Dear WG members, Per the action item below to draft a new Q15 proposal relating to the discussion during the meeting on 16 October, staff submits for your consideration the following suggested text. We very much look forward to working with you on further revisions as needed, as well as to the discussion on today’s call. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie Staff-suggested draft (based on Working Group discussions and suggestions made on the Working Group call of 16 October): The Working Group understands that, on the one hand, trademark owners may register trademarks and enter them into the Trademark Clearinghouse as part of a business-confidential strategy, including for new products yet to enter the market. On the other hand, some Working Group members have noted that it was not clear, during the lead up to the launch of the 2012 New gTLD Program, that the Trademark Clearinghouse database was intended to be a non-publicly-accessible, confidential database. In addition, some Working Group members expressed concern that potential registrants may benefit from knowing what marks are already in the Trademark Clearinghouse database prior to attempting a registration, especially in view of the likelihood (based on discussions the Working Group has held with the current Trademark Clearinghouse validator) that some marks may consist of generic words which potential registrants may legitimately wish to use as a domain name. The Working Group agrees in principle that an audit of the Trademark Clearinghouse database can be beneficial. Accordingly, the Working Group recommends that, in order to inform the next review of the Trademark Clearinghouse, a small group of community volunteers be formed that will have limited, specifically-defined, confidential access to the Trademark Clearinghouse database, for the sole purpose of working with ICANN Org and any appointed third party examiner on such review. The scope of such confidential access is to be limited to oversight purposes only and must not violate any terms of confidentiality that apply to trademark owners whose marks are already in the Trademark Clearinghouse database at that time. From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 3:27 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 16 October 2019 Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 16 October 2019 at 17:00 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/2019-10-16+Review+of+all+Ri.... Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Open and Deferred TMCH Questions: Q7 Design Marks: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Kleiman/Muscovitch and Shatan proposals in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q8 GIs: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Tushnet proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q12: ACTION: Staff will work with Maxim to revise the proposal to include context and background, and make it more formal. Make it clear that this is an implementation recommendation, not policy. Publish to the WG email list for review. Q15: ACTIONS: 1) WG agrees to publish Karanicolas proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. 2) ACTION: Staff to draft a new proposal based on suggestions and circulate it to interested WG members and the Co-Chairs. Q2: Proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent: ACTIONS: 1) Martin to revise the proposal with assistance of other WG members and circulate it on the WG email list for review. 2) Staff will check to see if either party to the contract can seek modifications. Discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so: ACTION: WG members are requested to continue discussion on the email list. See the draft survey at: survey [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_kak3MEWFTNeq6...>. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Status of Questions Q7, Q8, Q12, and Q15: Q7 Design Marks: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Kleiman/Muscovitch and Shatan proposals in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q8 GIs: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Tushnet proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. Q12: Proposal from Maxim Alzoba – TMCH Operational Considerations -- Need to improve redundancy and availability of the TMCH. -- Question: Are you referring to the TM database, run by IBM? Deloitte is the validator and IBM is the maintainer of the database. Answer: Relates to the provision of the database. Or could be a issue with the design, it’s hard to say. Need to review how it works. Might not be limited to software functions. Could be dataflow design. -- Need to get background on the cases reported to GDD colleagues. The validation function is kept separate from the database function. If the WG wishes to investigate this further this is probably an issue with implementation as to SLA (there are applicable SLAs). Need also to go back and look at the deliberations concerning the original design of the TMCH and database. -- Information about the SOW with IBM (and for that matter the SLAs with Deloitte) on this Working Group wiki page, under TMCH Contracting: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864 ACTION: Staff will work with Maxim to revise the proposal to include context and background, and make it more formal. Make it clear that this is an implementation recommendation, not policy. Publish to the WG email list for review. Q15: ACTION: WG agrees to publish Karanicolas proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. -- Hoped that we could get consensus. -- Could allow a limited group to access the data, perhaps a future review team? Can’t just open up now when those who participate have been assured of confidentiality. -- Question - is there a way for the WG to reach agreement on how to ensure there is some kind of specific, limited access to the data in the TMDB for oversight purposes only (including future reviews)? ACTION: Staff to draft a new proposal based on suggestions and circulate it to interested WG members and the Co-Chairs. 3. Remaining Deferred Charter Questions (see the attached Status of WG Discussions on Agreed TMCH Charter Questions): a. Close Discussion: TMCH Category 6: Balance: Charter Question 16: Close discussion. b. Discussion: TMCH Category 1: Education: Charter Questions 1, 2, and 3 – Proposal submitted by Martin P Valent for Q2 (1 Oct 2019<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/109482780/Martin%20Pablo%20...>) Q1: Close discussion. Q2: Proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent: -- TMCH should educate rights holders; it is already doing outreach and should do more. -- Needs to be revised to be in the form of a recommendation. -- Amendment: this effort would work in conjunction with whatever marketing ICANN is doing to support knowledge around new gTLD program in general and the TMCH. -- Not clear as drafting what is the remit of Deloitte and what falls elsewhere. Some of this should be done at an ICANN level. -- Not sure involving ICANN at this level is required. -- ICANN is not involved in marketing gTLDs. -- Needs to be some definition/scope. Don’t see TMCH providing education on RPMs. We also need to clarify what is meant by “education.” Is this essentially “awareness” or is something more contemplated? -- In the end we need much more in terms of education. If it’s not in the current contract then it’s worth considering in future discussion. -- Need to be careful how to express this. -- From staff: ICANN Org does not have control over the TMCH provider’s website and information. The contract was an initial 5-year term that expired on the first anniversary of the entering into force of the new gTLD program, and followed by consecutive 1-year renewal terms unless there’s a 180 day notice of termination. See: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864 . We are in the 1-year renewal term. -- Should look at what Deloitte already provides on their website. -- There's a lot of talk about what should be done - but no-one identifying anything actually glaringly missing. -- Maybe it’s more of an outreach question, if the education already exists. -- We should be identifying what’s not being done. Otherwise, we’re just endorsing education conceptually, or providing a generic roadmap for what could be done that will include many things that are already being done. ACTION: Martin to revise the proposal with assistance of other WG members and circulate it on the WG email list for review. ACTION: Staff will check to see if either party to the contract can seek modifications. 4. Discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so. See the draft survey at: survey [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_kak3MEWFTNeq6...>: -- Survey does not designate which proposals go into the Initial Report – that will be decided via WG discussion. -- WG members should consider whether or not names and affiliations should be included, although the survey is not a poll. -- WG members will decide what to do with the data. -- Co-Chairs suggest allowing WG members to take the survey as a way to inform, but not direct, WG discussions. ACTION: WG members are requested to continue discussion on the email list.