Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 19 February 2019 at 18:00 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/2020-02-19+Review+of+all+Ri.... Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: 1. Continue Discussion of TMCH Individual Proposals for which the Working Group is Seeking Input, starting with Proposals #2 and #3: Proposals #2 and #3: ACTION ITEM: Staff can review the transcript to ensure that the concerns of some WG members with respect to the accuracy of the rationale are incorporated. Staff can add a specific paragraph at the top of this section, highlighting the fact that while the WG agreed to put the individual proposals and their rationale (as submitted) out for input, the WG has not agreed on either the accuracy of or the views expressed in the proposals. Proposals #4 and #5: ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote in the context/deliberations pointing to the section of the AGB: “Section 3.6 of the Applicant Guidebook, which states: "Data supporting entry into the Clearinghouse of marks that constitute intellectual property of types other than those set forth in sections 3.2.1-3.2.3 above shall be determined by the registry operator and the Clearinghouse based on the services any given registry operator chooses to provide." Proposal #6: -- Re: “In this context, some Working Group members expressed concerns about operational considerations due to there being only a single provider.” There was no data that the WG verified. Maxim Alzoba provided anecdotal information, which the WG could not verify. ACTION ITEM: Staff to add a footnote to the sentence as follows: “For example, a WG member noted that several registries had experienced downtime issues when accessing the TMDB". Proposal #7: ACTION ITEMS: 1. Add the word “sharply” in front of “diverging”: The Working Group had [sharply] diverging opinions on whether the TMCH Database should remain confidential or become open and searchable. 2. Change the word “validated” to “included”: “On the other hand, Working Group members who supported this proposal thought that allowing the TMCH Database to be searchable could yield information that may be used to flag trademarks that ought not to have been [included], e.g. via objection proceedings initiated with the TMCH provider. 2. Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: URS Individual Proposals: Proposal #15: ACTION ITEM: Include this text as a footnote: “The Working Group confirmed that this proposal incorporated and superseded URS Individual Proposal #14, of which its rationale applied to this proposal.” Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: 2. Finalize Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: TMCH Structure and Scope: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-TH7WopFauhEU1Z0zCjQp26s3S8d6J3SnLLOnTfu... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> -- Review Action Items for TMCH Recommendation #1 The WG reviewed the revised text based on the following action items. There were no further changes: Recommendation Text: ACTION ITEM: Clarify the language to not make it sounds like open questions: Take out the word “whether” as it makes them sound like open questions. Context Text: 1. TM+50: ACTION ITEM: Add a link to the current rule. 2. Exact Match: ACTION ITEM: Change “current” to “correct”. Also need to be consistent with TM Claims recommendation #6. 3. Limiting the Sunrise & Claims RPMs to certain gTLDs for trademarks containing dictionary term(s) ACTION ITEM: Delete the question mark. ACTION ITEM: Clarify the text and perhaps break it into two sentences. Changed to: “The Working Group had diverging opinions on this matter[, which concerned the availability of Sunrise and Trademark Claim services for trademarks that contain dictionary term(s).] In the absence of wide support for a change to the status quo, the Working Group agreed that the scope of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims RPMs should not be modified to limit their application, in the specific case of a trademark containing dictionary term(s), to gTLDs that are related to the categories of goods and services for which the dictionary term(s) within those that trademarks are protected.” 3. Continue Discussion of TMCH Individual Proposals for which the Working Group is Seeking Input, starting with Proposal #2:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fh6KnBvqH78Pmo7qUBtR3JyIIvUifJ-8hzX9dcJr... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> Proposals #2 and #3: -- Make it clear that the rationale being provided is the rationale of the proponents with no editing by the WG or staff. Not all members of the WG agree that the rationale is a factual statement. -- On Proposal #2 – reference to AGB and STI rules: example where there is a factual inaccuracy in the rationale. The STI rules were adopted, but for public comment and not as policy. The AGB reflects the final outcome after the feedback from the community was incorporated. -- Need to make sure the community is aware that there are differences of opinion. Put it in the introductory paragraph and in the deliberations that some WG members take issue with this characterization of the rationale. ACTION: Staff can review the transcript to ensure that the concerns of some WG members with respect to the accuracy of the rationale are incorporated. Staff can add a specific paragraph at the top of this section, highlighting the fact that while the WG agreed to put the individual proposals and their rationale (as submitted) out for input, the WG has not agreed on either the accuracy of or the views expressed in the proposals. Proposals #4 and #5: ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote in the context/deliberations pointing to the section of the AGB: “Section 3.6 of the Applicant Guidebook, which states: "Data supporting entry into the Clearinghouse of marks that constitute intellectual property of types other than those set forth in sections 3.2.1-3.2.3 above shall be determined by the registry operator and the Clearinghouse based on the services any given registry operator chooses to provide." Proposal #6: -- re: “In this context, some Working Group members expressed concerns about operational considerations due to there being only a single provider.” There was no data that the WG verified. Maxim Alzoba provided anecdotal information. ACTION ITEM: Staff to add a footnote to the sentence as follows: “For example, a WG member noted that several registries had experienced downtime issues when accessing the TMDB".” Proposal #7: ACTION ITEMS: 1. Add the word “sharply” in front of “diverging”: The Working Group had [sharply] diverging opinions on whether the TMCH Database should remain confidential or become open and searchable. 2. Change the word “validated” to “included”: “On the other hand, Working Group members who supported this proposal thought that allowing the TMCH Database to be searchable could yield information that may be used to flag trademarks that ought not to have been [included], e.g. via objection proceedings initiated with the TMCH provider. 4. 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...> Proposal #15: ACTION ITEM: Include this text as a footnote: “The Working Group confirmed that this proposal incorporated and superseded URS Individual Proposal #14, of which its rationale applied to this proposal.”