Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 23 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/2019-10-23+Review+of+all+Ri.... Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Open and Deferred TMCH Questions: Category 4: Costs & Other Fundamental Features, Q12: Include Maxim Alzoba’s proposal in the Initial Report for public comment. Category 5: Access & Accessibility, Q15: Include Michael Karanicolas’ proposal in the Initial Report for public comment. (No agreement to include the new proposal.) Category 1: Education, Q2: Staff will assist in putting Martin de Silva’s proposal in the form of a recommendation for review by Martin and the WG as draft text for the Initial Report. Survey on URS Individual Proposals: Add affiliation and a comment field. Send the survey out today with the deadline set at 23:59 UTC on Friday, 01 November. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: Kathy Kleiman has joined the faculty as a fellow at American University. 2. Remaining Charter Questions (see the attached Status of WG Discussions on Agreed TMCH Charter Questions): a. Category 4: Costs & Other Fundamental Features, Q12: Close Discussion -- Revised proposal from Maxim Alzoba. ACTION: Include the proposal in the Initial Report for Public Comment. b. Category 5: Access & Accessibility, Q15: Close Discussion -- New proposal based on suggestions from Rebecca and others. -- Serious concerns. It seems to suggest that what AG did was a breach of confidentiality. Should proceed on the assumption is that auditing is a legitimate function. -- The AG access was done on the basis of the GAC request. Would this change the ability for GAC to make such requests in future. -- Perception was that there were strongly held views in the WG on both sides as to whether the marks should be available publicly and we would seek public comment (Karanicolas proposal). -- Don’t object to a confidential audit, but not clear on the purpose. -- Is this about future WG access? -- This is a staff attempt to capture the points of the discussion for a new proposal arising from the meeting on 16 October. -- The idea is to dig deeper to conduct a reexamination of a mark already registered by the national TM Office. It would involve an in-depth legal analysis. -- If we wanted to put a recommendation forward dealing with the role of compliance and the way the contracts are structured, we could consider, but otherwise it would be way too complex. -- The issue here is the viability of doing this at the moment, but worth further consideration of how we do that (oversight and access). Important to stress that oversight, access, and transparency are very important principles. -- There is a valid underlying issue to be addressed, but don’t think we will get there on this call. -- Protecting confidentiality, consumers, and TM owners also are important principles. -- If this proposal is put out for public comment then the concerns must also me conveyed. -- There are competing interests that are of importance. -- Only put something out for comment if it is specific, which this is not. -- Summary: Not seeing agreement on this proposal. c. Category 1: Education, Q2: Close Discussion -- Revised proposal from Martin Pablo Silva Valent -- Tried to understand what information is on the TMCH website. -- TMCH is already doing some outreach. -- Don’t know that the scope is there to require Deloitte to do outreach. -- Martin has not written a specific proposal, and that would be as a recommendation. -- ACTION: Staff will assist in putting the proposal in the form of a recommendation for review by Martin and the WG as draft text for the Initial Report. d. Category 2: Verification & Updating of TMCH Database, Q4, Q5, Q6: Close Discussion (no proposals) -- There was no agreement to put forward any proposals or recommendations concerning these questions. -- Staff will check the audio and transcript with respect to Claudio di Gangi’s suggestions. 3. Whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so: Close Discussion. See the draft survey at: survey [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_kak3MEWFTNeq6...> -- Not clear on how much time we’ll have to respond to the survey? Answer: a week or so. -- Survey is not dispositive. It is a useful tool for guidance. -- Can include a question for people to indicate their affiliation. If we close the survey at ICANN66 staff would not have time to do an analysis of how each affiliation answered each question. -- We can show names if people agreed to provide them. -- Add a comment field? -- ACTION: Add affiliation and a comment field. Send the survey out today with the deadline set at 23:59 UTC on Friday, 01 November. 4. AOB: Sessions at ICANN66 Saturday, 02 November: 15:15-16:45 Session 1 17:00-18:30 Session 2 Sunday, 03 November: 17:00-18:30 Session 3