Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 09 March 2019 at 17:15 UTC at the virtual ICANN67 meeting. 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/2020-03-09+ICANN67+-+Review.... Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: 1. Introduction to the EPDP Suggested Potential/Preliminary Recommendations (topic for 10 March) ACTION ITEM: WG members are requested to review the new text in the Background<https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hDBmPZnazCz2Tv4yFOyBJsMEHOL5K1LQh7krGJ_...> (pages 14-15) and the URS Deliberations<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZWow09gE6-YmZYcty81CT2Tujm-3vTZE7lHj2fI...> (page 1) sections pertaining to the EPDP (redlined text in the links). 2. Public Comment Tool: ACTION ITEMS: If they wish, WG members may review the tool and send any questions to the email distribution list noting the section and question number. See: https://forms.gle/FjAarKNu2HGzdKo8A 2. Deliberations of Trademark PDDRP – Review Action Items from 04 March Meeting NEW ACTION ITEM: Add clarifying text re: Article 9 to the context: “This recommendation specifically concerns a proposed amendment to the following rule of the TM-PDDRP Rule 3(g)s, and a reference to Article 9 of the TM-PDDRP” and a reference to Article 9. 3. Review of Initial Report Boilerplate Sections Next Steps: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUr_YS7PbxFDapazk2wtGxPulPsxgL76P45uCsSv... ACTION ITEM: Staff will review the Charter to make sure any overarching issues are reflected in the Next Steps document and in the Charter Questions annex. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Introduction to the EPDP Suggested Potential/Preliminary Recommendations (topic for 10 March) -- WG may wish to consider if there are recommendations or questions it wishes to put forward in the Initial Report for Public comment. -- Staff proposed text (in the email) includes the source document – such as the Temp Spec – for the text (not yet reviewed by the WG Co-Chairs). -- As of 20 May 2019 there is a temporary consensus policy. -- Implementation of Phase I is well underway. -- While some updates may be necessary for the procedural aspects of the URS and supplemental rules, there may only need to be one modification needed to the URS rules. ACTION ITEM: WG members are requested to review the new text in the Background<https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hDBmPZnazCz2Tv4yFOyBJsMEHOL5K1LQh7krGJ_...> (pages 14-15) and the URS Deliberations<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZWow09gE6-YmZYcty81CT2Tujm-3vTZE7lHj2fI...> (page 1) sections pertaining to the EPDP (redlined text in the links). 3. Public Comment Tool: -- Standard tool to capture public comments – used by EPDP and Auction Proceeds. ACTION ITEM: Staff will check with EPDP support staff to determine whether it wasn’t feasible to allow submission via Word document (as EPDP didn’t allow that option). ACTION ITEM: If they wish, WG members may review the tool and send any questions to the email distribution list noting the section and question number. See: https://forms.gle/FjAarKNu2HGzdKo8A 4. Initial Report Review of Deliberations/Context – See the Google docs at: https://community.icann.org/x/1SOJBw a. Deliberations of Trademark PDDRP – Review Action Items from 04 March Meeting ACTION ITEM: Keep the footnote but add a direct link to each of the providers supplemental rules. – This was completed during the 04 March meeting. ACTION ITEM: Re: “The filing of a joint Complaint or consolidation is to be permitted only where: (i) the Complaints relate to the Registry Operator’s conduct with respect only to the top or the second level of that gTLD for all Complaints” – add text to clarify. -- Changed to: The filing of a joint Complaint or consolidation is to be permitted only where: (i) the Complaints relate [to the same conduct] by the Registry Operator, at ’s conduct with respect only to the top or the second level [of the same] that gTLD for all Complaints; and (ii) all the trademark owners in the case of a joint Complaint or the Complaints (s) for which consolidation is being requested that ato be consolidated have satisfied the Threshold Review criteria specified in Article 9 of the TM-PDDRP. ACTION ITEM: In #1: Add a reference to Article 9 of TM-PDDRP. -- This has been added. NEW ACTION ITEM: Add clarifying text re: Article 9 to the context: “This recommendation specifically concerns a proposed amendment to the following rule of the TM-PDDRP Rule 3(g)s, and a reference to Article 9 of the TM-PDDRP” and a reference to Article 9. b. Deliberations of Additional Marketplace – Review Action Items from 04 March Meeting The following action items were addressed in real time during the meeting: ACTION ITEM: Add this text at the end of the second paragraph: “This necessarily required the working group to have an appreciation of the wider RPM landscape.” ACTION ITEM: Remove the link from the text and put it into the footnote. 