Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 07 August 2019 at 17:00 UTC. Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-08-07+Review+of+all+Ri.... Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: ACTION ITEM: Staff will adjust the timeline to take into account a review of the individual URS proposals. ACTION ITEM: Staff to circulate the poll results on open TMCH issues. Notes: 1. No updates provided. 2. Brief Discussion: Process for Determining Individual URS Proposals to Include in the Initial Report -- Decision will be determined by the WG via the email list and meetings. -- Where we left the individual proposals: there were 36 and we didn’t test support for them. Some are not likely to have high support in the WG. Should not have the community comment on proposals that don’t have wide or reasonable support. -- Good idea to float the idea and take up specifics later. -- 36 proposals are too many to ask the community to comment on. -- Why did we put them all in? We made no decision on whether some had support or not to go into the Initial Report. -- Good idea that the decision on this will not be on any one call but will involve list as well and get broad input. -- At least one proposal is moot, so good to review them. -- Question: Do we plan to create a link to Individual Proposals that were not reported on in FR so commenters can go and view them if they are so inclined and consider their observations in light of them? Answer: the WG has quite a bit of flexibility. It will largely depend on what the group thinks is most effective. Don’t forget that all public comments need to be reviewed. The staff experience has been that, the more focused and targeted the “ask” you make of the community, the more likely you are to get helpful, specific comments. -- Could run a survey to gauge support. -- One WG member expressed concern about revisiting the review of the proposals. 3. Background on the TMCH and Previous WG Discussions Chronological listing doc: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20190806/0a19b805/Chr... -- Mostly the same version as was circulated 2 years ago with minor updates. Open TMCH questions doc: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20190806/0a19b805/Ope... -- Open questions that had proposals. Could start with these and then move to the deferred questions. -- Three of the agreed TMCH charter questions that the WG did quite a bit of discussion on. First column is the question (questions 7, 8, and 10); second column is the proposals nearly verbatim; third column is where things were left in mid-2017. -- Question 7 – proposal submitted by Kathy, then where the WG left off. Co-Chairs and staff are considering whether to provide the WG with questions to facilitate discussion. -- Question 8 – proposal submitted by Paul McGrady, and where the WG left off with a briefing by Deloitte. -- Question 10 – proposal submitted by Michael Graham – the conclusions of the TM Claims Sub Team could be relevant (not to expand the matching rules). Consider whether in view of that conclusion whether the discussion on this question could be closed. ACTION ITEM: Staff to circulate the poll results on open TMCH issues.