to gather community feedback. It is important to emphasize that the survey would not be a formal vote and the results of the survey would not determine which proposals get included in the Initial Report, but would help inform the WG’s decision making based upon the overall levels of support and opposition to each proposal. Participation in the survey would be optional, but could only be completed by current RPM WG members, who wish to reassess the URS individual proposals. Observers and non-members would not be permitted to participate in the survey. For transparency purposes, survey results would be published for the review by the WG. Following the survey, the WG members could, e.g., over the course of a few meetings, review the results and agree on the final determination as to which individual URS proposals would rise to the level of a recommendation or would at least have wide support for inclusion in the Initial Report for obtaining public comment. Alternatively, WG members are welcome to suggest other options for further review of the individual URS proposals, to agree that all proposals will be included in the Initial Report (as was determined at ICANN63), or to agree that all proposals with a ”sufficient level of support/non-objection” (as determined by the WG in the next few weeks) will be included in the Initial Report. The attached timeline and work plan indicate that the WG is currently scheduled to “Review all preliminary recommendations identified for inclusion in Initial Report (for URS, Sunrise, Claims, and TMCH)” at ICANN 66 in Montreal, Canada, at sessions tentatively planned for the afternoons of Saturday, November 2 and Sunday, November 3. If the WG decides to utilize a survey or other editing approach and does not complete its work on individual URS proposals prior to Montreal it is the co-chairs’ intention to stick with the Montreal work plan and then wrap up the URS discussions later in November. In any event, if we include all 31 proposals in the Initial Report we will need to review public comments on all and then decide which have or, with modifications, can garner consensus support for inclusion in the Final Report. If, on the other hand, we revisit the individual proposals now and include a smaller number in the Initial Report, it will allow the community to better focus its attention, and will leave us with fewer proposals and related public comments to consider for inclusion in the Final Report. We welcome WG members’ comments and suggestions concerning this question and time permitting further discussion during the meeting on 10 October. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie On Behalf of Brian Beckham, Phil Corwin, and Kathy Kleiman, RPMs PDP WG Co-Chairs

1 0

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 02 October 2019
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 2, 2019

