Hi Brian,

I’ll defer to Ariel concerning your suggested revision.  Concerning the link to the page, apologies – it appears to be an incorrect link.  The correct link is this: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-10-13+ICANN69+Hamburg-+Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+in+all+gTLDS.

Kind regards,

Julie

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int>
Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 3:24 PM
To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: Review Updated Final Report Sections - Input by 23 Oct

Thanks Ariel,

Regarding the new proposal #3 on language, given that the goal was due process in attempting notice of the case, and given that the script of the TLD could be at least potentially applicable in ascertaining the case language, but whereas “language used by the registry and/or predominant language of the country/territory of the registry” (as it is currently stated in the 4^th bullet) may in reality have zero bearing on the case (e.g., imagine a hypothetical Korean-scripted TLD managed by a Registry based in Ireland for corporate purposes), I thought the intent was to combine the 4^th and 6^th bullets to something like:

• the language/script used in the domain name (including the TLD), in particular if it is an Internationalized Domain Name.

I am not sure if the highlighting will show up on the mailing list, so to be clear, I have suggested adding “…(including the TLD), in particular…” because (a) in the WG call, we spoke about the potential relevance of the TLD in lieu of the location of the registry – see point above, and (b) even if the TLD is not an IDN, this fact can be relevant (i.e., the fact that a 2LD and/or TLD is in English could be as relevant to the language issue as if it is in another non-English script).

I also think the word “severe” in the 2^nd para of the context overstates the case, and I do not believe there was agreement as to this qualifier (and certainly not if the Provider will send a translated Notice of Complaint document), so would propose deleting it.

Thanks for considering this in light of the prior WG conversations!

PS, I have tried to review the call and transcript, but the referred to link did not work for me: 

https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-10-13+Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+WG.

Brian

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:56 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: Review Updated Final Report Sections - Input by 23 Oct

Dear WG members,

This is a reminder for reviewing the updates on the following google docs (please see below). If you have any further input, please share on list no later than Friday, 23 Oct COB.

Thank you,

Mary, Julie, Ariel

From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:34 PM
To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Review Updated Final Report Sections - Input by 23 Oct

Dear WG members,

Thank you for your participation and input during today’s RPM sessions. Staff have completed today’s action items; please review the updated content in the following google docs:

• Phase 1 Final PDP Recommendations: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3CfBODC_T_7kY_rCVo_pTkiWUH0cFG1Gac/edit# [docs.google.com]
  • pp.6-10: Inserted the URS recommendation (converted from URS Proposal #34) regarding the language of proceeding and its contextual language.  
  • pp.10-11: Updated the URS recommendation regarding the translation of the Notice of Complaint to maintain consistency with the recommendation regarding the language of proceeding.
  • pp.26-29: Inserted the TMCH recommendation regarding geographical indicators and its contextual language approved by the WG.

• Annex: Charter Questions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hmF5eKnuwjv-Sk4cWfTkM_omKpr0kLH2SSUjAnkFWII/edit# [docs.google.com]
  • pp.18-21: Inserted the WG-approved text related to the ALP under Sunrise Q8(a), which concerns the review of ALP.
  • pp.28-29: Rearranged the sentences related to the GPML (same updates have been incorporated in the “Background [docs.google.com]” – p.11 and “Additional Marketplace RPMs [docs.google.com]” sections)

If you have any further comments/suggestions, please share on list no later than Friday, 23 October COB. These above items will be considered closed after the deadline.

Best Regards,

Mary, Julie, Ariel

World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.