Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 15 September 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/2020-09-15+Review+of+all+Ri.... Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: TM Claims Final Recommendation #5 ACTION ITEM: Reference the previous footnote that describes Spec 13 and Spec 9. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. TM Claims Final Recommendations #4 and #5; see revisions at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW-... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqL...> TM Claims Final Recommendation #5 -- Changed the placement of the recommendation as a New Policy Recommendation. -- Insert in parenthesis what Spec 13 and Spec 9 are. ACTION ITEM: Reference the previous footnote that describes Spec 13 and Spec 9. TM Claims Final Recommendation #4: -- Removed the sentence on the exemption language in the recommendation because this is addressed in Rec #5. -- Minor change in the contextual language – reference the status quo. 3. TMCH Final Recommendation #1; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y1MOiUU4G4_mzbte75RGXp22JT13k0Sym4OgwpCL... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1y1MOiUU4G4_mz...> -- The WG accepts the edits arising from the discussion of the public comments; there are no further changes. 4. TM-PDDRP Final Recommendation; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y1MOiUU4G4_mzbte75RGXp22JT13k0Sym4OgwpCL... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1y1MOiUU4G4_mz...> -- No change in the recommendation from what was published in the Initial Report, after review of the public comments. 5. AOB – Small Team on Sunrise Questions #3-#5 -- Small Team met but during that brief meeting no one suggested recommendation text. -- Paul Tattersfield subsequently suggested text, but one Small Team member expressed concerns with it and there were no other expressions of support. -- Paul Tattersfield may suggest alternative text. Not clear if the Small Team will support as the text has not been circulated. The Co-Chair and staff made the following points: (1) the WG has discussed the ALP extensively, both for the Initial Report (with no conclusion or recommendation) and in reviewing the public comments; (2) they thought the comments warranted a Small Team but it is clear the Small Team did not uncover a new issue or a solution; (3) as the problem remains what was identified early on and no solution has been proposed throughout the life of the WG or via the comments and Small Team work, this is not new and in fact may be out of scope (seeing how the WG treated other voluntary mechanisms). -- Finally, the Co-Chair emphasized that even with the Project Change Request being considered by the GNSO Council the WG does not have time to reopen or reconsider closed issues, and thus without agreement from the Small Team on recommendation text this item should remain closed.