Oct. 2, 2019

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 02 October 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, Zoom chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-10-02+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Charter Q12: Staff to check with ICANN Org to see if there are data on outages of the TMCH. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Conclude discussion of proposals relating to Open TMCH Charter Questions: a. Revised Proposal(s) re: Charter Question 7: Proposal submitted by Greg Shatan for Q7<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/109482780/Clean%20Version%…> (1 Oct 2019) (comparison version<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/109482780/Comparison%20of%…>) – Discussion postponed. b. Revised Proposal(s) re: Charter Question 8: Proposal submitted by Rebecca Tushnet for Q8<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/109482780/proposal.pdf?ver…> (1 Oct 2019) -- Areas of disagreement – term “source identifier”, more detail and statutes or treaties, and ancillary services. -- Re: “other IP” – On 3.2.4 – not sure the amendment is necessary, but no TMCH material where Deloitte does not make it clear that other marks are not included in the TMCH. -- But main page seems to suggest that if you are in the TMCH you get Sunrise and Claims. Could separate out from policy recommendation and text for AGB, but still noted. Be clear about text that goes into the AGB and what is a policy recommendation. What we obligate the TMCH provider to do could be noted for implementation. -- Has the rather loose use of "marks" and "Trademarks" been addressed? I would prefer use of some other term, like "designation", rather than "marks" if these are to be contrasted to "Trademarks". Otherwise, and in common use, "marks" and "Trademarks" or used and considered synonyms. -- The term “ancillary services” describes services that the TMCH might want to provide, but is subject to approval by ICANN in the contract. With regard to all of the categories, they all go into TMCH and all are eligible for the TMCH and get the protections. The “other marks” are included in the TMCH, but not for Sunrise and Claims. So, marks that go into the Clearing House but are not otherwise eligible for RPMs. -- Harmonizing the language used in the AGB could have policy implications. -- Need to be clear that only things in the categories designated by the WG get Sunrise and Claims RPMs. -- From TRIPS Art. 15(1): “Any sign, or any combination of signs, capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings, shall be capable of constituting a trademark. Such signs, in particular words including personal names, letters, numerals, figurative elements and combinations of colours as well as any combination of such signs, shall be eligible for registration as trademarks”. -- Some obvious problems w/that one (it jumps us right back into word marks, and it is about what is capable of being a TM, which is not our issue--our issue is what is in a statute or treaty, including GIs) -- The starting point for that category is that it must, first of all, be a “trademark” - so what Michael and others seem to be saying is that it may be helpful to at least have a pointer/description about what that word means. -- Except it's not helpful for our purposes--I have proposed "trademark, service mark, collective mark, or certification mark" which gives guidance at the level necessary rather than for the more general theoretical question "what is capable of being a trademark"? -- For proponents of the TRIPS definition: do you intend to include GIs? If not, how do you intend to exclude them? Proposal submitted by Claudio DiGangi<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/109482780/Question%208%20P…> for Q8 (1 Oct 2019) -- Continue discussion at the next meeting. 3. Discussion of Deferred Charter Questions (see the attached Status of WG Discussions on Agreed TMCH Charter Questions): TMCH Category 4: Costs & Other Fundamental Features: Charter Questions 12 & 13 -- Could we count as benefit the situation where the probability that two TMCH providers are down the same time is lower than the single one (given historical exp.)? -- Request from ICANN the periods of unavailability of the TMCH. ACTION: Staff to check with ICANN Org to see if there are data on outages of the TMCH. TMCH Category 5: Access & Accessibility: Charter Question 15 – Proposal submitted by Michael Karanicolas for Q15<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/109482780/Transparency%20P…> (1 Oct 2019) -- This was heavily discussed in the development of the TMCH because opening the TMCH would give a glimpse into a company’s business strategy. -- There was a proposal in the Sunrise Sub Team recommendation that a search could be allowed if there was sufficient rationale, on a case-by-case basis. (John McElwaine and Kathy Kleiman draft). -- Not clear that there will be agreement in the WG on this proposal. -- Could put it out for public comment in absence of agreement. -- Could the TMCH be quasi open? Where access can be achieved under a certain process. -- Open TMCH could aid both TM owners and potential registrants, reducing cost burdens. -- QUESTION: Will the fact that some jurisdictions do not have a “use” requirement to register a TM affect the question of openness of the TM database? -- Talking about disclosure of business strategies to their competitors; from the EU side there are very different competition and TM rules. -- Could include in the Initial Report for public comment with both sides presented. 4. AOB: Schedule meeting week of 07 October to Thursday, 10 October at 17:00 UTC due to conflicts.

1 0

Post Call | Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG | Wednesday, 02 October 2019 at 17:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Oct. 2, 2019

Oct. 2, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Wednesday, 02 October 2019 at 17:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/DpMCBw> (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, Julie

1 0

Apologies for today’s call
by Greg Shatan Oct. 2, 2019

Oct. 2, 2019

I have a business conflict and doubt I’ll be able to be on.. Greg

1 0

TMCH Proposals re: Action Items from 25 September WG Meeting
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 2, 2019

Oct. 2, 2019

Dear RPM WG members, Per the actions below from the WG meeting on 25 September the following proposals have been sent to the WG since the last meeting:  Proposal submitted by Martin P Valent for Q2<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/109482780/Martin%20Pablo%2…> (1 Oct 2019)  Proposal submitted by Greg Shatan for Q7<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/109482780/Clean%20Version%…> (1 Oct 2019) (comparison version<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/109482780/Comparison%20of%…>)  Proposal submitted by Rebecca Tushnet for Q8<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/109482780/proposal.pdf?ver…> (1 Oct 2019)  Proposal submitted by Claudio DiGangi<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/109482780/Question%208%20P…> for Q8 (1 Oct 2019)  Proposal submitted by Michael Karanicolas for Q15<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/109482780/Transparency%20P…> (1 Oct 2019) These are collected for your convenient reference on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/TMCH+Proposals. 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: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 11:00 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 02 October at 17:00-18:30 UTC Dear RPM WG members, This is a reminder. Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 02 October at 17:00-18:30 UTC. As a reminder, please also see the following action items from the meeting on 25 September: * Question 7: Proponents (Kleiman/Muscovitch and Greg Shatan) have until 19:00 UTC on Tuesday, 01 October to provide any revisions to their proposals. * Question 8: Rebecca Tushnet, Claudio diGangi, Jason Schaeffer, Susan Payne (and any WG member interested in joining the small group) provide a final revised proposal by Tuesday, 01 October at 19:00 UTC. * Deferred Questions: WG members may proposal relating to any of the deferred questions by 19:00 UTC on Tuesday, 01 October for discussion on the call on 02 October. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Conclude discussion of proposals relating to Open TMCH Charter Questions: * Revised Proposal(s) re: Charter Question 7 * Revised Proposal(s) re: Charter Question 8 3. Discussion of Deferred Charter Questions (see the attached Status of WG Discussions on Agreed TMCH Charter Questions): * TMCH Category 4: Costs & Other Fundamental Features: Charter Questions 12 & 13 * TMCH Category 5: Access & Accessibility: Charter Question 15 * TMCH Category 6: Balance: Charter Question 16 * TMCH Category 1: Education: Charter Questions 1, 2, and 3 * TMCH Category 2: Verification & Updating of TMCH Database: Charter Questions 4, 5, and 6 4. Time permitting --Initiate discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so. 5. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Revised Q7 Proposal
by Greg Shatan Oct. 1, 2019