5. Review of Initial Report Boilerplate Sections – See the Google docs at: https://community.icann.org/x/1SOJBw a. Background (introduced on 04 March): https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hDBmPZnazCz2Tv4yFOyBJsMEHOL5K1LQh7krGJ_... -- URS Recommendation #1 pertains to the EPDP work. Staff sent an update to the URS Deliberations document showing in redline the staff proposed edits. b. Next Steps: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUr_YS7PbxFDapazk2wtGxPulPsxgL76P45uCsSv... -- Numbers 2, 3, and 4 are the overarching charter questions are in the Charter. -- Question: Numbers 1 and 5 are not in the Charter. Why is that? Also, what about the other General questions? Answer: When reviewing the topics for the URS there is a table with a section on the overarching questions, numbers 1-5. -- In the deliberations of the WG some of these questions came up off and on. These came up during the URS discussions. -- Missing is the set of general questions in the Charter and the general effectiveness of the RPMs. Those should be added to the Next Steps document. -- Text added with new question relating to the additional marketplace RPMs: “In addition, based on an early suggestion from one of its Sub Teams, the Working Group is expected to consider the following general question related to the additional marketplace RPMs: “How, and to what extent, does use of Protected Marks Lists (e.g. blocking services) affect the utilization of other RPMs, especially Sunrise registrations?” This question is related to the Overarching Charter Question #3 as described above.” ACTION ITEM: Staff will review the Charter to make sure any overarching issues are reflected in the Next Steps document and in the Charter Questions annex. c. Approach Taken by the Working Group: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R9_cSpOv_BfdSM_8bpyIJ2qa9-NF9onlWO5LOBNC... -- This is text that has been discussed; it documents how the WG conducted its work. d. Annex B - Charter Questions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J6oMy7XqA_xcHcEY3RUUxcfozVlxs_5HnOagRm8O... -- These will be updated per the action above. e. Annex C - Working Group Documents: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WET4XdASUVplFkph3EirPok1uskIovjcEn5Od0NM... -- This is a list of the documents for each topic from the wiki. f. Executive Summary: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12dP6x9PIxGtPrflVMlCUT4JUpE1WxQ8BVuhNMrL4... -- Highlighted text is where staff will need to check the numbers. g. Overview of Preliminary Recommendations and Questions for Community Input: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jY9AUhl7EL1xyO0WytF-QJvV11roDQjk0gJCWdiR... -- This part duplicates much of the Executive Summary. Might still want to have it here for reference. -- WG agrees to leave it even if it is repetitive. -- Otherwise this is just a repeat of the recommendations captured from each deliberations section. h. Cover Page: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16SRR5Y_WqLSHst2Sq3BVGdfiBjb1b02qcoMfZ40W... -- This is just a brief summary of what will be covered in the Initial Report. It is standard text for a cover page of an Initial Report, taken from the templates for these reports. i. Deliberations of the Working Group [introduction – recommendations already covered]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Q-fJlDUygE2jOJQIGCVeuuH2p6o_sdK9jpt4AFr... -- This section describes how the various Deliberations sections are laid out and why. -- High level summary of the deliberations that led to the recommendations and questions. j. Individual Proposals (Non-Recommendations) [introduction – recommendations already covered]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Q-fJlDUygE2jOJQIGCVeuuH2p6o_sdK9jpt4AFr... -- Includes this disclaimer language (captured as a previous action): “This section does not include the Working Group’s deliberations on proposals submitted by individual Working Group members that did not rise to the level of becoming Working Group preliminary recommendations.” k. Annex E - Community Input -- Documents the outreach to the community and the feedback received.