Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 12 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/2020-02-12+Review+of+all+Ri.... Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: 1. Complete Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: URS – Draft of Initial Report Text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZWow09gE6-YmZYcty81CT2Tujm-3vTZE7lHj2fI... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> Recommendation #7: ACTION ITEM: Delete the last sentence in the context and replace it with this wording: “The WG reviewed data from over 900 URS cases and agreed that a sufficient number cited either inadequate or no rationale for the decisions, such that the WG recommends that URS Providers require their examiners to document their rationale in sufficient details to explain how the decision was reached in all issued Determinations.” Question #8: ACTION ITEM: Add an opening sentence, “The WG was unable to find any instance of the penalty for abusive conduct being levied.” 2. Begin 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...> TMCH Recommendation #1: 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. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Complete Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: URS – Draft of Initial Report Text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZWow09gE6-YmZYcty81CT2Tujm-3vTZE7lHj2fI... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> Recommendation #7: ACTION ITEM: Delete the last sentence in the context and replace it with this wording: “The WG reviewed data from over 900 URS cases and agreed that a sufficient number cited either inadequate or no rationale for the decisions, such that the WG recommends that URS Providers require their examiners to document their rationale in sufficient details to explain how the decision was reached in all issued Determinations.” -- Some support for an option that does not quote specific statistics or that mentions “non-compliance” (option 2). -- Some support for percentage range (option 1). -- Agree with the suggestion for hybrid language (option 3, see above). Question #5: -- WG does not have changes. Question #2: -- WG does not have changes. Question #6: -- WG does not have changes. Question #7: -- WG does not have changes. Question #8: ACTION ITEM: Add an opening sentence, “The WG was unable to find any instance of the penalty for abusive conduct being levied.” Question #9: -- WG does not have changes. 3. Begin 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...> Overview: -- Combines into a single recommendation several specific topics: the recommendation for all of the topics is to keep the status quo. But make it clear that it is three separate topics. -- There also is a separate section on URS proposals, on which there is not agreement for recommendations. So the WG is seeking comment on the proposals including on whether the proposals can be amended. -- With respect to the Charter questions for the TMCH: the way the WG approach the refining of the question was to divide them into six different categories. We are proposing to list the questions by category in a separate section on which there could be comments. TMCH Recommendation #1: 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. 4. Begin Discussion (Time Permitting) of TMCH Proposals for which the Working Group is Seeking Input: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fh6KnBvqH78Pmo7qUBtR3JyIIvUifJ-8hzX9dcJr... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> -- Language of the recommendation and the rationale are from the proposals. -- What is new is the WG deliberations. -- Only the deliberation language is up for review by the WG. Proposal #1: -- The WG has no changes. Proposal #2: -- Discuss the deliberations section on the next call.