Oct. 1, 2019

All, I have attached clean and comparison versions of a revised proposal for Q7, as discussed on last week's call. Best regards, Greg

1 0

Proposal re: Q15
by Michael Karanicolas Oct. 1, 2019

Oct. 1, 2019

Hi all, Please find attached a proposal addressing Q15 of the TMCH Charter Questions. I look forward to discussing further. Best wishes, Michael Karanicolas Wikimedia Fellow Yale Law School

2 2

REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 02 October at 17:00-18:30 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 1, 2019

Oct. 1, 2019

Dear RPM WG members, This is a reminder. Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 02 October at 17:00-18:30 UTC. As a reminder, please also see the following action items from the meeting on 25 September: * Question 7: Proponents (Kleiman/Muscovitch and Greg Shatan) have until 19:00 UTC on Tuesday, 01 October to provide any revisions to their proposals. * Question 8: Rebecca Tushnet, Claudio diGangi, Jason Schaeffer, Susan Payne (and any WG member interested in joining the small group) provide a final revised proposal by Tuesday, 01 October at 19:00 UTC. * Deferred Questions: WG members may proposal relating to any of the deferred questions by 19:00 UTC on Tuesday, 01 October for discussion on the call on 02 October. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Conclude discussion of proposals relating to Open TMCH Charter Questions: * Revised Proposal(s) re: Charter Question 7 * Revised Proposal(s) re: Charter Question 8 3. Discussion of Deferred Charter Questions (see the attached Status of WG Discussions on Agreed TMCH Charter Questions): * TMCH Category 4: Costs & Other Fundamental Features: Charter Questions 12 & 13 * TMCH Category 5: Access & Accessibility: Charter Question 15 * TMCH Category 6: Balance: Charter Question 16 * TMCH Category 1: Education: Charter Questions 1, 2, and 3 * TMCH Category 2: Verification & Updating of TMCH Database: Charter Questions 4, 5, and 6 4. Time permitting --Initiate discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so. 5. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

3 2

Please remember to register for ICANN66 prep week webinars
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 1, 2019

Oct. 1, 2019

Dear all, Please remember to register for ICANN66 prep week webinars! Announcement can be found here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2019-09-16-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> To attend any of the below webinars, please register here [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__go.icann.org_prepweeksi…> by 11 October to receive joining instructions. You may also submit questions during the registration process. All registered attendees will receive participation details days before the webinar dates. ICANN66 Prep Week Webinars Schedule Monday, 14 October 2019 16:00 UTC | Global Stakeholder Engagement (GSE) Update: What to Expect at ICANN66 Tuesday, 15 October 2019 16:00 UTC | ICANN66 Plenary Session: DNS Abuse 23:00 UTC | Pre-ICANN66 Contractual Compliance Update Wednesday, 16 October 2019 16:00 UTC | ICANN66 Plenary Session: Evolution of ICANN's Multistakeholder Model 23:00 UTC | Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Update Thursday, 17 October 2019 12:00 UTC | Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Policy Update 16:00 UTC | Pre-ICANN66 Policy Update All webinars be in English. Materials from the Pre-ICANN66 Policy Update will also be available in French. Recordings and materials will be posted here<https://meetings.icann.org/en/montreal66-prep-week>. Prep Week was established to help streamline the pre-meeting experience, as well as increase awareness of plenary topics, foster deeper conversations and enhance briefings and readout sessions. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0