Yes, that’s an improvement, thank you, and I would be agreeable with that. Zak Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com> 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ https://www.muscovitch.com/ https://dnattorney.com/ From: claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> Sent: February-25-20 11:50 AM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com> Cc: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 26 February 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC Sounds like a run-on sentence to me. Zak are you OK with this: There was general support in the Working Group for publishing this proposal in the Initial Report to seek public comment, with some Working Group members supporting the proposal as drafted. However, some Working Group members expressed opposition, in terms of both substance and implementation, including the proposed remedies and the definitions of “repeat offender” and “high volume cybersquatting”. On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:53 AM Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com>> wrote: Sure, Brian. Here is what I believe was the original text: There was general support in the Working Group for publishing this proposal in the Initial Report to seek public comment. Some Working Group members expressed practical concerns about implementing the proposal. And here is the proposed revised text: While there was general support in the Working Group for publishing this proposal in the Initial Report to seek public comment, and some Working Group members were in favor of the Individual Proposal as drafted, some Working Group members expressed substantial and serious concerns with both the Individual Proposal’s proposed definition of “repeat offender” and of “high volume cybersquatting”, as well as the proposed new remedies, and indicated that they were opposed to the Individual Proposal in substance and had practical concerns about implementing the proposal. Zak Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com> 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ https://www.muscovitch.com/ https://dnattorney.com/ From: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> Sent: February-25-20 10:42 AM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com>>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 26 February 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC Thanks Zak for this proposal in advance of tomorrow’s meeting. I wonder if you could confirm that I am reading this revised doc onscreen correctly. It seems that you have added an introductory “While” (so instead of: “There was…” it now reads: “While there was…”) and then the clause “and some Working Group members were in favor of the Individual Proposal as drafted…” If that’s right, these seem like unobjectionable clarifications. If not, would you be able to point out the proposed added / deleted text. There also seem to be a few missing connecting words towards the end (“and had”) so that it should read: “…in substance [and had] practical concerns about implementing the proposal.” Just checking, and thanks again! Brian From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 4:24 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 26 February 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC Just FYI, although I was loathe to propose revisions, I took another look at the “Working Group Deliberation” section with regards to Individual Proposal #15, and proposed in the Google Doc some revised language describing my sense of the WG’s deliberations on this issue, which I think were not entirely reflective of the WG’s deliberation in this instance. New proposed wording: Working Group Deliberation: While there was general support in the Working Group for publishing this proposal in the Initial Report to seek public comment, and some Working Group members were in favor of the Individual Proposal as drafted, some Working Group members expressed substantial and serious concerns with both the Individual Proposal’s proposed definition of “repeat offender” and of “high volume cybersquatting”, as well as the proposed new remedies and indicated that they were opposed to the Individual Proposal as drafted in substance. Zak Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com> 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ https://www.muscovitch.com/ https://dnattorney.com/ From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: February-24-20 1:26 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 26 February 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials below for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 26 February 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC. As is the GNSO's practice, the document is being circulated for the purpose of ensuring that WG members are comfortable with the format and overall coverage of the recommendations and deliberations. Please remember that the Initial Report is meant to focus on specific recommendations/proposals, with brief, relevant, accompanying rationale, rather than be a comprehensive record of the WG's deliberations. WG members are reminded that comments in the Google docs should be limited only to error corrections that you believe are necessary. The documents will be open for comment until COB Tuesday, 25 February. After that time they will be closed to comment. While they are closed comments will not be visible, but they will be displayed during the WG meeting. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. ICANN67 Status 3. Review Revisions from Action Items: TMCH Individual Proposals for which the Working Group is Seeking Input:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fh6KnBvqH78Pmo7qUBtR3JyIIvUifJ-8hzX9dcJr... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 4. Finalize Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: URS Individual Proposals:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kHBPLtbp6BgqmxZGPHC1Yeciulvvk79niPOuURI8... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> – Start at Proposal #16 5. Review Project Change Request and Revised Work Plan (attached) 6. AOB 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. _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org<mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.